|
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2566610#blog
I really enjoy reading these. Provides a good perpective of what Blizzard wants to see from the game.
Thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings, citizens of the Koprulu sector! It’s been some time since we last submitted a situation report for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, but with patch 1.3, we felt that it was a good time to address some of the changes we implemented and our thoughts on them. We’ve pulled out some of the most notable patch notes to explain our design philosophy and the thinking behind this update.
***********
Balance Changes
Players can no longer hide units by setting them in a close proximity patrol (ex: Viking flower).
There was a core problem with the Viking flower strategy in that there was no way to know how many Vikings were patrolling a specific area. In StarCraft II, scouting armies is already a difficult and important aspect of play, and it was definitely not our intention to make it possible for air units to use this patrol method to disguise their numbers. We consider this case more of a bug fix than a balance change.
Protoss
Units leaving the Mothership's Vortex are now un-targetable and immune to damage for 1.5 seconds.
This was another case that we viewed as more of a bug fix than a balance change. The original concept of Vortex was that it was more than just a stasis or a lockdown. In addition to having the protoss player lock down a part of his or her opponent’s army, the spell was supposed to also be about creating situations for enemy interaction with the Vortex.
For example: If I'm playing zerg and half of my army was Vortexed, I may decide to put the remaining half into the Vortex. Conversely, I could choose to simply sacrifice half of my units instead and run with the rest if greatly outnumbered by the protoss opponent. However, there was a bug in which splash units instantly killed everything coming out of a Vortex, preventing the different types of interactions we originally intended.
Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
This is perhaps the 1.3 patch change that was most discussed by the community and we wanted to take some to time to explain the rationale behind it. Ultimately, there were two reasons we wanted to remove this item.
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. We didn’t like the reduction in strategic options, as the opponent could only fight major battles with protoss in the late game.
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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. As we’ve mentioned many times before, we feel it’s safer to take small steps in making balance changes than making drastic changes to an entire race.
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. Although this change will not suddenly flip the relationship in those cases, we wanted to improve it a bit. We want Charge zealots to perform better than normal zealots in as many scenarios as possible.
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.
Bunker build time increased from 35 to 40 seconds.
The focus of this change was strictly on reducing the effectiveness of offensive bunkering. With the build time increased, we noticed that there wasn’t as much of a change to defensive bunkers, whereas offensive bunkering is a lot more difficult to pull off.
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.
Stimpack upgrade research time increased from 140 to 170 seconds.
It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard that there were concerns from players about the use of Stimpacks and there’s a reason why; Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes.
Zerg
Fungal Growth stun duration decreased from 8 to 4 seconds.
Fungal Growth damage increased by +30% vs. armored units.
Both of the Fungal Growth changes were mainly made to address a ZvZ issue with mutalisk vs. infestor, and to make infestors more useful vs. protoss. For mutalisks, we found they were just not useful enough in ZvZ due to the Fungal Growth stun duration being too long. So, the duration was reduced to make them a bit more viable in the ZvZ matchup. This reduction in stun duration means the damage goes in faster. However, we realized that mutalisks suffer mostly due to stuns combined with hydralisks shooting from below. As for infestors themselves, we found they weren’t that useful vs. protoss. We wanted to solve both of these issues while keeping infestors as powerful as they are vs. terran. Fungal Growth’s damage itself wasn’t as big of a problem as the stun, so we decided to go with this change so that the stun duration reduction is somewhat countered by the damage buff.
The +30% armored damage change was more strictly targeted towards stalker-based protoss armies, as well as marauder-based terran armies. We wanted infestors to be more of a core unit in the ZvP matchup while keeping them just as useful vs. terran. The stun duration reduction change by itself didn’t allow these two things, so we had to make this damage change as well in order to arrive at the right place for the infestor.
***********
We've made every effort to weigh these types of changes very carefully and will continue to do so in the future. We understand the impact they have on gameplay and want to make sure that when we make a change, it’s for the betterment of the game as a whole. The metagame is always changing, and that can make balancing the game a challenge, but we are dedicated to constantly evolving StarCraft II and committed to providing the kind of epic gameplay experience the community expects.
* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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.
|
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."
|
its nice to see the logic behind their balance changes. I especially found his explanation of the infestor buff interesting
|
nice.. it's aalways good to see the reasoning behind the changes....
* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
i loled
|
Yea, the hint at a possible future collossus nerf is the big news there.
|
Nice to see they have actual reasoning behind their changes. Wonder what the bunker build time will be in 1.4
yeah it does kinda sound like they're hinting at a collosus nerf.
|
I doubt we'll see a change to the collosus any time soon, they'll wait a while to see if the community can fix it with strategy.
I did find it amusing they changed the infestor for ZvP, when the change has had a far, far bigger impact on ZvT so far.
|
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
|
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."
this would be great.
that combined with a hydra buff and game would balance would likely be a non issue. =D
|
The report seems well thought out. Looking forward to the next balance change, maybe it will do something about the colossus. However, just nerfing it won't do the trick I think.
|
"We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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."
They aren't going to be changing colossus anytime soon. Everyone needs to stop saying that. It says there was a problem so they fix one and you have to see. Its like when your PC is broke and its one of two parts. you change the one and wait. you dont change the one and say im gonna probably change the other one later.
Dont spread rumors
|
Why not paste it here?
edit: this post is redundant now
|
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.
|
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
yea buff a 4 and 6 gate rush. laddering will be fun!!!!
|
On April 05 2011 01:48 TheResidentEvil wrote:
"We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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."
They aren't going to be changing colossus anytime soon.
More likely they're going to bring back a revised Khaydarin Amulet and nerf the Colossus somehow in 1.4/1.5. P pretty much needs AoE given how relatively weak Gateway units are unless they drastically beat the opponent in upgrades, and nerfing the Colossus with no HT energy upgrade effectively neuters the race lategame.
On April 05 2011 01:50 the9thdude 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. 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.
It's 80 damage over 4 seconds, there's a second between the cast and when it starts doing damage, they're slow, building a pylon takes time, and both warp prisms and pylons are comparatively fragile at the point in the game that the Toss player can start making HTs. Don't attempt to claim that HTs, especially in their current state, are overpowered.
|
I'm liking the infestor buff. I've been using them practically in all my ZvZ's and along with roaches, it's pretty powerful. But against units like mutalisks, it could be tough. Infested terran simply take too long to pop out and move ridiculously slow; fungal growth has already worn off by then.
Also, late game zerg units have no ability to shoot anything that doesn't touch the ground. Against a deathball of VRs and colossi and gateway units, it's really, really tough to kill that off even with a re-max. Corrupters just get torn apart by the void rays, and mutalisks aren't that effective. Still trying to find a way to deal with it, but I feel like at least 1 zerg late game unit should be able to target anything flying.
|
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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
|
On April 05 2011 01:48 TheResidentEvil wrote:
"We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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."
They aren't going to be changing colossus anytime soon. Everyone needs to stop saying that. It says there was a problem so they first one and you have to see. Its like when your PC is broke and its one of two parts. you change the one and wait. you dont change the one and say im gonna probably change the other one later.
Dont spread rumors
Well no one is saying "OMG INCOMING COLOSSUS NERF". But they think late game protoss splash damage was overpowered. They think taking out KA might solve this, but they obviously they're not sure--how could they be? It shows that if they don't think taking out KA solves the problem, the next thing on their list to try would be nerfing the colossus. That means it's in the cards. It might not come, but they're obviously thinking about it. It will just depend on how things go.
That's not spreading rumors. That's just reading between the lines.
|
On April 05 2011 01:48 shakenbake 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." this would be great. that combined with a hydra buff and game would balance would likely be a non issue. =D
Yay as long as they nerf toss and buff zerg balance will be fine. Colossus don't seem that big of a deal though a slight nerf would probably help ZvP but I don't think balance would be finished if Zergs get buffed every patch.
|
Considering they were going to either nerf collosi or HT as a zerg player i would definetely have preferred the collosi nerf :p
But on a serious note, most of the changes make sense. I'm pretty pleased with the balance of the game right now, though ZvP is still a bit tough.. and when playing against T the fact that they can open with a bunker rush then switch to blue flame hellions and right as you barely hold that off cloaked banshees are in your mineral line is definetely...frustrating. But we'll see how everything plays out.
|
On April 05 2011 01:53 shakenbake 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 yea buff a 4 and 6 gate rush. laddering will be fun!!!!
lol
User was warned for this post
|
On April 05 2011 01:56 Karthane wrote:
Considering they were going to either nerf collosi or HT as a zerg player i would definetely have preferred the collosi nerf :p To be honest, I think most players in general would've preferred that. It's an incredibly boring unit.
|
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!!
|
On April 05 2011 01:50 the9thdude 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. 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 ?
|
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.
I find this amusing. They noticed BCs are hardly ever used? Even before the patch they were still used like 10X more than carriers. I would take a collosus nerf if they give the carriers a buff. I miss carriers!!
|
Whats a carrier?
Anyways its nice to see the reasoning behind the bunker change... weirdly it helped me hold a bunker rush earlier today, so its not completely useless.
|
Thank god they're going to nerf the colossus
|
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.
|
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!!
That's not entirely true. It's been common knowledge for over half a year that Protoss has an insanely powerful late game. The reason for the increase of complaints is that several nerfs and buffs have also made any kind of 4/6 gate strategy even more powerful than it already is, so protoss ends up having a great early-mid game as well, especially against zerg. If anything, the outrage against protoss was a long time coming.
|
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.
|
United States12238 Posts
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.
|
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.
It's 80 damage over 4 seconds, there's a second between the cast and when it starts doing damage, they're slow, building a pylon takes time, and both warp prisms and pylons are comparatively fragile at the point in the game that the Toss player can start making HTs. Don't attempt to claim that HTs, especially in their current state, are overpowered.
Well, you still have FF which Z has no answer to early game.
|
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.
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. 
|
I'm glad to see reasoning behind the HT nerf which ultimately makes lots of sense:
1.With the archon seeing so little play, nerfing it would be pointless.
2. The colossus, as stated so frequently, is a constant in all matchups. + Show Spoiler +This was an attempt to balance overall AoE, a smaller change vs a larger one is always a better idea, and it's smart they went this way- any change to the colossus would shatter the late game foundation of pretty much every matchup
3.The carrier already has the highest DPS in the game, any shape of buff to it should be done very carefully
I'm disappointed that they viewed the archon toilet as a bug, rather than a cool usage of the mothership. Ultimately that nerf makes sense, just a bit upsetting as the archon toilet was so awesome and rare to see!
Seems like the fears of the HT nerf effecting PvT were fairly unwarranted (to date, anyways), in spite of the neutering of the high templar's use. As Tyler said, adding that extra damage for each charging zealot, even if for just one hit, is a lot of damage Protoss' did not get before in battles.
|
On April 05 2011 02:25 nvs. 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. 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? ^^
|
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.
|
Anyone feels like he's saying the colossus is next?
|
On April 05 2011 02:27 usethis2 wrote:
Anyone feels like he's saying the colossus is next?
We can only hope. >.>
|
This approach of "Lategame protoss AoE is too good, so let's nerf templars and see what happens" seems dangerously naive, since it ignores the dynamics of the different matchups as well as the different roles of the two units.
By design, Colossi dominate ground armies and die to air-to-air. Fine; there are some interesting design possibilities there, but it only works that way in PvT. In PvZ and PvP, the trouble is that there is no good air-to-air for them to die to.
In PvT, T needs to get enough vikings to kill the colossi, but not so many that they will fall behind on ground units. This isn't a complete "oh, you overproduced vikings, they're useless and you lose" situation though, because they can land. Then there are interesting positional battles in which the viking user tries to get a good angle on the colossi to snipe them without taking too much stalker fire in return. The protoss can get phoenix and more colossi and contest the air, but then the terran can get thors, and an interesting maneuver game develops wherein the T tries to exploit his longer antiair range to either kill the phoenix or break up the P ball.
HT are used vs. Terran because 1) warpin storms help counter terran dropship play, and 2) colossi are vulnerable to vikings, while shutting down HT with ghosts is not as guaranteed. If a P produces too many colossi the T simply makes vikings and kills them.
The trouble in PvZ is that no such interesting dynamic; the root problem is that corruptors suck ass. They're built vs. colossi, but they're not nearly as good as vikings in that role because they do less DPS (even with corruption!) at less range and cost more, and can't land to help out after the colossi are dead. The corruptor's attributes that make it good at capital ship killing -- high hp and high armor -- are mostly irrelevant. Z must spend much more on corruptors than P spends on colossi to kill them before they decimate Z's ground army, yet even once the colossi are dead, the corruptors are useless and the Z ground army already took a great deal of damage from the colossi.
The range really is huge: vikings can engage colossi without taking much stalker fire in return, and the stalkers must blink far out of position to try to engage them (at which point they run). Corruptors can't do this, *and* kill them more slowly.
Void rays complicate this even more, since they are an air-to-everything unit that actually wins against the corruptor, a dedicated air-to-air unit. This is different than the Phoenix + Colo dynamic in PvT. Phoenix have utility against ground, but not as much as voids; Vikings again can exploit their longer range to play positional games; and Terran have Thors, which are both competent in the ground engagement and absolutely murder Phoenix from a very long way away. Zerg have no such options; the only unit they have that's reasonably competent against the void ray is the hydralisk, and it's not an option because you're not going to get at the voids without melting to colossus fire.
tl;dr the biggest problem with colossus in PvZ is not necessarily that colossi are too good but that zerg air-to-air (corruptors) suck too much. In PvT colossi are kept in check because vikings are tremendously good. But Zerg have to rely on the pretty asstastic corruptor.
PvP is a lollercaust at the moment also. Aside from herp derp 4gate, the only competent air-to-air in the matchup is voids, so of course colossi are going to run rampant.
Not exactly sure how to address the issues; my best suggestion would be:
--Templar amulet reinstated, provides +15 energy
--Colo range buff is +2 instead of +3 *or* colo splash length reduced slightly
(This would leave both units quite viable in pvt)
--Corruptor range increased from 6 to 7 and corruptors lose the attribute "armored"
(These changes are really only relevant to the pvz matchup, and would make the "engage with corruptors first and just tank the stalker fire while shooting colos" tactic more viable, while also letting them soak void fire better)
Another interesting change to the PvZ dynamic would be to buff ultras. It's not as though they see all that much use, except for ZvT when T falls behind on infantry upgrades; a giant beastly expensive tier 3 unit that has melee range, doesn't shoot up, and takes a year to build has to do the only thing it does pretty dominatingly to see much play.
Giving Zerg a *ground* unit that could take on a colossus ball head on would be an interesting dynamic, especially since it would encourage back-teching to immortals to hold the ultras.
|
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. 
|
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.
|
On April 05 2011 02:51 da_head wrote:
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.
The more I think about it, the more I think that warpgates shouldn't have made it past beta. Negating defender's advantage removes one of the cornerstones of any strategy game. And the balancing Blizzard did to compensate (weak gateway units, colossus) has had a bad effect on the game. Nearly every single problem in any vP match-up is caused directly by warpgates or the balancing Blizz did to compensate for warpgates.
|
On April 05 2011 03:07 Shifft wrote:
I don't understand....the fungal change was for...mutalisks? And they think the change kept it the same strength against Terran?
The +30% armored damage change was more strictly targeted towards stalker-based protoss armies, as well as marauder-based terran armies
For ZvZ, yes it was to help the Mutalisk use in the matchup. But they know that it would also need a buff against stalkers and Marauders. Not sure where you think they believed it would be the same against Terran.
|
On April 05 2011 03:07 Tyree wrote:
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.
You mean they outright said it MIGHT make toss too weak and will be evaluating the situation before touching colossus
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
|
On April 05 2011 03:11 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:07 Tyree wrote:
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. You mean they outright said it MIGHT make toss too weak and will be evaluating the situation before touching colossus Show nested quote +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
Yea, my point is that some people took this is as they will nerf Colossi!. When they are merely saying that as of now, just nerfing the HT is fine in their eyes
You know how people get, suddenly next patch outcries will happen with "Blizzard promised to me they would nerf Colossi and they did NOT! WTF MAN!"
|
On April 05 2011 03:06 LoLAdriankat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:00 Daralii wrote: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.
Not to mention you usually have a few cannons and maybe a HT sitting there. Toss drop defence late game is incredible.
|
I dont think theres a single person who doesnt think Collosi will get a nerf down the down the roa someday.
|
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? ^^
I still do this to defend against medivac drops haha
|
Nice, they clearly say that they are considering nerfing fixing colossus in the next balance patch.
|
On April 05 2011 03:17 Tyree wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:11 syllogism wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 Tyree wrote:
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. You mean they outright said it MIGHT make toss too weak and will be evaluating the situation before touching colossus 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 Yea, my point is that some people took this is as they will nerf Colossi!. When they are merely saying that as of now, just nerfing the HT is fine in their eyes You know how people get, suddenly next patch outcries will happen with "Blizzard promised to me they would nerf Colossi and they did NOT! WTF MAN!"
No, they didn't say it was "fine", but that they are always careful about these things so they didn't want to do both at once. Considering they said both HTs and colossi are slightly overpowered, I'd say it's more likely than not that colossus gets nerfed eventually. Of course, nothing is confirmed at this point, just a possibility.
|
|
|
nice, so 3 gate proxi rush and 4 gate is TOTALY viable and ok, even when it is on a huge map totaly negating any disadvantages that should be suffered from it being such a large map
but a BUNKER placement which requires your opponent not to scout or not to micro well is OP and needs nerfing ?
stim rush which i havent seen work in counltess games needs a nerf but the ammount of options protoss have early and late game with proxi's all over the map are perfectly fine ?
i wouldnt be to bothered about all this if protoss couldnt just warp in units anywhere on the map giving reinforcements where needed etc, ESPECIALY DT's on large maps which totaly contains a terran giving the protoss a huge advantage,
it just seems that terran has constantly having to react to what the P is doing, the ONLY thing p really need to hard counter is cloak banshee but that is IT apart from that they can go fast expand and gateway units and robo
early game i have to watch out for proxi gateway, proxi pylon 3 gate rush, proxi 4 gate all in, proxi voidrays, DT rush, phoenix rush
how on earth is this even when i literaly cannot put ANY early pressure on a P ? i lol'd when i saw the bunker and stim nerf but atleast amulet got a change...
but as i said that is not the whole problem, splash damage on colossus rape before vikings can counter them well the only time you see a 200/200 fight with a t comming on top is when the P completley screws the attack up, forcefields and colossus splash is just to much to handle,
i NEVER see a terran come back from a game they are losing but i've watched countless games where proxi pylons etc have gave a P an easier time getting back into the game thgat they may be losing,
MC's style is just another thing that P's are comming up with which is showing in tournament results as it is slowly getting dominated by P
totaly reminds me of dawn of war with eldar having so many abilities which raised the skill cap above the other races -_-
|
These explanations were great. First time in a long time
I've read something balance related from Blizzard and agreeing!
|
I wish Blizzard would address PvP.
|
It is nice to see some transparancy from Blizzard. It makes it a lot easier to see why certain changes were put in place. Blizzard talking to the community is a good thing.
All I am wondering now is, has fungal growth become too effective Vs. the terran Bio ball, as it applies the damage in half the time, thus the medivac cannot heal through it as effectively.
P.S The last line was great ^_^
|
For me it feels like protoss is really fragile in the sense of balancing, especially the colossus. They do the right thing at taking small steps in the balance. Because if they would nerf the colossus to much, then theres a possibiity that the protoss will be to weak.
|
I think the HT nerf was necessary, because they have been used for defending,harass and pushing in late game.
The Colossi is just viable for the big killing ball that everyone complains about.
|
I just noticed David Kim used the word metagame. Not you too David
|
On April 05 2011 03:07 AJMcSpiffy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I have in mind the KA nerf in particular, and how they decided to shut down an entire tech tree and force protoss to go Colossi instead, which everyone agree are overpowered and boring to use. Essentially, they are dulling down the game. When Blizzard created each SC2 unit, I'm sure they wanted each one of them to at least get some usage and for original strategies to be designed around such units. No one will use HT now except very situationally. The same is true of reapers after they received their huge nerf. More units will suffer this fate in the future, if their current hack & slash balancing continues.
As has been discussed in countless threads before, there were more optimal ways of going about the HT issue. In addition, most people agree that a fun game where each race has certain tactics that might be overpowered is far more desirable than a bland, tunnel-vision-esque philosophy where every unit and tactic somehow needs to be compensated by an equivalent one on the opposing team. Many people have mentioned BW, and how it was fun and competitive despite every race having certain aspects that could be considered overpowered.
However, shocking as it may be, Blizzard seems to be completely oblivious to community suggestions. I speculate that there is a serious case of groupthink going on in their balance meetings which results in them being out of touch with their community's thoughts and enjoyment of the game.
You'll note that this simplification in the name of balance has deeply plagued WoW, which is run by the same people essentially. It began that each class was unique with significant advantages and disadvantages which made for a dynamic and rich game; as the patches rolled in one by one, each class was given a nerf, a heal, a dispel, etc, and nowadays you can barely tell the difference between them.
A true shame.
|
Canada13389 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."
The problem being that High Templar are very difficult to use now offensively especially in PvT since you need to wait so long to get energy and emp is still very strong against them. If they change collossus while some sort of energy upgrade is removed then we will see big issues in Protoss late game since there will be very ineffective AoE damage in the later game. If we look at Select vs Kiwikaki the game was actually very close and Kiwikaki was better able to macro and the DTs going unscanned and fighting with zealots made a huge difference.
I am afraid for a Colossus nerf without working with HTs a bit more because "small changes" that come one after the other are bad. I feel if they want to really balance the matchup they need to give back amulet and nerf collossus THEN look at a middle ground between how to balance the two lategame AoE units together but look at 2 nerfs seperately.
Thats my 2 cents. Though the explanation on ghosts and their place against infestors as well as infestors vs mutas was very very interesting and nice to hear these careful considerations.
Interestingly I have seen many BC plays from high level players on stream and 4 port BC in the late game seems nigh unstoppable since they require very little ground support to be truly effective.
|
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
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.
|
On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP.
Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in.
Warp in is the single biggest mistake in Starcraft 2.
|
please god nerf collosi
they are sooo lame
|
On April 05 2011 03:22 pureball wrote:
nice, so 3 gate proxi rush and 4 gate is TOTALY viable and ok, even when it is on a huge map totaly negating any disadvantages that should be suffered from it being such a large map
but a BUNKER placement which requires your opponent not to scout or not to micro well is OP and needs nerfing ?
stim rush which i havent seen work in counltess games needs a nerf but the ammount of options protoss have early and late game with proxi's all over the map are perfectly fine ?
i wouldnt be to bothered about all this if protoss couldnt just warp in units anywhere on the map giving reinforcements where needed etc, ESPECIALY DT's on large maps which totaly contains a terran giving the protoss a huge advantage,
it just seems that terran has constantly having to react to what the P is doing, the ONLY thing p really need to hard counter is cloak banshee but that is IT apart from that they can go fast expand and gateway units and robo
early game i have to watch out for proxi gateway, proxi pylon 3 gate rush, proxi 4 gate all in, proxi voidrays, DT rush, phoenix rush
how on earth is this even when i literaly cannot put ANY early pressure on a P ? i lol'd when i saw the bunker and stim nerf but atleast amulet got a change...
but as i said that is not the whole problem, splash damage on colossus rape before vikings can counter them well the only time you see a 200/200 fight with a t comming on top is when the P completley screws the attack up, forcefields and colossus splash is just to much to handle,
i NEVER see a terran come back from a game they are losing but i've watched countless games where proxi pylons etc have gave a P an easier time getting back into the game thgat they may be losing,
MC's style is just another thing that P's are comming up with which is showing in tournament results as it is slowly getting dominated by P
totaly reminds me of dawn of war with eldar having so many abilities which raised the skill cap above the other races -_-
What?!?!? Since when could Terran not proxy? How is it that you can't put on any early pressure? You can get to P's front door with a marine and a marauder with concussive when they have a 1 stalker and 1 zealot out... You really have some serious pent up anger or something. Your entire argument refuses to acknowledge the other side. Example: Ghosts early game are insanely good. One good EMP and P has no forcefields and no shields. You really need to open your eyes and see this from both sides.
|
On April 05 2011 03:22 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:17 Tyree wrote:On April 05 2011 03:11 syllogism wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 Tyree wrote:
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. You mean they outright said it MIGHT make toss too weak and will be evaluating the situation before touching colossus 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 Yea, my point is that some people took this is as they will nerf Colossi!. When they are merely saying that as of now, just nerfing the HT is fine in their eyes You know how people get, suddenly next patch outcries will happen with "Blizzard promised to me they would nerf Colossi and they did NOT! WTF MAN!" No, they didn't say it was "fine", but that they are always careful about these things so they didn't want to do both at once. Considering they said both HTs and colossi are slightly overpowered, I'd say it's more likely than not that colossus gets nerfed eventually. Of course, nothing is confirmed at this point, just a possibility.
What they actually said was:
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi.
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.
|
On April 05 2011 03:31 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:07 AJMcSpiffy wrote: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. I have in mind the KA nerf in particular, and how they decided to shut down an entire tech tree and force protoss to go Colossi instead, which everyone agree are overpowered and boring to use. Essentially, they are dulling down the game. When Blizzard created each SC2 unit, I'm sure they wanted each one of them to at least get some usage and for original strategies to be designed around such units. No one will use HT now except very situationally. The same is true of reapers after they received their huge nerf. More units will suffer this fate in the future, if their current hack & slash balancing continues.
Even with colossi fulfilling the splash requirement, HTs are still critical for defending expos from drops, and killing banshee play - the KA nerf hardly affects these functions. I'm positive people will begin adding them back into their play at appropriate times. People are simply too used to using storm as an on-demand and throw away weapon rather than keeping their templar alive.
|
On April 05 2011 03:09 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:51 da_head wrote:
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. The more I think about it, the more I think that warpgates shouldn't have made it past beta. Negating defender's advantage removes one of the cornerstones of any strategy game. And the balancing Blizzard did to compensate (weak gateway units, colossus) has had a bad effect on the game. Nearly every single problem in any vP match-up is caused directly by warpgates or the balancing Blizz did to compensate for warpgates.
i disagree with you on warpgates for the reason that the advantage of the defender would be extremely huge (im a zerg player)
as zerg you could easily move speedlings to the reinforcement path and starve the protoss army and a terran already have bunkers, planetary fortress and siege tanks and easily the best defence and with 2-3 reactor barracks support the protoss would be outmassed hard and fast
i dont know about nerfing the colossus because how would protoss deal with terran and zerg armies?gateway units will not work in macro games, ht got nerfed already and carriers are a less appealing option due to long production time - in my logic a nerf to colossi would require a change within the other mass destruction units
|
On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy 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. We didn’t like the reduction in strategic options, as the opponent could only fight major battles with protoss in the late game.
It's great that they finally understand how Warpgates reduce strategic choice and stop small-scale harassment in a late-game scenario. They also allow for ridiculous timing attacks and make it impossible for anything coming out of a gateway to be any good.
Expecting removal any day now.
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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. As we’ve mentioned many times before, we feel it’s safer to take small steps in making balance changes than making drastic changes to an entire race.
The fact that they consider KA removal a "small step"...
On the other hand, I do hope they overnerf the Colossus and the shitty design of Protoss becomes clearly visible to everyone.
|
On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in.
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!
|
On April 05 2011 02:13 village_idiot wrote:
Thank god they're going to nerf the colossus
I hope so.
Then i can make a post like in beta from a zerg perspective
"Revenge is sweet".
Though i cant even begin to imagine protoss like it was in beta, they nerfed them every patch and protoss still is called op as shit
remember when colossus did like 22x2 an attack?
ridiculous
|
I want them to remove Colossus completely and just balance Protoss around them being out of the game, The game suffers from their very existence
|
Everyone was stronger in beta tho. 1 supply roaches, 60 dmg tanks etc etc.
Why do people hate colossi so much? (as a unit, not related to OPness or whatever).
|
I'm really happy Blizz is getting in the habit of explaining their decisions (though I wish they'd do it at the same time the patch came out).
I think the reasoning of Templay over Colossus was thus: "If we nerf the templar, then harass against Protoss becomes a lot more viable. Then maybe it won't matter as much if nothing can take the protoss death ball head on, because Zerg and Terran can harass the Protoss to death by hitting where the Death Ball isn't."
In other words, they wanted to nerf the templar by nerfing it, and see if they could nerf the Colossus by giving Z and T another option of handling deathballs (in addition to the fungal buff). I don't think they thought it would surely happen, but maybe they figured it was worth a shot.
If not, I expect to see some of the Colo damage changed to just bonus to light, so that Colo still crush hydra (since little else P has does), but isn't so good against the roach half of the army. That's my prediction.
EDIT: Given that the 1.4.11 notes made a joke about how no one used carriers, I imagine the Colo nerf will come with a carrier buff, to make all three lategame P options kind of good.
|
On April 05 2011 03:09 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:51 da_head wrote:
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. The more I think about it, the more I think that warpgates shouldn't have made it past beta. Negating defender's advantage removes one of the cornerstones of any strategy game. And the balancing Blizzard did to compensate (weak gateway units, colossus) has had a bad effect on the game. Nearly every single problem in any vP match-up is caused directly by warpgates or the balancing Blizz did to compensate for warpgates.
Succinct, but true.
Couldn't agree more.
|
nerf protoss please
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 05 2011 03:51 Yaotzin wrote:
Everyone was stronger in beta tho. 1 supply roaches, 60 dmg tanks etc etc.
Why do people hate colossi so much? (as a unit, not related to OPness or whatever).
Because it requires basically zero micro and dictates the flow of every match up.
|
Buff Zerg instead, that's more fun.
|
If they moved warp in to robo tech or something to fix early game PvP and ZvP it would make roach all ins and terran early game too strong. I'm really not sure what they could do.
|
On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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.
|
On April 05 2011 03:47 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:13 village_idiot wrote:
Thank god they're going to nerf the colossus I hope so. Then i can make a post like in beta from a zerg perspective "Revenge is sweet". Though i cant even begin to imagine protoss like it was in beta, they nerfed them every patch and protoss still is called op as shit remember when colossus did like 22x2 an attack? ridiculous
To be fair, P was widely considered underpowered until the last season of GSL. MC and other pros arguably make the race seem more powerful than it is.
|
On April 05 2011 03:36 dekuschrub wrote:
please god nerf collosi
they are sooo lame
avoid them or focus them they're not that bad
|
I just love the idea of Blizzard releasing these. It's a pretty good look at the thought processes behind the changes, even if I lost at least one game directly due to them (bunker and stim timing).
|
On April 05 2011 03:54 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:51 Yaotzin wrote:
Everyone was stronger in beta tho. 1 supply roaches, 60 dmg tanks etc etc.
Why do people hate colossi so much? (as a unit, not related to OPness or whatever). 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.
|
On April 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:54 floor exercise wrote:On April 05 2011 03:51 Yaotzin wrote:
Everyone was stronger in beta tho. 1 supply roaches, 60 dmg tanks etc etc.
Why do people hate colossi so much? (as a unit, not related to OPness or whatever). 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.
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!
|
On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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.
|
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?
|
* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
Mother of god...
wtb playing against myself
|
On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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.
|
Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
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....
|
11589 Posts
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.
|
On April 05 2011 03:39 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:22 syllogism wrote:On April 05 2011 03:17 Tyree wrote:On April 05 2011 03:11 syllogism wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 Tyree wrote:
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. You mean they outright said it MIGHT make toss too weak and will be evaluating the situation before touching colossus 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 Yea, my point is that some people took this is as they will nerf Colossi!. When they are merely saying that as of now, just nerfing the HT is fine in their eyes You know how people get, suddenly next patch outcries will happen with "Blizzard promised to me they would nerf Colossi and they did NOT! WTF MAN!" No, they didn't say it was "fine", but that they are always careful about these things so they didn't want to do both at once. Considering they said both HTs and colossi are slightly overpowered, I'd say it's more likely than not that colossus gets nerfed eventually. Of course, nothing is confirmed at this point, just a possibility. What they actually said was: Show nested quote +We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi. 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.
|
The HT's limited strategic choice alright. It has become almost senseless to go for high temps instead of collosus now. Other than that I wish David Kim addressed how gateway units are absolute crap. A roach owns every single gateway unit and is significantly cheaper than all of them. Gateway units cannot stand on their own, our aoe damage has to be fuckin strong. Aside from that our AOE is VERY VERY fragile collosi are slow and can be sniped very easily without any forcefields and high temps are very slow and fragile.
|
On April 05 2011 03:59 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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.
This is absurdly complicated, and it means you can't MBS your gateways.
|
On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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...
|
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.
|
Wish I hadn't read this, Blizzard is hitting a new low in my eyes. I'm hoping (and quite certain) that their balance team can do a better job than this (patch 1.3 + explanation), otherwise it's miraculous that this game still holds a pretty good semblance of balance.
Not that it matters, but I completely lost it at the Stim paragraph.
|
I'm glad they stated that they feel the colossus splash damage is overpowered. I hope they do something with the colossus. I don't think it's too strong, but it definitely is an uninteresting unit, that doesn't have any abilities and doesn't seem to reward micro very well like many of protoss' other units.
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.
|
Gateways should build units faster then warpgates so defensive 4gate would be stronger then offensive 4warpgate. And switching between warp/gateways should be faster or instant so protoss can decide if he wants to reinforce his army right now with less units or build more units and wait till they walk from base to army. And last but not least forcefield should disappear if other forcefield touch it. They could still block the ramp but not completely overspam it everywhere.
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)
|
Not too happy after reading this, the reasoning behind the stim nerf in particular made me somewhat upset :/
The reasoning behind the ghost nerf is also quite rage worthy
|
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P?
|
On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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.
|
On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P?
I'm far from a good player, but they really aren't hard to control. You need to keep your units around them yes, but the positioning is, for the most part, the only micro they require. They're siege units, which implies the bulk of the skill requirement behind them is positioning and protection.
|
Blizzard finally realised that Colossi are overpowered!
+ Show Spoiler +
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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. As we’ve mentioned many times before, we feel it’s safer to take small steps in making balance changes than making drastic changes to an entire race.
|
On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P?
Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff...
|
On April 05 2011 04:25 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? I'm far from a good player, but they really aren't hard to control. You need to keep your units around them yes, but the positioning is, for the most part, the only micro they require. They're siege units, which implies the bulk of the skill requirement behind them is positioning and protection.
Micro to protect and position is still micro.
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.
No. Protoss is supposed to only have warpgates. In alpha Protoss began the game with warpgates. Gateways and warpgate tech exist exclusively to stop retarded rushes.
|
On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff...
All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there.
|
11589 Posts
On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P?
I said they should require MORE micro. Reading comprehension.
|
On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P?
Yeah? Once you get collosi in a good position, they do everything else for you. Protoss players aren't microing collosus much at all in an exchange, they're forcefielding and microing stalkers.
|
On April 05 2011 04:31 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? I said they should require MORE micro. Reading comprehension.
I didn't even read your post.
They're a siege unit, removing their range defeats their purpose and makes them complete garbage against vikings and marauders.
Yeah? Once you get collosi in a good position, they do everything else for you. Protoss players aren't microing collosus much at all in an exchange, they're forcefielding and microing stalkers.
Sorry I should have been clear. When I say colossus micro I include the micro used to protect them. No different to tank micro. "All" tanks require is move+siege, simple! In reality of course it takes great skill to position and protect them, same as with colossi.
|
On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there.
Siege tanks require much more finesse to use properly. If you unsiege at the wrong moment you can lose all your tanks. Same thing with Reavers, they required much more skill to use effectively and were more interesting because of it.
|
I think the solution would be not necessarily nerfing the collossi directly, but buffing the counters to the Collossi. Corruptors for example are supposed to be a legitimate counter to Collossi, but they are so bad at it that Protoss players can still pretty much just a-move their army into Zerg and come out on top because it took almost the entire battle for 16 Corruptors to kill 3-4 Collossi.
Personally I would like to see a different spell on the corruptors than some boring single target damage amplifier. It really doesn't offer much help in battles and if you look at the other races' air to air units, they have SOMETHING that allows it to attack ground in some way shape or form.
|
I think almost everyone agrees colossus are boring, but having them nerfed to oblivion will accomplish two things:
1) protoss being underpowered (but i guess a lot of you like that ideia since you dont care about a balanced game as long as you can win more easily)
2) even less variety in units. If something, it should be accompanied but some other buff and / or change that allows other units to be used.
|
On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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.
I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, but we're really starting to see how much impact they have on other protoss units and the game in general. Gateway units have to be nerfed to compensate for warp gates, HT get the nerf-bat purely because of warp-in, and none of it changes the fact that PvP is still a 4gatecolossi-fest. Removing warp-in is excessive, but I think that there should probably be a penalty to using them, rather than a bonus. If this happens, then we might actually see core P units buffed and not be forced to rely so heavily on 4gate, colossi, and sentries.
|
Can't believe they thought removing KA was a minor step. Composition in games have changed dramatically. Metagame changed because as people were saying months earlier, Toss was so fragile.
Their next update will be of much more interest.
|
I wish blizzard would go back to balancing like like they did in the beta. The reasoning behind all of these changes are awful.
|
On April 05 2011 04:35 eot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. Siege tanks require much more finesse to use properly. If you unsiege at the wrong moment you can lose all your tanks. Same thing with Reavers, they required much more skill to use effectively and were more interesting because of it.
If you overcommit with a colossus poke, or let your stalkers move too far away you lose everything too. It's hardly uncommon for someone to mess up and lose half their colossi to the viking swarm.
Admittedly it's much easier against Zerg, but that's just because Zerg suck.
|
On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways,
No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise.
The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change.
|
On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there.
No, it's not. There is not a single other unit, in both BW and SC2, that can deal splash damage at that range while being a-moved. They move faster than high templar, too. As fast as non-upgraded zealots, in fact.
Siege tanks have to be in siege mode before they can deal splash damage. They have a minimum range and they have friendly fire. They don't have splash damage while moving.
Lurkers (BW-only) can't attack without being burrowed. They can't move while burrowed.
Spider mines (BW-only) have to be planted in the ground one by one.
Reavers (BW-only) are so slow they need to be babysat with a shuttle transporting them around.
Psionic storm, irradiate, plague, fungal growth are all spells which have to be casted and aimed manually.
The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around.
|
Well there's banelings.
You can a-move with them...
|
as a protoss player, i would love it if they nerfed the colossus in some way so that they actually took a decent amount of micro to use like the HT. But to try to compensate for the lack of dps through the gateway units is a tricky situation. They can't buff the gateway units directly like more damage or more hp because of the power of the 4/6 gate attacks. Its because of the warp in mechanic they cannot buff the gateway units. I feel that if they wanted to buff the gateway units they would have to nerf the warp in mechanic and thats another tricky situation right there........
|
On April 05 2011 04:46 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around.
The game changed though. The power of bioballs in particular necessitates a somewhat simple splash damage mechanism. Zerg got banelings, Protoss got colossus. Both races pretty much require these units to stop nasty stim bioballs.
Splash was less important in BW due to the crap pathfinding and bigger unit boxes. For that reason splash has to be easier to get/use in SC2.
|
On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change.
What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again.
|
On April 05 2011 04:46 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. No, it's not. There is not a single other unit, in both BW and SC2, that can deal splash damage at that range while being a-moved. They move faster than high templar, too. As fast as non-upgraded zealots, in fact. Siege tanks have to be in siege mode before they can deal splash damage. They have a minimum range and they have friendly fire. They don't have splash damage while moving. Lurkers (BW-only) can't attack without being burrowed. They can't move while burrowed. Spider mines (BW-only) have to be planted in the ground one by one. Reavers (BW-only) are so slow they need to be babysat with a shuttle transporting them around. Psionic storm, irradiate, plague, fungal growth are all spells which have to be casted and aimed manually. The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around.
colossus was meant to be shuttle+reaver, just like medivac is dropship+medic.
i think its something they didn't think through, they put it in there because "its cool" just like warp gates.
|
On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again.
They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way.
|
I think the odds of them doing a major redesign of the Colossus or Warp Gates are quite slim. They have said though that they're not too sure about adding new units in the expansions which hopefully opens up for more overhauling of what's in the game right now.
|
On April 05 2011 04:55 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again. They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way.
They probably won't do massive overhauls in a patch, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it happened in an expansion. Expansions are basically meant for that kind of thing, and WoW alone has demonstrated that Blizzard is perfectly willing to turn game mechanics on its head if necessary.
|
On April 05 2011 04:50 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:46 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around. The game changed though. The power of bioballs in particular necessitates a somewhat simple splash damage mechanism. Zerg got banelings, Protoss got colossus. Both races pretty much require these units to stop nasty stim bioballs. Splash was less important in BW due to the crap pathfinding and bigger unit boxes. For that reason splash has to be easier to get/use in SC2.
I don't see how that necessitates such splash damage to be so easy to use. It sounds like dumbing down the game. That's what all the complaints about the colossus boil down to. It needs something that the audience will cheer about when you actually engage with it.
And don't get me started about how they buffed bio compared to mech. Stim is already much weaker compared to its BW counterpart and they still can't get it quite right.
|
On April 05 2011 04:57 eot wrote:
I think the odds of them doing a major redesign of the Colossus or Warp Gates are quite slim. They have said though that they're not too sure about adding new units in the expansions which hopefully opens up for more overhauling of what's in the game right now.
Didn't Browder say they would be adding units, but not if they didn't fill a role currently lacking? So that you wouldn't have useless units just for the sake of having new units?
|
On April 05 2011 05:01 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:57 eot wrote:
I think the odds of them doing a major redesign of the Colossus or Warp Gates are quite slim. They have said though that they're not too sure about adding new units in the expansions which hopefully opens up for more overhauling of what's in the game right now. Didn't Browder say they would be adding units, but not if they didn't fill a role currently lacking? So that you wouldn't have useless units just for the sake of having new units?
Quite possible, it's a pain in the ass to go quote hunting though. The one I was thinking of was more saying that "new MP units in the expansion is not at all guaranteed". They'll probably add something though.
On April 05 2011 04:50 Yaotzin wrote:The game changed though. The power of bioballs in particular necessitates a somewhat simple splash damage mechanism. Zerg got banelings, Protoss got colossus. Both races pretty much require these units to stop nasty stim bioballs.
Splash was less important in BW due to the crap pathfinding and bigger unit boxes. For that reason splash has to be easier to get/use in SC2.
What about TvT? The splash mechanic doesn't have to be simple
|
On April 05 2011 05:01 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:50 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:46 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around. The game changed though. The power of bioballs in particular necessitates a somewhat simple splash damage mechanism. Zerg got banelings, Protoss got colossus. Both races pretty much require these units to stop nasty stim bioballs. Splash was less important in BW due to the crap pathfinding and bigger unit boxes. For that reason splash has to be easier to get/use in SC2. I don't see how that necessitates such splash damage to be so easy to use. It sounds like dumbing down the game. That's what all the complaints about the colossus boil down to.
A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game.
And don't get me started about how they buffed bio compared to mech. Stim is already much weaker compared to its BW counterpart and they still can't get it quite right.
Dunno mech use seems to be creeping up slowly but surely. Pure bioball usage is much less common than it was a few months ago.
What about TvT? The splash mechanic doesn't have to be simple
It's a mirror, there are no balance concerns. For game variety purposes tanks do a great job of slaughtering a big fat bioball anyway.
It's not complicated: if you did something like remove colossus range Protoss would get utterly destroyed by bioballs. They need splash, and it should be simple because it's the counter to a simple strategy.
|
On April 05 2011 05:05 Yaotzin wrote:
A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game.
In that case, the best solution would be to just nerf the bioball so easy-mode splash damage is no longer necessary. We've already seen stim get nerfed slightly to address this, although more changes will be needed.
|
Its funny because when the game launched it was basicall the first patch seige tanks got there AOE nerfed in almost half, and they have to seige to do damage. yet they are so scared of stopping the collusi from instakilling everything.
|
On April 05 2011 05:11 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:05 Yaotzin wrote:
A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game. In that case, the best solution would be to just nerf the bioball so easy-mode splash damage is no longer necessary. We've already seen stim get nerfed slightly to address this, although more changes will be needed.
That's incredibly difficult to do. The issue isn't the power of the individual units, rather it's the way all Terran units are ranged, and are now able to clump so closely. If you nerf their individual power then Terran dies horribly at low unit counts.
I suppose you could make bigger hit boxes and thus decrease the all around necessity for splash, but that's a huge design change and the whole game would have to be overhauled.
|
Too bad he doesnt address why the Amulet was scrapped entirely instead of redesigned or tweaked, since unlike the Void Ray unit-role re-design that required a complete removal of their speed upgrade, HTs are still the exact same HTs except initially weaker. Saying that removing an upgrade instead of tweaking it for no reason *at all* - with no further changes to the unit or any other additions to the game to compensate for the void of the upgrade - is a "small step"... it gets my trololo going.
|
On April 05 2011 05:05 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:01 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 04:50 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:46 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around. The game changed though. The power of bioballs in particular necessitates a somewhat simple splash damage mechanism. Zerg got banelings, Protoss got colossus. Both races pretty much require these units to stop nasty stim bioballs. Splash was less important in BW due to the crap pathfinding and bigger unit boxes. For that reason splash has to be easier to get/use in SC2. I don't see how that necessitates such splash damage to be so easy to use. It sounds like dumbing down the game. That's what all the complaints about the colossus boil down to. A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game.
We'll have to disagree there. I think you're focusing too much on perfect balance on the lower levels of the game. I pretty much watch pro games exclusively and to me, it doesn't matter if the game is perfectly balanced if it's boring to watch. And the colossus is as boring as boring can be.
It's a mirror, there are no balance concerns. For game variety purposes tanks do a great job of slaughtering a big fat bioball anyway.
There are entertainment concerns. PvP is almost unwatchable currently. You can't have mirror match-ups that are broken from a gameplay perspective.
|
Do you have some idea for what else amulet could do? BW amulet was pretty terrible...
|
On April 05 2011 02:29 entropius wrote:
This approach of "Lategame protoss AoE is too good, so let's nerf templars and see what happens" seems dangerously naive, since it ignores the dynamics of the different matchups as well as the different roles of the two units.
By design, Colossi dominate ground armies and die to air-to-air. Fine; there are some interesting design possibilities there, but it only works that way in PvT. In PvZ and PvP, the trouble is that there is no good air-to-air for them to die to.
In PvT, T needs to get enough vikings to kill the colossi, but not so many that they will fall behind on ground units. This isn't a complete "oh, you overproduced vikings, they're useless and you lose" situation though, because they can land. Then there are interesting positional battles in which the viking user tries to get a good angle on the colossi to snipe them without taking too much stalker fire in return. The protoss can get phoenix and more colossi and contest the air, but then the terran can get thors, and an interesting maneuver game develops wherein the T tries to exploit his longer antiair range to either kill the phoenix or break up the P ball.
HT are used vs. Terran because 1) warpin storms help counter terran dropship play, and 2) colossi are vulnerable to vikings, while shutting down HT with ghosts is not as guaranteed. If a P produces too many colossi the T simply makes vikings and kills them.
The trouble in PvZ is that no such interesting dynamic; the root problem is that corruptors suck ass. They're built vs. colossi, but they're not nearly as good as vikings in that role because they do less DPS (even with corruption!) at less range and cost more, and can't land to help out after the colossi are dead. The corruptor's attributes that make it good at capital ship killing -- high hp and high armor -- are mostly irrelevant. Z must spend much more on corruptors than P spends on colossi to kill them before they decimate Z's ground army, yet even once the colossi are dead, the corruptors are useless and the Z ground army already took a great deal of damage from the colossi.
The range really is huge: vikings can engage colossi without taking much stalker fire in return, and the stalkers must blink far out of position to try to engage them (at which point they run). Corruptors can't do this, *and* kill them more slowly.
Void rays complicate this even more, since they are an air-to-everything unit that actually wins against the corruptor, a dedicated air-to-air unit. This is different than the Phoenix + Colo dynamic in PvT. Phoenix have utility against ground, but not as much as voids; Vikings again can exploit their longer range to play positional games; and Terran have Thors, which are both competent in the ground engagement and absolutely murder Phoenix from a very long way away. Zerg have no such options; the only unit they have that's reasonably competent against the void ray is the hydralisk, and it's not an option because you're not going to get at the voids without melting to colossus fire.
tl;dr the biggest problem with colossus in PvZ is not necessarily that colossi are too good but that zerg air-to-air (corruptors) suck too much. In PvT colossi are kept in check because vikings are tremendously good. But Zerg have to rely on the pretty asstastic corruptor.
PvP is a lollercaust at the moment also. Aside from herp derp 4gate, the only competent air-to-air in the matchup is voids, so of course colossi are going to run rampant.
Not exactly sure how to address the issues; my best suggestion would be:
--Templar amulet reinstated, provides +15 energy
--Colo range buff is +2 instead of +3 *or* colo splash length reduced slightly
(This would leave both units quite viable in pvt)
--Corruptor range increased from 6 to 7 and corruptors lose the attribute "armored"
(These changes are really only relevant to the pvz matchup, and would make the "engage with corruptors first and just tank the stalker fire while shooting colos" tactic more viable, while also letting them soak void fire better)
Another interesting change to the PvZ dynamic would be to buff ultras. It's not as though they see all that much use, except for ZvT when T falls behind on infantry upgrades; a giant beastly expensive tier 3 unit that has melee range, doesn't shoot up, and takes a year to build has to do the only thing it does pretty dominatingly to see much play.
Giving Zerg a *ground* unit that could take on a colossus ball head on would be an interesting dynamic, especially since it would encourage back-teching to immortals to hold the ultras.
wow. great post. you actually understand the MU very well. Corruptors do suck. fking horrible. i hate the feeling when you killed off 5 collossus and you have 6 corruptors left watching the stalkers kill of the remnants of your force.
|
I still think instead of removing Khadarian it should have just been changed to "+15 energy" from "+25" and it seems a lot of others agree with me on that. I'd rather see Thermal lance give one less range bonus than anything.
On April 05 2011 05:20 Yaotzin wrote:
Do you have some idea for what else amulet could do? BW amulet was pretty terrible...
Is that a joke? Amulet was an absolutley, essential, 100% necessary upgrade that you saw in 100% of games people went high templar. Your templar that spawned would almost have enough energy to cast a storm, and in longer macro games you could even get off an additional storm if you stored up energy. Amulet finishing was also critical for delayed hydra busts that weren't 2/3 hatch hydra allins.
|
I like the reasoning behind the changes. I'd also add that HT Zealot was to much WC3 like. No spell caster should be the core unit of an army, just support.
In other news, did Davin Kim ever mention "mech"? Ever? I feel mech is heavily overlooked and that makes me
|
On April 05 2011 05:20 Yaotzin wrote:
Do you have some idea for what else amulet could do? BW amulet was pretty terrible...
I disagree.
Amulet in BW gave the HT higher starting energy (ie, less waiting on the first storm) and allowed the HT to cast 3 storms instead of 2 with full energy. That's actually pretty reasonable.
|
On April 05 2011 04:55 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again. They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way.
Nerfing the concept seems pretty impossible, but I might imagine increasing the warp-in time from five to 10-15 seconds or so to make Protoss less flexible and require them to plan ahead more. Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage. Being able to not spawn at the corresponding building could be advantage enough ...
If they changed the warp-in time to something much longer the Khaydarin Amulet might be introduced back into the game IMO.
|
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke.
|
On April 05 2011 05:21 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:29 entropius wrote:
This approach of "Lategame protoss AoE is too good, so let's nerf templars and see what happens" seems dangerously naive, since it ignores the dynamics of the different matchups as well as the different roles of the two units.
By design, Colossi dominate ground armies and die to air-to-air. Fine; there are some interesting design possibilities there, but it only works that way in PvT. In PvZ and PvP, the trouble is that there is no good air-to-air for them to die to.
In PvT, T needs to get enough vikings to kill the colossi, but not so many that they will fall behind on ground units. This isn't a complete "oh, you overproduced vikings, they're useless and you lose" situation though, because they can land. Then there are interesting positional battles in which the viking user tries to get a good angle on the colossi to snipe them without taking too much stalker fire in return. The protoss can get phoenix and more colossi and contest the air, but then the terran can get thors, and an interesting maneuver game develops wherein the T tries to exploit his longer antiair range to either kill the phoenix or break up the P ball.
HT are used vs. Terran because 1) warpin storms help counter terran dropship play, and 2) colossi are vulnerable to vikings, while shutting down HT with ghosts is not as guaranteed. If a P produces too many colossi the T simply makes vikings and kills them.
The trouble in PvZ is that no such interesting dynamic; the root problem is that corruptors suck ass. They're built vs. colossi, but they're not nearly as good as vikings in that role because they do less DPS (even with corruption!) at less range and cost more, and can't land to help out after the colossi are dead. The corruptor's attributes that make it good at capital ship killing -- high hp and high armor -- are mostly irrelevant. Z must spend much more on corruptors than P spends on colossi to kill them before they decimate Z's ground army, yet even once the colossi are dead, the corruptors are useless and the Z ground army already took a great deal of damage from the colossi.
The range really is huge: vikings can engage colossi without taking much stalker fire in return, and the stalkers must blink far out of position to try to engage them (at which point they run). Corruptors can't do this, *and* kill them more slowly.
Void rays complicate this even more, since they are an air-to-everything unit that actually wins against the corruptor, a dedicated air-to-air unit. This is different than the Phoenix + Colo dynamic in PvT. Phoenix have utility against ground, but not as much as voids; Vikings again can exploit their longer range to play positional games; and Terran have Thors, which are both competent in the ground engagement and absolutely murder Phoenix from a very long way away. Zerg have no such options; the only unit they have that's reasonably competent against the void ray is the hydralisk, and it's not an option because you're not going to get at the voids without melting to colossus fire.
tl;dr the biggest problem with colossus in PvZ is not necessarily that colossi are too good but that zerg air-to-air (corruptors) suck too much. In PvT colossi are kept in check because vikings are tremendously good. But Zerg have to rely on the pretty asstastic corruptor.
PvP is a lollercaust at the moment also. Aside from herp derp 4gate, the only competent air-to-air in the matchup is voids, so of course colossi are going to run rampant.
Not exactly sure how to address the issues; my best suggestion would be:
--Templar amulet reinstated, provides +15 energy
--Colo range buff is +2 instead of +3 *or* colo splash length reduced slightly
(This would leave both units quite viable in pvt)
--Corruptor range increased from 6 to 7 and corruptors lose the attribute "armored"
(These changes are really only relevant to the pvz matchup, and would make the "engage with corruptors first and just tank the stalker fire while shooting colos" tactic more viable, while also letting them soak void fire better)
Another interesting change to the PvZ dynamic would be to buff ultras. It's not as though they see all that much use, except for ZvT when T falls behind on infantry upgrades; a giant beastly expensive tier 3 unit that has melee range, doesn't shoot up, and takes a year to build has to do the only thing it does pretty dominatingly to see much play.
Giving Zerg a *ground* unit that could take on a colossus ball head on would be an interesting dynamic, especially since it would encourage back-teching to immortals to hold the ultras. wow. great post. you actually understand the MU very well. Corruptors do suck. fking horrible. i hate the feeling when you killed off 5 collossus and you have 6 corruptors left watching the stalkers kill of the remnants of your force.
Bring back Scourge 
|
On April 05 2011 05:17 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:05 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 05:01 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 04:50 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:46 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 04:30 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:27 Noocta wrote:On April 05 2011 04:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Do any of the people saying colossi don't require micro actually play P? Running away from viking / corruptor to let stalkers kill them, or move&shoot are pretty basic stuff... All micro is basic stuff. It's speed and accuracy which make up the skill, and colossus micro is the same as any other there. The precedent from BW is, you gotta earn your splash damage. You can't just a-move it around. The game changed though. The power of bioballs in particular necessitates a somewhat simple splash damage mechanism. Zerg got banelings, Protoss got colossus. Both races pretty much require these units to stop nasty stim bioballs. Splash was less important in BW due to the crap pathfinding and bigger unit boxes. For that reason splash has to be easier to get/use in SC2. I don't see how that necessitates such splash damage to be so easy to use. It sounds like dumbing down the game. That's what all the complaints about the colossus boil down to. A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game. We'll have to disagree there. I think you're focusing too much on perfect balance on the lower levels of the game. I pretty much watch pro games exclusively and to me, it doesn't matter if the game is perfectly balanced if it's boring to watch. And the colossus is as boring as boring can be.
Not at all I don't mind if it's somewhat imba at lower levels. I too only really care about the top levels. The game does require lower levels to stay alive though so it can't be discounted. Removing range would lead to nobody playing Protoss at lower levels, which is death for the game.
It's a mirror, there are no balance concerns. For game variety purposes tanks do a great job of slaughtering a big fat bioball anyway.
There are entertainment concerns. PvP is almost unwatchable currently. You can't have mirror match-ups that are broken from a gameplay perspective.
Yes of course. Not sure what relation this has with the topic though :0 PvP's big issue is the 4gate battles. War of the worlds is a distant second and could well be solved if anyone could get the game past 4gate.
|
On April 05 2011 05:15 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:11 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 05:05 Yaotzin wrote:
A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game. In that case, the best solution would be to just nerf the bioball so easy-mode splash damage is no longer necessary. We've already seen stim get nerfed slightly to address this, although more changes will be needed. That's incredibly difficult to do. The issue isn't the power of the individual units, rather it's the way all Terran units are ranged, and are now able to clump so closely. If you nerf their individual power then Terran dies horribly at low unit counts. I suppose you could make bigger hit boxes and thus decrease the all around necessity for splash, but that's a huge design change and the whole game would have to be overhauled.
They actually buffed the marine from BW to SC2. From 40 to 45 hp, with another +10 hp upgrade and a baseline roughly 10% increased attack speed. There's no reason that was needed since terran can wall-in until they have critical mass. They just need to buff mech so terran can regain map control afterward.
Giving each side easy to use a-move units to counter each side's easy to use a-move units just leads to a boring game. The power should be in units with interesting abilities with drawbacks.
|
Colossus just needs to do less dmg or have way less hp imo. They are just too beefy, mobile and high damaging for a support unit. They are like an easy mode counter to everything earthbound.
|
At lower levels stim is BRUTAL. When I first started playing and I was no good at forcefields I would literally leave my base, pop guardian shield and get stomped by an A-moving stimmed terran bio-ball. I had to go one base colossus or I just died. Good forcefield usage only means that you can afford to get splash units later with the exception of double forge builds. Colossi are the easier of 2 paths to AoE damage to deal with the insane dps density of a stimmed bio-ball.
The biggest tipping point is when medivacs come onto the field. At that point unless you are way ahead in upgrades, you lose to bio-ball if you are still on gateway units.
PvP is quite broken and basically has 3 options. Cheese, a version of 4gate, or 3stalker rush that MIGHT beat a 4wg if you find the probe/pylon. Anything other than this and essentially, you die to a hardcore 4gate.
|
On April 05 2011 05:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:55 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again. They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way. Nerfing the concept seems pretty impossible, but I might imagine increasing the warp-in time from five to 10-15 seconds or so to make Protoss less flexible and require them to plan ahead more. Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage. Being able to not spawn at the corresponding building could be advantage enough ... If they changed the warp-in time to something much longer the Khaydarin Amulet might be introduced back into the game IMO.
While this is true, I'd rather them focus on nerfing the AOE damage dealers than nerfing gateway units. I'd even take a colossus nerf if it meant a slight buff to gateway units in some way (charge more accessible, etc.).
|
On April 05 2011 05:27 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:15 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 05:11 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 05:05 Yaotzin wrote:
A big stim bioball is really easy to get and use pretty effectively. The splash damage necessary to stop it, is therefore also easy to get and use pretty effectively. If you made splash much harder to use then Terran would demolish everyone except at the highest level and therefore kill the game. In that case, the best solution would be to just nerf the bioball so easy-mode splash damage is no longer necessary. We've already seen stim get nerfed slightly to address this, although more changes will be needed. That's incredibly difficult to do. The issue isn't the power of the individual units, rather it's the way all Terran units are ranged, and are now able to clump so closely. If you nerf their individual power then Terran dies horribly at low unit counts. I suppose you could make bigger hit boxes and thus decrease the all around necessity for splash, but that's a huge design change and the whole game would have to be overhauled. They actually buffed the marine from BW to SC2. From 40 to 45 hp, with another +10 hp upgrade and a baseline roughly 10% increased attack speed. There's no reason that was needed since terran can wall-in until they have critical mass. They just need to buff mech so terran can regain map control afterward.
Well stim is worse OTOH. And the opponent units are different. Kinda hard to compare.
Giving each side easy to use a-move units to counter each side's easy to use a-move units just leads to a boring game. The power should be in units with interesting abilities with drawbacks.
I agree, I just disagree about where the boringness originates. You want to nerf colossi, but colossi are necessary. Solving the issue requires nerfing the boring old bioball. Which is not easy to do.
|
On April 05 2011 05:24 Rabiator wrote:
Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage.
In particular it's not a true disadvantage since it's not true. Warping in units don't take more damage during warp-in.
|
On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke.
well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point.
how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me.
esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?)
also stim pushes were one of the easiest things to scout/expect and defend . not to mention bigger maps already decreasing the timing window a ton...
i dont think its a huge gamebreaking point but the change was a bad one and their reasoning is even worse.
|
On April 05 2011 05:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 05 2011 04:55 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again. They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way. Nerfing the concept seems pretty impossible, but I might imagine increasing the warp-in time from five to 10-15 seconds or so to make Protoss less flexible and require them to plan ahead more. Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage. Being able to not spawn at the corresponding building could be advantage enough ... If they changed the warp-in time to something much longer the Khaydarin Amulet might be introduced back into the game IMO. While this is true, I'd rather them focus on nerfing the AOE damage dealers than nerfing gateway units. I'd even take a colossus nerf if it meant a slight buff to gateway units in some way (charge more accessible, etc.).
Their tier 1 unit balancing is essentially a comedy of errors. They buffed the basic marine, which meant they had to nerf stim. They introduced the marauder, an a-move unit that can wreck stalkers and even kite zealots easily when upgraded. Then they introduced warpgates, which are so much better than gateways so they nerfed the stalkers compared to dragoons. Blink alone can't explain why stalkers cost as much as dragoons but have such inferior stats.
Then they realized protoss is screwed to early stim-pushes and introduced the colossus.
|
If you take a look at the current matchups, you can see certain "obvious", outlying problems with some of them.
TvT: This is actually pretty good; I think it's a very dynamic matchup with a lot of possible strategies that can all be used effectively.
ZvZ: With the change to infestors, bigger maps, more common macro games, I think this is going to evolve to become pretty decent as well. Mutas might end up being viable, roach spam isn't the only thing, etc.
PvP: Obviously a shithole because of 4 gate.
ZvP: Bit tough for zerg because of the crappy scouting, difficulty in managing deathballs
PvT: The early game terran dominance to late game toss dominance is still pretty strong; gateway units suck too much and depend on FF to survive too much, while the late game toss deathballs are incredibly strong
TvZ: Scouting is of course an issue, but I think it is not quite as bad as the P matchup. I think a significant issue is the risk/reward lopsidedness of 2 rax bunker rushing. Otherwise, a fairly dynamic and interesting matchup.
If you can solve most of these issues, you can probably leave it alone for a while and it can prosper. Stuff like buffing corruptors, nerfing salvage, T1 ovie speed, and then a combination of buffing gateway units, nerfing warpgates, and then buffing normal gateways (ie gateways have faster production than if you had to warp in, so there's an incentive to keep gateways), would likely be enough to let the game be left alone for a good while.
I'm personally not as much of a fan of nerfs as I am of buffs. What made SC1 awesome was how freaking OP every unit seemed, but how their ridiculous awesomeness could counter each other.
|
On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?)
I think personally it could all be solved by just making warpgates cost 100/100, and buffing buildtimes by a few seconds on gateway units. I mean, come on, 2gate was essentially nerfed out of existance on the small maps where it should be a powerful build. Could make Zealots come out like ~3 seconds faster, same with sentries.
|
On April 05 2011 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) I think personally it could all be solved by just making warpgates cost 100/100, and buffing buildtimes by a few seconds on gateway units. I mean, come on, 2gate was essentially nerfed out of existance on the small maps where it should be a powerful build. Could make Zealots come out like ~3 seconds faster, same with sentries.
well if we talk about warpgates i still like the "introduce 2nd lvl warpgate research, 1st lvl research only allows pylon warpins in X radius around a nexus or warpgate" the most since its easy to implement and has zero effects on the defensive&production power or mid/lategame warpgate power.
but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics.
|
On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) I think personally it could all be solved by just making warpgates cost 100/100, and buffing buildtimes by a few seconds on gateway units. I mean, come on, 2gate was essentially nerfed out of existance on the small maps where it should be a powerful build. Could make Zealots come out like ~3 seconds faster, same with sentries. but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics.
It'd be kinda cool if Gateways would be better than Warp Gates defensively, but I really don't think Blizzard will tweak that stuff all that much.
|
On April 05 2011 05:51 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 05 2011 04:55 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:
[quote]
Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in.
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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again. They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way. Nerfing the concept seems pretty impossible, but I might imagine increasing the warp-in time from five to 10-15 seconds or so to make Protoss less flexible and require them to plan ahead more. Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage. Being able to not spawn at the corresponding building could be advantage enough ... If they changed the warp-in time to something much longer the Khaydarin Amulet might be introduced back into the game IMO. While this is true, I'd rather them focus on nerfing the AOE damage dealers than nerfing gateway units. I'd even take a colossus nerf if it meant a slight buff to gateway units in some way (charge more accessible, etc.). Their tier 1 unit balancing is essentially a comedy of errors. They buffed the basic marine, which meant they had to nerf stim. They introduced the marauder, an a-move unit that can wreck stalkers and even kite zealots easily when upgraded. Then they introduced warpgates, which are so much better than gateways so they nerfed the stalkers compared to dragoons. Blink alone can't explain why stalkers cost as much as dragoons but have such inferior stats. Then they realized protoss is screwed to early stim-pushes and introduced the colossus.
Except all these things were in since alpha so all those "then"s are completely inaccurate. Unless you somehow were in on Blizzard's SC2 design meetings, which I somehow doubt.
Btw, stalkers dominate in PvZ, PvP and are very common in PvT so I don't think them having inferior stats to dragoons is much of a problem. If anything they're headed for a nerf.
|
On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke.
Dustin browder's son switched from terran to protoss, thats all. So calm down
|
On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
well if we talk about warpgates i still like the "introduce 2nd lvl warpgate research, 1st lvl research only allows pylon warpins in X radius around a nexus or warpgate" the most since its easy to implement and has zero effects on the defensive&production power or mid/lategame warpgate power.
This is good
but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics.
They won't rework them gateways are just an anti-cheese building /mutters. They aren't meant to be useful. Same with stuff like conc shell. Not everything is supposed to be a choice, some tech is there simply to slow things down.
|
On April 05 2011 06:00 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) I think personally it could all be solved by just making warpgates cost 100/100, and buffing buildtimes by a few seconds on gateway units. I mean, come on, 2gate was essentially nerfed out of existance on the small maps where it should be a powerful build. Could make Zealots come out like ~3 seconds faster, same with sentries. but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics. It'd be kinda cool if Gateways would be better than Warp Gates defensively, but I really don't think Blizzard will tweak that stuff all that much.
yeah obviously a rework of the mechanics is impossible to do now since it would change way too much.
but i really really hope that they change a TON in the expansions. there is so much just badly designed/implemented that could vastly improve the game if blizz takes a step back and has the balls to rework it.
On April 05 2011 06:05 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
well if we talk about warpgates i still like the "introduce 2nd lvl warpgate research, 1st lvl research only allows pylon warpins in X radius around a nexus or warpgate" the most since its easy to implement and has zero effects on the defensive&production power or mid/lategame warpgate power.
This is good Show nested quote +
but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics.
They won't rework them gateways are just an anti-cheese building /mutters. They aren't meant to be useful. Same with stuff like conc shell. Not everything is supposed to be a choice, some tech is there simply to slow things down.
if you like the suggestion then spread it around. it could fix so many things 
and i disagree. almost evrything is a choice. even concshells are totally optional outside of standart tvp and esp now with the stim change you see people favoring a faster stim over shells as the first research quite often again.
gateways could be much more. give em a specific role past earlygame, make them the stable production and make warpgates a choice etc.
|
On April 05 2011 05:26 Yaotzin wrote:
Yes of course. Not sure what relation this has with the topic though :0 PvP's big issue is the 4gate battles. War of the worlds is a distant second and could well be solved if anyone could get the game past 4gate.
I'd suggest that you watch + Show Spoiler [MLG spoilers] +dignitas.Naniwa vs ROOT.Kiwikaki in the finals. Some really good use of Blink Stalkers in a couple of the games
|
That's what expansions are for!
Let's not forget base SC had serious problems, only BW made it great.
|
On April 05 2011 05:32 sandroba wrote:
Colossus just needs to do less dmg or have way less hp imo. They are just too beefy, mobile and high damaging for a support unit. They are like an easy mode counter to everything earthbound.
Can we play with the nerf we were just handed (Hts) before instituting new ones?
|
On April 05 2011 06:15 baltimoretim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:32 sandroba wrote:
Colossus just needs to do less dmg or have way less hp imo. They are just too beefy, mobile and high damaging for a support unit. They are like an easy mode counter to everything earthbound. Can we play with the nerf we were just handed (Hts) before instituting new ones?
we already playt his nerf, see there is no more HT
|
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this.
|
On April 05 2011 06:05 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
well if we talk about warpgates i still like the "introduce 2nd lvl warpgate research, 1st lvl research only allows pylon warpins in X radius around a nexus or warpgate" the most since its easy to implement and has zero effects on the defensive&production power or mid/lategame warpgate power.
This is good Show nested quote +
but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics.
They won't rework them gateways are just an anti-cheese building /mutters. They aren't meant to be useful. Same with stuff like conc shell. Not everything is supposed to be a choice, some tech is there simply to slow things down.
Sure, that's what gateways were initially for. But there's no reason that they should always be just a weaker warpgate. If warpgate cooldown time is higher than gateway build time, then there's a reason for players to keep gateways. It might help PvP, too, since the attacker would need more warpgates to keep up production with the defender, who could stay at gateways.
Without the power of the early warpgate rush, they might be able to buff gateway units enough that they could make the colossus more difficult to effectively use.
|
On April 05 2011 06:00 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) I think personally it could all be solved by just making warpgates cost 100/100, and buffing buildtimes by a few seconds on gateway units. I mean, come on, 2gate was essentially nerfed out of existance on the small maps where it should be a powerful build. Could make Zealots come out like ~3 seconds faster, same with sentries. but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics. It'd be kinda cool if Gateways would be better than Warp Gates defensively, but I really don't think Blizzard will tweak that stuff all that much.
I remember in beta thinking that warpgates had a longer cooldown than gateways, so they had less throughput in exchange for being able to warp in wherever you wanted and faster build time after the resources are spent. When I learned that warpgates also had a shorter cooldown, I thought "Why would anyone ever want a gateway over a warpgate then?" The answer is, of course, that you wouldn't. I do agree that it would be more interesting as a choice.
|
I feel that the only thing that really needs a change in the entire game at this point is a nerf to colossus hp/shields. TvZ feels pretty balanced at this point. I can't speak to PvZ since I'm terran but it seems like a lot of the issue revolves around the fact that the toss deathball forces the zerg to make a ton of corruptors which leaves them a much smaller ground army.
I've noticed that going vikings in TvP is pretty much no longer viable as every decent toss has learned to prevent vikings from sniping colossi. It's absurd that I can micro my vikings while kiting with my bio army and still get rolled by the 3 colossi and 20 stalkers that remain.
I need to make 13 vikings to one shot a colossus and 7 to 2 shot it. Since I'll be making them from a reactored port, this means I'll end up with 14 for 1 shot and 8 for 2 shot kills. 8 vikings cost 1200 minerals and 600 gas and 16 supply. 14 vikings cost 2100/1050/28. That's a pretty massive investment to just throw away considering the fact that every single one of them dies and there's still usually at least one colossus left at the end.
A range nerf would defeat their purpose and nerfing their damage would allow the bioball to roll through the deathball. The easy solution is to remove a decent chunk of their hp/shields. This would allow both vikings and corruptors to do their job at a better cost efficiency. After all, isn't the counter to something supposed to kill it at a cost efficient rate?
|
if they nerf the colossus they'll need to buff the mid game of protoss, don't tell me they will make the HT more viable, because they come so late that isnt really viable to rush them without having the risk to die, plz blizz no more gamble to the tech to get :/
|
On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote:
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this.
BCs were never used because they were just plain bad.
I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question.
|
I'm a bit surprised that their rationale for halving fungal duration was that they wanted to encourage muta play zvz, if one player goes infestor and the other goes muta the infestor player will still win. The real problem is that if one player is massing roaches and the other player is teching to mutas the player massing roach can a-move when they see mutas and usual overrun the other player's base before the muta player can kill them with mutas. If they see it as a viable transition out of roaches (whereas now we typically see hydra or infestor supplementing the roaches) the player going muta will still be at a disadvantage as the gas cost associated with getting enough mutas to make an impact is too high (hydras that are 50 gas less will beat them straight up pretty easily as well). Only way i can see it is if it's a map like terminus or maybe taldarim with giant rush distances and easily defendable chokes and even then..
|
On April 05 2011 05:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:55 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:52 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 04:38 Spawkuring wrote:On April 05 2011 04:24 andrewlt wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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. I'm starting to feel the same way. Initially, Blizzard made warp gates provide a build time discount in order to encourage its use over gateways, No they didn't. They started out by making warpgates, then they made gateways (again) to stop cheeses. Gateways produce slower than warpgates for the same reason: rushes would be too strong otherwise. The game is designed around warpgates, for good or ill. It will never change. What makes you think warp gates will never change? They've already changed a few times regarding research time, so it's not unreasonable to expect it to change again. They've only ever touched the research time to balance rushes - sensible since that's the only reason you research them. They've shown zero inclination to nerf the actual concept in any way. Nerfing the concept seems pretty impossible, but I might imagine increasing the warp-in time from five to 10-15 seconds or so to make Protoss less flexible and require them to plan ahead more. Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage. Being able to not spawn at the corresponding building could be advantage enough ... If they changed the warp-in time to something much longer the Khaydarin Amulet might be introduced back into the game IMO.
The warp-in time should depend on the distance between the warping unit and the gateway. It would fix pvp and make Protoss all ins less effective.
|
On April 05 2011 06:25 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:05 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
well if we talk about warpgates i still like the "introduce 2nd lvl warpgate research, 1st lvl research only allows pylon warpins in X radius around a nexus or warpgate" the most since its easy to implement and has zero effects on the defensive&production power or mid/lategame warpgate power.
This is good
but there are countless other suggestions. and longterm warpgates should get reworked anyways to make it an actual decision (and blizz keeps blabbering about how they want that all the time) ,make gateways more then just a tiny stepping stone 1-3 units/game get build and introduce some dynamics.
They won't rework them gateways are just an anti-cheese building /mutters. They aren't meant to be useful. Same with stuff like conc shell. Not everything is supposed to be a choice, some tech is there simply to slow things down. Sure, that's what gateways were initially for. But there's no reason that they should always be just a weaker warpgate. If warpgate cooldown time is higher than gateway build time, then there's a reason for players to keep gateways.
I guess in the very early game. After that you'd be mad not to just make 1-2 more warpgates though.
It might help PvP, too, since the attacker would need more warpgates to keep up production with the defender, who could stay at gateways.
You have two choices then: Make current warpgates slower (nerf cooldown), or make current gateways faster. The latter will result in crippling rushes - the return of the 10/10 zealot push etc. The former will force Protoss to stay on gateways to stop various pushes. This will make them incredibly defensive and probably cripple them, in the way Zerg was crippled having to try deal with zealot/reaper/etc pushes.
ETA: This is basically why you can't have warpgates and gateways doing different things. When you do that, you need to somehow balance them both, which is near impossible.
Without the power of the early warpgate rush, they might be able to buff gateway units enough that they could make the colossus more difficult to effectively use.
Gateway units are not weak. If they were any stronger they would stomp both other races into the ground early game. They ONLY start to fail against mass ranged units.
Colossus deals with this specific problem. Making melee units stronger would not help with that, and making stalkers stronger would make early stalker pushes unstoppable. I assume you don't think the sentry needs any buffing ^_^.
|
remove collosus
let me build immortals from the gateway only (not warpgate, still robo requirement), lower their stats/cost a bit. give them an air attack and range upgrade from robo bay.
gimme the reaver and the shuttle, make chargelots do better against roaches (not win, but compete), and re-instill a +15 energy upgrade for HT's (old one was +25).
Im having more fun with Z then P atm. and will just play them unless protoss becomes less dull
If they do something like this, yeah sure it will feel more like BW protoss but is that REALLY a bad thing?
|
I wonder how the game would be effected if zerg had a specific unit that does splash damage to air. (scourge anyone?)
Think about it - Voidray colossi would be more vulnerable, more use of banelings pretty much saved ZvT early game balance when everyone was 2 raxing with SCV's and bunker rushes... Would scourge help deal with the colossi ball late game?
Corruptors where supposed to be the answer for zerg anti-air. But as Idra was saying not too long ago - sadly they are just far to expensive and if you over-make them (which is easily done given how difficult it can be to scout protoss atm) it's over.
Just my 2 cents of course.
|
On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote:
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this. BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question.
Because they're more expensive, slower then, and not as good as collosus when it comes to killing massable ground units. Massable ground units describes most of the rest of this game, to the point where anti-air units are used primarily against a ground unit that's tall.
|
On April 05 2011 06:51 malaan wrote:
I wonder how the game would be effected if zerg had a specific unit that does splash damage to air. (scourge anyone?)
Think about it - Voidray colossi would be more vulnerable, more use of banelings pretty much saved ZvT early game balance when everyone was 2 raxing with SCV's and bunker rushes... Would scourge help deal with the colossi ball late game?
VRs don't overkill. Pretty much ideal for wasting lots of low hp units, like scourge. Could have some success by getting the VRs to target something else, perhaps, but they'd be far from a hard counter.
Killing the colossi is the real issue for Zerg anyway.
Because they're more expensive, slower then, and not as good as collosus when it comes to killing massable ground units. Massable ground units describes most of the rest of this game, to the point where anti-air units are used primarily against a ground unit that's tall.
More specifically, while carriers aren't bad per se, there's just a better answer for every Protoss question.
|
Nerf colossi rather significantly (but hopefully not to the point of uselessness), buff 2-3 of either Chargelots, Immortals, Archons or Carriers. Then you can viably go a bunch of different tech paths as Toss, so they're not just massing gateway units that get mega-owned by Stimmed bio and Hydras
|
On April 05 2011 02:51 da_head wrote:
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.
Pardon the theorycraft, but slightly buff wg unit damage and then make it so they warp in without shields?
|
Easy colossus solution: increase food cost. Colossus aren't really problematic until there are 4 or 5 of them supported by a large ground army. If colossi take up more food, the support army will end up being smaller.
|
I'm a designer so I'm immune from 'leave it to the designers' talk when I validate some of these great suggestions.
Making it so normal gateways have a slightly shorter build time than warp gates would be an amazing change to Protoss, both for PvP and in general, in terms of strategic variety. Lore-wise, you could say it takes slightly longer to warp-in due to psionic whatever limitations, and gameplay-wise it would be amazingly awesome.
Change HT per LiquidTyler's suggestion of having 5-10 seconds post warp-in before they can storm.
Make colossi move more slowly. This will make them more fragile and vulnerable, more realistic-looking, and more dynamic of a unit (one OP strength, two weaknesses like reaver - hp and movement speed) or just replace them with something more exciting that impedes spectating less (like a reaver shot). Slower colossi would nerf late-game toss AoE while still promoting the more exciting high templar usage.
Also, buff Archon AoE, and give Zerg the Lurker back at Lair evolving from roaches, with a Hive upgrade that lets them move while burrowed maybe.
Move burrow to hatch tech.
|
I'm fine with warpgates and colossus getting removed if I get compensation tools, like stronger units, non-reliance on forcefields, and units that are still efficient in small groups.
On a side note, siege tanks are so much cooler than colossus. I'd rather have reavers than a unit where I just build up some other stuff to take the hits and say 'here we gooo' and a-move.
As for pvp, I think they should make some specialized changes that only effect that matchup. Here are some off the top of my head that might have some substance, but take with a grain of salt:
-cannot warp in on psi overlapping your opponents psi
-protoss units get -1 armor to shields when on enemy psi; if they have 0 armor shields already, enemy attacks behave as if they had +1 attack on shields.
-Colossus do reduced damage to shields, and storm does increased damage to shields.
|
On April 05 2011 03:41 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:31 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 AJMcSpiffy wrote: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. I have in mind the KA nerf in particular, and how they decided to shut down an entire tech tree and force protoss to go Colossi instead, which everyone agree are overpowered and boring to use. Essentially, they are dulling down the game. When Blizzard created each SC2 unit, I'm sure they wanted each one of them to at least get some usage and for original strategies to be designed around such units. No one will use HT now except very situationally. The same is true of reapers after they received their huge nerf. More units will suffer this fate in the future, if their current hack & slash balancing continues. Even with colossi fulfilling the splash requirement, HTs are still critical for defending expos from drops, and killing banshee play - the KA nerf hardly affects these functions. I'm positive people will begin adding them back into their play at appropriate times. People are simply too used to using storm as an on-demand and throw away weapon rather than keeping their templar alive.
Bolded - the reason people dont / cant concentrate on keeping templar alive is largely because they are SO DAMNED SLOW. Once you get a templar into position to storm, its basically dead, between its terrible movespeed and getting hit by a concussive shell. Thats what turned templar into an "on-demand," pay 150 gas for a storm type unit.
|
On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) also stim pushes were one of the easiest things to scout/expect and defend . not to mention bigger maps already decreasing the timing window a ton... i dont think its a huge gamebreaking point but the change was a bad one and their reasoning is even worse.
I completely agree. Nerfing stim has made 1 rax FE, basically the only viable opening against protoss imo, much harder to hold against protoss allins (4 gate, 3 gate star) and has not made 3 rax stim rushes any less effective.
The problem with protoss allins being too damn powerful since the beta isn't the strength of protoss units, but the warpin mechanic which I absolutely despise since early in the beta (
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118657). Warp gate negates defender's advantage, even on HUGE maps, and at the same time makes it difficult to harass a protoss once a good amount of warp gates are online.
Warp gate is what's wrong with protoss.
Force fields seem imba at times but I think we'd see way less of "ok that's ridiculous" moments if warp gate was flat out removed or heavily nerfed.
|
On April 05 2011 08:11 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:41 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:31 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 AJMcSpiffy wrote: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. I have in mind the KA nerf in particular, and how they decided to shut down an entire tech tree and force protoss to go Colossi instead, which everyone agree are overpowered and boring to use. Essentially, they are dulling down the game. When Blizzard created each SC2 unit, I'm sure they wanted each one of them to at least get some usage and for original strategies to be designed around such units. No one will use HT now except very situationally. The same is true of reapers after they received their huge nerf. More units will suffer this fate in the future, if their current hack & slash balancing continues. Even with colossi fulfilling the splash requirement, HTs are still critical for defending expos from drops, and killing banshee play - the KA nerf hardly affects these functions. I'm positive people will begin adding them back into their play at appropriate times. People are simply too used to using storm as an on-demand and throw away weapon rather than keeping their templar alive. Bolded - the reason people dont / cant concentrate on keeping templar alive is largely because they are SO DAMNED SLOW. Once you get a templar into position to storm, its basically dead, between its terrible movespeed and getting hit by a concussive shell. Thats what turned templar into an "on-demand," pay 150 gas for a storm type unit.
This is true. It's funny how the situation even comments on "Infestors are too slow" when HT's are the slowest casters. God damn they're at carrier speed.
|
On April 05 2011 08:15 ScythedBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 08:11 susySquark wrote:On April 05 2011 03:41 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:31 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 AJMcSpiffy wrote: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. I have in mind the KA nerf in particular, and how they decided to shut down an entire tech tree and force protoss to go Colossi instead, which everyone agree are overpowered and boring to use. Essentially, they are dulling down the game. When Blizzard created each SC2 unit, I'm sure they wanted each one of them to at least get some usage and for original strategies to be designed around such units. No one will use HT now except very situationally. The same is true of reapers after they received their huge nerf. More units will suffer this fate in the future, if their current hack & slash balancing continues. Even with colossi fulfilling the splash requirement, HTs are still critical for defending expos from drops, and killing banshee play - the KA nerf hardly affects these functions. I'm positive people will begin adding them back into their play at appropriate times. People are simply too used to using storm as an on-demand and throw away weapon rather than keeping their templar alive. Bolded - the reason people dont / cant concentrate on keeping templar alive is largely because they are SO DAMNED SLOW. Once you get a templar into position to storm, its basically dead, between its terrible movespeed and getting hit by a concussive shell. Thats what turned templar into an "on-demand," pay 150 gas for a storm type unit. This is true. It's funny how the situation even comments on "Infestors are too slow" when HT's are the slowest casters. God damn they're at carrier speed.
I think the way they worked in bw was perfect -- slow, hard to use, but INSANE damage. Unfortunately, any newb can blanket the opponent's army with storm thanks to auto cast, so they had to significantly nerf the damage to make it balanced.
I would support a range buff to storm if getting off storms is really that difficult. But keep in mind that you might be selecting your targets too greedily -- aiming at the middle of tight pack of ranged units means you have to get closer to the front units and risk getting sniped before your storm is released.
|
this patch is awesome, it's basically a zerg buff patch, everything listed except for the zealot charge and BC speed was a direct/indirect buff to zerg. I actually feel like right now, the game is pretty well balanced, I don't even mind colossi right now.
Bunker rushes are harder to pull off - indirect zerg buff for fast expanding
Amulet removed - indirect zerg buff to help corrupters, now that they can't just tech switch into instant storms, zerg can rely more on corrupters to deal with the deadlier colossi and can transition into broodlords.
Infestor buff - obvious buff for zerg, but also an indirect buff that allows for faster hive tech if you go for infestor builds, making hive timings much stronger.
Archon toilet - this was pretty much used against terran but surely helps zerg out a lot as archons did huge DPS to bio, which zerg is.
EMP nerf - indirect buff to zerg to allow more infestor play, buffing hive tech even more
over all a good patch, definitely a zerg patch which was needed. I'm pretty satisfied with the changes.
|
I'll be honest, this report seems pretty bogus. It's almost like they have this 'dream' of the game should be, rather than letting it play out. I feel like they're just experimenting/testing stuff out for fun rather than addressing possible issues. I was on the fence about it until I read the stim pack change reasoning.
It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard that there were concerns from players about the use of Stimpacks and there’s a reason why; Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting.
What? You mean, a normal knowledge of timings? Stim packs normally only come into play with a timing attack in TvP. You don't normally see them in other matchups, and it's never something that's 'hard to deal with unless you scout'. They make it sound like you're supposed to somehow scout stim packs and then hope you can put cannons or spine crawlers up in time or something. If you play safe, stim timings are somewhat easy to deal with. However, if you cut some corners, things can be tough. It's not about scouting, though. You can scout that your opponent is not going bio, and then get less sentries for example, but stim isn't something that you need to worry about scouting. It's just a simple knowledge of timing.
|
On April 05 2011 08:11 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:41 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:31 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 03:07 AJMcSpiffy wrote: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. I have in mind the KA nerf in particular, and how they decided to shut down an entire tech tree and force protoss to go Colossi instead, which everyone agree are overpowered and boring to use. Essentially, they are dulling down the game. When Blizzard created each SC2 unit, I'm sure they wanted each one of them to at least get some usage and for original strategies to be designed around such units. No one will use HT now except very situationally. The same is true of reapers after they received their huge nerf. More units will suffer this fate in the future, if their current hack & slash balancing continues. Even with colossi fulfilling the splash requirement, HTs are still critical for defending expos from drops, and killing banshee play - the KA nerf hardly affects these functions. I'm positive people will begin adding them back into their play at appropriate times. People are simply too used to using storm as an on-demand and throw away weapon rather than keeping their templar alive. Bolded - the reason people dont / cant concentrate on keeping templar alive is largely because they are SO DAMNED SLOW. Once you get a templar into position to storm, its basically dead, between its terrible movespeed and getting hit by a concussive shell. Thats what turned templar into an "on-demand," pay 150 gas for a storm type unit.
I don't agree. If well positioned the Terran bioball should be stutter stepping away from you. If your temps are in the back they should be reasonably safe.
Don't get me wrong it's not easy, they are painfully slow, but if you concentrate on keeping position and perhaps putting them in warp prisms (great for stopping irritating snipes/EMPs too), you can certainly keep them alive.
People just don't bother because colossi are easier + you need them for certain pushes anyway.
|
Meh still think their reasoning for the HT nerf was quite stupid. Protoss AoE too good, I agree but then choosing to nerf the HT hard and not touch the colossus is just stupid. Grade them both down a little or change their functionality a bit but they have more the game worse now...
kaydarim amulet removed strategic options by making harass impossible... without amulet there are even less strategic options because ht itself are not worth it anymore...
I better hope they fix the balance of colossi vs HT again, I hate having the one being almost strictly better then the other.
|
I wonder why they didn't give the carrier the same treatment as the BC. Even if it's (very) slightly more used that the BC, it's only because terran has vikings and banshees which can serve the same purpose.
|
On April 05 2011 08:31 Markwerf wrote:
Meh still think their reasoning for the HT nerf was quite stupid. Protoss AoE too good, I agree but then choosing to nerf the HT hard and not touch the colossus is just stupid. Grade them both down a little or change their functionality a bit but they have more the game worse now...
Why would you nerf them together when you can do it one at a time? Isolating issues to identify problems is pretty common sense stuff.
kaydarim amulet removed strategic options by making harass impossible... without amulet there are even less strategic options because ht itself are not worth it anymore...
This doesn't make sense? If KA made harass impossible you should be able to harass now - isn't that a strategic option?
|
-The infestor buff against protoss wasn't as good as predicted, because thermolance make it near impossible to use FG without losing your infestors and zerg have no tools to force a protoss to engage so it's worthless to FG and back (shield recharge). We have to give it time, maybe there will be some clever ways to use it.
-PvP is retarded because of warp in mechanic, it's basically rush warpgate or die tryin, don't know how to fix it, there is many solution, need to find the better one.
-the buff BC was good, more options in late game for Terran especially in TvT (the game between Ryung vs MVP was beautifull)
|
So they made stim longer so T can't win early game. So that's their logic..
So how about that 4 gate?
User was warned for this post
|
They think the fungal change will prompt more infestors in ZvP?
Huh.
|
On April 05 2011 08:26 Wolf wrote:I'll be honest, this report seems pretty bogus. It's almost like they have this 'dream' of the game should be, rather than letting it play out. I feel like they're just experimenting/testing stuff out for fun rather than addressing possible issues. I was on the fence about it until I read the stim pack change reasoning. Show nested quote +It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard that there were concerns from players about the use of Stimpacks and there’s a reason why; Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. What? You mean, a normal knowledge of timings? Stim packs normally only come into play with a timing attack in TvP. You don't normally see them in other matchups, and it's never something that's 'hard to deal with unless you scout'. They make it sound like you're supposed to somehow scout stim packs and then hope you can put cannons or spine crawlers up in time or something. If you play safe, stim timings are somewhat easy to deal with. However, if you cut some corners, things can be tough. It's not about scouting, though. You can scout that your opponent is not going bio, and then get less sentries for example, but stim isn't something that you need to worry about scouting. It's just a simple knowledge of timing.
Agreed. I also think that Blizzard needs to let the game play out. I don't think there's any need to alter anything unless they have a darn good reason to, but there's certainly no need to nerf things "just because." To quote Jinro--when have you ever wished, "If only stim took longer to research!" vs. Terran? Stim timing pushes, while powerful, have never been close to an "overpowered" problem that required changing in any way, and it's not something that ever really required scouting--it's a timing. They make it sound as if it's, "I'm Protoss, I'm going to expand and get double forge and robo, but OH NO stim timing attack if only I had scouted that and known about it I would have made units."
|
i actaully agree with all of david kim's assessments. part of me wishes theyd hurry up with some of the changes. but i guess patience is needed.
ps i don t think its starting rumors that blizzard will probably nerf coli. i mean they implicitly stated they felt that coli and ht aoe were slightly OP. they decided to nerf one and see if that was enough. watching enough gsl/mlg...its probably not and we're likely to see the coli get nerfed.
|
On April 05 2011 05:33 Amui wrote:
At lower levels stim is BRUTAL. When I first started playing and I was no good at forcefields I would literally leave my base, pop guardian shield and get stomped by an A-moving stimmed terran bio-ball. I had to go one base colossus or I just died. Good forcefield usage only means that you can afford to get splash units later with the exception of double forge builds. Colossi are the easier of 2 paths to AoE damage to deal with the insane dps density of a stimmed bio-ball.
The biggest tipping point is when medivacs come onto the field. At that point unless you are way ahead in upgrades, you lose to bio-ball if you are still on gateway units.
PvP is quite broken and basically has 3 options. Cheese, a version of 4gate, or 3stalker rush that MIGHT beat a 4wg if you find the probe/pylon. Anything other than this and essentially, you die to a hardcore 4gate.
I totally agreed. I am getting better with force fields, but I still get SMASHED by stim every once and a while. I don't want protoss to become the race "only the higher level players can handle" if they nerf colossi to much. It won't be much fun for new players and will just make people play Terran more.
|
On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2566610#blogI really enjoy reading these. Provides a good perpective of what Blizzard wants to see from the game. Thoughts? Stimpack upgrade research time increased from 140 to 170 seconds. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard that there were concerns from players about the use of Stimpacks and there’s a reason why; Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes.
The problem with stim isn't the timing, the problem with stim is the pure strength of it on both Marauders and Marines.
Stim'd marauders absoloutely decimate buildings better than seige units, even if the opponent knows it's coming, sometimes they'll still take out a tech building in a matter of seconds.
The DPS and movement speed of the units is also very high.
The fact that medivac's heal ability is NOT a researchable ability and that it's so powerful tells me they need to tweak different numbers and timing isn't one of them.
Why not make them faster moving and shooting when stimd but simply not as ridiculously high? Bring it back 10 or 15%?
Sigh
|
Sweet. Colossi nerf incoming too.
|
Well Protoss is supposed to be strongest, according to blizzard:
Protoss Characteristics
Heavy Hitters
Pound for pound, the protoss field StarCraft II’s strongest and most durable units. That power comes at a price, as their units tend to be costly.
Price is the problem. If you make it so a 200 vs 200 are even on the battle field, you have to reduce costs of all protoss units or they will get destroyed in follow up battles as Zerg and Terran can remax and Protoss can't.
I'd like to see blizzard leave things as is with very different strengths and weaknesses between races rather than every game a TvT type rock paper scissors match up.
|
On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote:
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this. BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question.
Because they are even worse than bad.
They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless.
Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato...
|
Good to see the rationale and I agree with all the points they make. I think on the whole 1.3 is a great patch. But I still think they fucked up with KA. Removing KA removes HT from the game. It's OBVIOUS. So why not try what people suggested, making KA more like it was in BW?
|
Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
This is perhaps the 1.3 patch change that was most discussed by the community and we wanted to take some to time to explain the rationale behind it. Ultimately, there were two reasons we wanted to remove this item.
We felt this upgrade reduced strategic choice.
Isn't it nice that non-Protoss players now have access to more strategic choice. I hope that when people face continuous Colossi in the future, they will be thankful for the sacrifices we've had to endure for their strategic latitude.
Son of Adun, I've hated Colossi and avoided using them as much as possible since the beta, and loved High Templar since 1998. Could you at least buff storms back up to 110 damage, if not better?
|
On April 05 2011 11:07 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
This is perhaps the 1.3 patch change that was most discussed by the community and we wanted to take some to time to explain the rationale behind it. Ultimately, there were two reasons we wanted to remove this item.
We felt this upgrade reduced strategic choice. Isn't it nice that non-Protoss players now have access to more strategic choice. I hope that when people face continuous Colossi in the future, they will be thankful for the sacrifices we've had to endure for their strategic latitude. Son of Adun, I've hated Colossi and avoided using them as much as possible since the beta, and loved High Templar since 1998. Could you at least buff storms back up to 110 damage, if not better?
The only solution is Carriers.
But seriously, Protoss is ridiculous in how badly you're forced into either Colossi or a 4gate/warpgate timing push. If they just straight nerfed colossi it'd break the race at this point, but if they leave things as is we're going to keep seeing the deathball and all the balance complaints that surround it.
Buffing other lategame options, like the warpgate unit upgrades, HT/Archons, Carriers, Immortals, plus a Colo nerf would level the race out a bit, IMO. I suppose HTs are still viable, but with the current state of the Colo-VR deathball why would any Toss bother?
|
They wanted infestor to be a core unit in ZvP but not templars apparently. Templar were already underused and now seems even less reason to bring them out. If they want to make protoss more diverse should probably be buffing templar and archons (archons need to be massive). If they nerfed collosi without buffing something else toss would be really screwed and probably have to rely on timing attacks early game.
|
If people are afraid of EMP they should put their spellcasters in Qarp Prisms / Overlords ... that would add an element of micro to the game again and remove the need to nerf EMP.
|
On April 05 2011 09:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:33 Amui wrote:
At lower levels stim is BRUTAL. When I first started playing and I was no good at forcefields I would literally leave my base, pop guardian shield and get stomped by an A-moving stimmed terran bio-ball. I had to go one base colossus or I just died. Good forcefield usage only means that you can afford to get splash units later with the exception of double forge builds. Colossi are the easier of 2 paths to AoE damage to deal with the insane dps density of a stimmed bio-ball.
The biggest tipping point is when medivacs come onto the field. At that point unless you are way ahead in upgrades, you lose to bio-ball if you are still on gateway units.
PvP is quite broken and basically has 3 options. Cheese, a version of 4gate, or 3stalker rush that MIGHT beat a 4wg if you find the probe/pylon. Anything other than this and essentially, you die to a hardcore 4gate. I totally agreed. I am getting better with force fields, but I still get SMASHED by stim every once and a while. I don't want protoss to become the race "only the higher level players can handle" if they nerf colossi to much. It won't be much fun for new players and will just make people play Terran more.
There's absolutely no point to balance the game for noob levels.
If you have difficulties to deflect such attacks, learn how to do it properly or
go for an alternative build. Theres always something you can do at low level to not die to such attacks.
The game should be balanced for the absolute high tier players, and stim pushes were only a problem at the earlier stages of the game when all people were bad / using bad builds. Right now every diamond player should be able to handle them.
|
On April 05 2011 08:15 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) also stim pushes were one of the easiest things to scout/expect and defend . not to mention bigger maps already decreasing the timing window a ton... i dont think its a huge gamebreaking point but the change was a bad one and their reasoning is even worse. I completely agree. Nerfing stim has made 1 rax FE, basically the only viable opening against protoss imo, much harder to hold against protoss allins (4 gate, 3 gate star) and has not made 3 rax stim rushes any less effective. The problem with protoss allins being too damn powerful since the beta isn't the strength of protoss units, but the warpin mechanic which I absolutely despise since early in the beta ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118657). Warp gate negates defender's advantage, even on HUGE maps, and at the same time makes it difficult to harass a protoss once a good amount of warp gates are online. Warp gate is what's wrong with protoss. Force fields seem imba at times but I think we'd see way less of "ok that's ridiculous" moments if warp gate was flat out removed or heavily nerfed.
Dude, I actually love your idea for warp-in. I've personally hate the idea of warp-ins myself. If you could only warp-in with cheap warp prisms they could easily buff Gateway units and nerf colossi without completely breaking the game.
|
On April 05 2011 10:25 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote:On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote:
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this. BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question. Because they are even worse than bad. They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless. Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato...
Carriers are ''worse'' than BCs because there are void rays which are insanely powerful. If they make Carriers better than BCs, then protoss will be too powerful and Terran won't have an answer to the protoss deathball.
|
This is what the Blizzard mindset is. If you don't like it, too bad. Complaining here is pointless. They read their own forums and they get their opinions from their website. You have to post there in order to be noticed.
|
On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. 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
I wish they had nerfed the colossus instead. At least storm takes some micro ability to do insane damage to light targets.
|
On April 05 2011 12:25 bearhug wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 10:25 tdt wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote:On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote:
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this. BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question. Because they are even worse than bad. They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless. Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato... Carriers are ''worse'' than BCs because there are void rays which are insanely powerful. If they make Carriers better than BCs, then protoss will be too powerful and Terran won't have an answer to the protoss deathball.
Vikings and banshees are pretty good too.
|
It looks like Void Ray rush is back in fashion in Korea thanks to stim nerf . A lot of T's are QQ'ing about it @PlayXP.
|
As much as people are against the Warp Gates mechanic, I really don't think that Blizzard will remove it. Unfortunately, without it, Protoss and Terran would play very similarly. Zerg already has a pretty unique unit-production method built into the race, which makes it difficult to play to new players. Without Warp Gates, Protoss and Terran would both play in a style that is basically:
1) Build Production Building
2) Build Tech Building
3) Research in Tech Building, Queue unit in Production building.
What Warp Gates do is mess with the natural order by setting a reversed production queue to Protoss units. Although it would be possible to integrate this without Warp-in, it would essentially be the same as Terran in terms of play-style. It would simply be each unit has the build time of its predecessor.
In a way, I'd have preferred the change to Colossi first. Because Banshees can destroy our base completely if unscouted and not prepared for, we need to lead out with the Robotics Facility. This naturally leads us into Colossi, as they require only 1 additional tech building. If High Templar were more powerful than Colossi, they would be riskier to get to, but would be worth teching to first.
With the amulet being removed but Colossi staying at their current strength, High Templar become a far "pickier" option for winning. It's the same as Stargate-first plays in PvT; not worthless, but harder to use than robotics tech, and not quite as useful overall. It'd be nice if this was reversed - the tech we have to get should be weaker/harder to use effectively than the tech we can choose to get.
|
What Protos needs the most is a removing of range upgrade and decreasing colossi splash area. At now colossi are just mobile SiegeTank in siege mode.
In late game vs Z the Toss death ball with colossi, stalkers, VR and few sentry almost unstoppable, it's just so ridiculous.
And also, Protoss needs almost no micro with its deathball (A-move, and just make FF) unlike Terran and Zerg.
|
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.
What?
I don't think you put much thought into this...how much does a pylon cost and how many of those do you have late game scuttered all over the map? Now compare these numbers to PFs...
|
On April 05 2011 03:09 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:51 da_head wrote:
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. The more I think about it, the more I think that warpgates shouldn't have made it past beta. Negating defender's advantage removes one of the cornerstones of any strategy game. And the balancing Blizzard did to compensate (weak gateway units, colossus) has had a bad effect on the game. Nearly every single problem in any vP match-up is caused directly by warpgates or the balancing Blizz did to compensate for warpgates.
Exactly, the WP mechanic is retarded IMHO and is the source of P problems. I sure hope they find some way to fix it in HOTs.
|
On April 05 2011 03:59 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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.
I have been saying this for a really long time, if they won't remove the warp in they need to put a penalty to it depending on distance (a zero-small-high penalty system sounds good) so that the defender has some advantage. In that way the solve the too strong early all ins without Ps having problems themselves in defending. It is a change that is consistent to the spirit of their approach up until now, that is to reduce the effectiveness of early all ins (Terran nerfs, bigger maps) and makes good sense when you put the ever increasing average map size.
Mark my words, this thing is coming for sure and Blizzard should do it sooner rather tha later!
p.s.
|
On April 05 2011 04:14 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. 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 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. Show nested quote +
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...
Exactly...warpgate is the root of all evil when it comes to P problems, the faster BLIZZARD aknowleges that the better for everyone.
|
On April 05 2011 10:09 tdt wrote:Well Protoss is supposed to be strongest, according to blizzard: Show nested quote +Protoss Characteristics
Heavy Hitters
Pound for pound, the protoss field StarCraft II’s strongest and most durable units. That power comes at a price, as their units tend to be costly. Price is the problem. If you make it so a 200 vs 200 are even on the battle field, you have to reduce costs of all protoss units or they will get destroyed in follow up battles as Zerg and Terran can remax and Protoss can't. I'd like to see blizzard leave things as is with very different strengths and weaknesses between races rather than every game a TvT type rock paper scissors match up.
Why can't Protoss remax? Actually, they remax better than Terran does, since with warpin they can start rebuilding *instantly*, and then use all that saved chronoboost on their production facilities.
45 seconds after an engagement, each T production building costing 200/25 has built a marauder and a half.
Meanwhile, each P production building costing 150/0 has warped in TWO stalkers/zealots and almost ready to warp in a third if it's being chronoboosted.
|
Kiwi had 3 robos and like 14 gateways against SeleCT
Due to the fact he could warp to the middle of the map while select had to run marauders across the map, he did indeed get an army faster every time.
As for PvZ, protoss never need to remax. A 200/200 protoss army has so much DPS that they will only lose 50 supply while a zerg loses around 120 in army. This is why fungal was buffed, to try and make sure those dps units are killed.
|
coloss need to be slower. All strong late game unit are slow: thor/tank/bc/carrier/mothership/broodlord except ultralisk, which is already poor enough even it is faster than thor 
|
It's true that Colossi have quite a good mobility for what they are.
|
I really can't wait for blizzard to nerf the colossus. Because I know from the various patches so far the balance team doesn't know what the hell they're doing. Their approach is always mind numbing. The moment blizzard touches the colossus is the moment the protoss race will fall, hard.
From the beginning the race was designed with 3 key factors in mind. Gateway units are garbage but produce quickly from any where with warp in. Protect yourself with sentries. Win with Colossus.
From the beginning to currently this has been the theme, sure protoss players have done all kinds of timing attacks with DTs, voidrays etc. Blizzard has nerfed all those cheesey builds, at the same time killing any other tech choices outside of colossus tech.
The race wins with colossus and losses because of a lack of them. If you touch this unit you have to rethink the entire race. Hydras own gateway units, colossus counters them. MMM owns gateway units colossus counters them. If they buff gateway units, they have to redesign warp in and sentries. There was a time after blizzard nerfed HTs where protoss players where saying to get rid of the unit, warp in+the amulet changed their opinions. The HT has never lived up to it's BW counterpart. Now it's even less feasible.
All through out the game blizzard has been slowly nerfing protoss, again and again. The colossus is really this races last stand. All other options aren't cost effective or as efficient at killing the opponents army. Nothing in the protoss army matches the damage of terran mech, or the dps of terran MMM. The dps of hydra roach, hell protoss can't really effectively handle muta now.
So I can't wait for them to screw up their game, with the colossus nerf. That's why I appreciate the QQs from everyone. I think blizzard needs to fuck up big time for them to understand that they don't have a clue about anything in terms of balance.
|
On April 05 2011 12:25 bearhug wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 10:25 tdt wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote:On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote:
Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this. BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question. Because they are even worse than bad. They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless. Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato... Carriers are ''worse'' than BCs because there are void rays which are insanely powerful. If they make Carriers better than BCs, then protoss will be too powerful and Terran won't have an answer to the protoss deathball.
uh no, Carriers are worse than BCs whether or not the void ray exists.
|
On April 05 2011 16:03 entropius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 10:09 tdt wrote:Well Protoss is supposed to be strongest, according to blizzard: Protoss Characteristics
Heavy Hitters
Pound for pound, the protoss field StarCraft II’s strongest and most durable units. That power comes at a price, as their units tend to be costly. Price is the problem. If you make it so a 200 vs 200 are even on the battle field, you have to reduce costs of all protoss units or they will get destroyed in follow up battles as Zerg and Terran can remax and Protoss can't. I'd like to see blizzard leave things as is with very different strengths and weaknesses between races rather than every game a TvT type rock paper scissors match up. Why can't Protoss remax? Actually, they remax better than Terran does, since with warpin they can start rebuilding *instantly*, and then use all that saved chronoboost on their production facilities. 45 seconds after an engagement, each T production building costing 200/25 has built a marauder and a half. Meanwhile, each P production building costing 150/0 has warped in TWO stalkers/zealots and almost ready to warp in a third if it's being chronoboosted.
Money! Protoss units cost a ton compared other races. Compare Stalker to Marauder or roach or hydra. On down the line protoss is expensive. Hence FF to keep your cheap units out of our base until we can build critical mass.
|
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.
|
On April 05 2011 17:05 KingAce wrote:
I really can't wait for blizzard to nerf the colossus. Because I know from the various patches so far the balance team doesn't know what the hell they're doing. Their approach is always mind numbing. The moment blizzard touches the colossus is the moment the protoss race will fall, hard.
From the beginning the race was designed with 3 key factors in mind. Gateway units are garbage but produce quickly from any where with warp in. Protect yourself with sentries. Win with Colossus.
From the beginning to currently this has been the theme, sure protoss players have done all kinds of timing attacks with DTs, voidrays etc. Blizzard has nerfed all those cheesey builds, at the same time killing any other tech choices outside of colossus tech.
The race wins with colossus and losses because of a lack of them. If you touch this unit you have to rethink the entire race. Hydras own gateway units, colossus counters them. MMM owns gateway units colossus counters them. If they buff gateway units, they have to redesign warp in and sentries. There was a time after blizzard nerfed HTs where protoss players where saying to get rid of the unit, warp in+the amulet changed their opinions. The HT has never lived up to it's BW counterpart. Now it's even less feasible.
Wtf? gateway units garbage? on what planet are you? gateway units are underused. Addelscots play has always been around the gatewayunit and he smashed MVP, let me refrase that, He Backhandpimpslaped MVP back to korea with it. That it isnt the current trend in protoss kind of play has mayby something to do with the colossus being so powerfull, but not that gateway units are garbage.
All through out the game blizzard has been slowly nerfing protoss, again and again. The colossus is really this races last stand. All other options aren't cost effective or as efficient at killing the opponents army. Nothing in the protoss army matches the damage of terran mech, or the dps of terran MMM. The dps of hydra roach, hell protoss can't really effectively handle muta now.
So I can't wait for them to screw up their game, with the colossus nerf. That's why I appreciate the QQs from everyone. I think blizzard needs to fuck up big time for them to understand that they don't have a clue about anything in terms of balance.
I think the amulet for Templar needs to come back with 12 energy and a 50/50 upgrade andsofort to kinda help with a small colossus change.
but i dont agree with you that all units are useless besides the colossus. ofc its your opinion but there enough games where protoss dont go colossus and hulksmash there opponents. MC-July finals for example. Google if you wanna find some more, but i dont think its fair to say colossus in the only unit. I think colossus is the easy unit and people dont like to get pulled out of there comfortzone and start reworking there shit.
|
* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
I thought this was funny. Watching dayvies games always makes me question what Blizzard is thinking. At MLG Dallas I watched Huk (from over his shoulder) play a warm up game against dayvie (just a random ladder match on bnet). Dayvie went some three factory rush something or other against Huks 3gate robo. Huk attacked and dayvie had 1 hellion... I'm sure he doesn't play like that all the time, but how can he be a balance designer if he doesn't know (or doesnt care that) a strat like that is going to fail 99.9% of the time X(
|
On April 05 2011 17:35 tdt wrote:
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.
just wanna throw in that terran actually rebuilds slower then protoss. P can in some cases even keep up with Z.
and
Gateway units are garbage
i thought this is finally proven wrong? look at the gateway spam pvt styles, or at
kor vs world ro8 spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +san crushing thru a 200/200 mostly hydra + raoch/ling army of dimaga with a 180 supply 95%stalkers, few sentries and 2-3 immortals army
|
On April 05 2011 17:51 theBOOCH wrote:Show nested quote +* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
I thought this was funny. Watching dayvies games always makes me question what Blizzard is thinking. At MLG Dallas I watched Huk (from over his shoulder) play a warm up game against dayvie (just a random ladder match on bnet). Dayvie went some three factory rush something or other against Huks 3gate robo. Huk attacked and dayvie had 1 hellion... I'm sure he doesn't play like that all the time, but how can he be a balance designer if he doesn't know (or doesnt care that) a strat like that is going to fail 99.9% of the time X(
This is so telling. What a disaster of a balance staff.
|
And you don't think it's a game balancers job to test out every single strategy there is, instead of doing the same shit game after game?
|
On April 05 2011 19:31 nkr wrote:
And you don't think it's a game balancers job to test out every single strategy there is, instead of doing the same shit game after game?
1 Hellion against 3 gate robo.
Maybe he should test out 1 base BCs as well. I mean you never know, right?
|
On April 05 2011 17:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 17:35 tdt wrote:
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.
just wanna throw in that terran actually rebuilds slower then protoss. P can in some cases even keep up with Z. and i thought this is finally proven wrong? look at the gateway spam pvt styles, or at kor vs world ro8 spoiler + Show Spoiler +san crushing thru a 200/200 mostly hydra + raoch/ling army of dimaga with a 180 supply 95%stalkers, few sentries and 2-3 immortals army
Protoss builds the slowest. Zealots/Stalker/Sentry have greater production time than Marine/Marauder (when adding in the 5second warpin time). Voidrays/Immortals both have greater build times than Siege tanks, and the immortal is 5seconds faster than a thor where as a Voidray has the same. The Colossus has greater production time than every Terran unit sans BC, and the Carrier has greater Production time and cost than everything in the game - build time: 120seconds + 32seconds for 4more interceptors. Total cost is 450/250 . Chrono boost throws all that around but you don't have infinite Chronoboost
+ Show Spoiler +
Last game vs Dimaga, he wasn't maxed. His ranged upgrade finished a fraction too late, he was behind on upgrades and ran into force fields, the force fields didn't even cut the hydra off, he could have ran back but he didn't. Also 30+ of Dimagas supply was in Eggs and San had +3 half way into the fight
|
Im still wondering why they had to nerf stimpack build time? Really tell me one person who has done _stim timing push_ and won the game with it at top? I mean, its not common...
|
On April 05 2011 19:42 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 19:31 nkr wrote:
And you don't think it's a game balancers job to test out every single strategy there is, instead of doing the same shit game after game? 1 Hellion against 3 gate robo. Maybe he should test out 1 base BCs as well. I mean you never know, right?
Doing shit like that and staying on the same mmr as huk should tell you something about how good he is at this game
|
On April 05 2011 19:42 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 17:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 17:35 tdt wrote:
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.
just wanna throw in that terran actually rebuilds slower then protoss. P can in some cases even keep up with Z. and Gateway units are garbage i thought this is finally proven wrong? look at the gateway spam pvt styles, or at kor vs world ro8 spoiler + Show Spoiler +san crushing thru a 200/200 mostly hydra + raoch/ling army of dimaga with a 180 supply 95%stalkers, few sentries and 2-3 immortals army Protoss builds the slowest. Zealots/Stalker/Sentry have greater production time than Marine/Marauder (when adding in the 5second warpin time). Voidrays/Immortals both have greater build times than Siege tanks, and the immortal is 5seconds faster than a thor where as a Voidray has the same. The Colossus has greater production time than every Terran unit sans BC, and the Carrier has greater Production time and cost than everything in the game - build time: 120seconds + 32seconds for 4more interceptors. Total cost is 450/250 . Chrono boost throws all that around but you don't have infinite Chronoboost + Show Spoiler +
Last game vs Dimaga, he wasn't maxed. His ranged upgrade finished a fraction too late, he was behind on upgrades and ran into force fields, the force fields didn't even cut the hydra off, he could have ran back but he didn't. Also 30+ of Dimagas supply was in Eggs and San had +3 half way into the fight
He was talking in a 200 vs. 200 situation. After a 200 vs. 200 engagement, all of Protoss's Warp Gates should have been fully recharged for a while (heck, he might even add more Gates for Day9's "300 Food Push" tactic) and have money built up. After a 200 vs. 200 engagement, Protoss can instantly summon more units onto the field while Terran has no way to boost their production capabilities (Zerg can Pool a bunch of Larvae as well), so Protoss DO produce faster than Terran in the lategame.
|
On April 05 2011 17:51 theBOOCH wrote:Show nested quote +* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
I thought this was funny. Watching dayvies games always makes me question what Blizzard is thinking. At MLG Dallas I watched Huk (from over his shoulder) play a warm up game against dayvie (just a random ladder match on bnet). Dayvie went some three factory rush something or other against Huks 3gate robo. Huk attacked and dayvie had 1 hellion... I'm sure he doesn't play like that all the time, but how can he be a balance designer if he doesn't know (or doesnt care that) a strat like that is going to fail 99.9% of the time X(
Dayvie is actually super good.
He's on the same MMR as HuK, for example. And is one of(If not the) highest ranked Random player in the world.
|
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots?
|
On April 05 2011 12:03 GP wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 08:15 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) also stim pushes were one of the easiest things to scout/expect and defend . not to mention bigger maps already decreasing the timing window a ton... i dont think its a huge gamebreaking point but the change was a bad one and their reasoning is even worse. I completely agree. Nerfing stim has made 1 rax FE, basically the only viable opening against protoss imo, much harder to hold against protoss allins (4 gate, 3 gate star) and has not made 3 rax stim rushes any less effective. The problem with protoss allins being too damn powerful since the beta isn't the strength of protoss units, but the warpin mechanic which I absolutely despise since early in the beta ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118657). Warp gate negates defender's advantage, even on HUGE maps, and at the same time makes it difficult to harass a protoss once a good amount of warp gates are online. Warp gate is what's wrong with protoss. Force fields seem imba at times but I think we'd see way less of "ok that's ridiculous" moments if warp gate was flat out removed or heavily nerfed. Dude, I actually love your idea for warp-in. I've personally hate the idea of warp-ins myself. If you could only warp-in with cheap warp prisms they could easily buff Gateway units and nerf colossi without completely breaking the game.
His idea is all fine and dandy if buildings weren't so flimsy in SC2.
Even WITH Warp in, a stim marauder drop can utterly destroy a base so quickly it's insane.
|
On April 05 2011 20:14 nkr wrote:
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots?
So what awesome strategy was he going for against what he presumably scouted, a 3 gate robo? Triple Thor rush maybe? Lol.
|
I really feel like Blizzard's approach of 'lets nerf everything' will eventually run the potential of the game into the ground.
|
On April 05 2011 22:07 NoXious90 wrote:
I really feel like Blizzard's approach of 'lets nerf everything' will eventually run the potential of the game into the ground.
They buff stuff all the time....They just buffed the battle cruiser. Protoss just got a batch of Buffs a while ago, Zerg infestors just got a buff...
So yeah..wut?
|
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...
|
1.3 killed the game...
Enough said really. It was fast and fun, gg Blizz!
|
On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Correction: GW only can win, look at MC he doesn't even need colossus and he can roflstomp literally anyone on any given day!
|
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged.
|
On April 05 2011 20:54 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 20:14 nkr wrote:
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots? So what awesome strategy was he going for against what he presumably scouted, a 3 gate robo? Triple Thor rush maybe? Lol.
I don't know, and neither do you.
|
On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged.
This, while i think they are doing a decent job at balancing, they just don`t think about entertainment value of stuff such as the reaper and HT, both of which are a joke ATM
|
On April 05 2011 20:06 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 17:51 theBOOCH wrote:* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
I thought this was funny. Watching dayvies games always makes me question what Blizzard is thinking. At MLG Dallas I watched Huk (from over his shoulder) play a warm up game against dayvie (just a random ladder match on bnet). Dayvie went some three factory rush something or other against Huks 3gate robo. Huk attacked and dayvie had 1 hellion... I'm sure he doesn't play like that all the time, but how can he be a balance designer if he doesn't know (or doesnt care that) a strat like that is going to fail 99.9% of the time X( Dayvie is actually super good. He's on the same MMR as HuK, for example. And is one of(If not the) highest ranked Random player in the world.
Dayvie does absolutely nothing but cheese/weird strats every time I meet him on ladder. He might be testing things, or he might just be a little cheeser >:O
|
I feel that the stim nerf was too much, lategame Protoss is more a forcefield than colossus problem, but protoss needs forcefield as it is to defend early game.
And ZvP 4gate is more a scouting problem. A fake expand into 4gate is too powerfull.
|
On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Carriers are kind of like Terran mech vs Protoss. Practically only players who don't play the race think it's actually any good.
In all seriousness though, the problem with Carriers is that you can't get them off less than 3 bases. They're not a unit like the Colossus, where you can expand, and start getting Colossi before you hit 100 supply as support for your gateway army. They just take too long to build and don't do enough for their huge cost. Furthermore, marines and hydras own interceptors really hard.
If the cost of the Fleet Beacon was reduced to like 250/150 (so Stargate + FB has the same cost as Robo + Colossus Den), and if Carrier build time was reduced to around BC build time, we may see Carriers actually used in armies. Until then though, don't think so. Even if you nerf Colossus into the ground, Immortal/Templar will probably be strictly superior to any Carrier shenaningans.
|
I may be wrong, but all actual balance concerns aside, isn't the carrier missing some sort of role in starcraft2, where it is actually worth getting them?
PvP: Never actually goes long enough to get them + colossi rules the later stages
PvT: In sc1 terrans went mech, almost pure tank/vulture wich made them lacking in anti-air, so a protoss could make carriers, and then the terran had to get goliaths.
But in sc2 terran goes bio 98% of the games, and there again the colossi just rules, since you need that splash (well maybe not need, see adellscott), but if you don't get that aoe you have tons of AA (marines) that can focus down carriers.
ZvP: Okay carriers could probably work here, but again, there is nothing a colossus/voidray/(blink) stalker can't take care off.
So I don't really see a use for them where you would get them over the usual choices, and does protoss really need another strong lategame option to go for?
I feel like if you buff the carrier to a point where you prefer it over the colossus/voidray then your just gonna break the game.
It's like the terran raven + HSM that never gets used, because terran has already a very large amount of splash (hellion + tanks), if you would buff HSM to a point where you also want to get that it may just be to much.
So I just feel like it's more a problem with the game in general, and the current techtree of toss (aka voidray/colossus > templar/carrier), and the only way I ever see carriers coming back if is this game actually starts to settle on a standard of macro games, and toss gets a more "linear" techpath, aka , you need colossus/voidray/pheonix to stay alive or to get you trough the midgame.
(and then I mean either of those choices, not necessarily both as a deathball.)
But over time once you get more bases and the army's get stronger you would want to go for the stronger choices of templar/carrier.
But as the game is, it just isn't that way.
|
United States17042 Posts
this sentence:
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.
kills me, becuase obviously if an emp hits every single sentry, it's just luck....
wtf?
|
On April 05 2011 23:06 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 20:54 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 20:14 nkr wrote:
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots? So what awesome strategy was he going for against what he presumably scouted, a 3 gate robo? Triple Thor rush maybe? Lol. I don't know, and neither do you.
So stop blindly defending him.
|
Same could be said for your accusations.
|
On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged.
Exactly this. I'm highly disappointed in Blizzard. They don't know how to make a fun game anymore, it seems.
|
On April 05 2011 19:49 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 19:42 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 19:31 nkr wrote:
And you don't think it's a game balancers job to test out every single strategy there is, instead of doing the same shit game after game? 1 Hellion against 3 gate robo. Maybe he should test out 1 base BCs as well. I mean you never know, right? Doing shit like that and staying on the same mmr as huk should tell you something about how good he is at this game
This. Its not like it is easy to get matched against players like huk in the first place. And please dont come to me with "but he works at blizzard herp derb, they can do whatever they want with their accounts!"
|
On April 06 2011 00:12 nkr wrote:
Same could be said for your accusations.
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.
|
They have forgoten that the day they "invented" the Colossus.
|
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.
|
My concern is that their rationale for far too many of the changes depends upon mistakes made at a low level of play - hence patching things that are only imbalanced because of error on the part of the player, not due to the inherent makeup of the game.
Wouldn't good zerg players simply mitigate this through spreading out their infestors?
+ Show Spoiler +Infestors are fairly slow moving and have high costs. We felt that one EMP shutting down multiple Infestors was too much.
Again, good players should be able to spread out their casting units to mitigate EMPs. What especially concerned me was "different skill levels..."
+ Show Spoiler +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.
"Without employing effective scouting". By that logic DT rush, banshee rush, and a plethora of strategies are "imbalanced", some more so than an unscouted stim push would be. I can only see this applying to very low levels of play.
+ Show Spoiler +Stimpack upgrade research time increased from 140 to 170 seconds.
Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes.
|
Blizzard's doin a fairly good job balancing the game.
I don't agree with the stim pack nerf. It already took a really long time and for Terrans who aren't planning on going all in, it can be really hard to defend without stim.
|
On April 05 2011 23:07 Elementsu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged. This, while i think they are doing a decent job at balancing, they just don`t think about entertainment value of stuff such as the reaper and HT, both of which are a joke ATM
You guys really feel that it was not OP to be able to warp in Psi Storm?! I have played some tosses who still use HT, they just get it a bit earlier and keep them in the back for a while.
As they say, a warp in HT denied every harass posibility, and every protoss say "well you have to harass to keep the colussus count down". So yeah, feels like a good move.
|
On April 06 2011 00:22 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 23:07 Elementsu wrote:On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged. This, while i think they are doing a decent job at balancing, they just don`t think about entertainment value of stuff such as the reaper and HT, both of which are a joke ATM You guys really feel that it was not OP to be able to warp in Psi Storm?! I have played some tosses who still use HT, they just get it a bit earlier and keep them in the back for a while. As they say, a warp in HT denied every harass posibility, and every protoss say "well you have to harass to keep the colussus count down". So yeah, feels like a good move.
Those warp in HTs really were the bane of Blue Flame Hellions...
|
The whole "Warp in HT's stop harassment" thing is silly. A Psi storm doesn't even kill a marauder or roach. And even then its easy to snipe the HT's before they warp in.
Every other caster in the game has an energy upgrade, except the sentry. Honestly, they should of nerfed the collosus not the HT.
The only thing broken about Warp in HT's was the warp in mechanic, which is proving to be a problem in so many different match ups. So instead of addressing the issue at hand they just weaken every protoss unit except collosi.
|
Stimpack upgrade research time increased from 140 to 170 seconds.
Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes.
This made my day
Just considering:
Warpgate upgrade research time increased from XX to XXX seconds.
Warpgate timing pushes by Protoss players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes.
Queen injecting time increased from XX to XXX seconds.
Queen injecting timing pushes by Zerg players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes.
Is there any scout need to predict terran go stim/ protoss go warpgate/ zerg go injecting? Blizzard love to make balance change for bronze players.
|
On April 06 2011 00:14 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged. Exactly this. I'm highly disappointed in Blizzard. They don't know how to make a fun game anymore, it seems.
So Blizzard, how many people have the colossus as their favorite unit? Not very many, better switch the nerfs. =)
|
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.
|
Balance is going to be the death of this game. With BW, they made a fun game with fun units with fun abilities, then they balanced it. With SC2, they're trying to make a game that is as blandly balanced as possible.
|
On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 06 2011 01:29 bovineblitz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
It's funny how people talk about protoss. Gateway units are garbage.
You have to understand the phrase "standard builds" to relate. A standard build is something you can go for every time and have a larger margin of success than failure. Every other builds you see with protoss outside of late game colossus, are cheesy timing attacks. None of these builds are concrete enough for any protoss player to have long reaching success with them.
The game is balanced on standard builds. Builds that when each race comes into battle the victor is uncertain. For protoss it's colossus builds.
The reason the builds work so well is because the entire race is designed around winning with colossus.
See terran mech doesn't work because thors are slow, pathetically slow and hard to mass produce. This actually means the old BW goliath unit was more cost effective. I believe the goliath is more efficient than both the viking and thor. Because you can mass produce it, moves well with tanks and bio, and does incredible damage with upgrades. That units syncs well with terran mech and bio.
Similarly the colossus completes the protoss army, because the race lacks the dps to match other armies the colossus is the main damage dealer. By it's self it's not even that great, this is true for all protoss units.The race just works well together.
|
Yeah thats a big hint for possible colossus nerf. I fear for future protoss late game.
|
On April 06 2011 00:56 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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, 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."
|
I was quite unhappy to see the amulet removed, and I do not even play protoss, since it will mean even more colossus play and even more boring pvp, pvt and pvz. Terran and Zerg need a way to deal with the Colossus and right now it's just a balancing act between getting too much Vikings or Corruptors or getting too few, while the "magical" number of Colossus is around 4 for a about every mid to late game push. Terran, and especially Zerg, always take a backseat strategy wise and need to react. They cannot force the Protoss to try to counter them, at least, not as easily and effectively.
Vikings landing and taking flight a bit faster would probably partially fix the issue by making it more viable overall (because right now, pretty much the only reason to get them is to negate Colossus). For Zerg, increasing the range of the Corruptors to mitigate stalkers might work, but they are slow, costly, clunky and not built to kill colossus. They were designed as a capitol ship killing unit and since very rarely do you see Broodlords, BCs or, god forbid, carriers, they became the "answer" by default... Bringing back scourges in the next installment might be wise...
But I would like to see the archon become an effective unit again. Less boring than the Colossus and might open the HT tech tree again, leading to more diversity. Same thing for the reaper, wich was a fantastic concept for a unit that we never see anymore except as a cheap early scout.
|
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.
|
If you think gateway units alone are good, you don't play Protoss. Seriously, without a massive upgrade advantage, they just suck and die against practically everything.
2/2 Stalkers (which cost 125/50) lose to 2/2 roaches (which cost 75/25) in equal numbers.
A stimmed marine has about equal dps against unarmoured targets as a stalker, but costs about a quarter of the amount.
Zealots cannot catch and kill marauders even with charge due to concussive preventing them from ever reaching melee range.
Sentries do almost no dps (which is coincidentally just 1 dps less then stalkers) and cost 50/100. Without them, I can't kill any army with gateway units, as gateway units are slow.
Trust me, if we could get by on only gateway units, we would. We don't tech to Colossi because they're so much fun to use.
|
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 States12238 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.
|
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.
|
On April 06 2011 14:48 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:32 GinDo wrote: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.
Play protoss and be defensive wait to see how you gonna FF again stim MMM or mass Roaches lol.
|
On April 06 2011 14:09 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 12:44 Mataza wrote: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.
You sir, have a very biased view. One BC out in a TvP doesn't do shit. If it's up against 10 zealots (with 1 gas = 2mins), those 2 lots will do enough damage to your base to make up for a loss before your BC can kill them. 5 stalkers will take your BC down. On the other hand, I have been hit by 2 carriers before in a game ending fashion. DT opening into HT prompts medivacs to be produced out of the starport while STILL discouraging marines. With Terran scouting of a toss being rather crappy (no - scans are NOT an answer) I was hit by 2 carriers quite suddenly and lost instantly. If you elicit a viking response and THEN switch into carriers, I don't see how it's the game's fault that your carriers got shut down hard. That would be like going mass marauders, seeing that you switch into more zealot immortal heavy play and go "hmm.. I guess mass tank/thor would be a great idea".
The problem with carriers is the same as the problem with BCs: They are heavily dependend on the proper upgrades which are not the upgrades you need before the transition. Just stop the 'BC yay - Carrier nay' crap. With 3 armor, I'm also sure that interceptors do much better vs marines.
|
I always like to read these things, too. I do feel for the arguments, but I still have a big problem with Amulet going away. Terran have almost all the harass and scary dps options. Late game amulet kept Protoss on even footing. I think game 4 of this match (below) is pretty good proof of how Terran has so much forgiveness in their play and Protoss does not... and without Amulet you sometimes can't find holes in the enemy to exploit. EMP is a big deal without amulet. Teching backwards to Colossus late game is dangerous because vikings can pop really fast. See game 4, where P was ahead the whole game, ahead on upgrades, defended everything, harassed some (dark templar had 7 kills after the hellions got probe kills), made almost no mistakes, and then... well just watch if you haven't already:
http://www.gomtv.net/2011championship/vod/64329
|
On April 06 2011 06:24 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:56 FabledIntegral wrote: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.
It's great different styles work, but I'd hate to see Protoss get relegated to the completely inefficient swarm play like in PvT SC/BW again. Keep the special abilities and AOE powerful! That's what P is supposed to be about!
But I would rather see a colossus nerf than no amulet. Or amulet giving partial energy at least. Or warp prisms come with speed. Something so harassment and scrappy action packed games is an option for P.
EDIT: If, and I'm not at all convinced myself (I consider David Kim's and Jinro's comments to be important and Protoss was performing better on these big maps... but I think other races are figuring them out, see the GSL World results), but if Protoss lategame is a little too strong with AOE, wouldn't a colossus nerf in the form of more food make more sense? That way early and midgame isn't as affected, since gas is the limiting factor. And late game food count will be the limiting factor. Colossus fix - 6 food to 8. There you have it.
|
On April 06 2011 23:28 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 06:24 tdt wrote:On April 06 2011 05:56 FabledIntegral wrote: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. It's great different styles work, but I'd hate to see Protoss get relegated to the completely inefficient swarm play like in PvT SC/BW again. Keep the special abilities and AOE powerful! That's what P is supposed to be about! But I would rather see a colossus nerf than no amulet. Or amulet giving partial energy at least. Or warp prisms come with speed. Something so harassment and scrappy action packed games is an option for P. EDIT: If, and I'm not at all convinced myself (I consider David Kim's and Jinro's comments to be important and Protoss was performing better on these big maps... but I think other races are figuring them out, see the GSL World results), but if Protoss lategame is a little too strong with AOE, wouldn't a colossus nerf in the form of more food make more sense? That way early and midgame isn't as affected, since gas is the limiting factor. And late game food count will be the limiting factor. Colossus fix - 6 food to 8. There you have it.
Colossus Fix = Add Unit collision. Their insanely flexible mobility makes it such a straight forward a+click unit. I think even Protoss players would like it if there was some thought behind the use of Colossus.
Right now it is, "WHEN Colossus number = X, THEN [IF X <= 2, THEN Expand ELSE 1+a+click mini-map]"
Disclaimer
+ Show Spoiler +I'm obviously kidding, a little ;P
It is difficult to play any race well. I'm currently amongst the many who are frustrated with the Colossus, or just Protoss in general.
|
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.
Nor should it be, which is why KA was removed. A couple of medivacs full is at a minimum 20 supply (4 for 2 medivacs and 8 for whatever's in them), assuming with "couple" you mean 2. Assuming 7 warp gates you can warp in 14 supply. 7 DTs should easily whipe out 2 medivacs' content, but assuming zealots, this should not be able to deal with 16 marines and 2 medivacs, no.
|
On April 07 2011 00:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:00 Daralii wrote: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. Nor should it be, which is why KA was removed. A couple of medivacs full is at a minimum 20 supply (4 for 2 medivacs and 8 for whatever's in them), assuming with "couple" you mean 2. Assuming 7 warp gates you can warp in 14 supply. 7 DTs should easily whipe out 2 medivacs' content, but assuming zealots, this should not be able to deal with 16 marines and 2 medivacs, no.
7dt's... who in his right mind would waste 875 gas on the hopes the T doesnt scan? Seriously, 875 gas as a good way to stop a drop? is that the kind of suggestions going around here? Thats probably the least cost efficient way to kill a drop ever. Not only that, they will be useless in a battle as terrans always just need stim and scan in a battle and all dt's are past.
|
On April 07 2011 00:39 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On April 05 2011 03:00 Daralii wrote: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. Nor should it be, which is why KA was removed. A couple of medivacs full is at a minimum 20 supply (4 for 2 medivacs and 8 for whatever's in them), assuming with "couple" you mean 2. Assuming 7 warp gates you can warp in 14 supply. 7 DTs should easily whipe out 2 medivacs' content, but assuming zealots, this should not be able to deal with 16 marines and 2 medivacs, no. 7dt's... who in his right mind would waste 875 gas on the hopes the T doesnt scan? Seriously, 875 gas as a good way to stop a drop? is that the kind of suggestions going around here? Thats probably the least cost efficient way to kill a drop ever. Not only that, they will be useless in a battle as terrans always just need stim and scan in a battle and all dt's are past.
While I agree 100%, 7 Zealots would easily stop 16 marines and 2 medivacs assuming the Toss reacted in time and got relatively near the medivac as the first few marines were dropping.
|
Medivac drops. Umm, zealots are good at killing marines one at a time being dropped... but the Terran wouldn't drop them on top of waiting zealots.
As Protoss
-Just warp in 1 or 2 dark templar along with zealots/stalkers to help stop drops. Very critical. Not totally buying the amulet nerf on high templar b/c they were too good at stopping drops except for pure marine. Was that a problem?
- Do not warp in visible gateway units anywhere near the medivac, or you will lose expensive gateway units for nothing.
As Terran trying to get a good drop off
- Take the time to build that one raven. Heavy bio terrans have excess gas anyway. Spot observers on the way, pdd when you get there to avoid stalker damage. Blink or not, it wont matter. Dark templar won't matter. So much win. Obviously not convenient for 3 drops at once, but you can't win 'em all.
- Drop outside of P vision. Stim and run in when most of your guys are out seems to be the better option when possible. Right?
- Stim kite.
- Pick up units if ever there is a doubt. Picking up units is instantaneous and works in an area in SC2, so retreating is super easy. With enough APM, bio drops are very safe for the Terran unless there is no escape route. Maps make the big differences here obviously.
|
On April 07 2011 03:58 Blacklizard wrote:
Medivac drops. Umm, zealots are good at killing marines one at a time being dropped... but the Terran wouldn't drop them on top of waiting zealots.
As Protoss
-Just warp in 1 or 2 dark templar along with zealots/stalkers to help stop drops. Very critical. Not totally buying the amulet nerf on high templar b/c they were too good at stopping drops except for pure marine. Was that a problem?
- Do not warp in visible gateway units anywhere near the medivac, or you will lose expensive gateway units for nothing.
As Terran trying to get a good drop off
- Take the time to build that one raven. Heavy bio terrans have excess gas anyway. Spot observers on the way, pdd when you get there to avoid stalker damage. Blink or not, it wont matter. Dark templar won't matter. So much win. Obviously not convenient for 3 drops at once, but you can't win 'em all.
- Drop outside of P vision. Stim and run in when most of your guys are out seems to be the better option when possible. Right?
- Stim kite.
- Pick up units if ever there is a doubt. Picking up units is instantaneous and works in an area in SC2, so retreating is super easy. With enough APM, bio drops are very safe for the Terran unless there is no escape route. Maps make the big differences here obviously.
Terran's don't have excess gas what are you talking about. It goes completely into viking/marauders/medivacs/ghosts/upgrades. Definitely don't have extra gas almost ever.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Interesting, they did explain their reasons though so I'm fine with the changes
|
as a toss, all i can say is plz nerf coloshit & bring back KA but with a small nerf to it (60 or 65 energy sounds good to me)...i somehow like P until i have to tech to colossi...
|
i think whoever designed the original khaydarin amulet (and all the caster energy upgrades) must have left blizzard or something
the whole point of the khaydarin amulet in bw is that a templar with full energy gets 3 psi storms off instead of 2
im not sure why they didn't revert the upgrade back to its original logic instead of remove it outright
|
On April 07 2011 08:31 Zanno wrote:
i think whoever designed the original khaydarin amulet (and all the caster energy upgrades) must have left blizzard or something
the whole point of the khaydarin amulet in bw is that a templar with full energy gets 3 psi storms off instead of 2
im not sure why they didn't revert the upgrade back to its original logic instead of remove it outright
No it wasn't. Khaydarin Amulet was much more beneficial for the reason it made your templar spawn with about ~68 energy instead of 50 energy in BW, not because of adding an additional +50 energy to the maximum energy pool amount.
|
The last thing protoss needs is a reason for all the non-protoss players to pretend like we can get by with no micro. If you buff the carrier its only a matter of time before all the low master and below players talk about how they take no micro to use and how easy it is for protoss etc. Bad players for any race dont micro.
The only thing I dont like about protoss at the moment besides PvP being monotonous is the fact that there really isn't a viable way to leave your base in the mid-game, so you're sort of forced to turtle and do little harass tactics (if even that) because you army is so weak in medium sizes. You cant do like terrans and send a medium sized 25 food force to go pick off an expansion and spread your opponents army out so you have to just defend defend defend until a big attack. Its not that the protoss player likes sitting in their base... its just with the way the game is right now, theres not a whole lot you can do outside of your base without basically throwing the game away... ESPECIALLY against zerg. PvZ feels like an elaborate tower defense game and its not by choice but because of the fact that moving out in the midgame = death.
|
On April 07 2011 08:45 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 08:31 Zanno wrote:
i think whoever designed the original khaydarin amulet (and all the caster energy upgrades) must have left blizzard or something
the whole point of the khaydarin amulet in bw is that a templar with full energy gets 3 psi storms off instead of 2
im not sure why they didn't revert the upgrade back to its original logic instead of remove it outright No it wasn't. Khaydarin Amulet was much more beneficial for the reason it made your templar spawn with about ~68 energy instead of 50 energy in BW, not because of adding an additional +50 energy to the maximum energy pool amount. tell that to my lategame cannon wall
energy ups in bw caused you to spawn in with 63 energy. it's a huge help, absolutely, but spawning with 63 energy is way, way different than spawning with 75 energy and being able to storm on the drop
|
On April 07 2011 09:14 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 08:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 07 2011 08:31 Zanno wrote:
i think whoever designed the original khaydarin amulet (and all the caster energy upgrades) must have left blizzard or something
the whole point of the khaydarin amulet in bw is that a templar with full energy gets 3 psi storms off instead of 2
im not sure why they didn't revert the upgrade back to its original logic instead of remove it outright No it wasn't. Khaydarin Amulet was much more beneficial for the reason it made your templar spawn with about ~68 energy instead of 50 energy in BW, not because of adding an additional +50 energy to the maximum energy pool amount. tell that to my lategame cannon wall energy ups in bw caused you to spawn in with 63 energy. it's a huge help, absolutely, but spawning with 63 energy is way, way different than spawning with 75 energy and being able to storm on the drop
Oh, I'm 100% aware (and thanks for the exact number of bonus energy, I thought it was more than +13). It's COMPLETELY different. I just meant to say that it was still used not for the +50 energy pool but the bonus energy you started with, which is the reason why most protosses started teching it as soon as storm finished (or soon thereafter) even when they wouldn't be pooling any energy really.
|
On April 05 2011 01:50 the9thdude 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. 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.
Um can't every unit kill anything when it spawns? Your statement makes no sense. Except for Infestors, the Templar now have to sit on their ass when a battle ensues. 150 gas to a unit that cant participate in a battle is retarded. Plus the AoE if Templar are only good if you can blanket the ground with them. Storm rarely does more than 40 damage to any given unit because the opponent can move out of the storm. No other spell does this, and no other spell can be dodged so easily. Unless you have 900 gas worth of Templar, they really are not effective during battle situations, only harassment. And warping in 900 gas worth of units that can't attack after a major battle (for 40ish seconds) is the dumbest in game decision a Protoss can make. That is why Templar are rarely good, and now worse.
|
On April 07 2011 09:03 Jayrod wrote:
The last thing protoss needs is a reason for all the non-protoss players to pretend like we can get by with no micro. If you buff the carrier its only a matter of time before all the low master and below players talk about how they take no micro to use and how easy it is for protoss etc. Bad players for any race dont micro.
The only thing I dont like about protoss at the moment besides PvP being monotonous is the fact that there really isn't a viable way to leave your base in the mid-game, so you're sort of forced to turtle and do little harass tactics (if even that) because you army is so weak in medium sizes. You cant do like terrans and send a medium sized 25 food force to go pick off an expansion and spread your opponents army out so you have to just defend defend defend until a big attack. Its not that the protoss player likes sitting in their base... its just with the way the game is right now, theres not a whole lot you can do outside of your base without basically throwing the game away... ESPECIALLY against zerg. PvZ feels like an elaborate tower defense game and its not by choice but because of the fact that moving out in the midgame = death.
^ This is a good point.
You don't even often see protoss players try to attack opponent's expansions because they would have to use their whole army to do so. Being caught out of position is very risky because you could get surrounded or counterattacked. The only safe way to play is get a deathball and go kill your opponent's army.
|
On April 07 2011 09:30 Sweetness.751 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. Um can't every unit kill anything when it spawns? Your statement makes no sense. Except for Infestors, the Templar now have to sit on their ass when a battle ensues. 150 gas to a unit that cant participate in a battle is retarded. Plus the AoE if Templar are only good if you can blanket the ground with them. Storm rarely does more than 40 damage to any given unit because the opponent can move out of the storm. No other spell does this, and no other spell can be dodged so easily. Unless you have 900 gas worth of Templar, they really are not effective during battle situations, only harassment. And warping in 900 gas worth of units that can't attack after a major battle (for 40ish seconds) is the dumbest in game decision a Protoss can make. That is why Templar are rarely good, and now worse.
Since Ghosts no longer render Sentries paperweights, you can FF the army in half and storm the front half. It's hard to do, but powerful. And isn't that what people were saying storms should be?
|
On April 06 2011 23:22 Blacklizard wrote:I always like to read these things, too. I do feel for the arguments, but I still have a big problem with Amulet going away. Terran have almost all the harass and scary dps options. Late game amulet kept Protoss on even footing. I think game 4 of this match (below) is pretty good proof of how Terran has so much forgiveness in their play and Protoss does not... and without Amulet you sometimes can't find holes in the enemy to exploit. EMP is a big deal without amulet. Teching backwards to Colossus late game is dangerous because vikings can pop really fast. See game 4, where P was ahead the whole game, ahead on upgrades, defended everything, harassed some (dark templar had 7 kills after the hellions got probe kills), made almost no mistakes, and then... well just watch if you haven't already: http://www.gomtv.net/2011championship/vod/64329
I have seen that game too. Just because Tastosis said the tactic was superior doesn´t mean it´s automatically true. Watch the game again: After the 13 minutes(videotime, 19 or so in gametime) San did some bad engagements, suffered harass etc. so he completely lost his advantage until the final fight. Then, both had roughly the same supply and San had a pretty bad composition. MVP had almost as many vikings as San had Stalkers, while most of the army was Colossi too. He also lost lots of HT by having them in front of his army, then after catching EMP he morphed them right in front of the enemy army. He even transitioned into DT twice(2 DT shrines), the second DTs just didn´t do anything, because the bases were already DT-proof.
The opening of San was awesome, but he got chipped to death. It´s no matter of forgiveness of the race.
|
Isnt it off topic since the main focus should be the incoming nerf of colossus? HT already got nerfed, there is no turning back. Blizzard never change back their changes in the past. Just deal with it. Like the reaper nerf, they admit it is a mistake, but there is no going back.
|
They admitted the reaper nerf was a mistake?
Link Pls?
|
|
|
There was a long interview with Dustin but I cant find the original article.
|
I don't mind waiting, but I do wish they wouldn't arbitrarily delay that stuff.
|
I admit that 2 colossuspush is in PvT too strong atm, but besides that nerfing colossus would destroy solid protoss game. Maybe they want protoss to do random allins. They are already quite bad when viking count is +14 or corruptors instakill them, so you have to tech switch to HT's without amulet.
Protoss units costs more than other races units while they do less dps, you just cant beat anyrace without colossus(or HT which got nerfed already). Bio stim rapes everything except colo/ht army and same goes to roachhydra.
|
Wowww, I totally missed that. Its good that they clearly have a plan for HOTS, i suppose.
Why the hell wouldnt they just give it a slight buff , i wonder.
|
On April 07 2011 12:20 ehalf wrote:
There was a long interview with Dustin but I cant find the original article.
I've clicked around quite a bit, but it does not appear like the interview has been published :/
If someone has the actual interview I'd enjoy reading it.
|
Why do they need to wait until Heart of the Swarm to fix the reaper? ~~
|
On April 07 2011 12:34 0neder wrote:I don't mind waiting, but I do wish they wouldn't arbitrarily delay that stuff.
I assume the reason for the "arbitrary delay" is because they will redesign the reaper and don't want to do such drastic changes in a mere patch.
|
I feel like they probably have some things planned for multiple units (I sincerely hope they take another look at the hydra), but they probably don't just want to push it out in some random patch.
Since they maybe want to overhaul the unit, give it new ability's, etc.
That also means it maybe has to be balanced with maybe some new units in mind, some other units that get changed, etc.
So it probably makes more sense for them, to do this in a expansion with an extensive beta, etc then jus throwing it out there immediatly.
|
On April 07 2011 23:09 Striding Strider wrote:
Why do they need to wait until Heart of the Swarm to fix the reaper? ~~
Maybe its more of a sweeping change and not just a simple fix that would require a lot of time and trickle down fixes for other units/races.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
