|
On April 23 2011 06:12 Kipsate wrote:
Reaver ,while cool needs either the Flawed Scarab AI or a significant nerf in damage/Splash. A perfect reaver AI would be too powerfull for SC2. Besides, Blizzard REALISTICALLY will NEVER remove a unit from the game.
The reaver would be good. The existence of deathballs as a valid option means that current splash mechanics are too weak, not too strong. Forcing pros to split their army or risk being completely annihilated by reavers is a good thing.
|
It would be nice if the Collosus had some micro-able ability so people would stop complaining--I think the real issue is that people don't like its ease of use. Maybe a travel mode with cliff-walking and higher movement speed (relative to its other mode, not current movement speed), but a single target attack; and a stationary, or non-cliff-walking/slow movement speed "siege" mode would help.
I think messing with the range or movement speed of the unit would make it almost useless in PVT... seems like protoss would have no answer to being stim-kited by the MMM ball.
An alternate solution might be to nerf the collosus' range/dmg/hp/etc. but give it an aoe slow type role. This way, kiting would be prevented and only 1-3 Collosi would be included in an army comp to prevent kiting/controlling an enemy's retreat. Low damage would prevent it's use in mass numbers, and the enemy would need to focus down the collosi before they could run away/kite.
|
On April 23 2011 06:12 Snaphoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 05:59 Kipsate wrote:
Slowing the Collosi will in fact reduce the mobility of the Protoss Deathball, allowing multipronged attacks(such as drop play by the Zerg) to be actually quite effective. One of the core problems of the Protoss deathball is that it is not only powerfull but also quite mobile. Are you trolling? Multi-pronged attacks are already extremely effective Protoss. The deathball is incredibly IMMOBILE, that is one of the reasons why drop play is so strong against it, particularly by T. Nydus play with Z has barely been tapped yet; the potential is difficult to understate.
non-zerg players always say this b.s. I'm really tired of hearing about the potential of nydus worms.
Essentially it comes down to this, protoss is turtling on 3 bases, nydus'ing one of those isn't going to do any damage... If protoss wants he can simply split his army in two and camp his natural and 3rd and on most maps he'd be perfectly safe. If protoss is outside his base, he is pushing yours. At this point it doesn't matter if you nydus him because you need as much supply as possible to fight his deathball. Z had the same problem with terran mech, and the same people said to use nydus; well that wasn't the solution.
Nydus real 'potential' comes when it's a 5 base vs 5 base macro game and zerg can literally be everywhere on the map at once. Or where someone's actually trying to contain zerg but doesn't have enough fire power to actually push. Unfortunately since the only defensive unit zerg has is the spine crawler, this problem doesn't really exist.
|
On April 23 2011 06:25 ArvickHero wrote:
I wonder if BW came out last year, people would complain about the absolute prevalence of Siege Tanks in all TvX matchups
You say that as if it's not a valid complaint. One of the best things in SC2 is the fact that Mech doesn't dominate every matchup the way it did in SC1.
Nerfing the hell out of STs was the best thing Blizzard could have done short of cutting the damn thing entirely. Now, Terran players can have truly different and varied builds, rather than just slight modifications on "get as many Factories as possible."
|
God, another one of these threads...
GSL spoiler below
+ Show Spoiler +Look at the win rate vT and vZ for protoss so far in the early stages of this May GSL. Right now in Code A protoss is 3 - 9 vs. terran. Only two of those games include IMMvP and one two of the protoss wins was considered an upset against Ganzi. In code S protoss is 2-2 vT bringing the total to 5-11 vT for the two events so far. Against zerg code A protoss is 2 - 3. and in Code S you have protoss at 3 - 1, bringing the total of both events to 5 - 4 PvZ so far.
I know thats not a huge sample size or anything (its mostly just food for thought), but seriously how drastically different would they be if you nerf things that don't need nerfing. If you want to restructure some things thats different, but that implies not just nerfs, but buffing in other areas to promote unit variety. Your OP is so unbelievably biased all it really explains to the reader is that YOU don't know how to handle your vP matchup. Flying vikings over the middle over stalkers? Give me a break.. if you feel you have to do that then you aren't even working for a win. Colossus does not need a nerf, YOU need a buff.
|
It hasn't exactly been mentioned but the overall theme is here in the thread: from my point of view after the HT nerf, it has almost become a requirement to build colossus as P, it has almost driven me to switching races because I'm so sick of losing games just because I didn't build them.
In the notations in the first part of the OP, seemingly if you don't go for those builds (in terms of a longer game/macro game) it makes it a much harder game to win.
You either need to preplan long in advance to get the energy to storm to take care of bio or zerg, and hope they don't switch to mech/high armour units at some point which storm does nothing to, and you can't really effectively 'sky toss' late game because of vikings having a huge range, and corruptors smashing through air in greater numbers.
I love seeing colossus battles and whatnot, but the fact that they are somewhat a 'requirement' really pisses me off.
|
On April 23 2011 06:25 ArvickHero wrote:
I wonder if BW came out last year, people would complain about the absolute prevalence of Siege Tanks in all TvX matchups
Sure. But I don't think there will be as many people complaining about how boring and skillless siege tanks are to use. Even the counters to colossus are boring, since vikings have insanely large range. Whereas an attempted tank line break is still one of the most exciting plays in BW and a well executed tank line break can have Bisu bouncing up and down in his seat in sheer joy.
Not to mention that siege tanks are actually used differently in all matchups. There is a huge difference between bio+siege in TvZ and pure mech in TvP. Mech is not viable in TvZ in all maps. In TvT, it's mostly drop play since the opponent has siege tanks as well.
|
On April 23 2011 06:42 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 06:25 ArvickHero wrote:
I wonder if BW came out last year, people would complain about the absolute prevalence of Siege Tanks in all TvX matchups Sure. But I don't think there will be as many people complaining about how boring and skillless siege tanks are to use. Even the counters to colossus are boring, since vikings have insanely large range. Whereas an attempted tank line break is still one of the most exciting plays in BW and a well executed tank line break can have Bisu bouncing up and down in his seat in sheer joy.
Well of Protoss players don't need fancy micro or environment usage to properly win with colossi its the opponents faults for making it too easy.
|
what if colossus splash had some sort of friendly fire portion as well, making zergling, zealots more effective against it sort of if they get into close fights, as well as making the ever popular mass chargelot + colo strat more dangerous for the playe rto go for as he'd melt his own zealots in the process. Since terran consists of only range units it'd largely leave it a lone except for the chargelot argument. Tank splash and psionic storm both have aoe draw backs (friendly splash damage, and siege time/mana) it just seems weird that the colossus has neither of these drawbacks.
|
I thought we were't allowed to suggest balance changes =O but I guess the bulk isn't about suggesting so it's fine.
Anyway, yeah didn't realize... why not just nerf the Colossi HP just a small small bit? The infestor buff makes sense because it helped overall its effectiveness against MMM (in which previously players would just go banelings because infestors weren't worth it) and helped Zergs deal with deathballs (Protoss; im not sure if they needed help against Mech, but they aren't too much a problem in TvZ as long as you have Tanks).
Another thing I don't like about Colossi is how easy they can be used. Blizzard had another chance to add more micro and excitement into the game, but the Colossi is an easy a-click unit. You can kite things with it from time to time, but it could have been much more micro intensive. For example 2 times slower attack but 2 times more damage would have made it require much more micro and skill.
Furthermore, the Colossus is sort of like a Siege unit, but it moves so fast. Meanwhile the HT isn't a Siege unit, but it moves so slow... even slower than the Sentry (right?).
|
OP was complaining about how matchups with Protoss are dominated by Colossi, and that people are always playing with/against them, which for some reason means they need to be changed (the logic escapes me). I could complain about how siege tanks are used in almost every game by Terran, are a static unit, and can be EXTREMELY difficult to deal with en masse without having the right composition and positioning. And yet, nobody really talks about changing siege tanks. Colossi are Protoss' version of ultras or siege tanks, they're pretty required for any mid-late game, and changing them would completely alter the match-ups, most likely in a bad way.
|
i like beating up colossi in pvp ^.^ its a matchup where colossi don't really work ... even though they regain popularity.
from all the siege units, the colossi is the strongest becaus protoss have the best meat shields to protect colossi, also they are super mobile too. Though attackable by air, the problem toss anti air is super good at intercepting. So in general its a bit to easy to protect the colossi, for what they do. And to deal properly with them you need to suicide the double cost of pure air to air units into them.
PS: i really hate that terrans have the worst siege unit now (though our defenses are top notch so we can defend against the better siege units of the other races)
I don't think the colossi is boring though, a good fight would be for example the terran sending marauders first having them target fired by the colossi moving them back still in range putting a medivac on it and just watch the fight while the colossis are dealing no damage. (though if this is used commonly protoss player will notice it and focus fire ^.^ ) Anyway its as easy to outmicro a colossi then it was with the reaver. Just in sc2 pace which is faster then slowish bw (still play both games and thats just how i feel it is)
What i would like to see is that thermal lances will only add a new firemode to the colossi. The increased range of course.
Maybe a 30 seconds increased range and then 10 second shutdown for the colossi, still able to move though. Or that the colossi will have to use energy from other systems and need some shield energy to use the termal lances.
Would allow options to disable thermals or use them in just the right moment. (would mean though termals needs to get stronger ^^; ), but it sounds kinda terranie, to switch fire modes (lots of terran units can do this) so i guess this won't happen.
Anyway seeing the recent complains about colossi its just a matter of time, as blizzard already stated a workover on aoe units (imo a nerf to colossi, infestors or broodlords and a buff to siege tanks ^.^ ) yes i am dreaming right now hehe.
Just hope they won't nerf the tanks for the colossi ^.^
|
10387 Posts
On April 23 2011 06:39 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 06:25 ArvickHero wrote:
I wonder if BW came out last year, people would complain about the absolute prevalence of Siege Tanks in all TvX matchups You say that as if it's not a valid complaint. One of the best things in SC2 is the fact that Mech doesn't dominate every matchup the way it did in SC1. Nerfing the hell out of STs was the best thing Blizzard could have done short of cutting the damn thing entirely. Now, Terran players can have truly different and varied builds, rather than just slight modifications on "get as many Factories as possible."
yea instead we get marauders and marines in every matchup ^^ Terran play in SC2 is no more different and varied than Terran play in BW roflmao
also my comment was satirical if ppl didn't realize, I do realize that Siege Tanks have more excitement value than Colossus
|
I think the Colossus movement speed needs to be lowered to 1.875.
Right now the Colossus at 2.25 move speed is too similar to the other units in the Deathball. That makes it way too easy to just a-move across the map and kill everything at range 9. Lowering the speed to 1.875 would put it on the same level as Terran's T3, the Thor, and still make it faster than the Brood Lord (T3 for Zerg.) It would not hurt the damage, range, or health of the unit. All it would do is ensure that the Colossus would take more skill to use and emphasize better unit control from the Protoss player.
+ Show Spoiler +I mean, last night in Code A I watched Luer break into MVP's natural on Tal'Darim and his Colossi actually began to attack the Orbital and then a supply depot, when there was a Marine/Marauder force right there...all because he was A-moving. This is a professional player. And it's not the first time I've seen this out of a pro.
It might also change PvP from the boring 4-gate into 1 base Colossus play we currently see. If Colossus speed was lowered, you'd be unable to retreat with them, making players think twice about attacking with them.
|
On April 23 2011 06:45 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 06:42 andrewlt wrote:On April 23 2011 06:25 ArvickHero wrote:
I wonder if BW came out last year, people would complain about the absolute prevalence of Siege Tanks in all TvX matchups Sure. But I don't think there will be as many people complaining about how boring and skillless siege tanks are to use. Even the counters to colossus are boring, since vikings have insanely large range. Whereas an attempted tank line break is still one of the most exciting plays in BW and a well executed tank line break can have Bisu bouncing up and down in his seat in sheer joy. Well of Protoss players don't need fancy micro or environment usage to properly win with colossi its the opponents faults for making it too easy.
What micro? Colossus don't have the weaknesses that siege tanks, reavers and lurkers had that necessitated good micro to overcome. Their weakness is air-to-air units, which is completely boring as well since vikings have 9 range. You don't have to risk your vikings that much to snipe colossus.
|
9 range Collosus v 9 range vikings is pretty boring I'd have to agree.
|
Siege tanks don't deserve the comparison with colossi...because they require unseiging and seiging they require a lot of creating thinking to make them effective and their seige mechanism creates a unique weakness that frankly colossi don't have. Siege tanks are fun units! Colossi aren't...
On the subject of BW, what makes a game fun and colossi.... Perhaps we're overlooking map design? In BW you had only one geyser per base and geysers never ran out but always gave you at least a trickle. This means gas units became the dessert units you saved to get while you massed mineral heavy units. So BW had a lot of creative play to maximize their mineral sinks (sunkens/bunkers/cannons/guardien shields/vultures/rines/lots/lings). It also rewarded getting spellcasters because they could take advantage of gas over a longer period as their mana regenerated.
Perhaps we need to try maps that 'have more main course' and less dessert (like less colossi) when it comes to geysers? Maybe have expansions have only one gas but to compensate reintroduce the SC1 trickle effect so they never truely run out...
|
On April 23 2011 06:41 Duckvillelol wrote:
It hasn't exactly been mentioned but the overall theme is here in the thread: from my point of view after the HT nerf, it has almost become a requirement to build colossus as P, it has almost driven me to switching races because I'm so sick of losing games just because I didn't build them.
In the notations in the first part of the OP, seemingly if you don't go for those builds (in terms of a longer game/macro game) it makes it a much harder game to win.
You either need to preplan long in advance to get the energy to storm to take care of bio or zerg, and hope they don't switch to mech/high armour units at some point which storm does nothing to, and you can't really effectively 'sky toss' late game because of vikings having a huge range, and corruptors smashing through air in greater numbers.
I love seeing colossus battles and whatnot, but the fact that they are somewhat a 'requirement' really pisses me off.
Agreed.
In Brood War, you rarely saw more than maybe four or five reavers over the course of a whole game. Maybe more in particular PvZ scenarios, but they were mainly a transitional tool. You went from gateway-centric to incorporating robo and/or stargate to back to extremely heavy gateways with arbiter support (or heavy stargate).
Or, if it you were a terran meching with siege tanks, you would likely incorporate science vessels and dropships into your army over time, though you rarely stopped making tanks.
In SC2, you start making colossus it's perfectly valid to call your composition pretty much done. Throw up another robo and some more gateways and voila, standard play.
|
Did not read the whole thread but the OP missed another important trait of the Colossus. (I have no opinion regarding his analysis either for or against): Colossus has no collision with other units.
It's a long-time RTS wisdom that concave (should) prevails over convex in army conflicts, but with the Colossus it isn't exactly true. The unit doesn't collide with other units, and its attack animation is concave beams. Often times the Colossus army will prefer convex (especially with the aids of forcefields) over concave in order to better protect the Colossi.
I would like to elaborate on this point but gotta go... maybe later.
|
On April 23 2011 06:57 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 06:45 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:On April 23 2011 06:42 andrewlt wrote:On April 23 2011 06:25 ArvickHero wrote:
I wonder if BW came out last year, people would complain about the absolute prevalence of Siege Tanks in all TvX matchups Sure. But I don't think there will be as many people complaining about how boring and skillless siege tanks are to use. Even the counters to colossus are boring, since vikings have insanely large range. Whereas an attempted tank line break is still one of the most exciting plays in BW and a well executed tank line break can have Bisu bouncing up and down in his seat in sheer joy. Well of Protoss players don't need fancy micro or environment usage to properly win with colossi its the opponents faults for making it too easy. What micro? Colossus don't have the weaknesses that siege tanks, reavers and lurkers had that necessitated good micro to overcome. Their weakness is air-to-air units, which is completely boring as well since vikings have 9 range. You don't have to risk your vikings that much to snipe colossus.
Colossi definitely need micro if all you are going up against are colossi. They fold very easily to just about any unit that is in mass. What makes them powerful is the meat shields that stand in front of them that tank damage while the colossi shoot from behind. Colossi take a fair amount of time and a lot of money to push out and the upgrade for range is none too cheap either.
If players neutralized the meat shield in some manner the Colossi would buckle quite quickly and to replenish them would take time. If you let a Protoss replenish their numbers I would say the loss then is your fault since everything Protoss related is very expensive by comparison.
Also, if you want example of potential micro requirements for Colossi, what about having to fight in specific regions. Similar to how players like to put ranged attackers at the end of chokes for incoming melee units in order to deal the most damage, perhaps colossi would be best served in a jagged area where cliff walking could be used to protect or flank opposing armies.
Or perhaps Colossi could use their speed and cliffwalking as massive harassing units if their tech rushed to. Whereby you could have colossi running around wiping out mineral lines. Obviously to counter this air of some kind would be needed, but this could then encourage more Phoenix play, and a little dance then could ensue between harass and hide, attack and defense.
I don't think Starcraft is meant to be a 1-1 hard counter type thing, perhaps attention needs to be paid to the series of things that form that foundation for a strong Colossus attack. Like the Gateway units/Tech/Economy/Pylons etc. Breaking down or otherwise harassing the components of the deathball could render it useless or not cost efficient. Perhaps the Deathball can't be beaten so easily, but instead of patching the game to weaken the deathball, maybe focus should be redirected to stomping it out before its played in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
