|
Massive units are not affected by concussive shells. If you think they are, you are wrong.
It's SPORE crawlers that are being changed, not SPINE. Please read carefully. |
United States7483 Posts
On April 27 2011 23:27 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2011 23:21 Haydin wrote:On April 27 2011 23:05 WhiteDog wrote:On April 27 2011 22:59 awesomoecalypse wrote:I don't get why people bring out the sound of the nydas. If you manage to finish a nydas worm, how does the sound matter except maybe forcing you to attack right away. The problem is the hitpoints, making it far to easy to kill off. Alternative you could make it cheaper so you can afford throwing out more of them or building two and multi-nydas. If Nydus weren't easy to kill off, it would be horribly, horribly broken, because the very existence of a Nydus would force the Zerg's opponent to keep a significant number of forces in every one of their bases to prevent offensive nydusing. Right now, if you react fast enough you can stop a Nydus with workers alone--which is intentional, because forcing, say, a Toss on 3 bases to keep a a gateway army at every base (or free supply and floating resources so he can warp in on command), simply because the Zerg built a Nydus and might decide to float an Ovie close enough to get vision on one of those bases...is ridiculous. For all that people bitch about the cost of Nydus, it if took a substantial force to kill one quickly, they would be ridiculously cost-effective because for the price of one Nydus you could force your opponent to "waste" a significant number of units by leaving them behind in their bases. Wanting to Nydus into your opponent's base with ease is, frankly, just another kind of cheese. Its like wishing that Ghosts could trigger a Nuclear launch instantaneously. The proper role of the Nydus isn't offense, its improved defense, mobility, and reinforcements. A Nydus halfway between bases can work exactly the way for Zerg that a mid-map Pylon works for Protoss--it cuts reinforcement times down by a ton. A strong Nydus network can make establishing map control a nightmare for Zerg's opponent, and means that if, say, a Terran mech player starts their "death push", Zerg can more easily manuever to hit the Terran's undefended base, while still having a way to pull back for defense if necessary.It may, in fact, be true that Nydus is too expensive for what it gives you in that role--certainly, on most small maps, good creep spread can give you more than enough mobility anyway. But if thats true, then make it cheaper. That keeps it as the exact same role, but just makes it more feasible to use. Giving it more health, on the other hand? That changes its role dramatically, and turns it into a gamebreakingly good tool for offense. So you know better than any zerg how to use a nydus. Just because incontrol says so, it doesn't make it true dude... The fact is, in BW nydus were improved defense & mobility for two reasons : 1- NO CREEP SPREAD, so units were kinda slow, and nydus were fitting a role that creep spread does in SC2 which is increase mobility 2 - NO DEFENSIVE UNITS, in SC1 you could pass a defiler, one or two lurker, and a handful of ling through the nydus and you would defend a ramp for ever. In SC2, to defend anything you need your whole army, and you cannot pass your whole army through the nydus because it takes ages to unload. That's for this very reason that blizzard made the nydus a good offensive tool that can pop out everywhere on the map and not only on creep. Because without this, it is fucking useless dude. But nydus also lets you start a creep spread in a remote position not connected to your main highway, and actually use queens offensively (which has not been explored at all really).You can set up otherwise impossible flanks, constantly threaten remote expos, and if you are defending an expo with it, then why are you unloading your entire army STARTING at the moment when they are hitting the expo? I mean, if you don't have map vision and are just hoping they don't spot that remote expo, why not at least keep the nydus around to get your drones out instead of loosing them with the hatch? I can guarantee you don't play zerg, right? Show me please at least one pro level game where zerg made flank using nydus? I personally didn't see that in whole year. Your whole army gonna walk all the way through Tal Darim Altar faster than it will go through nydus.
Ask Spanishiwa
|
On April 28 2011 00:06 crackcc wrote:
Why change WG research times ???
I dont want to sound foolish and naive but wouldnt a small, lets say 5% increase in cost when you warp units fix this ?
No.
That way people would actually use the '' change warpgate back to gateway '' option !
Gateways are supposed to become obsolete.
Or we play it safe : if they ( or we ) dont attack. We end up spending more for our army then we would if we stayed on gatways !
I know im not the 1st person to come up with this idea. thats why im curious why blizzard hasen't even considered it as they have played with the WG/GW research/building times allready !
Time for a change ?
They don't want people to use gateways, and they don't want to balance two sets of unit costs.
|
On April 28 2011 00:06 crackcc wrote:Why change WG research times ??? I dont want to sound foolish and naive but wouldnt a small, lets say 5% increase in cost when you warp units fix this ? That way people would actually use the '' change warpgate back to gateway '' option ! For example if we are not under any pressure - we keep the gateways while we build our gateway units. Just like T and Z ! ( Possibly keep a few warpgates ready in case we havent scouted and / or fear some sort of harras ) Then, when we want to move out or quickly defend a far corner of our empire  - change all into warpgates ! ( Possibly keep a few gateways to keep making units at base cheaper )It makes sense we cant keep up a massive reinforce-right-outside-your-base-ATTACK on forever unless we have a booming economy, ZERG and TERRAN need to regroup at some point too !IMO This would make us NEED to scout more & read the opponent better ( ATM its not nessesary because as soon as they attack us we can just warp in the counter, as best we can from WG ( or just block them off with sentries if its a really big army ) which, btw, is fine by me but we should pay a little more for that luxury for that '' early game peace of mind '' So, like T & Z, we have the choice either we get ( a little ) greedy : keep the gateways with normal priced units, but are vunurable if we didnt scout well and we dont have the proper army composition or position when they attack us ( remember if we scout and see them coming thats plenty of time to change back to WG ) Or we play it safe : if they ( or we ) dont attack. We end up spending more for our army then we would if we stayed on gatways ! Just like Z: '' can I make more drones ??? or do I need to make troops ??? '' .... or like T : '' should I tech up, research X ??? or should I bunker down with my MM ??? ''I know im not the 1st person to come up with this idea. thats why im curious why blizzard hasen't even considered it as they have played with the WG/GW research/building times allready ! Time for a change ?
this, "keep gateways viable throughout the game" is, frankly, dumb. It makes balancing the game much, much harder, for one thing (units that can't be instantaneously reinforced need to be stronger than ones that can), but it also makes scouting Toss incredibly easy. "Oh, he's still got a bunch of gateways? I'll take an expansion now, thank you very much. Oh now he's turning them into warpgates? Better build a bunch of units and defenses."
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 28 2011 00:06 crackcc wrote:Why change WG research times ??? I dont want to sound foolish and naive but wouldnt a small, lets say 5% increase in cost when you warp units fix this ? That way people would actually use the '' change warpgate back to gateway '' option ! For example if we are not under any pressure - we keep the gateways while we build our gateway units. Just like T and Z ! ( Possibly keep a few warpgates ready in case we havent scouted and / or fear some sort of harras ) Then, when we want to move out or quickly defend a far corner of our empire - change all into warpgates ! ( Possibly keep a few gateways to keep making units at base cheaper )It makes sense we cant keep up a massive reinforce-right-outside-your-base-ATTACK on forever unless we have a booming economy, ZERG and TERRAN need to regroup at some point too !IMO This would make us NEED to scout more & read the opponent better ( ATM its not nessesary because as soon as they attack us we can just warp in the counter, as best we can from WG ( or just block them off with sentries if its a really big army ) which, btw, is fine by me but we should pay a little more for that luxury for that '' early game peace of mind '' So, like T & Z, we have the choice either we get ( a little ) greedy : keep the gateways with normal priced units, but are vunurable if we didnt scout well and we dont have the proper army composition or position when they attack us ( remember if we scout and see them coming thats plenty of time to change back to WG ) Or we play it safe : if they ( or we ) dont attack. We end up spending more for our army then we would if we stayed on gatways ! Just like Z: '' can I make more drones ??? or do I need to make troops ??? '' .... or like T : '' should I tech up, research X ??? or should I bunker down with my MM ??? ''I know im not the 1st person to come up with this idea. thats why im curious why blizzard hasen't even considered it as they have played with the WG/GW research/building times allready ! Time for a change ?
Blizzard doesn't want Protoss using gateways, they want them using warp gates. They don't want Protoss production to feel the same as Terran production.
|
Why? Why in the world are people so determined to try and get Gateways to be used?
It will only make Protoss MORE turtle-oriented, what possible good would you do by making Gateways "Viable"?
If anything, more Warpgate usage needs to be encourage, more incentive needs to be given for Protoss to get out of their base and aggressive, it creates much more entertaining games than watching a Toss sit in his base with a bunch of Gateways building up a Deathball
|
On April 28 2011 00:08 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:06 crackcc wrote:
Why change WG research times ???
I dont want to sound foolish and naive but wouldnt a small, lets say 5% increase in cost when you warp units fix this ?
No. Show nested quote +
That way people would actually use the '' change warpgate back to gateway '' option !
Gateways are supposed to become obsolete.Show nested quote +
Or we play it safe : if they ( or we ) dont attack. We end up spending more for our army then we would if we stayed on gatways !
I know im not the 1st person to come up with this idea. thats why im curious why blizzard hasen't even considered it as they have played with the WG/GW research/building times allready !
Time for a change ?
They don't want people to use gateways, and they don't want to balance two sets of unit costs.
Why exactly?
I think having warpgate be favorable in some situations and less favorable in other situations would do wonders for the depth of this game.
|
On April 28 2011 00:16 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:08 Yaotzin wrote:On April 28 2011 00:06 crackcc wrote:
Why change WG research times ???
I dont want to sound foolish and naive but wouldnt a small, lets say 5% increase in cost when you warp units fix this ?
No.
That way people would actually use the '' change warpgate back to gateway '' option !
Gateways are supposed to become obsolete.
Or we play it safe : if they ( or we ) dont attack. We end up spending more for our army then we would if we stayed on gatways !
I know im not the 1st person to come up with this idea. thats why im curious why blizzard hasen't even considered it as they have played with the WG/GW research/building times allready !
Time for a change ?
They don't want people to use gateways, and they don't want to balance two sets of unit costs. Why exactly? I think having warpgate be favorable in some situations and less favorable in other situations would do wonders for the depth of this game.
Because they are incredibly bland and encourage boring play.
Consider it like a Terran drop, you have the choice of risking your units for potential damage or keep them in your army.
If the current damage potential of a Terran drop was nerfed then many Terrans would not want to take the risk if there is little reward.
Much the same, there isn't much reward for Protoss to ever step out side of their base, if you watch Sockes PvT with 12 weeks with the pros, he is the most defensive Toss ever and encourages it, because you don't ever gain anything from trading armies as Protoss.
There needs to be mechanics that encourage you to do certain things, if Warpgates also came with a burden it only makes some Protoss players not want to move out--even more unlikely then they already are
|
On April 28 2011 00:11 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2011 23:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:On April 27 2011 23:44 -Archangel- wrote:On April 27 2011 21:54 aka_star wrote:
grrr, zerg still wont be able to break forcefields on ramp! I guess we're still quite not there with these balance patches. Well after months of asking for archon change they got it. Now we (zerg) need to focus on asking that the queen becomes massive as well :D Oh god, please let Zergs think the key to victory is to start using Queens off-creep. As someone who enjoys beating Zerg, I'd definitely be in favor of that. Seriously, massive Queens would make Phoenix harass useless(since you can't lift massive units), and make Void harass really, really strong (since Voids get a damage buff vs. massive), and make attacking a Zerg on creep with a sentry-heavy force really, really dumb. But since you aren't gonna have creep at your opponent's doorstep for a longass time, it would do nothing in terms of allowing Zerg to break forcefields in the early game. It doesn't fix the "problem" in any way. In fact, because every Zerg will have Queens by default, it renders forcefields useless for everything except the one thing you want to "fix", protecting the Toss main in the early game. In army vs. army fights on creep, there'd be no point to forcefielding ever, because Queens could dissolve them so easily. But since Queens suck off creep, it would do nothing to help Zerg be more aggressive until the later stages of the game when the map is covered in creep. If Zerg are really that pissed off about forcefields, make Tunneling claws cheaper and faster to get. Tunneling roaches already own Toss who are over reliant on forcefields, without rendering FF useless entirely as a tool in general. If you see a Protoss throwing all his gas into sentries early on, there should be a way to punish that...but it should still require some investment. Not something silly like making the Zerg's 2nd most basic unit able to dissolve forcefields by touching them. Zergs should have access to good anti-FF tools, not just in the lategame but at other stages as well. But they should still require choice and investment. "Getting a queen" is not a choice or investment, its something every Zerg not doing a funday monday does by default. I think that they want Queens to be massive so they can break forcefields on their own ramps that prevent them from saving expansions because their units are stuck in their base. I don't think they want Queens to be massive so that they can use them to walk all the way across the map to break forcefields on your ramp. I agree that Queens being massive would make void-rays much more powerful against them, but the loss of phoenix harrass would perhaps balance that out a bit - Zergs might need to make an extra Queen to defend if they scouted an early void-ray push but wouldn't have to worry about phoenixes taking Queens out of the fight.
I think this raises a lot of issues. Zergs will find a way to use it offensively eventually, you know they will. Proxy hatch into queen rush + baneling bust? would have a 100% win rate against 3 gate sentry expand, for instance. Then you might say, they can only do it on creep. Then I can say zerg will drop a hatch then cancel it then drop a creep tumor with their queen in range of the ramp for the same effect. This is why theory crafting is discouraged here at tl.. it doesn't lead to a good discussion because we don't know the implications of even a seemingly small change made to fix one issue (check the warpgate change for example [WHATTTT??])
|
On April 28 2011 00:30 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:11 Sated wrote:On April 27 2011 23:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:On April 27 2011 23:44 -Archangel- wrote:On April 27 2011 21:54 aka_star wrote:
grrr, zerg still wont be able to break forcefields on ramp! I guess we're still quite not there with these balance patches. Well after months of asking for archon change they got it. Now we (zerg) need to focus on asking that the queen becomes massive as well :D Oh god, please let Zergs think the key to victory is to start using Queens off-creep. As someone who enjoys beating Zerg, I'd definitely be in favor of that. Seriously, massive Queens would make Phoenix harass useless(since you can't lift massive units), and make Void harass really, really strong (since Voids get a damage buff vs. massive), and make attacking a Zerg on creep with a sentry-heavy force really, really dumb. But since you aren't gonna have creep at your opponent's doorstep for a longass time, it would do nothing in terms of allowing Zerg to break forcefields in the early game. It doesn't fix the "problem" in any way. In fact, because every Zerg will have Queens by default, it renders forcefields useless for everything except the one thing you want to "fix", protecting the Toss main in the early game. In army vs. army fights on creep, there'd be no point to forcefielding ever, because Queens could dissolve them so easily. But since Queens suck off creep, it would do nothing to help Zerg be more aggressive until the later stages of the game when the map is covered in creep. If Zerg are really that pissed off about forcefields, make Tunneling claws cheaper and faster to get. Tunneling roaches already own Toss who are over reliant on forcefields, without rendering FF useless entirely as a tool in general. If you see a Protoss throwing all his gas into sentries early on, there should be a way to punish that...but it should still require some investment. Not something silly like making the Zerg's 2nd most basic unit able to dissolve forcefields by touching them. Zergs should have access to good anti-FF tools, not just in the lategame but at other stages as well. But they should still require choice and investment. "Getting a queen" is not a choice or investment, its something every Zerg not doing a funday monday does by default. I think that they want Queens to be massive so they can break forcefields on their own ramps that prevent them from saving expansions because their units are stuck in their base. I don't think they want Queens to be massive so that they can use them to walk all the way across the map to break forcefields on your ramp. I agree that Queens being massive would make void-rays much more powerful against them, but the loss of phoenix harrass would perhaps balance that out a bit - Zergs might need to make an extra Queen to defend if they scouted an early void-ray push but wouldn't have to worry about phoenixes taking Queens out of the fight. I think this raises a lot of issues. Zergs will find a way to use it offensively eventually, you know they will. Proxy hatch into queen rush + baneling bust? would have a 100% win rate against 3 gate sentry expand, for instance. Then you might say, they can only do it on creep. Then I can say zerg will drop a hatch then cancel it then drop a creep tumor with their queen in range of the ramp for the same effect. This is why theory crafting is discouraged here at tl.. it doesn't lead to a good discussion because we don't know the implications of even a seemingly small change made to fix one issue (check the warpgate change for example [WHATTTT??])
whos gonna let you get a proxy hatch + banelings
no good toss is gonna let that go unscouted
Massive queens interesting, and id gladly take breaking ramp FF for extra vulnerability to voidrays
|
On April 28 2011 00:32 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:30 Alejandrisha wrote:On April 28 2011 00:11 Sated wrote:On April 27 2011 23:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:On April 27 2011 23:44 -Archangel- wrote:On April 27 2011 21:54 aka_star wrote:
grrr, zerg still wont be able to break forcefields on ramp! I guess we're still quite not there with these balance patches. Well after months of asking for archon change they got it. Now we (zerg) need to focus on asking that the queen becomes massive as well :D Oh god, please let Zergs think the key to victory is to start using Queens off-creep. As someone who enjoys beating Zerg, I'd definitely be in favor of that. Seriously, massive Queens would make Phoenix harass useless(since you can't lift massive units), and make Void harass really, really strong (since Voids get a damage buff vs. massive), and make attacking a Zerg on creep with a sentry-heavy force really, really dumb. But since you aren't gonna have creep at your opponent's doorstep for a longass time, it would do nothing in terms of allowing Zerg to break forcefields in the early game. It doesn't fix the "problem" in any way. In fact, because every Zerg will have Queens by default, it renders forcefields useless for everything except the one thing you want to "fix", protecting the Toss main in the early game. In army vs. army fights on creep, there'd be no point to forcefielding ever, because Queens could dissolve them so easily. But since Queens suck off creep, it would do nothing to help Zerg be more aggressive until the later stages of the game when the map is covered in creep. If Zerg are really that pissed off about forcefields, make Tunneling claws cheaper and faster to get. Tunneling roaches already own Toss who are over reliant on forcefields, without rendering FF useless entirely as a tool in general. If you see a Protoss throwing all his gas into sentries early on, there should be a way to punish that...but it should still require some investment. Not something silly like making the Zerg's 2nd most basic unit able to dissolve forcefields by touching them. Zergs should have access to good anti-FF tools, not just in the lategame but at other stages as well. But they should still require choice and investment. "Getting a queen" is not a choice or investment, its something every Zerg not doing a funday monday does by default. I think that they want Queens to be massive so they can break forcefields on their own ramps that prevent them from saving expansions because their units are stuck in their base. I don't think they want Queens to be massive so that they can use them to walk all the way across the map to break forcefields on your ramp. I agree that Queens being massive would make void-rays much more powerful against them, but the loss of phoenix harrass would perhaps balance that out a bit - Zergs might need to make an extra Queen to defend if they scouted an early void-ray push but wouldn't have to worry about phoenixes taking Queens out of the fight. I think this raises a lot of issues. Zergs will find a way to use it offensively eventually, you know they will. Proxy hatch into queen rush + baneling bust? would have a 100% win rate against 3 gate sentry expand, for instance. Then you might say, they can only do it on creep. Then I can say zerg will drop a hatch then cancel it then drop a creep tumor with their queen in range of the ramp for the same effect. This is why theory crafting is discouraged here at tl.. it doesn't lead to a good discussion because we don't know the implications of even a seemingly small change made to fix one issue (check the warpgate change for example [WHATTTT??]) whos gonna let you get a proxy hatch + banelings no good toss is gonna let that go unscouted Massive queens interesting, and id gladly take breaking ramp FF for extra vulnerability to voidrays
You'd be surprised. If zerg opens up speedlings toss isn't going to leave his nat with anything but a probe until 7 mins (if he does sentry expand into 6sentry 4zealot poke a la huk) unless he is 4gating. If you sentry fe and move out with anything less you are playing way too risky and can get punished by speedling pretty easily; you somtimes see a poke with a single stalker (or 2 if the toss opened gate gas gate core but you don't do this against speedling opener) but even that is risky. The only thing you could scout would be is if you hid your initial scout in a random corner and the zerg never found it and you snuck it in.
|
agree that Queens being massive would make void-rays much more powerful against them, but the loss of phoenix harrass would perhaps balance that out a bit - Zergs might need to make an extra Queen to defend if they scouted an early void-ray push but wouldn't have to worry about phoenixes taking Queens out of the fight.
Here's how the fight between a Void and a Massive Queen would shake out:
Voids have 150 health and 100 shields, or 250 health for the purposes of this discussion. Their attack deals 10 vs. armored every .6 seconds uncharged, and 16 vs. armored charged, also every .6 seconds. The massive bonus increases every attack by 20%. It takes 13 attacks, or 7.2 seconds, to charge a Void Ray.
Queens have 175 health, 1 armor, and deal 9 damage vs. air, once per second.
Queens have slightly longer range, but are limited to creep, whereas Voids can fly and once they start attacking their range is longer. In other words, regardless of their respective numbers, in any Void vs. Queen early game engagement, they will be able to focus fire each other just as easily. In other words, I'm considering range/mobility a non factor here, because they generally are in this type of fight.
So, if Queens were massive, in the first 7.2 seconds before the Void gets charged, the Queen will deal 7 attacks of 9 damage, or 63 damage to the Void.
The Void, in turn, will hit the Queen 13 times for 11 damage each (10 damage, + 2 for the massive bonus, -1 for the Queen armor). Thats 110 damage.
Then the Void gets charged, and starts dealing 18.2 damage per shot ((16 + (.2 * 16)) - 1 for armor). It will get it one "free" shot before the Queen's next shot, so at roughly the 8 second mark, the Queen will have dealt the Void 72 damage, and the Void will have dealt the Queen 138 damage.
At that point, the Queen has only 37 health left (actually, it has a few more due to regen, but not enough to allow it to take an extra hit from the Void so its mathematically irrelevant). Taking 18 damage a shot, once every ,.6 seconds, it can survive for 3 more shots once the Void gets charged, which takes the total engagement up to 9 seconds...enough for the Queen to get off 1 more shot for an additional 9 damage.
In other words, in total, against a massive Queen a Void will take 81 damage, and kill the Queen in 9 seconds.
Okay, so what about one Void vs. 2 Queens?
Well, in that 9 seconds, the Void would have instead taken 162 damage, leaving it with 88 health left once the first Queen goes down--which would be enough to kill the extra Queen, even if it wasn't already charged. But it is already charged, which means it deals 18.2 damage every .6 seconds, or over 30 dps...enough to kill the Queen in under 6 seconds. So the Void takes 5 more shots for 45 damage, killing 2 Queens with over 40 health left over.
Void Rays would own massive Queens. Own them so hard it isn't even funny. Yes, they're more expensive, but with Chrono they actually build faster than Queens--so unless Zerg just feel like mass-producing Queens blind on the off chance their opponents go Void, they really, really don't want Queens to be massive.
|
3gate expand style will be strong against 4gate in PvP after this patch, nice nice.
|
On April 28 2011 00:13 Dommk wrote:
Why? Why in the world are people so determined to try and get Gateways to be used?
It will only make Protoss MORE turtle-oriented, what possible good would you do by making Gateways "Viable"?
If anything, more Warpgate usage needs to be encourage, more incentive needs to be given for Protoss to get out of their base and aggressive, it creates much more entertaining games than watching a Toss sit in his base with a bunch of Gateways building up a Deathball
NO ! Im not saying we should GO BACK TO GATEWAYS, they should be used throughout the game ! NO BUILDING OR TECH STRUCTURE BECOMES TRUELY OBSOLETE, lings/blings , marines, zealots are used even in late game ! Im saying that a choice between the 2 and a unique purpose for each ( WG and GW ) would
1. give more depth to the game - make the protoss less lazy ( whats that i didnt make an army and got greedy teching up straight to collosi ... no problem insta warp some sentries and block of ramp till colosi gets here, or what I went heavy zealot but zerg scouted and countered me with mutas .... no problem insta warp a bunch of stalkers take care of that ... what lings streaming for my base ... no problem insta warp a zealot at choke ... Thats ok by me im not crying imba imba, but i think that instead of just delaying the warpgate etc why not pay ( a little more ) for that priviledge !
2. stop 4 gates and the likes ( Since we all know thats the ONLY reason for the protoss part of this patch ) as someone going 4Wgate can be easily stopped with a 3 gate, without having insane micro skills !
I just think since youre all sooo annoyed how boring PvP is and how '' Toss turtles till he gets 200/200 '' I think that if theres a difference between the two people will get more creative as scouting and harrasment will become VITAL for toss, other then the 1 obs flying around the map taking naked pictures of the kerrigan lol
|
On April 28 2011 00:41 crackcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:13 Dommk wrote:
Why? Why in the world are people so determined to try and get Gateways to be used?
It will only make Protoss MORE turtle-oriented, what possible good would you do by making Gateways "Viable"?
If anything, more Warpgate usage needs to be encourage, more incentive needs to be given for Protoss to get out of their base and aggressive, it creates much more entertaining games than watching a Toss sit in his base with a bunch of Gateways building up a Deathball NO ! Im not saying they should keep gateways and they should be used throughout the game im saying that a choice between the 2 and a unique purpose for each ( WG and GW ) would 1. give more depth to the game - make the protoss less lazy ( whats that i didnt make an army and got greedy teching up straight to collosi ... no problem insta warp some sentries and block of ramp till colosi gets here, or what I went heavy zealot but zerg scouted and countered me with mutas .... no problem insta warp a bunch of stalkers take care of that ... what lings streaming for my base ... no problem insta warp a zealot at choke ... Thats ok by me im not crying imba imba, but i think that instead of just delaying the warpgate etc why not pay ( a little more ) for that priviledge ! 2. stop 4 gates and the likes ( Since we all know thats the ONLY reason for the protoss part of this patch ) as someone going 4Wgate can be easily stopped with a 3 gate, without having insane micro skills ! I just think since youre all sooo annoyed how boring PvP is and how '' Toss turtles till he gets 200/200 '' I think that if theres a difference between the two people will get more creative as scouting and harrasment will become VITAL for toss, other then the 1 obs flying around the map taking naked pictures of the kerrigan lol
Scouting and harassment are already VITAL for toss, thank you.
|
Archon is finally massive!! I can't tell you how happy this makes me feel! They will actually be pretty awesome against terran now. Also crush FFs and no phoenix lift in pvp. Archons have become a very viable strategy now me thinks...
|
On April 28 2011 00:43 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:41 crackcc wrote:On April 28 2011 00:13 Dommk wrote:
Why? Why in the world are people so determined to try and get Gateways to be used?
It will only make Protoss MORE turtle-oriented, what possible good would you do by making Gateways "Viable"?
If anything, more Warpgate usage needs to be encourage, more incentive needs to be given for Protoss to get out of their base and aggressive, it creates much more entertaining games than watching a Toss sit in his base with a bunch of Gateways building up a Deathball NO ! Im not saying they should keep gateways and they should be used throughout the game im saying that a choice between the 2 and a unique purpose for each ( WG and GW ) would 1. give more depth to the game - make the protoss less lazy ( whats that i didnt make an army and got greedy teching up straight to collosi ... no problem insta warp some sentries and block of ramp till colosi gets here, or what I went heavy zealot but zerg scouted and countered me with mutas .... no problem insta warp a bunch of stalkers take care of that ... what lings streaming for my base ... no problem insta warp a zealot at choke ... Thats ok by me im not crying imba imba, but i think that instead of just delaying the warpgate etc why not pay ( a little more ) for that priviledge ! 2. stop 4 gates and the likes ( Since we all know thats the ONLY reason for the protoss part of this patch ) as someone going 4Wgate can be easily stopped with a 3 gate, without having insane micro skills ! I just think since youre all sooo annoyed how boring PvP is and how '' Toss turtles till he gets 200/200 '' I think that if theres a difference between the two people will get more creative as scouting and harrasment will become VITAL for toss, other then the 1 obs flying around the map taking naked pictures of the kerrigan lol Scouting and harassment are already VITAL for toss, thank you.
Not as much as for ZERG or even TERRAN ... if you show up with a bunch of stalkers and terran only has marines then hes dead he will be kited to his death and its not a few mauders streaming out 1 by 1 that will change anything, not like toss if hes caught with only zealots and hellions do a runby .. insta stalker warp or sentry block :D
Dont start saying OF COURSE SCOUTING IS IMPORTANT BLAH BLAH ... I never said it wsasent .. just not as vital to toss early game as it is T and Z
|
On April 28 2011 00:22 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 00:16 mprs wrote:On April 28 2011 00:08 Yaotzin wrote:On April 28 2011 00:06 crackcc wrote:
Why change WG research times ???
I dont want to sound foolish and naive but wouldnt a small, lets say 5% increase in cost when you warp units fix this ?
No.
That way people would actually use the '' change warpgate back to gateway '' option !
Gateways are supposed to become obsolete.
Or we play it safe : if they ( or we ) dont attack. We end up spending more for our army then we would if we stayed on gatways !
I know im not the 1st person to come up with this idea. thats why im curious why blizzard hasen't even considered it as they have played with the WG/GW research/building times allready !
Time for a change ?
They don't want people to use gateways, and they don't want to balance two sets of unit costs. Why exactly? I think having warpgate be favorable in some situations and less favorable in other situations would do wonders for the depth of this game. Because they are incredibly bland and encourage boring play. Consider it like a Terran drop, you have the choice of risking your units for potential damage or keep them in your army. If the current damage potential of a Terran drop was nerfed then many Terrans would not want to take the risk if there is little reward.
Think about if Protoss had a dropship, oh wait...
On another note if they made gateway a little more appealing, it would encourage people to use it, due to the ability of macroing without looking away during a battle.
|
|
|
NO BUILDING OR TECH STRUCTURE BECOMES TRUELY OBSOLETE
This is a lie.
Command Centers become obsolete as soon as you can upgrade them to Orbitals.
Why is that? Is it because Orbitals are core to terran macro, and the game is in fact balanced around Terran being able to MULE...but, because MULEing would be broken too early in the game, Blizzard decided to delay Terran getting an OC by making it an upgrade?
Why, that thought process sounds awfully familiar when I think of Protoss and gateways/warp gates....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
