|
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. |
I am really glad for the Zealot reversal, and let me enumerate why.
Long winded Beta balancing talk:
In beta, for quite some time, no one was using Siege tanks. One of their first changes was to give the tank 10 more health. Sounds funny but it worked, and not shortly after Siege Tanks were everywhere with people complaining about damage and the smart-targeting.
I understand the nerf eventually done, but why for the love of god, not first remove the buff that it was given? It was small but it also was enough to kind of tip people off to using them. Reversing the changes is a good way to keep the game true to what it was originally intended to be. Now we have 160health Siege Tanks rolling around- when it really should be 150.
My point is that it was almost like Blizzard forgot about what they had done, and then just reduced damage and "to light" damage when everyone was like "oh, Siege Tanks are killing everything". Which is comical because they focused on the battles. "Well, look at Siege Tanks killing everything"... "they must do too much damage." Derp. Why not first remove that buff they were given months ago.
This way it would really help vs Zerg, who sacs tons of Lings and Banelings in lots of games I've seen, to try to break through those spread Siege Tank and Stim-Marine positions- taking off those extra 10 health actually might make scenarios like that a little more palatable for Zerg.
tl:dr In beta tanks got 10 health buff, which remained even when tanks needed a nerf. IMO this was indicative of Blizzard overlooking its previous changes, and why I support the Zealot reversal. It's going to have to be done in the face of improper changes.
|
On April 29 2011 03:37 RavenLoud wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2011 02:38 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:12 Silkath wrote:On April 29 2011 00:57 Deadlyfish wrote:On April 29 2011 00:53 Kyadytim wrote:On April 28 2011 23:36 BLinD-RawR wrote:
no they are not.Autoturret is uselss unless you drop like 3 or 4,PDD is borderline.HSM...noone even uses HSM now that it was nerfed....HSM should be imba for all the stuff we need to do to get it. It takes more to get Psi Storm than to get HSM, and Protoss players manage that just fine. If ravens had psi storm i'd make them. HSM is not worth getting like 99.9% of the time  Why do you find storm so much better than HSM? Is it purely that HSM is an all or nothing ability whereas from storm you get a second or two's damage minimum? I've almost never seen HSM used in big battles where micro becomes challenging and it's harder to move individual units around. Which is the exact situation storm shines in. As a zerg player I'd jump at the chance to land an HSM on a Toss deathball for example. Every templar, at maximum mana, can cast up to 2 storms and still have 50 energy left over. A raven can, at best, throw down a turret after launching an attack that any unit except an overlord or templar can run away from. HSM as has a cast range of 6, whereas storm has range 9. Protoss can feedback and Zerg can fungal before the Raven even gets in range to do anything. Storm's range is 6 in SC2. HSM is underrated IMO, you have to consider the positioning damage it does by forcing the enemy to either take it or to retreat. He can try to micro away the targeted unit, but that'll add to the mental pressure (and deal potential damage by distracting him from other tasks). In a few years as the game matures, I'm sure we'll see ravens in almost every match up in the late game. I don't think HSM will be like psi storm in the sense that it will never be Terran's main dps, but it certainly has great potential yet unexplored as a support unit. (speshil taktiks!) I think they could tweak the stats so that it does slightly less damage but cost 100 energy only, that'll make it more interesting and more encouraging to use.
High Templar's cast range for Psi Storm is 9 in SC2.
link: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/High_templar
Also, I personally believe Seeker Missile (name change for those who still call it HSM) is an underused ability, but for good reasons. The energy cost is ridiculously high for a spell that may not do any damage to the opponent. Also, if the opponent decides to charge into you after you casted Seeker Missile then you have to worry about your own Seeker Missile doing "Terrible, Terrible damage" to your army.
In my opinion Terran casters have the weakest spells in the game, especially in the sense that Terran can't cast an instant spell that deals damage over time like fungal or storm; EMP is race specific when dealing damage and even EMP ain't what it once was. Terran Brood War > Terran WoL.
|
On April 28 2011 23:36 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:22 Sqq wrote:On April 28 2011 22:09 BLinD-RawR wrote:
still no reason to nerf Protoss and Zerg and buff terrans.
Buff terrans without nerfing Protoss and Zerg and they will be fine.by that I mean buff Ravens. Buff Ravens ?? They are super strong as it is ? Auto Turret, PDD, HSM ? no they are not.Autoturret is uselss unless you drop like 3 or 4,PDD is borderline.HSM...noone even uses HSM now that it was nerfed....HSM should be imba for all the stuff we need to do to get it.
this has to be the most untrue thing ive red all day. Do you know what a Raven is? Have you ever tried using it? PDD is borderline? You serious bro, wake the fuck up, autoturrets can turn the tide of any battle.
|
People tend to say various things which have no basis in reality. When the zealot build time was increased by 5 seconds the comment-of-choice was to say: "time to 6-pool every game haha". Now they reverted that change and it's: "time to proxy every game haha". But actually, 6-pool is barely a threat now, and before that first patch the pro's weren't too afraid of proxy gates either.
What will happen is a period of adjustments while players rework their openings during which such cheesy strategies will be more potent, as the new builds aren't at that level of refinement yet. This is a bit annoying, but just a side-effect of patching the game.
I also don't understand people's obsession with the fact the zealot build times have been seemingly constantly tweaked. It might be 'funny', but only if you don't investigate what actually happened. The change in patch 16/17 was an accident that was quickly reversed. More generally, what does it matter what the stats used to be in the past? Any change to the game has to be made in context of all the other units and maps, and so on. And this context has to be based on the current patch, the current 'metagame', so pointing out seeming inconsistencies in Blizzard's approach by juxtapositioning past and present is actually rather misguided.
|
Just being in favor of reverting changes because they are reverted changes seems kind of bizarre logic to me. Reverting the zealot build time means the return of the 2gate, which means we're headed right back to imba cries after every game begins with a conga line of zealots. Blizzard specifically changed this build time to counteract the power of 2gating in PvZ, it was way too hard to stop especially with a proxy, and now they are reverting it and crossing their fingers that zerg has figured out an answer by now. They also decided to keep spine crawlers at 12 seconds of root time, which is really the only defense zerg has against zealots in the early game. I'm not a fan 
|
On April 29 2011 04:02 Kracklings wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:36 BLinD-RawR wrote:On April 28 2011 22:22 Sqq wrote:On April 28 2011 22:09 BLinD-RawR wrote:
still no reason to nerf Protoss and Zerg and buff terrans.
Buff terrans without nerfing Protoss and Zerg and they will be fine.by that I mean buff Ravens. Buff Ravens ?? They are super strong as it is ? Auto Turret, PDD, HSM ? no they are not.Autoturret is uselss unless you drop like 3 or 4,PDD is borderline.HSM...noone even uses HSM now that it was nerfed....HSM should be imba for all the stuff we need to do to get it. this has to be the most untrue thing ive red all day. Do you know what a Raven is? Have you ever tried using it? PDD is borderline? You serious bro, wake the fuck up, autoturrets can turn the tide of any battle.
I have never won against the mass raven build in ZvT. I don't meet it to often but I have heard baneling bust is the way to go, just ignore the PF at his natural. I have always tried to do a straight up fight but when Terran has 5-6 Ravens nothing can really stop them. I tried to get infestors one match but unless you have them in time to pull of several fungals they are owned so hard by auto-turrets and together with PDD and HSM mutas or hydras really suck. My guess is that corruptors would be the best unit to counter Ravens directly.
|
Strange, liquipedia must have made a mistake. The range of psionic storm is not 9 in this game. They were in BW.
I know because...well I play protoss and I use templars almost every game. I have read that it had a range of 6 long time ago, and it definitively feels like 6. If I tell my templars to feedback then storm, they will have to move forward in order to storm after completing the feedback.
If you don't believe me, go fire up SC2 and test it. It doesn't tell you the range in the spell description. I think that's why people are confused. However I bet my life that the range of storm is, if not 6, at least much less than that of feedback (which is 9)
Also, Terran doesn't have the best spell casters because they don't need dps from spell casters. They have very cost effective infantry and very powerful mech. Can you imagine if specters with mindblast (a damaging maelstorm!) in the multiplayer? That would completely break the game.
|
I wonder if they will remember to make it so hallucinated archons can't break forcefields. Blizzard does tend to leave changes like that out till the follow up patch.
|
On April 29 2011 04:19 RavenLoud wrote:
Strange, liquipedia must have made a mistake. The range of psionic storm is not 9 in this game. They were in BW.
Nope, you're just wrong. Look it up yourself if you want.
If you don't believe me, go fire up SC2 and test it. It doesn't tell you the range in the spell description. I think that's why people are confused. However I bet my life that the range of storm is, if not 6, at least much less than that of feedback (which is 9)
Feedback and storm are both range 9.
|
Dudes and dudesses I cant wait to practice my ghost rush TvT opening... with 100 gas ghost HAHAHHHA
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2011 04:31 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 04:19 RavenLoud wrote:
Strange, liquipedia must have made a mistake. The range of psionic storm is not 9 in this game. They were in BW.
Nope, you're just wrong. Look it up yourself if you want. Show nested quote +
If you don't believe me, go fire up SC2 and test it. It doesn't tell you the range in the spell description. I think that's why people are confused. However I bet my life that the range of storm is, if not 6, at least much less than that of feedback (which is 9)
Feedback and storm are both range 9.
I'm now worried about how I came to believe storm had shorter range
I concede that you are right. My apologies.
Edit: After testing I see where I went wrong. The way that range works in SC2 is measured is from the front of the unit's selected circle area. Since stalkers and colossus are so big compared to templars, they seem to stand a farther behind, because the circle of the unit is bigger. Visually it's hard to see the 1/3 range advantage stalkers have over templars. They almost touch each other when templars storm behind stalkers.
|
On April 29 2011 03:37 RavenLoud wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2011 02:38 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:12 Silkath wrote:On April 29 2011 00:57 Deadlyfish wrote:On April 29 2011 00:53 Kyadytim wrote:On April 28 2011 23:36 BLinD-RawR wrote:
no they are not.Autoturret is uselss unless you drop like 3 or 4,PDD is borderline.HSM...noone even uses HSM now that it was nerfed....HSM should be imba for all the stuff we need to do to get it. It takes more to get Psi Storm than to get HSM, and Protoss players manage that just fine. If ravens had psi storm i'd make them. HSM is not worth getting like 99.9% of the time Why do you find storm so much better than HSM? Is it purely that HSM is an all or nothing ability whereas from storm you get a second or two's damage minimum? I've almost never seen HSM used in big battles where micro becomes challenging and it's harder to move individual units around. Which is the exact situation storm shines in. As a zerg player I'd jump at the chance to land an HSM on a Toss deathball for example. Every templar, at maximum mana, can cast up to 2 storms and still have 50 energy left over. A raven can, at best, throw down a turret after launching an attack that any unit except an overlord or templar can run away from. HSM as has a cast range of 6, whereas storm has range 9. Protoss can feedback and Zerg can fungal before the Raven even gets in range to do anything. Storm's range is 6 in SC2. HSM is underrated IMO, you have to consider the positioning damage it does by forcing the enemy to either take it or to retreat. He can try to micro away the targeted unit, but that'll add to the mental pressure (and deal potential damage by distracting him from other tasks). In a few years as the game matures, I'm sure we'll see ravens in almost every match up in the late game. I don't think HSM will be like psi storm in the sense that it will never be Terran's main dps, but it certainly has great potential yet unexplored as a support unit. (speshil taktiks!) I think they could tweak the stats so that it does slightly less damage but cost 100 energy only, that'll make it more interesting and more encouraging to use.
storm is same range has marauders or stalker? errr no, it's 9 range...
HSM is decent, but the point is that a single HSM is terrible. same as a single storm or a single fungal growth are terrible... you absolutely need lots of them to be effective - and HSM effectively costs double the gas of fungal or storm due to the increased cost of raven coupled with higher energy cost.
double gas for a spell which does more or less the same damage.... errr.... no thanks i'll spend the gas on tanks, ghost or banshee instead - which combined will be better than any 'mass raven' gimmick.
imagine your storm requiring double the number of HT's for the same effect, there you have HSM.
mass raven has never been useful since they nerfed HSM in beta.
|
Now ghosts are going to cost less gas? Kind of seems like a buff to me.
|
Is this The Fugitive starring Harrison Ford? Because I think this thread just got derailed.
Let set talks of siege tanks, ravens and Templars aside and go back to chatting about the patch.
If gateways produce as fast as warpgates--would it he better to chrono gateways instead of the cyber early on?
|
Pretty nice changes I think, but I wish they'd rule out close positions on metal and slag pits. Close positions are pretty lame as zerg, and the quicker zealot build time doesn't help that.
|
Omomgomg I love the spore crawler change! Now all they need to do is increase their range by 1.
|
I don't believe 2 gate rushes will be too powerful. I think it will just change the metagame a little bit. Zergs will be more weary of a two gate rush and will be more proactive about scouting it. Once they spot it they can focus on hard core defense and once they defend it they know that they have a lot longer before the tosses warp gates will finish. Zergs will just have to make a decision now between hatch or pool first instead of always going hatch.
|
On April 29 2011 06:12 Tsavong wrote:
Pretty nice changes I think, but I wish they'd rule out close positions on metal and slag pits. Close positions are pretty lame as zerg, and the quicker zealot build time doesn't help that.
i really don't see a problem with close positions. there are plenty of huuuuuuge maps where terran have a disadvantage, zerg should suffer too :p
it's all about giving the spectators what they want, and i'd wager that most do not want to see the exact same match repeated a rediculous number of times because there is only 1 thing people can do with enormous rush distances..
|
On April 29 2011 07:22 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 06:12 Tsavong wrote:
Pretty nice changes I think, but I wish they'd rule out close positions on metal and slag pits. Close positions are pretty lame as zerg, and the quicker zealot build time doesn't help that. i really don't see a problem with close positions. there are plenty of huuuuuuge maps where terran have a disadvantage, zerg should suffer too :p it's all about giving the spectators what they want, and i'd wager that most do not want to see the exact same match repeated a rediculous number of times because there is only 1 thing people can do with enormous rush distances..
that terran has a disadvantage on huge maps isn't true and justified at any point
and close positions doesn't make the game more entertaining, because certain races are ridiculously favored against others.
if you find it entertaining to see one race losing 90% of the time due to the map positions, something is wrong with you
|
that's really bad...
i think warpgates should have exactly the same build time always  [[.
its annoying , i got used to warpgates in all cases and now ill have to choose between gateways and them . HATE it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
