|
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. |
On April 30 2011 10:53 iTzAnglory wrote:lol I remember this guy started arguing with me once on how Salvage was not overpowered and will never be nerfed, ah biased Terrans just got proved wrong. I am going to have to relearn PvP all over again, they took out both the Korean 4 gate and made 4 gate not the standard build anymore.
I honestly don't see how 25 minerals lost is a nerf. I think they just wanted to make it conceptually in line with the idea that static defense should always be an investment, but 25 minerals is just way too little to matter at all.
If anything it's just a way to make people stop complaining about it.
|
Sigh. In TvP 2 proxy gates is already a stupidly strong cheese and is very easy to pull off for the protos.
But now...
The zealots are coming in a lot faster AND there is a bigger impact on us terrans to defend ourselves with bunkers. I guess blizzard loves cheese. GG, time to quit SC2.
|
A little disappointed they didn't look at a small Colossus tweak. Not sure what I'm looking for, but SOMETHING that would lead to improved diversity and spectating.
|
It will be interesting to see how the pylon changes combine with the gateway build times and warpgate nerf to affect PvP on large macro maps like Tal'darim Altar... My guess is that certain 1/2 gate expo builds will become more popular. Also, now that archons are massive, zealot/archon timing pushes also a lot more viable.
|
I can't believe they still made the gateway build times longer than the warpgate build times 
|
On April 30 2011 15:46 tyCe wrote:I can't believe they still made the gateway build times longer than the warpgate build times
freal. blizzard has to make the player decide whether he wants units now but have to walk a long way to get to battle, or units later but instant transport. i think this would add to the strategy and depth of protoss
|
On April 30 2011 12:15 dryice135 wrote:
Sigh. In TvP 2 proxy gates is already a stupidly strong cheese and is very easy to pull off for the protos.
But now...
The zealots are coming in a lot faster AND there is a bigger impact on us terrans to defend ourselves with bunkers. I guess blizzard loves cheese. GG, time to quit SC2.
wow u cant be serious... your going to quit because some builds force you to micro as much as a protoss? how is proxy 2 gate cheese... i do this build every time on xel nagga.
|
On April 30 2011 15:54 Juanald wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 12:15 dryice135 wrote:
Sigh. In TvP 2 proxy gates is already a stupidly strong cheese and is very easy to pull off for the protos.
But now...
The zealots are coming in a lot faster AND there is a bigger impact on us terrans to defend ourselves with bunkers. I guess blizzard loves cheese. GG, time to quit SC2. wow u cant be serious... your going to quit because some builds force you to micro as much as a protoss? how is proxy 2 gate cheese... i do this build every time on xel nagga.
While I agree with you, how is not Proxy 2 Gate cheese? If it gets scouted you will do little damage, if you do little damage you are behind its like the definition of a cheese
|
On April 26 2011 11:37 orotoss wrote:
The spore crawler change has been a long time coming. In the beta, both crawlers were 6 seconds, but spines were a bit too strong defensively, so they increased root time. For some reason they decided to do the same for spores (this is why their animations are just the same thing twice). It's about time they reverted that change. Banshee rushes are so annoying when they can just find an out of range spot and then just snipe your crawlers when they uproot.
i think you mean spines were too strong offensively zvz that's why they were nerfed.
|
On April 30 2011 16:02 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 15:54 Juanald wrote:On April 30 2011 12:15 dryice135 wrote:
Sigh. In TvP 2 proxy gates is already a stupidly strong cheese and is very easy to pull off for the protos.
But now...
The zealots are coming in a lot faster AND there is a bigger impact on us terrans to defend ourselves with bunkers. I guess blizzard loves cheese. GG, time to quit SC2. wow u cant be serious... your going to quit because some builds force you to micro as much as a protoss? how is proxy 2 gate cheese... i do this build every time on xel nagga. While I agree with you, how is not Proxy 2 Gate cheese? If it gets scouted you will do little damage, if you do little damage you are behind its like the definition of a cheese
agreed proxy 2gate is cheese although i don't even like the term.....it's essentially a seven pool or proxy 2rax which would also be considered cheese to most players. everyone will just need to scout earlier on large maps and have to play with the assumption that a proxy 2gate is going to be used much more. just get out that bunker early or pool at 10 and it's all good and the toss is way behind once you find the proxy pylon and snipe it after killing all the zealots easily...expect many gg's right there and then.
|
On April 30 2011 08:11 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 05:00 R3N wrote:On April 30 2011 04:32 freetgy wrote:On April 30 2011 03:40 flyingbangus wrote:
kidding? Have you seen a Protoss turtle on 2/3 base and not push out until 200/200? IMO it's the MacroToss that needs to be dealt economic damage to prevent the deathball from forming.
you don't realize why this is so are you? a Protoss can't afford to trade armies in a macro game against a smart zerg who trades gas cheap units against high gas units from Protoss. You will never be able to safely secure a 3rd/4rd with low unit counts thus beeing outmacrod in the end anyway with inferior army and tech cause you will need to constantly replace gas high units. if we could play less turtle, while beeing successful we would, but we can't cause our units need to be together to be cost effective at all. This obviously limits us in playing either over defensiv or offensiv. If Zerg Production/Larva mechanic wasn't as insane as it is we wouldn't be forced to so hard timing attacks or Deathball all-ins. But it is how it is by design. the moment Zerg players adapt to this Protoss will again have a very hard time competeing in PvZ Zerg use more gas than protoss. That doesn't mean they cost more gas (they don't; except the hive units) but it means the zerg need to outnumber the protoss (and still lose  ) then replenish again and again and again. It adds up to the point where zerg has absolutely no gas at all even when sitting on 6 bases. I've seen this in so many prolevel tournaments and experienced it myself. Again, just because the protoss units in average have higher gas cost doens't mean they use more gas in the end. Also they cost more gas for a reason, they are much stronger units than zerg. I would argue that this isn't true in any situation until endgame. As I'm certain you know, playing Zerg, Corruptors are simply garbage against Colossi. However, they are quite expensive on gas (the same amount as a muta I believe) but have no use except to straight-up attack the Colossus. You really need about 4 per Colossus to bring them down in any sort of reasonable fashion, so I could easily see how Zerg needs more gas endgame. However, before that 200/200 composition, Protoss is probably going to have more gas invested in the army than Zerg. 8 Roaches will trade with a huge advantage to the Roaches against 5 Stalkers, yet the 5 Stalkers cost 50 gas more and 25 minerals more. Hydras behind Roaches will trade well against most armies without Sentries (and Sentries cost ridiculous amounts of gas to have in large numbers). A 3-gate expand, for Protoss, spends about 500-800 gas on units, while a Zerg army that can defeat it costs far less (if you spend 800 gas on Roaches, you'll have 32 of them, which will kick the crap out of 8 sentries and 2 Zealots). Until supply becomes an issue, Zerg is usually able to trade with less gas than their Protoss opponents.
Your theory would hold if cannons and forcefields didn't exist. But they do; the "army trading" you speak of is completely unrealistic if not flat out untrue.
It's just bullshit thinking a zerg can "trade armies" with a protoss that has 10+ cannons and that can split his armies in half losing next to nothing while doing it. Protoss can easily secure two additional expos doing this and at that point they will be maxed already.
And hydras behind roaches? Rofl. Even two colossi, which come out almost as fast as any decent amount of hydras a zerg can field, are enough to kill the majority of the zerg army at that point. And I ain't even accounting forcefields.
|
On April 30 2011 11:05 dump wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 10:53 iTzAnglory wrote:Salvage resource return reduced from 100% to 75%. lol I remember this guy started arguing with me once on how Salvage was not overpowered and will never be nerfed, ah biased Terrans just got proved wrong. I am going to have to relearn PvP all over again, they took out both the Korean 4 gate and made 4 gate not the standard build anymore. I honestly don't see how 25 minerals lost is a nerf. I think they just wanted to make it conceptually in line with the idea that static defense should always be an investment, but 25 minerals is just way too little to matter at all. If anything it's just a way to make people stop complaining about it.
If you fail to see how a return of 75 instead of 100 is a nerf it might be hard to argue with you ^_^
Anyway; you have to realize the Bunker is not really static defense. It requires units inside to do any damage, so it's quite different from the Spine Crawler and Photon Cannon. Obviously the fact you could salvage for 100% was crazy, so I am glad they made it 75% instead.
You shouldn't see it as an investment of 25 minerals anyway. The Terran needs to spend 100 minerals when he wants to build it, ergo an investment of 100. Yes, he can get 75 minerals back, so the net investment was 25, but at the time of construction he used 100 minerals on the bunker instead of 2 marines. At that point in time the investment was in fact 100 minerals.
|
On April 30 2011 18:31 R3N wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 08:11 Aequos wrote:On April 30 2011 05:00 R3N wrote:On April 30 2011 04:32 freetgy wrote:On April 30 2011 03:40 flyingbangus wrote:
kidding? Have you seen a Protoss turtle on 2/3 base and not push out until 200/200? IMO it's the MacroToss that needs to be dealt economic damage to prevent the deathball from forming.
you don't realize why this is so are you? a Protoss can't afford to trade armies in a macro game against a smart zerg who trades gas cheap units against high gas units from Protoss. You will never be able to safely secure a 3rd/4rd with low unit counts thus beeing outmacrod in the end anyway with inferior army and tech cause you will need to constantly replace gas high units. if we could play less turtle, while beeing successful we would, but we can't cause our units need to be together to be cost effective at all. This obviously limits us in playing either over defensiv or offensiv. If Zerg Production/Larva mechanic wasn't as insane as it is we wouldn't be forced to so hard timing attacks or Deathball all-ins. But it is how it is by design. the moment Zerg players adapt to this Protoss will again have a very hard time competeing in PvZ Zerg use more gas than protoss. That doesn't mean they cost more gas (they don't; except the hive units) but it means the zerg need to outnumber the protoss (and still lose ) then replenish again and again and again. It adds up to the point where zerg has absolutely no gas at all even when sitting on 6 bases. I've seen this in so many prolevel tournaments and experienced it myself. Again, just because the protoss units in average have higher gas cost doens't mean they use more gas in the end. Also they cost more gas for a reason, they are much stronger units than zerg. I would argue that this isn't true in any situation until endgame. As I'm certain you know, playing Zerg, Corruptors are simply garbage against Colossi. However, they are quite expensive on gas (the same amount as a muta I believe) but have no use except to straight-up attack the Colossus. You really need about 4 per Colossus to bring them down in any sort of reasonable fashion, so I could easily see how Zerg needs more gas endgame. However, before that 200/200 composition, Protoss is probably going to have more gas invested in the army than Zerg. 8 Roaches will trade with a huge advantage to the Roaches against 5 Stalkers, yet the 5 Stalkers cost 50 gas more and 25 minerals more. Hydras behind Roaches will trade well against most armies without Sentries (and Sentries cost ridiculous amounts of gas to have in large numbers). A 3-gate expand, for Protoss, spends about 500-800 gas on units, while a Zerg army that can defeat it costs far less (if you spend 800 gas on Roaches, you'll have 32 of them, which will kick the crap out of 8 sentries and 2 Zealots). Until supply becomes an issue, Zerg is usually able to trade with less gas than their Protoss opponents. Your theory would hold if cannons and forcefields didn't exist. But they do; the "army trading" you speak of is completely unrealistic if not flat out untrue. It's just bullshit thinking a zerg can "trade armies" with a protoss that has 10+ cannons and that can split his armies in half losing next to nothing while doing it. Protoss can easily secure two additional expos doing this and at that point they will be maxed already. And hydras behind roaches? Rofl. Even two colossi, which come out almost as fast as any decent amount of hydras a zerg can field, are enough to kill the majority of the zerg army at that point. And I ain't even accounting forcefields.
That is exactly what DarkForce does on his stream. Sometimes he trades an entire army but only manages to kill maybe 3-4 Stalkers, but use up every forcefield, you would think it would be a bad thing if it wasn't for the fact that he repops with Roaches and holds off the exact same Protoss ball with maybe 2 more Colossus, but no forcefields.
ZvP is very deceptive, Even if it looks like Zerg totally got crushed in a fight, they are often in a better position than most people would assume. Forcfields, although when used well look somewhat devastating, are almost a requirement---at least for the early/mid game, it isn't possible to keep sentries alive after Infestors start coming out, maybe for the first two fights or so, but Zerg start becoming insanely efficient when they get 5+ Infestors and you can no longer afford the gas for Sentries, though at that stage you should have other options available.
|
If Napoleon had warpgates, he would have conquered Russia. 
|
These changes are great but I would of liked to see spine crawler build time cut down by 5 seconds as well as bunker cost go up by 25 minerals rather than lowering what they get back from salvage by 25 minerals.
Oh well, it's still one more step in the right direction.
|
On April 30 2011 15:54 Juanald wrote:
wow u cant be serious... your going to quit because some builds force you to micro as much as a protoss? how is proxy 2 gate cheese... i do this build every time on xel nagga.
How can you not think that 2 proxy gate is not a cheese? If I built 2 proxy rax inside your base would you not classify my build as a cheese?
My concern has nothing to do with a build forcing high APM. A lot of standard builds and rushes across every matchup in the current patch force high APM. My concern is that the 2 proxy gate is ALREADY a very powerful cheese. With zealot waves coming out 5 seconds faster it will just be rediculous.
|
As for bunker salvage, I would seriously prefer it to be % of health * 100 minerals ( full cost of bunker), instead of 75 minerals.
And it should salvage +3s longer as well imo
|
On April 30 2011 19:04 Defrag wrote:As for bunker salvage, I would seriously prefer it to be % of health * 100 minerals ( full cost of bunker), instead of 75 minerals. And it should salvage +3s longer as well imo
so a 50% bunker salvage will return 5000 minerals? awesome.
seriously though, i see what you mean but it would be a bad idea. it basically removes the viability of salvage in an offensive scenario, but doesn't remove the non-strategic defensive bunker spam. i think blizzard hope to achieve the opposite.
blizzard want people to bunker rush. nerfing salvage would deter people from going for a bunker rush, they're already pretty risky... without the salvage option it's big risk small reward.
|
On April 30 2011 20:02 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 19:04 Defrag wrote:As for bunker salvage, I would seriously prefer it to be % of health * 100 minerals ( full cost of bunker), instead of 75 minerals. And it should salvage +3s longer as well imo so a 50% bunker salvage will return 5000 minerals?
50%*100=50, you're welcome. Fair idea by Defrag imo, but I really do not see why people complain about bunkers. They're incredibly strong, but they're only fodder by themselves, and I can't say the fact that a structure that doesn't do anything is refundable annoys me the slightest.
|
On April 30 2011 18:43 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 18:31 R3N wrote:On April 30 2011 08:11 Aequos wrote:On April 30 2011 05:00 R3N wrote:On April 30 2011 04:32 freetgy wrote:On April 30 2011 03:40 flyingbangus wrote:
kidding? Have you seen a Protoss turtle on 2/3 base and not push out until 200/200? IMO it's the MacroToss that needs to be dealt economic damage to prevent the deathball from forming.
you don't realize why this is so are you? a Protoss can't afford to trade armies in a macro game against a smart zerg who trades gas cheap units against high gas units from Protoss. You will never be able to safely secure a 3rd/4rd with low unit counts thus beeing outmacrod in the end anyway with inferior army and tech cause you will need to constantly replace gas high units. if we could play less turtle, while beeing successful we would, but we can't cause our units need to be together to be cost effective at all. This obviously limits us in playing either over defensiv or offensiv. If Zerg Production/Larva mechanic wasn't as insane as it is we wouldn't be forced to so hard timing attacks or Deathball all-ins. But it is how it is by design. the moment Zerg players adapt to this Protoss will again have a very hard time competeing in PvZ Zerg use more gas than protoss. That doesn't mean they cost more gas (they don't; except the hive units) but it means the zerg need to outnumber the protoss (and still lose ) then replenish again and again and again. It adds up to the point where zerg has absolutely no gas at all even when sitting on 6 bases. I've seen this in so many prolevel tournaments and experienced it myself. Again, just because the protoss units in average have higher gas cost doens't mean they use more gas in the end. Also they cost more gas for a reason, they are much stronger units than zerg. I would argue that this isn't true in any situation until endgame. As I'm certain you know, playing Zerg, Corruptors are simply garbage against Colossi. However, they are quite expensive on gas (the same amount as a muta I believe) but have no use except to straight-up attack the Colossus. You really need about 4 per Colossus to bring them down in any sort of reasonable fashion, so I could easily see how Zerg needs more gas endgame. However, before that 200/200 composition, Protoss is probably going to have more gas invested in the army than Zerg. 8 Roaches will trade with a huge advantage to the Roaches against 5 Stalkers, yet the 5 Stalkers cost 50 gas more and 25 minerals more. Hydras behind Roaches will trade well against most armies without Sentries (and Sentries cost ridiculous amounts of gas to have in large numbers). A 3-gate expand, for Protoss, spends about 500-800 gas on units, while a Zerg army that can defeat it costs far less (if you spend 800 gas on Roaches, you'll have 32 of them, which will kick the crap out of 8 sentries and 2 Zealots). Until supply becomes an issue, Zerg is usually able to trade with less gas than their Protoss opponents. Your theory would hold if cannons and forcefields didn't exist. But they do; the "army trading" you speak of is completely unrealistic if not flat out untrue. It's just bullshit thinking a zerg can "trade armies" with a protoss that has 10+ cannons and that can split his armies in half losing next to nothing while doing it. Protoss can easily secure two additional expos doing this and at that point they will be maxed already. And hydras behind roaches? Rofl. Even two colossi, which come out almost as fast as any decent amount of hydras a zerg can field, are enough to kill the majority of the zerg army at that point. And I ain't even accounting forcefields. That is exactly what DarkForce does on his stream. Sometimes he trades an entire army but only manages to kill maybe 3-4 Stalkers, but use up every forcefield, you would think it would be a bad thing if it wasn't for the fact that he repops with Roaches and holds off the exact same Protoss ball with maybe 2 more Colossus, but no forcefields. ZvP is very deceptive, Even if it looks like Zerg totally got crushed in a fight, they are often in a better position than most people would assume. Forcfields, although when used well look somewhat devastating, are almost a requirement---at least for the early/mid game, it isn't possible to keep sentries alive after Infestors start coming out, maybe for the first two fights or so, but Zerg start becoming insanely efficient when they get 5+ Infestors and you can no longer afford the gas for Sentries, though at that stage you should have other options available.
No you just don't know what you are talking about. Stop implying you know ZvP better than a zerg, you play toss I assume.
Zerg can max up and don't care about loosing its entire army when the protoss is on the defensive, yes, but if it is on the offensive, meaning it's deathball and it's economy is good enough for the protoss to think he can attack, with a stalker ball big enough and a bunch of colo / sentries and whatever, even if you use all the FF and kill a bunch of stalker, you're dead, because you don't have the time to remax since the protoss is already near one of your expos. Your reinforcement comes from every angle in the maps, they can get taken out in small groups and the time you regroup you already lost your economy, and the game...
It's a dynamic, saying you just can loose your entire army for 3 stalker but forcing the protoss to use all mana on sentries and stay on a good position IS ridiculous.
About the salvage thing, I don't think it is good to nerf it. The problem is not that the terran get 100% of their price, the problem is that the salvage time is so short that even if you are hitting the bunker, there is a decent chance that the terran will have the time to salvage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
