|
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 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.
make bunkers??
|
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.
Yeah infestors are areally good against the stalker ball mid game, but the game won't last forever. The colossi number will increase and you better bust the toss expo to survive before the critical number of colossi. And it is that bust that is so difficult and frustrating to do due to forcefields and cannons and whatnot.
|
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? 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.
Multiplying something with 50% is the same as multiplying with 50/100. One percent is 1/100. :o)
|
Guess we'll be going back to holding off proxy 2 gates all the time.
|
On April 30 2011 20:45 R3N wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 18:43 Dommk wrote: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. Yeah infestors are areally good against the stalker ball mid game, but the game won't last forever. The colossi number will increase and you better bust the toss expo to survive before the critical number of colossi. And it is that bust that is so difficult and frustrating to do due to forcefields and cannons and whatnot.
Against aggressive Roach/Hydra builds, if you get more than 4 Colossus then you shoot your self in the foot, especially when Infestors come out. It is the magic number these days, any more than that and the gain isn't that big and they start bumping into each other making Neurals much easier.
If you are being aggressive then forcefields shouldn't be a problem, obviously you don't want to run into a choke and lose everything to some good forcefields, but as long as you engage such that the forcefields don't completely rape you, then you should be fine--the first battle always looks the worst but it gets better and better as the Toss runs out of forcefields and his units start dieing. Just watch the Kiwikaki vs IdrA games where IdrA gets crushed by forcefields...but he isn't exactly behind..
I think it is a mental hurdle for most Zergs, getting pissed off after seeing their first assault just get stomped by forcefields, but just because it did doesn't mean you are behind.
|
I'm okay with most of these changed, but I really have a problem with the training time of Zealots being reduced again, as a Zerg player I have been proxy 2 gated before, this being on big maps where I FE and if scouted at the wrong time can be totally crushing, now that it can be done faster pisses me off slightly, an example of this on a common map is Scrap Station, I FE'd here once vs a protoss and went to scout his base at 13 supply, after finding nothing in his base i sent out 2 more scouts to scout the surrounding area near my base, I find x2 proxy gates near my base and drop spines the second the pool is done it was still not enough to defend, now they're going to have Zealots allot earlier really get to me..
The bunker change I like but I feel only a 25mineral isn't enough, hopefully I'm wrong and only time will tell with this one.
|
On April 30 2011 21:51 Karma` wrote:
The bunker change I like but I feel only a 25mineral isn't enough, hopefully I'm wrong and only time will tell with this one.
Blizzard thinks ahead of even the most professional players.
Put it this way:
If you make 10,000 bunkers over the course of a game... when you salvage them all you actually get back 7,500 minerals, you don't notice it but in fact you have lost 2,500 minerals, a total of 50 marines or SCV's that could have been built. But Blizzard used innovative thinking not just in the current moment but in future events. Sure this might seem trivial but in the long run especially 2-3 hour macro games where you're both mined out, the mineral difference will be a game breaker. Take for example, what if you built 100,000 bunkers? I can't even imagine the consequences of salvaging them post 1.3.3.
With that in mind, I hope you can also hold your head high with me in appreciating the amount of knowledge they bring fourth in terms of actually thinking about where the game not is, but where it should be. Patch after patch, this will only get better.
|
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.
Just because you do a build every game on a certain map doesn't mean it's not cheese.
CHEESER :D
|
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
so anything that isnt as strong once scouted is cheese . its really offencive i put in alot of time improving my zealot micro and my skills just get undermind like this.
think before u speak
  
|
On April 30 2011 20:38 Dezire 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. make bunkers??
You just need to scout the number of pylons in their base :/ really not hard to scout
|
On April 30 2011 22:07 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 21:51 Karma` wrote:
The bunker change I like but I feel only a 25mineral isn't enough, hopefully I'm wrong and only time will tell with this one. Blizzard thinks ahead of even the most professional players. Put it this way: If you make 10,000 bunkers over the course of a game... when you salvage them all you actually get back 7,500 minerals, you don't notice it but in fact you have lost 2,500 minerals, a total of 50 marines or SCV's that could have been built. But Blizzard used innovative thinking not just in the current moment but in future events. Sure this might seem trivial but in the long run especially 2-3 hour macro games where you're both mined out, the mineral difference will be a game breaker. Take for example, what if you built 100,000 bunkers? I can't even imagine the consequences of salvaging them post 1.3.3. With that in mind, I hope you can also hold your head high with me in appreciating the amount of knowledge they bring fourth in terms of actually thinking about where the game not is, but where it should be. Patch after patch, this will only get better.
10000*100 is 1000000 75% of it is 750000
|
On April 30 2011 21:51 Karma` wrote:
I'm okay with most of these changed, but I really have a problem with the training time of Zealots being reduced again, as a Zerg player I have been proxy 2 gated before, this being on big maps where I FE and if scouted at the wrong time can be totally crushing, now that it can be done faster pisses me off slightly, an example of this on a common map is Scrap Station, I FE'd here once vs a protoss and went to scout his base at 13 supply, after finding nothing in his base i sent out 2 more scouts to scout the surrounding area near my base, I find x2 proxy gates near my base and drop spines the second the pool is done it was still not enough to defend, now they're going to have Zealots allot earlier really get to me..
But that's pretty much the same scenario as when a Zerg 6 pools a Toss in Tal Darim Altar isn't it? If the Toss goes for an econ build and scouts the Zerg last, its pretty ridiculous to hold off as well. I don't know what Blizzard can do to fix these sort of things though without breaking the game.
|
On May 01 2011 00:18 Zealot Lord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 21:51 Karma` wrote:
I'm okay with most of these changed, but I really have a problem with the training time of Zealots being reduced again, as a Zerg player I have been proxy 2 gated before, this being on big maps where I FE and if scouted at the wrong time can be totally crushing, now that it can be done faster pisses me off slightly, an example of this on a common map is Scrap Station, I FE'd here once vs a protoss and went to scout his base at 13 supply, after finding nothing in his base i sent out 2 more scouts to scout the surrounding area near my base, I find x2 proxy gates near my base and drop spines the second the pool is done it was still not enough to defend, now they're going to have Zealots allot earlier really get to me.. But that's pretty much the same scenario as when a Zerg 6 pools a Toss in Tal Darim Altar isn't it? If the Toss goes for an econ build and scouts the Zerg last, its pretty ridiculous to hold off as well. I don't know what Blizzard can do to fix these sort of things though without breaking the game.
i thought that with a constant probe production you could kill any 6 pool with good micro.
|
On May 01 2011 00:32 navara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 00:18 Zealot Lord wrote:On April 30 2011 21:51 Karma` wrote:
I'm okay with most of these changed, but I really have a problem with the training time of Zealots being reduced again, as a Zerg player I have been proxy 2 gated before, this being on big maps where I FE and if scouted at the wrong time can be totally crushing, now that it can be done faster pisses me off slightly, an example of this on a common map is Scrap Station, I FE'd here once vs a protoss and went to scout his base at 13 supply, after finding nothing in his base i sent out 2 more scouts to scout the surrounding area near my base, I find x2 proxy gates near my base and drop spines the second the pool is done it was still not enough to defend, now they're going to have Zealots allot earlier really get to me.. But that's pretty much the same scenario as when a Zerg 6 pools a Toss in Tal Darim Altar isn't it? If the Toss goes for an econ build and scouts the Zerg last, its pretty ridiculous to hold off as well. I don't know what Blizzard can do to fix these sort of things though without breaking the game. i thought that with a constant probe production you could kill any 6 pool with good micro.
you can
|
On April 30 2011 23:45 Number-J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 20:38 Dezire 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. make bunkers?? You just need to scout the number of pylons in their base :/ really not hard to scout
Read what he actually wrote. It is easily scoutable, but actually very hard to hold of. Terran needs almost perfect micro. Esp. since toss can easily transition. Terran just need to do every thing perfect to defeat it. And yeh every time it is seen in high lvl play the proxy gater usually wins.
|
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
You want the bunker to return more minerals for salvaging than its worth?
What?
|
lol i ve been banned from bnet's forums for criticizing blizz's back and forth from 33 to 38 to 33 to 38 and back to 33 sec zealot build time...
reason: trolling.
are they fuking kidding me?
these guys are incompetent.
|
On May 01 2011 00:37 arb 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 You want the bunker to return more minerals for salvaging than its worth? What?
He probably means % of health to be represented as a decimal.
100% would be 1.0
50% would be 0.5.
etc.
So a Bunker salvaged at 25% health would return 25 minerals, I think.
|
On May 01 2011 00:37 arb 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 You want the bunker to return more minerals for salvaging than its worth? What?
No, he's saying if it has 100 health when salvaged it should give 100 minerals, if it has 75% health it should give 75 minerals, 50 minerals for 50% health etc.
|
On May 01 2011 00:37 arb 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 You want the bunker to return more minerals for salvaging than its worth? What?
Health as a percentage, only full health bunkers get 100 mins back. A 25% health bunker would get 25 mins back etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
