|
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 20:35 WhiteDog 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. 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.
thats why you need to hit the protoss deathball when it moves out and not when it already has moved out.
|
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
Seriously... Bad players talking about things which they have no idea about.
|
On April 30 2011 23:36 Juanald wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 16:02 windsupernova wrote: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   
Look, obviously you're dead set on this, but ask ANYONE in the community, pro or not, and they iwll tell you PROXY 2 GATE IS A CHEESE. There is no argument against it.
|
Proxy buildings are cheese, yes.
Not that there's anything wrong with cheese, I oftentimes prefer the intense micro battles it spawns over boring macro games.
|
lol at the derailed maths thread.
besides, his maths were not questioned - only the semantics.
if someone says "how many cents are in a dollar?", you don't normally reply "100 cents".
|
On May 01 2011 00:42 MyNameIsAlex wrote:
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.
Three of your last posts here on TL:
On April 30 2011 21:58 MyNameIsAlex wrote:
Blizz tends to dissapoint us alot lately ... : /
On April 30 2011 17:21 MyNameIsAlex wrote:
LOL!
On April 30 2011 17:17 MyNameIsAlex wrote:
disgusting
I think I see a pattern here.
|
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.
And if you build 10,000 cannons over the course of a game you'll have lost 1,500,000 minerals of 1,500,000 minerals. What's your point lol?
Using big numbers in to show unnecessary math craft proves nothing especially when you're using numbers that'll never be relevant in a game.
|
On May 01 2011 03:17 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 22:07 Asparagus wrote: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. And if you build 10,000 cannons over the course of a game you'll have lost 1,500,000 minerals of 1,500,000 minerals. What's your point lol? Using big numbers in to show unnecessary math craft proves nothing especially when you're using numbers that'll never be relevant in a game.
It is conceivably possible to use 10,000 minerals on bunkers. That would be 100 bunkers of course, over the course of a 2 hours game it is possible. He was referring to 100 bunkers. If you built 1 thousand bunkers, i think thats stretching it a bit. You could potentially loose 2500 minerals just for salvaging, not being attacked, not loosing them to the enemy, not in any action of your opponent, just by building bunkers over and over and salvaging them. This was the point.
Thanks.
|
I'm curious what they're thinking in regards to ZvP.
Hmm, no zerg in ro8 TSL...
let's reinstate 2gate BO loss vs hatch first!
|
On May 01 2011 03:52 angerpowered wrote:
Hmm, no zerg in ro8 TSL...
let's reinstate 2gate BO loss vs hatch first!
Pretty sure 14 gas/14 pool will become standard opener now, since you will have to account for:
- Proxy gates
- Some kind of zealot/cannon rush mixture
- Faster 2 gate/core stalker pressure
- Classic forge first cannon rush
|
hatch first still works :3 you will just get punished more for it, if its at the natural. So i would love to see less predictable zergs. (since they go hatch first anyway you can so easily play with their fears ^^ )
and 2 gate pressure works now in almost the same way as it will post patch, just that you would have one free chrono after the patch. And since 2 gate pressure delays the tech, it won't be used every game, so hooray for more build orders, makes early game more fun. Though i know how zergs hate to actually learn something about early game x3.
As for the bunkers ... will make mass bunker strats less good. Comparing those to canons isn't really working as this structure needs supply to fire.
I am atleast happy if i will see toss players open 2 gate post patch against me x3 (though most of them will lose because its really micro intensiv for the toss and dangerouse)
|
On April 30 2011 21:46 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 20:45 R3N wrote: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.
So you're telling me that it's bad to get colossi lol? And if I'm being aggressive forcefields ARE a problem wtf -_-
And engaging such that forcefields doens't rape me? Like you think any half a brain toss doesn't wall in their expo with cannons? How the fuck is one going to attack through that...
And I could 'just watch x games' you aswell where zerg dies after several tries being aggressive. Doesn't change the fact that zerg cannot stop Toss expo midgame (only early speedling all-in).
|
On April 26 2011 11:23 jaiBing wrote:
salvage change plus spore crawler is huge....... actually everything is lol
in fact.... its massive O_O
|
To the ones whining about the protoss gateway buffs. They need to buff the gateway units building time in correlation with the warp tech nerf. Otherwise protoss will have so few units that they will just die to any timing attack.
|
On May 01 2011 06:47 Bloody wrote:
They need to buff gateway units building time in correlation with the warp tech nerf. Otherwise protoss will have so few units that they will just die to any timing attack. Just saying.
Did you read the patch notes?
|
On May 01 2011 06:47 Bloody wrote:
They need to buff gateway units building time in correlation with the warp tech nerf. Otherwise protoss will have so few units that they will just die to any timing attacks. Just saying.
Gateway
Sentry train time decreased from 42 to 37.
Stalker train time decreased from 42 to 37.
Zealot train time decreased from 38 to 33.
|
I know. I'm just saying to everyone who whines about the protoss gateway buffs.
|
On April 30 2011 04:32 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +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
I'm suprised there is a lack of discussion about how this encourages the deathball approach. The cost benefit of lurking about earlier on is less and less since you can get swarmed so hard. IMO there's a macroproblem that zergs cant use the eco compensation to some effect but it is worth noting how difficult it is to poke about earlier as toss. Watching Huk for instance get hurt pretty badly when his early sentry push out gets crushed is pretty painful. Personally, gives me a lot of respect for the play when executed well.
Also, I thought Bliz orig had problems with the simple 2gate opening even?
|
When I do the sentry push, I tend to get a hallu phoenix to scout ahead, and if the zerg has suspiciously few drones or an army or 2+ spines, I will be much more careful. I'm worried about the warpgate research change because now hallucination comes out 30 seconds later and scouting and reacting to the various techs fast enough is going to be somewhat difficult.
What the fast hallucination off 3gate expo allowed
- relative safety from allins because forge goes up with the expo.
- knowing if it's safe to go punish zerg for making 40+ drones off 4 zerglings
- playing reactionary to the zerg tech choices. spire + 4gas = +1 6gate etc.
I feel like even though PvP will be less of a pain, PvZ and PvT early-mid game will both mostly have to be relearned.
|
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.
You can't be serious can you?
How many minerals do you think you'd have gathered throughout the course of a game that has 10,000 bunkers? What percentage of that do you think a 25 mineral refund per bunker is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
