|
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 May 01 2011 07:29 Amui wrote:
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.
Never thought about that, only proper solution would be to reduce hallucination research time from 80 to 50.
|
Or go hallucination first and survive a long time on gateways.
|
On May 01 2011 07:32 dump 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. 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?
I wasn't.
|
On May 01 2011 07:57 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 07:32 dump wrote: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. 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? I wasn't.
My bad then.
|
Hmmm... I don't usually post on TL although I'm a very frequent lurker in both the site and the forum, but I was happy with these changes and since I made a post about it on a forum I've been active on, I'll copy/paste it here. Since I know the guys there it's a little more informal than what I'd post in a community where I got like 2-3 posts but whatever, it's just copypasting and it's stuff I'd like to discuss cause they are in a very good direction, imo... 
Here goes:
"Ok, t before I post my thoughts I should say that I LOVE these changes!
Here's my thoughts on them:
1) Warpgate/Gateway change:
I like this very much. It didn't make sense that warpgate tech was allowing you to not only warp in units anywhere but also do it more often than the gateway trained them. It now makes it possible to switch back to gateways in order to defend or get an army faster and switch to warpgates when pushin to reinforce on the fly which adds some tactical choice to the race. Also it'll be way easier to defend against 4gate pushes in pvp, which will allow for more variation to this matchup which imo is currently the most annoying one...
2)Warpgate research. This was also a needed change. it should be easier to defend against 4gate as any race, due to it coming slower, as well as especially more easy to defend in pvp since gateways now produce units faster. This will also push P players into more varying playstyles which I'm very very interrested to see... Also a 50/50 upgrade like this that allows such incredible flexibility was a little OP despite the fact that it was just considered the norm so nobody gave it too much credit...
New reduced production times from normal gates also strengthen the gateway army of the protoss since it'll be easier to mass when not pushing with warpgates and will effectively solve the PvT early problem with bio and add a reactive element to playing P.
3)Archons being massive. This was a very very needed change for 2 reasons: The most important is that phoenixes in PvP are simply OP right now due to the nature of protoss armies:
The only current massive unit P has is Colossus which can't attack air and phoenixes can attack it anyway cause of it's height. Also the only viable anti-air, the stalker, does pitiful dmg against light armor, but buffing it would make it OP against mutas/banshees since they have too little HP and stalkers have good range. The only thing that can beat mass phoenix in pvp is even more phoenixes since if you go ground you'll get pinned to your base unable to move out due to harass and having the army harassed in addition to the mineral lines and the stalker numbers in check is an easy way to victory, so the archon being a new massive unit and unaffected by the phoenix beam is now a counter to this strategy since it can hit air for quite a good amount of dmg. Massive also means that bringing archons into play doesn't simply cancel out stargate play from a phoenix player since VRs do absurd amounts of dmg against them so it will turn into a responding-to-the-composition game which in my opinion is a good change.
3)Pylon radious reduced: I like this one too. For the purposes of planting a pylon outside the enemy base to warp stuff on the high ground it actually takes some effort to protect the pylon now which is good. I think that the buildings won't be as much affected, though I'm not sure about the wider ramps, but you usually get to build a second pylon there anyway, so it won't be a big deal there either...
4)Bunker refund nerf: Was needed, really 100% was just too much and let bunker pushes be like 100% unpunishable if they failed, plus planting a bunker at the wrong spot or reading a push wrong etc. Wrong decisions should be punished even a little.
5) Ghost cost change: I think that this brings it more in line with similar units for P and T and their costs. Ghosts are a little less of a caster than HT or infestors but have combat capabilities, so it's more reasonable to pay more minerals for the dmg portion and less gas for the comparable lower casting abilities. I think that minerals=meatier/chunkier/stronger units while gas translates to more elaborate/techier stuff, so this change fits in this philosophy well.
It'll also make the terran bio-ball a little weaker on the mineral side and allow for some more gas to be spent on upgrades/tech/ravens/whatever. I like it, though it's not something I'd cheer loudly about
6) Spore crawler change: I like this one too... I've seen tons of matches where zerg makes a crawler, the VR comes kills the queen and then avoids the crawler by moving around. Repositioning will be quite easier now which is quite nice.
Overall I think we'll see an increase in proxygating early on but i also think that it'll soon die out to safer scouting. Personally I prefer getting proxygated once in a while to being 4gate rushed every time which is good either if it dies out soon or not(or even if it gets to develop at all). I like all the changes so far and would love to see them go live. Big thumbs up from me so far
Edit: The archon change also pairs well with the recent HT nerf via the amulet upgrade removal. Now archons are a more viable unit in both matchups they were not(pvt/pvp) and quite unchanged in pvz where they were already powerful since all Z is bio."
|
On May 01 2011 08:28 Stirlitz wrote:Hmmm... I don't usually post on TL although I'm a very frequent lurker in both the site and the forum, but I was happy with these changes and since I made a post about it on a forum I've been active on, I'll copy/paste it here. Since I know the guys there it's a little more informal than what I'd post in a community where I got like 2-3 posts but whatever, it's just copypasting and it's stuff I'd like to discuss cause they are in a very good direction, imo... Here goes: "Ok, t before I post my thoughts I should say that I LOVE these changes! Here's my thoughts on them: 1) Warpgate/Gateway change: I like this very much. It didn't make sense that warpgate tech was allowing you to not only warp in units anywhere but also do it more often than the gateway trained them. It now makes it possible to switch back to gateways in order to defend or get an army faster and switch to warpgates when pushin to reinforce on the fly which adds some tactical choice to the race. Also it'll be way easier to defend against 4gate pushes in pvp, which will allow for more variation to this matchup which imo is currently the most annoying one...
I'm sorry to correct you on this, but it is still quicker to produce out of Warp Gates once the tech is researched. The Warp Gate has 28 seconds build time on a Zealot, while a Gateway has 33. The warp in time of a Zealot from a Warp Gate is not counted, because the Warp Gate cooldown begins to count down as soon as the Zealot is placed.
Essentially, 2 Zealots from Warp Gates will take 56 seconds, while 2 from a Gateway will take 66 seconds. However, it can help defend against 4 gate, because Chronoboosting the research won't be required to get similar sized armies to the first few warp ins.
|
On May 01 2011 08:36 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 08:28 Stirlitz wrote:Hmmm... I don't usually post on TL although I'm a very frequent lurker in both the site and the forum, but I was happy with these changes and since I made a post about it on a forum I've been active on, I'll copy/paste it here. Since I know the guys there it's a little more informal than what I'd post in a community where I got like 2-3 posts but whatever, it's just copypasting and it's stuff I'd like to discuss cause they are in a very good direction, imo... Here goes: "Ok, t before I post my thoughts I should say that I LOVE these changes! Here's my thoughts on them: 1) Warpgate/Gateway change: I like this very much. It didn't make sense that warpgate tech was allowing you to not only warp in units anywhere but also do it more often than the gateway trained them. It now makes it possible to switch back to gateways in order to defend or get an army faster and switch to warpgates when pushin to reinforce on the fly which adds some tactical choice to the race. Also it'll be way easier to defend against 4gate pushes in pvp, which will allow for more variation to this matchup which imo is currently the most annoying one... I'm sorry to correct you on this, but it is still quicker to produce out of Warp Gates once the tech is researched. The Warp Gate has 28 seconds build time on a Zealot, while a Gateway has 33. The warp in time of a Zealot from a Warp Gate is not counted, because the Warp Gate cooldown begins to count down as soon as the Zealot is placed. Essentially, 2 Zealots from Warp Gates will take 56 seconds, while 2 from a Gateway will take 66 seconds. However, it can help defend against 4 gate, because Chronoboosting the research won't be required to get similar sized armies to the first few warp ins.
Aw, sorry, it seems like I didn't pay enough attention to it and for some reason just considered that they made warpgate just a second later than the normal unit training. Thanks for correcting this 
I also made the same mistake in 3 places(the original post, the post I copied here and the post I copied on the battle.net eu thread on the patch, gj me! ) Oh well, seems I'll copy/paste your correction to fix that, lolz
I think it was more hopeful thoughts that mingled with my misreading of this. I always thought that normal gateways would be cool to have and be more efficient in creating an army and turning them into warpgates for reinforcing a push or going warp-prisms, but I haven't really considered how it would affect the rest of the game.
Oh well, thanks for the correction <3
|
I just had a thought though -- do most people in around ~diamond macro well enough to take advantage of the 5 second production time decrease with gateways?
Usually what happens at around my level of play is that people macro well while they're defending -- but poorly when they're attacking or doing anything else. Even IdrA's macro strays slightly when he's attacking.
That might mean that aside from the mobility afforded by warp gates, gateways with a 5 second buff on all unit production times might in fact be a slight advantage -- or at least a convenience.
By the way, are PTR participants chosen randomly?
|
hmm, very nice patch. lovely by blizzard, the sheer number of times they have changed the production of the zealot shows how precisely they're doing the experiments.
|
On May 01 2011 10:25 dump wrote:
I just had a thought though -- do most people in around ~diamond macro well enough to take advantage of the 5 second production time decrease with gateways?
Usually what happens at around my level of play is that people macro well while they're defending -- but poorly when they're attacking or doing anything else. Even IdrA's macro strays slightly when he's attacking.
That might mean that aside from the mobility afforded by warp gates, gateways with a 5 second buff on all unit production times might in fact be a slight advantage -- or at least a convenience.
By the way, are PTR participants chosen randomly?
Im pretty sure anyone can test just use your PTR client. correct me if im wrong though
|
On May 01 2011 11:30 Ryrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 10:25 dump wrote:
I just had a thought though -- do most people in around ~diamond macro well enough to take advantage of the 5 second production time decrease with gateways?
Usually what happens at around my level of play is that people macro well while they're defending -- but poorly when they're attacking or doing anything else. Even IdrA's macro strays slightly when he's attacking.
That might mean that aside from the mobility afforded by warp gates, gateways with a 5 second buff on all unit production times might in fact be a slight advantage -- or at least a convenience.
By the way, are PTR participants chosen randomly? Im pretty sure anyone can test just use your PTR client. correct me if im wrong though
Hah I'm stupid, I kept searching for "PTR" under my Start menu instead of "public test".
|
I am curious to see how much 5 seconds will really matter for the first bunch of Zealots.
As a Terran I can just wall-off and keep an SCV or two to repair the buildings, not unlike a 6 pool.
In PvZ and PvP though the proxy 2gate might be a lot harder to hold off, although again, is 5 seconds really that much?
|
I am curious to see how much 5 seconds will really matter for the first bunch of Zealots.
As a Terran I can just wall-off and keep an SCV or two to repair the buildings, not unlike a 6 pool.
In PvZ and PvP though the proxy 2gate might be a lot harder to hold off, although again, is 5 seconds really that much?
The difference for the first Zealot is about the same as the difference in spawning close by air meta and close by ground meta.
For Proxy gate on the other hand it makes a hell of a difference. First Zealot is out 5 Seconds sooner, the next set of Zealots 10 seconds sooner, the set after that 15seconds sooner than as it is right now and the 4th set 20 seconds sooner. I'm actually quite worried about it in PvP. The maps are much bigger now, if 2gate wasn't viable when Steppes of War was in the map pool then it isn't going to be any more viable now--except close position Meta/ST, might make PvT bearable if I have the option just to end the game in the first 4-5mins than having to wait for my Warpgate or Voidray to be done
|
On May 01 2011 10:25 dump wrote:
I just had a thought though -- do most people in around ~diamond macro well enough to take advantage of the 5 second production time decrease with gateways?
Usually what happens at around my level of play is that people macro well while they're defending -- but poorly when they're attacking or doing anything else. Even IdrA's macro strays slightly when he's attacking.
That might mean that aside from the mobility afforded by warp gates, gateways with a 5 second buff on all unit production times might in fact be a slight advantage -- or at least a convenience.
In the early game, anyone in diamond should certainly be macroing well enough to take advantage of the time difference. Timing precision can fall off as the game goes on, but obviously that isn't relevant here.
It's also much easier to get full use out of normal-style production buildings than it is out of warpgates, as you can often afford to queue the next unit a couple of seconds early and don't need to be perfect in your timing.
|
On May 01 2011 11:30 Ryrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 10:25 dump wrote:
I just had a thought though -- do most people in around ~diamond macro well enough to take advantage of the 5 second production time decrease with gateways?
Usually what happens at around my level of play is that people macro well while they're defending -- but poorly when they're attacking or doing anything else. Even IdrA's macro strays slightly when he's attacking.
That might mean that aside from the mobility afforded by warp gates, gateways with a 5 second buff on all unit production times might in fact be a slight advantage -- or at least a convenience.
By the way, are PTR participants chosen randomly? Im pretty sure anyone can test just use your PTR client. correct me if im wrong though
no they are chosen randomly. by random I mean only players on the US server.
|
I do think posters should have their league's icon beside their nickname, it would definitely help to know what post potentially *could* be relevant or not.
|
On May 01 2011 07:45 dump wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 07:29 Amui wrote:
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. Never thought about that, only proper solution would be to reduce hallucination research time from 80 to 50.
I never got hallucination and I was always fine against all-ins.
|
People need to understand that the gateway build time reductions still leave them 5 seconds longer than warp gates. You can NEVER get a bigger army by staying on gateways. Warp gates used to be 10secs faster, now just 5, but you still should only be using warp gates by the time midgame rolls around, despite the increased difficulty with macro.
|
I still struggle to see the tension with warpgate vs gateway. Warpgates are still strictly better. Oh well.
|
On May 01 2011 20:37 Barty wrote:
I do think posters should have their league's icon beside their nickname, it would definitely help to know what post potentially *could* be relevant or not.
That's an excellent idea. I would be very happy if this was implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
