|
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 26 2011 15:38 dusthoof wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:30 poor newb wrote:
zvp -> get proxy 2 gated every game
zvt -> good luck dealing with an untouchable army of cloaked ghosts sniping every overseer you throw at them
fun fun In the past protoss only lost pylons, now they may lose 2 gateways if they are push back. So we won't see 2 proxy gates.. Zerg should learn to spread creep and just spore crawler as detectors. Burrow time only 6 sec.
2 gate proxy is risky but has a high pay off. It's effectively an all-in but if you do enough damage the Zerg is so behind it doesn't even matter if you lose 2 gates + 1 pylon (= 400 minerals).
The very existence of 2 gate proxy may force Zergs to be less greedy on larger maps because you probably won't be able to scout it that consistently every game.
|
Something I've been thinking about is whether Void Rays are now viable in PvP as an alternative to Colossi. They're certainly more viable now that 4gating isn't an option (given that the 4gate allows easy defense of harass and addition of Stalkers), and their increased mobility can probably give a player a leg up on the Robo player and possibly allow an expand into Chargelots/Immortals (to deal with the Blink Stalkers). I'm just not sure about the timing windows and whether or not the Robo player can efficiently switch tech into Blink Stalkers before the VR player gains a crippling lead. What I really hope is that the game doesn't turn into rock-paper-scissors with air beating Robo, Robo beating Blink Stalkers, and Blink Stalkers beating air, because that's just silly.
|
I love the Archon buff. No more extreme kiting to death by Marauders.
|
On April 26 2011 15:43 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:38 dusthoof wrote:On April 26 2011 15:30 poor newb wrote:
zvp -> get proxy 2 gated every game
zvt -> good luck dealing with an untouchable army of cloaked ghosts sniping every overseer you throw at them
fun fun In the past protoss only lost pylons, now they may lose 2 gateways if they are push back. So we won't see 2 proxy gates.. Zerg should learn to spread creep and just spore crawler as detectors. Burrow time only 6 sec. 2 gate proxy is risky but has a high pay off. It's effectively an all-in but if you do enough damage the Zerg is so behind it doesn't even matter if you lose 2 gates + 1 pylon (= 400 minerals). The very existence of 2 gate proxy may force Zergs to be less greedy on larger maps because you probably won't be able to scout it that consistently every game.
Doesn't canon rushing already do that? I can't imagine 2 gate is harder to scout considering they'll have almost nothing in their base.
|
Most changes are good, but what's the point in increasing zealot build time?
Also if they decided to make archon massive why not make queen massive. It would make zerg much easier to deal with very strong phoenix/void opening and zergs could move queen around to destroy FFs.
|
This is the first patch where I think the majority of the changes are really, really good.
Decreased gateway build time was actually something I suggested a long time ago. Archons being massive makes sense and will buff them ever so slightly. I don't agree with making ghosts less gas heavy though. They really need to make templar and ghost have the same range for feedback and emp if this change is going through.
Warp gate research increased by 40 seconds makes all the difference in the world. 4 gates will come a whole round of units later. Actually, 4 gate is just not viable. Not in the current form anyway. Protoss can still be aggressive early game as it should be.
I would even consider making warp gate a midgame tech when it can't just straight out win you games. Not sure what the tech requirement would be but delaying warp gate is a very, very good move for this game.
|
On April 26 2011 15:44 Dingobloo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:43 Azarkon wrote:On April 26 2011 15:38 dusthoof wrote:On April 26 2011 15:30 poor newb wrote:
zvp -> get proxy 2 gated every game
zvt -> good luck dealing with an untouchable army of cloaked ghosts sniping every overseer you throw at them
fun fun In the past protoss only lost pylons, now they may lose 2 gateways if they are push back. So we won't see 2 proxy gates.. Zerg should learn to spread creep and just spore crawler as detectors. Burrow time only 6 sec. 2 gate proxy is risky but has a high pay off. It's effectively an all-in but if you do enough damage the Zerg is so behind it doesn't even matter if you lose 2 gates + 1 pylon (= 400 minerals). The very existence of 2 gate proxy may force Zergs to be less greedy on larger maps because you probably won't be able to scout it that consistently every game. Doesn't canon rushing already do that? I can't imagine 2 gate is harder to scout considering they'll have almost nothing in their base.
Cannon rushing is a lot easier to scout because it will almost always be by your expansion hatchery, and the proper response (putting down spines) will usually allow you to hold it unless you failed so much at scouting that cannons in range of your hatchery are already warping in.
2 gate proxy will usually be hidden somewhere sneaky, and even if you do scout it throwing down spines is not necessarily enough as you're split having to defend both your expansion and your main. Zealots are mobile. Cannons are not.
|
Alpina's post is actually a really good idea. Wouldn't effect the TvP matchup either and they'd (FF's) still be really strong in standard macro games (Collossus/gateway vs Corrupter/roach/hydra).
|
On April 26 2011 15:45 Alpina wrote:
Also if they decided to make archon massive why not make queen massive. It would make zerg much easier to deal with very strong phoenix/void opening and zergs could move queen around to destroy FFs.
then void pwn queens?
|
On April 26 2011 15:45 Alpina wrote:
Most changes are good, but what's the point in increasing zealot build time?
Also if they decided to make archon massive why not make queen massive. It would make zerg much easier to deal with very strong phoenix/void opening and zergs could move queen around to destroy FFs.
If Queens were a massive unit, void rays do 20% more damage. I think that won't change much even though queens cant be lifted now by the Phoenix. And the Queen aint that big
|
On April 26 2011 15:45 Alpina wrote:
Most changes are good, but what's the point in increasing zealot build time?
Also if they decided to make archon massive why not make queen massive. It would make zerg much easier to deal with very strong phoenix/void opening and zergs could move queen around to destroy FFs.
...That would be stupid if you made queen massive. You just had a reduction of uprooting spores by 50%. And voids would do extra damage to queens too, since voids do extra damage v. massive.
Anyway the upside to this is that 1 gate expand would be more viable versus terran without dying to an scv all-in because you can probably squeeze out another unit or two early on. Not sure though.
|
On April 26 2011 15:43 JoxxOr wrote:
Really happy with the spore change. Will make it easier to defend against mass banshee/other things
How will it help? I don't think it's a useful change at all.
|
Pylon change is so stupid, gives protoss a disadvantage in all matchups just to encourage less 4 warp gate in pvp.....Not to mention I will have to relearn where to position all my buildings for my sim cities. I really really dislike these changes for toss seems like they are going backwards instead of forward.
|
Ghost change is pretty nifty, although I think 150/100 would still be reasonable. Blizzard just likes to make their changes dramatic, I guess. The bunker change is pretty silly. I don't think it will make a big difference either way. It will just be an incentive for terrans to leave their bunkers up for longer.
|
On April 26 2011 14:25 [Atomic]Peace wrote:I'm going to go with Tyler on the Warpgate change: Show nested quote +
I'm tired of casual play negatively affecting pro play (4gate being addressed in next patch). Rule changes should happen only when necessary
He nails it. The change simply isn't necessary and is only being made to cater to casual play. Is it difficult to hold off a 4 warp gate? It can be. Is the build usually powerful for how easy it is to execute? Sure. But with proper training you can hold off 4 warp gate 100% of the time. By definition it is not imbalanced.
There seem to be pro players who like these changes (LaLush for one) and I'm not quite sure what he means by "negatively". Perhaps he dislikes how the change affects other matchups? Regardless, I'm sure players will keep opening doors and once Tyler opens the right door, he may turn out to agree with the changes. In the light of his stance on balance complaints it's somewhat ironic he is complaining about these changes before even testing them in practice.
|
i really really really like all of those changes.
|
On April 26 2011 15:49 LXenJin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:45 Alpina wrote:
Most changes are good, but what's the point in increasing zealot build time?
Also if they decided to make archon massive why not make queen massive. It would make zerg much easier to deal with very strong phoenix/void opening and zergs could move queen around to destroy FFs. If Queens were a massive unit, void rays do 20% more damage. I think that won't change much even though queens cant be lifted now by the Phoenix. And the Queen aint that big
Queens can't be lifted anymore? O.o
|
Please don't decrease Zealot build time to 33... Decrease it to 37, like for Stalkers and Sentries.
Protoss already has enough ways to cheese as it is.
|
I like the change for the gateways, but they really should raise the time for warpgateunits so that you actually can choose between having your units warped in anywhere or getting units faster.
The only thing I really miss is some kind of change with the Sentrys energy 
|
On April 26 2011 15:51 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 14:25 [Atomic]Peace wrote:I'm going to go with Tyler on the Warpgate change:
I'm tired of casual play negatively affecting pro play (4gate being addressed in next patch). Rule changes should happen only when necessary
https://twitter.com/#!/TylerWasieleski/status/61786904529616896He nails it. The change simply isn't necessary and is only being made to cater to casual play. Is it difficult to hold off a 4 warp gate? It can be. Is the build usually powerful for how easy it is to execute? Sure. But with proper training you can hold off 4 warp gate 100% of the time. By definition it is not imbalanced. There seem to be pro players who like these changes (LaLush for one) and I'm not quite sure what he means by "negatively". Perhaps he dislikes how the change affects other matchups? Regardless, I'm sure players will keep opening doors.
To me it's about making the game better. The game will be better if PvP isn't all about 4 gate. Tyler doesn't seem to give this a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
