|
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 16:02 Mitchlew wrote:
My friend is saying this.
"Nah, it won't work in 2 players map, Protoss will just build pylons inside Terran's base. Use workers to kill off the pylon? Nope, Tasteless said it just doesn't worth it as Protoss can just build another pylon, while Terran will lose plenty of mining time."
This is regarding a proxy 2 gate even if it is scouted by terran. Surely it isn't as hard to defend than what he is making out.
I've seen Terran players hold it off (and I wish I could link you the game, I really do, but I can't remember who it was) by building a bunker near their mineral line and putting Marines in it. The bunker allows them to cover themselves from the Zealot attacks until they can get enough attacking units out to deal with it.
Protoss players would probably want to play by dropping a forge down and getting quick cannons.
Zerg would probably be involving Zerglings and kiting on creep.
|
On April 26 2011 15:57 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:54 ParasitJonte wrote:On April 26 2011 15:51 syllogism wrote: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
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. 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. Ehhh, I actually don't agree. Blizzard should only step in to fix broken things, Its not up to them to make a matchup more playable or watchable. And really, with 9 matchups only 1 was retarded so I don't think it was that bad. PvP was interesting to me at least, not all matches need to go into super late macro mode to be good.
PvP is currently broken. It's a fact.
There is only one option you can go for, every other is almost auto-loss against it - unless the opponent screws up or you have far superior micro. So while you can risk going other builds, it can cost you a lot or money in a tournament if your opponent 4gates, so you can only go the safe route and 4gate yourself, which results in a cycle that is impossible to break.
Player A: If i don't 4gate i lose if he 4gates, so i better 4gate eventhough i don't like it
Player B: If i don't 4gate i lose if he 4gates, so i better 4gate eventhough i don't like it
Result: Both players 4gate
|
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.
Those two things are in no way related. Archons and queens have almost no relation. Saying queens should be massive because archons are is like saying zealots should be able to cloak because banshees can. All you are doing is pointing out that making queens massive would be a buff. No shit but you don't give any reason why queens should be buffed. Also, zealot build time is not increased. If you mean decreased, it is because warpgates come later.
|
I hope these changes will make PvP more dynamic.
And really, if people are going to complain about 2gate pressure now, just alter your builds a bit where you can spawn close position.
If you react well to it then its FAR FAR easier to deal with than a protoss that decides to play a 3/4 base macro game.
|
the archon man. best change ever....no more slow by marauders...omg this will be soo ridicoulously awsome. Archons do 45 dmg + splash to bio....oh man i think im about to cry nerd tears of happiness
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Hmmmm. 200/100 is certainly an interesting change for ghosts and it'll make early ghost play a little more viable. I'm not sure if the bunker salvage nerf is warranted and I would like to hear Blizzard's reason for considering that change.
Archons being massive is what I've been hoping for since the beta days and I'm glad they're changing it. The warpgate and gateway unit build times change is still something I'm not so sure about. Sure it'll be much easier to defend 4 gate rushes but we might see a bloom of proxy gate cheeses. The pylon power radius nerf isn't really necessary in my opinion but I guess they think it'll make a difference.
edit: oops. misread spore as spine.
|
On April 26 2011 11:24 Xapti wrote:
ROFL WAFL
Patch 16: Zealot build time increased from 33 to 38.
Patch 17: Zealot build time decreased from 38 to 33.
Patch 1.1.0: Zealot build time increased from 33 to 38.
Patch 1.3.3: Zealot train time decreased from 38 to 33.
WTF M8?
yeah that is pretty WTF, I mean make up your mind already lol...
|
On April 26 2011 16:08 OsoVega 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. Those two things are in no way related. Archons and queens have almost no relation. Saying queens should be massive because archons are is like saying zealots should be able to cloak because banshees can. All you are doing is pointing out that making queens massive would be a buff. No shit but you don't give any reason why queens should be buffed. Also, zealot build time is not increased. If you mean decreased, it is because warpgates come later.
Lol then why archons should be buffed? Do you think it's ok to have 5 queens in base to be sure to defend simple 2 void/2 phoenix opening?
|
On April 26 2011 15:57 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:54 ParasitJonte wrote:On April 26 2011 15:51 syllogism wrote: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. Lol, are you really imposing your opinion onto what Bl Ehhh, I actually don't agree. Blizzard should only step in to fix broken things, Its not up to them to make a matchup more playable or watchable. And really, with 9 matchups only 1 was retarded so I don't think it was that bad. PvP was interesting to me at least, not all matches need to go into super late macro mode to be good. Lol, are you really imposing your opinion onto what is up to Blizzard or not?
|
Seems like a good change. Well thought out. I think the changes in P will help improve the PvP game.
|
On April 26 2011 16:07 Morfildur wrote:
PvP is currently broken. It's a fact.
There is only one option you can go for, every other is almost auto-loss against it - unless the opponent screws up or you have far superior micro. So while you can risk going other builds, it can cost you a lot or money in a tournament if your opponent 4gates, so you can only go the safe route and 4gate yourself, which results in a cycle that is impossible to break.
Player A: If i don't 4gate i lose if he 4gates, so i better 4gate eventhough i don't like it
Player B: If i don't 4gate i lose if he 4gates, so i better 4gate eventhough i don't like it
Result: Both players 4gate
A mirror match CAN'T be broken. There is nothing wrong with using the same opening... In BW PvP was also played like that goon -> reaver -> HT. And nobody was whinning. Currently you 4Gate or learn to defend it in PvP. Seems fine.
|
On April 26 2011 16:02 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 15:53 Gegenschein wrote:
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' A lot of people think that Blizzard loves macro games, but I don't really think so. Dustin Browder has stated that the design team wants games to be "action-packed" from the very beginning. This means that they don't want players sitting on their safe ass builds until it's 3 base vs. 3 base. .
The only thing Blizzard loves is money, thing is that due to that I feel like they are nerfing a lot of early game options due to some people apparently getting PTSD from being rushed XD
Joking aside, Blizzard neither hates nor loves macro games they just want to address complaints by their ciustomers because they love money. And designwise giving back 2 gate is just so that they have some kind of early pressure builds since 4Gate now will be too late.
|
What i don't get is how they change random stuff around (not saying these don't make sense), but don't address easy to fix stuff like spawn positions on ladder maps like Meta and Shattered.
Every tournament has to create modified maps (disallowing 2 bunkers blocking a ramp too for example), which makes so many ladder games not worth playing out for practice purposes.
|
On April 26 2011 16:10 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 16:08 OsoVega wrote: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. Those two things are in no way related. Archons and queens have almost no relation. Saying queens should be massive because archons are is like saying zealots should be able to cloak because banshees can. All you are doing is pointing out that making queens massive would be a buff. No shit but you don't give any reason why queens should be buffed. Also, zealot build time is not increased. If you mean decreased, it is because warpgates come later. Lol then why archons should be buffed? Do you think it's ok to have 5 queens in base to be sure to defend simple 2 void/2 phoenix opening?
probably because players never made archons with the intent of using them. they were just the "oh my ht has no more energy, better morph them"
|
Are we ever going to see a patch that makes carriers used and transitional? I think it's ridiculous such a great unit from BW is like NEVER used. Anyway if you guys think about it this pylon radius is all about warping into bases and pylon can't be sniped same reason warp prism has such a small radius so it can be sniped by base defenders. Good changes over all, like em all cept ghosts who are already ridiculous compared to HT.
|
On April 26 2011 13:35 kickinhead wrote:
Archon-Buff is massive (yeah - word-play!) in PvZ, cuz more and more Zergs started playing Ling+Baneling-Drops+Infestors and Archons were already very good against this style, now, with no Fungal Snare on Archons, they are gonna be insane.
Fungal growth snares massive units (cough Collosi cough)
Only Ultras with their Frenzy passive are immune to the fungal snare (not damage)
|
On April 26 2011 16:12 SONE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 16:10 Alpina wrote:On April 26 2011 16:08 OsoVega wrote: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. Those two things are in no way related. Archons and queens have almost no relation. Saying queens should be massive because archons are is like saying zealots should be able to cloak because banshees can. All you are doing is pointing out that making queens massive would be a buff. No shit but you don't give any reason why queens should be buffed. Also, zealot build time is not increased. If you mean decreased, it is because warpgates come later. Lol then why archons should be buffed? Do you think it's ok to have 5 queens in base to be sure to defend simple 2 void/2 phoenix opening? probably because they were never used as the archon, just the "oh my ht has no more energy"
That's what blizzard wants them to be, they said that several times.
|
Why they hell did they have to screw around with Pylon range. Now I have to relearn all my sim city. Thanks blizz.
Also, entire BO's are going to be different. Such a nuisance.
|
4Gates is NOT nerfed.
4Gate is still going to hit at about the same time it normally does except for the really really fast 4Gate builds.
5-6 Gate pushes-not changed
Forge FE-not changed
Stargate Play-not changed
30-40 seconds longer to get warpgate just means you can build 1 more unit with your gateways before transforming your gateways into warpgates.
What the patch does provide is the ability for someone who does not get Warp Gate tech to be able to keep up (production wise) with someone who has warpgate tech. This gives PvP more options. Specifically, it allows defensive Protoss players to not *have* to get Warpgates in order to survive against a warpgate. For example, your opponent does a standard 4gate (30 seconds slower than prepatch) the defending player then decides to spend his Chronoboosts on gateways/nexus instead of the Warpgate research--defending player is able to hold the push.
|
On April 26 2011 16:11 PuercoPop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 16:07 Morfildur wrote:
PvP is currently broken. It's a fact.
There is only one option you can go for, every other is almost auto-loss against it - unless the opponent screws up or you have far superior micro. So while you can risk going other builds, it can cost you a lot or money in a tournament if your opponent 4gates, so you can only go the safe route and 4gate yourself, which results in a cycle that is impossible to break.
Player A: If i don't 4gate i lose if he 4gates, so i better 4gate eventhough i don't like it
Player B: If i don't 4gate i lose if he 4gates, so i better 4gate eventhough i don't like it
Result: Both players 4gate
A mirror match CAN'T be broken. There is nothing wrong with using the same opening... In BW PvP was also played like that goon -> reaver -> HT. And nobody was whinning. Currently you 4Gate or learn to defend it in PvP. Seems fine.
It just seams really boring, especially as a spectator at tournaments! That IMO can also be classified as broken (having only one viable build)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
