EPTPatch 1.3.3 PTR - Page 91
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
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. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:31 Bobster wrote: I really hope this will lead to longer games in PvP matches from now on. It got pretty embarrasing reading the roundups and recaps and while TvT, PvT and PvZ games usually hover around 15-25 and upwards, there's rarely a macro game lasting longer than 15 minutes. Here's hoping this change will prompt more macro games and less 3Gate/4Gate all-ins! Half of the base wants more changes, the other half wants less. Who to listen to? Blizz shouldnt listen to either of them. Blizz should put out some changes, and then wait a few months to let the game evolve with those changes and then determine if new changes need to be made. If you are constantly patching then the game will never settle down to a place where you can actually determine whether or not imbalances exist. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
- Pylon range reduction, as it reduces the potency of across-gap proxy pylon warpins somewhat; - Warpin time increase and regular production decrease, as it removes the early game warpin facerape while at the same time giving more chance for "honest" frontal attacks early on; - Ghost gas change, as it allows for ghosts in more low gas builds, something that fits me, personally, very well The rest of the changes are overall good. Nice patch! Edit: Oh, and also - Bunkers were never "free", even with the 100% reclaim cost. 100 minerals spent, even temporarily, delays tech and macro. What you pay for with a bunker is time, which arguably is the most important resource in SC2. The difference between getting a rush out at time X or time X+30 is huge, and building bunkers because they're "free" will simply rape your timings. That being said, I don't mind them yielding 75% rather than 100%. It's a pretty insignificant change. | ||
|
xphantomx
United States37 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:36 Mastermind wrote: Blizz shouldnt listen to either of them. Blizz should put out some changes, and then wait a few months to let the game evolve with those changes and then determine if new changes need to be made. If you are constantly patching then the game will never settle down to a place where you can actually determine whether or not imbalances exist. so blizz shouldn't listen to any SC2 players.......except you? LOL | ||
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
| ||
|
Number-J
United Kingdom52 Posts
| ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
Compared to the proportional idea its worse for defensive bunkering, but really at most your losing 50 minerals early game and maybe slightly more later game if you need more than 2 bunkers, but you have much more money then. 75 mineral salvage is also much better than proportional salvage for offensive bunkering. Its rare that your offensive bunker takes less than 25% damage and if you actually get your bunker up its almost guaranteed damage (at worst through a delayed hatchery or more zerglings forced) for a cost of 25 minerals and whatever marines or scvs that you lose. Sure getting 75% of the cost back of your burning down bunker after forcing the cancel on the hatchery and killing drones and zerglings while losing no marines or scvs isn't quite as satisfying as getting 100% back (and damn getting 100% back is satisfying), but its still a very powerful tool, just think of it more as being able to cancel your bunker once its built. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
Archons being massive is something I think everyone has wanted for a long time. It gives them an actual role in both PvT and PvP now--if Marauders can't kite them, then Archons are actually pretty devastating "tanks" against Terran bio, as they have a ton of "health" (which regenerates, meaning once you start shooting an archon, you need to completely bring it down before you shoot something else) and deal very respectable splash against massed bio. And forcefield busting is key in PvP--a huge part of Colossus wars is not just how much damage they do, but the fact that they are the only ground unit (besides blink stalkers) who had a way to get past forcefields. Bunkers not being "free" is incidental, but pleases me for some reason. Faster rooting spore crawlers is also fairly incidental, but strikes me as an easy first step to buffing Zerg anti-air (and, I suppose, anti-Colossus). And...nerfing 4-gate!! Yes! As a Protoss player, I would love this patch forever just for that. 4-gate will still exist, but now it will be fairly trivial for good players to counter--which means maybe it won't wreck PvP. And for people crying "2-gate"...Zealots used to have this build time, and Zergs had figured out how to deal with early Zealot pressure already by the time it was lengthened. | ||
|
Hoodlum
United States350 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:08 zhouzhou wrote: Warp gate cooldowns should be higher than gateway build times, if not on par with them. The ability to warp them in anywhere + reduced cool downs makes gateways completely pointless. Gateways might as well just instantly turn into warp gates or build AS a warpgate. It's completely pointless to use gateways after warp gate has been researched. Or better yet, keep the build times the same for gateways. Add a benefit to warpgate research. Not only does it reduce the build time in gateways by 10 seconds, it gives you the ability to warp them in anywhere at the longer cool down. Damn, this idea is pretty good... This is intentional - Blizzard has stated they never really wanted to have gateways in the game, only warpgates, but warpgates were too powerful early game. After you change to a warpgate, Blizzard doesn't want you using gateways anymore. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:15 j3i wrote: I was expecting a way for zerg to deal with forcefields, but I still like these changes. Maybe next time they'll make spine crawlers "massive." Burrow, ultras, air units, keeping sentry energy low through applying pressure, engaging in more open areas. There I gave you 5+ ways and I didnt even have to patch the game | ||
|
Dekker
Germany169 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:51 FabledIntegral wrote: This is intentional - Blizzard has stated they never really wanted to have gateways in the game, only warpgates, but warpgates were too powerful early game. After you change to a warpgate, Blizzard doesn't want you using gateways anymore. Link pls. | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:51 FabledIntegral wrote: This is intentional - Blizzard has stated they never really wanted to have gateways in the game, only warpgates, but warpgates were too powerful early game. After you change to a warpgate, Blizzard doesn't want you using gateways anymore. I think it would be so awesome to see Gateways = better for macroing (faster build times) and Warpgates = better for harrass and quick defense. Then a late game toss would have to play a really complex but beautiful balancing game between number of gates vs number of warpgates. Would add depth to toss imo | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
It's common sense. | ||
|
SkittlesAreYum
6 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:36 Mastermind wrote: Blizz shouldnt listen to either of them. Blizz should put out some changes, and then wait a few months to let the game evolve with those changes and then determine if new changes need to be made. If you are constantly patching then the game will never settle down to a place where you can actually determine whether or not imbalances exist. I don't mean to alarm you, but PTR stands for Public Test Region. Note the "test" part. | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
On April 27 2011 02:40 Sandrosuperstar wrote: This pertains to the the Viking Flower workaround, not the natural stacking of Mutalisksfacinating that the fact they're preventing stacking is getting so little discussion. I'm really lost here, why doesn't ppl care about this. I don't really know the importance of it in sc2 though but is't a core mechanic in bw  | ||
|
BoB_KiLLeR
Spain620 Posts
| ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
Warp gate cooldowns should be higher than gateway build times, if not on par with them. The ability to warp them in anywhere + reduced cool downs makes gateways completely pointless. Gateways might as well just instantly turn into warp gates or build AS a warpgate. It's completely pointless to use gateways after warp gate has been researched. This is like saying, "orbital commands are stupid because they make command centers obsolete". That's the entire point. Its an upgrade. Like every other upgrade in the game, it makes the thing being upgraded better. And just like orbital commands are to Terran, warp-in is an integral part of Protoss macro. They are the intended way Protoss is meant to play. The only reason Protoss doesn't start with warp-in is the same reason Terran doesn't start with an OC--because, while those things are balanced from the later stages of the early game on, in the truly early stages of the game they'd be broken. If Terran could MULE right away they'd get a stupidly good economic headstart, and if Protoss could warp-in immediately early proxy pressure would be unstoppable. But by the time the midgame rolls around, it is absolutely Blizzard's intention that Terrans will be MULEing and scanning, and Protoss will be building units via warp-in. | ||
|
DrunkApple
34 Posts
On April 27 2011 03:38 plated.rawr wrote: I like these changes. Especially, - Pylon range reduction, as it reduces the potency of across-gap proxy pylon warpins somewhat; - Warpin time increase and regular production decrease, as it removes the early game warpin facerape while at the same time giving more chance for "honest" frontal attacks early on; - Ghost gas change, as it allows for ghosts in more low gas builds, something that fits me, personally, very well The rest of the changes are overall good. Nice patch! Edit: Oh, and also - Bunkers were never "free", even with the 100% reclaim cost. 100 minerals spent, even temporarily, delays tech and macro. What you pay for with a bunker is time, which arguably is the most important resource in SC2. The difference between getting a rush out at time X or time X+30 is huge, and building bunkers because they're "free" will simply rape your timings. That being said, I don't mind them yielding 75% rather than 100%. It's a pretty insignificant change. free /frē/ Verb: Make free, in particular. Adverb: Without cost or payment: "ladies were admitted free". 100% refund --> free 75% refund --> not free True that building bunkers delay tech, but that is called "Opportunity Cost", building bunker instead of teching up It's like you are saying scanning costs mineral | ||
|
dave333
United States915 Posts
| ||
| ||
