|
On April 30 2011 13:23 Jayrod wrote:
Well the double-nerf is pretty stupid imo, but I wont say I dont understand it. I think they should have gone with one change or the other, but not both (pylon power or the warpgate timings). What they have done, once again as they did with the reaper and the supply before rax changes etc, is neutered tactics. Now you will still have reinforcing pylons, but I want to say a hidden aggressive pylon as part of a tactic is almost non-viable now.
They haven't nerfed anything yet. Every PTR has things taken off before it was made into an official patch. Its feasible to test both of these changes at the same time and see what protoss struggles with. Thats the whole point of a PTR.
|
Isn't the REALLY big deal here that you won't be able to warp in zealots on the high ground without exposing your proxy pylon to stalkers? So the zealot-heavy Korean 4-gate in PvP is pretty much nullified.
In terms of building placement, I agree that the new radius is far too restrictive, it makes guarding your buildings against early Terran pressure that much harder, and it weakens Forge-FE builds in PvZ.
|
On one hand it nerfs Cannon rushes and high ground warp-ins, but the other it is a pretty big nerf to building placement for Protoss.
fffuuuuuuuu...PvP
|
wow i didnt think the change would be that big
|
This could open Muta-ling back up...I've never really been a fan of the build b/c of defensive cannons...but just by looking at the pictures, more minerals will be needed possibly to keep more protection at the back of each base.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 30 2011 13:33 Ponyo wrote:
oh no your static defense which attacks and detects will have to be placed wiser?! sorry sir.
Yeah, how dare photon cannons get to be placed down where the protoss player wants?
How broken is a static defense that shoots and detects and costs 150 minerals? I mean, missile turrets don't need to be powered and are even stronger against air targets than cannons, and cost less. Spore crawlers cost the same if you count the drone, but those can be moved around at will after they go down, and are getting buffed. Neither shoot ground, but each of them makes a trade-off here. Don't be so absurd.
|
This is change is so so bad for FFE
|
personally i wonder if this was intended by blizzard or unintended. anyone got any thoughts?
|
Isn't it the same size as it was in bw in 1.3.3? It was fine for 11 years, don't see why it'll hurt now.
|
I think it was somewhat intended. I don't think a single pylon can cover your natural choke on Shakuras/Tal'Darim, which makes a big difference, that extra pylon you will need actually screws around with your probe timings as well as your tech timings.
Isn't it the same size as it was in bw in 1.3.3? It was fine for 11 years, don't see why it'll hurt now.
That is a stupid argument. Starcraft 2 and BW although somewhat similar are still different, especially when it comes to terrain and building placement. You can't think a change is fine because "that is how it was in broodwar".
|
On April 30 2011 14:13 sickle wrote:
This is change is so so bad for FFE
You just gave me another thought. Baneling busts are now slightly more effective as well. (only slightly b/c of pylon placement).
|
This actually has a huge effect over the course of the game.
During the opening of the game, there are countless vulnerabilities that your pylon placement could affect if a quick attack dents you. 98% it won't matter, but you think about where to put EACH pylon because it might matter at any point in the first 10 minutes. Limiting your options here has a cumulative affect on base coverage and pylon redundancy, let alone defense placement. Moreover, it will require more pylons to do the same job, which means reduced potential for pylon coverage around the map.
These are serious consequences. Is it worth the tradeoff to nix the propensity for 4gate in pvp? I think so, yes, though I think the match would naturally continue to evolve away from 4gate as time goes on.
Regardless, if you don't play high level Protoss please don't make stupid comments that we are QQing about a serious adjustment.
|
I think the build time changes will significantly weaken 4gate in PvP enough, with the psionic matrix reduction being a bit too much. The warpgate changes make the game more dynamic, while the pylon changes actually constrict strategy. I'm pretty meh to the whole thing.
|
Pylon radius now brakes the defenders advantage that ramp gives and makes pvp the boring shit it is to watch(and I can imagine playing) when one player goes for early Xgate aggression. I'd say fixing that takes precedence over being annoyed with having to rethink your simcity.
Maybe the new radius brakes the game in a way that renders fast expands utterly impossible because it opens up some huge timing window where the terran and zerg can do a push, but that is what the ptr is for and players to find out. Most probably though it doesnt and protoss just needs to rethink their fast expand simcities.
|
Im curious as to how this will effect early BO now that more pylons will be needed to power the same area. Meaning not only is radius a factor, but now more minerals will be directed towards pylons while the average supply limit of a Protoss at any given moment will also probably be higher then what is now. At least in the early to mid game.
Do you guys think its possible we could see slightly slower (due to time increase) 4gating, but with the power of a 4gate being potentially higher with the higher unit capacity?
|
oh no...you can't power 500 cannons with a single pylon anymore...
|
On April 30 2011 14:15 Dommk wrote:I think it was somewhat intended. I don't think a single pylon can cover your natural choke on Shakuras/Tal'Darim, which makes a big difference, that extra pylon you will need actually screws around with your probe timings as well as your tech timings. Show nested quote +Isn't it the same size as it was in bw in 1.3.3? It was fine for 11 years, don't see why it'll hurt now. That is a stupid argument. Starcraft 2 and BW although somewhat similar are still different, especially when it comes to terrain and building placement. You can't think a change is fine because "that is how it was in broodwar".
What's different? Why do you need that extra pylon range? Shouldn't you have overlapping pylon power at all times as is possible anyway to avoid losing power to buildings easily?
|
On April 30 2011 14:28 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
Im curious as to how this will effect early BO now that more pylons will be needed to power the same area. Meaning not only is radius a factor, but now more minerals will be directed towards pylons while the average supply limit of a Protoss at any given moment will also probably be higher then what is now. At least in the early to mid game.
-.- it will have 0 effect, anyone who builds excess pylons early game is clueless. There'll still be plenty of space.
On April 30 2011 14:28 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
Do you guys think its possible we could see slightly slower (due to time increase) 4gating, but with the power of a 4gate being potentially higher with the higher unit capacity?
Just think about it and you'll realise how stupid this question is.
|
On April 30 2011 14:47 Nightmarjoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2011 14:15 Dommk wrote:I think it was somewhat intended. I don't think a single pylon can cover your natural choke on Shakuras/Tal'Darim, which makes a big difference, that extra pylon you will need actually screws around with your probe timings as well as your tech timings. Isn't it the same size as it was in bw in 1.3.3? It was fine for 11 years, don't see why it'll hurt now. That is a stupid argument. Starcraft 2 and BW although somewhat similar are still different, especially when it comes to terrain and building placement. You can't think a change is fine because "that is how it was in broodwar". What's different? Why do you need that extra pylon range? Shouldn't you have overlapping pylon power at all times as is possible anyway to avoid losing power to buildings easily?
Different is nydas worms, especially vs fast expand. Same goes for hydra drop vs fast expand, which is essier since protoss will have less pylons on the edges all around the bases. You simply can't overlap everything and spot for harassment or even doom drops. While this also makes warpin attacks easier to stop. How is this remotely fair?
Was protoss doing that well in the harassment department??? It just breaks some dark templar and MC builds. Great.
|
The pylon radius shouldn't be a huge deal for defending from harrass like OP is talking about. He made it look much worse in the "post-patch" shot by deciding not to place the cannons that used to be out of radius. He could have placed the cannons in spots to defend his base off of 1 or 2 pylons, just like before, but he only put 2 down to reinforce his point by showing such a contrast..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
