Updated: PTR 1.3.3 has changed so that Warpgate tech is 160 seconds now, up from 1.3.2's 140 seconds. Zealot/stalker gateway build times back to originals. Pylon power still the same as PTR 1.3.3 original change, making it smaller.
But the main reason I'm updating this is there is a big change in the PvZ dynamic after a recent GSL code S game between NesTea and Anypro shows that cannon expands are even more risky against Zerg than originally thought. Pylon power reduction going to make this so risky, it's going to be not an option on these open choke natural maps, IMO. Is this too much to take away from Protoss?
As for the NesTea Spine strategy, you rush to lair, then send 3 drones to build spine crawlers on creep that overlords puke out near the natural nexus early enough that air units and gateway units can't stop it. Nexus and other buildings are destroyed.
Link to game: http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors3/vod/65228 ---- I was worried about the new pylon radius and building placement. Specifically cannons for mineral line harassment determent. So tell me if you can guess which cannons are still usable in the 1.3.3 PTR from this screenshot of a 1.3.2 game. Further down the post will have the pictures to back up my concerns.
1.3.2 here:
Notice that I have the pylon as close to the nexus as possible, without blocking gas or minerals. It's slightly different on every map of course, but nothing Tl can't grasp.
And let's not forget that turrets don't have this placement restriction problem. Depots don't get in the way of building units at home. Spores and spines are no problem either since creep covers your whole mineral line. And creep tumors don't block your zerglings on defense.
So do you think you can guess on the cannon placement changes? I'll give a hint... you won't be able to defend much of your mineral line with one pylon. I like to get two cannons with one pylon when I'm taking a 3rd or 4th, but placement options are slim. On some maps it looks like to put cannons where I like them I'll need the pylon and both cannons in the minerals, which just blocks too much. So I guess I'm going to two pylons on either side or I'll have to not put cannons where I used to put them. I hate it.
So I believe that reducing the pylon range by 1 is going to be really annoying, especially on your 3rd and 4th base when you don't want to waste extra pylons. Being able to cover 3 or 4 sides of a nexus with one pylon is huge. 1.3.3 PTR has taken that away! Seriously, the pylon range change is going to be terrible for Protoss on many levels. Wall-ins at a natural after a fast expand. Wall-ins against Zerg. Warp-ins for fat stalkers. Cannon rushing. Countering cannon rushing with your own cannons. Dark templar warp-ins. Voidray and gateway warpins. And of course offensive 4 gating.
The next picture shows the two still valid cannons circled, and another screen with the pylon radius indicator on so you can see what's what.Then a screen of 1.3.3, or as I like to call it, the patch that is changing every Protoss matchup and build order.
I feel like this might not be as big of a deal as you are making it seem. I'm a little worried about the wall-in repurcussions of the change, but I don't think that having to use two pylons to defend a nexus is that big of a deal. If you are on three or four bases, can you honestly say that every pylon you placed has an important purpose and couldn't be placed behind a mineral line instead?
If you read my post, you'll see I like to place 2 cannons with 1 pylon. The 10 cannons is just to demonstrate where you COULD put them, not where any sensible player would put a billion cannons around a nexus in a circle.
But I do see Genius and Huk put 8 cannons at an expansion base, all lined up in two rows. The pylon change affects where they can put the 2 rows of cannons now.
Edit: Not trying to be facetious, but it just seems like you would want to place your pylon closer to where you want your cannons to be, so behind center of the mineral line seems smart if you want cannons in the mineral line. And if you want cannons around the front (south position) then you'd put a pylon in the middle of there.
That is a huge reduction. Though Blizzard specifically is trying to STOP the 4gate in the PvP Matchup. This will force pylons closer to walls and in range of units.
As for the cannon placement? Most. Defensive pylons are placed behind the mineral line and canons around them. Even in ZvZ. For the Warp-In Behind the mineral line?
With your placement 1 you cannot warp stalkers behind your minerals, 2 you dont even cover that area. I know you were just trying to show the difference but..seriously.
I agree it is a huge change to toss in general as far as powering buildings, but still you do have warpgate and you get 2 gate Zeal again. So don't complain to much k
@ Datum, I know what you mean. And sometimes I would agree if I'm way ahead. But sometimes every 100 minerals counts. And if you are at a risky expansion, you want to spend the least amount of minerals to defend it. On those maps, players may just avoid any cannons and put a pylon far away to warp guys in. I don't know, but I don't like the limited options. Sometimes I like to put 1 cannon near nexus and 1 slightly far away to warp guys in if they drop on my minerals. Or one far away to spot drops. How many pylons do I want to lose if I lose my expansion? If I'm bulding gateways there, then OK, more pylons is fine. But if I'm not... I don't know.
On April 30 2011 09:21 RemrafGrez wrote: Wall-ins at a natural after a fast expand. Wall-ins against Zerg. Warp-ins for fat stalkers. Cannon rushing. Countering cannon rushing with your own cannons. Dark templar warp-ins. Voidray and gateway warpins. And of course offensive 4 gating.
So, you have to place 1 more pylon, and/or wall smarter? Not to mention, u have FF to block ramp. Didnt know warp in for stalkers was nerfed, my bad u cant go up the wall into enemy P base where he cant reach the pylon (7.5 range). countering cannon rushing w/your own cannons? bro, idk if u know this, but their pylon has only 6.5 range, too.... So... its no different....? lol DT warp ins, same as stalker. U can still warp them in. Hell, i see people warping them in w/void prisms. And they have a range of like 2 or something tiny. Seems to work for them. Voidray warp ins? Last time i checked, voids cant be warped in....? Offensive 4 gating wont make a difference. You STILL CAN WARP IN. JUST NOT IN RIDIC SPOTS
Is it very often you only have one pylon near your nexus? I always see people who place cannons put one behind the center mineral line usually as it's closer to the cannons and out of the way. That's before PTR 1.3.3. The can't actually figure out a timing during the game where you'll have a forge and cannons, yet only one pylon near your nexus. Maybe when you wall in, but the wall will block anything coming to attack your minerals anyway. Hmm.
Huh. I was worried that the pylon field change would be bad for cannon placement, but your post actually convinced me this was a good change. You can still cover three sides of a nexus with one pylon, which is really all you need vs harass. The only time you'd want more is as a lategame mineral sink, in which case building additional pylons is nothing.
have you ever done experiment? can you please use the same standard while comparing the two situations? (ie build the cannons as much as you can like you did to 1.3.2.)
the obvious change is that if you put a pylon the right side of nexus, the pylon can no longer cover the left side of the nexus(4cannons 'lost'). you always build more than 1 pylon to cover the cannons anyway so i dont see there is a problem plus i dont think anyone would build cannons around nexus like you did >_> (just put in behind min line or something)
Lol. I sort of feel like this, in addition to the "high templar is now useless" make all the rest of the Protoss complaints less valid. Put a damn pylon behind your mineral line and you can have the same cannon placement. What does supply depot placement have anything to do with this at all?
That said, I think you're bitching too much. You just need to place your pylons in smart positions and you'll be fine, everything's still viable (although perhaps less-so offensive warp-ins), just take more effort and thought.
hahah good nerf of pylons... simply they where To good and we didnt noticed... now in 1.3.3 they are balanced... simply you need to think a litle now before you place building...
is somebody steem 1.3.3 it will be cool for as who dont play to see some games on PTR... thx
For the math among us: the old pylon radius gave an "area" of about 177 while the new one is about 133, which is basically a 25% reduction in area covered. For practical purposes it's going to be less of a reduction - since the area of the pylon didn't change, and normally things are built fairly close to the pylon anyway - but it is definitely a significant change, as it were "overall".
My immediate concern would be wrt FFE builds - are they still practical? Depends on the width of the choke, naturally, but sim-city decisions will change a little bit.
On April 30 2011 09:39 kNightLite wrote: Huh. I was worried that the pylon field change would be bad for cannon placement, but your post actually convinced me this was a good change. You can still cover three sides of a nexus with one pylon, which is really all you need vs harass. The only time you'd want more is as a lategame mineral sink, in which case building additional pylons is nothing.
Actually I think he's more concerned about anti-air defense, say vs. muta. You can't conveniently place cannons to over the whole mineral line now without 2 pylons or putting a pylon in the middle between the mineral line and the Nexus. (Behind the min line isn't really an option, since it can be "kited" as it were and pylons aren't that durable atm.) Big deal? Honestly it's only a big deal in that it means you can't put the pylon somewhere else. I thought it was kind of a silly change to make, and disliked it as it's clearly (yet another) change designed to remove options from the game, but I don't think it's that significant in this case.
Why are people saying "now you have to think about building placement"? Protoss already had to do that. Now it is just a lot harder.
The pylon radius nerf is suppose to nerf 4gate, but it nerfs protoss in way more ways than just that. I hope this change doesnt make it to the live server. 4gate will already be nerfed enough with the warp gate time change imo.
i dont get it. wont u have several pylons covering the area anyways. i know the individual radius is nerfed but put it this way, ur gona have pylons overlapping
I honestly don't see it as a big deal, everyone usually has a ton of useless pylons in their base anyways, just that after patch you'll place one of those useless pylons in a spot that matters :p And at least, if you're at the stage in the game where you're putting down cannons in your mineral-line you are so far a long that you'll have made a lot of previously useless pylons anyways.
This change is pretty much the definition of uncalled for - if they're already nerfing warp gate times, such a sweeping and broad change to toss seems completely unnecessary.
I've been musing about building pylons to block the enemy from having room to put down their gateway. Certainly looks from the picture like you could mess that player up with only 1 or 2.
Simple fix: Do not change building radius, only warp in radius.
This pylon radius is crucial to forge fast expanding against zerg. One cannon in front, one in the back will prevent a couple of roaches from ranging the expansion/workers from behind.
haha it's not that big of a deal imo. i'm a toss player, it'll force you to place it better? in all honesty, you can just throw down another pylon, it'll give us a spot to place it, rather than somewhere random in the midgame because you need pylons and have no useful location to put them
On April 30 2011 09:35 sermokala wrote: I tried to play a game on the PTR with this and it just made me cry. the saddest nerf ever.
I know its probably worth it the only reason why my drunk 4 gates work is when I warp in the zealots in his base past the wallin.
still gona try it though :p
i acutally support 4 gaters (Gold Zerg here) at least they give me free wins when i feel low...
i mean, comon, the nerf just gave more reason from extremely nooby 2 gaters to start plying their trade(along with that unreasonable zealot and stalker buff)
On April 30 2011 09:54 Mastermind wrote: Why are people saying "now you have to think about building placement"? Protoss already had to do that. Now it is just a lot harder.
The pylon radius nerf is suppose to nerf 4gate, but it nerfs protoss in way more ways than just that. I hope this change doesnt make it to the live server. 4gate will already be nerfed enough with the warp gate time change imo.
Come on really? Did you not see how low the radius was in brood war? And protoss still found ways to make building placement work in PvZ, where the matchup literally demanded absolutely perfect placement. Some people make every change feel like the sky is falling. Amulet removed, templar tech is now completely useless.
This nerf will stop 4 gate in PvP, thats really about it. It won't be detrimental at all from a "where do i place my buildings" perspective.
On April 30 2011 09:50 VGhost wrote: For the math among us: the old pylon radius gave an "area" of about 177 while the new one is about 133, which is basically a 25% reduction in area covered. For practical purposes it's going to be less of a reduction - since the area of the pylon didn't change, and normally things are built fairly close to the pylon anyway - but it is definitely a significant change, as it were "overall".
My immediate concern would be wrt FFE builds - are they still practical? Depends on the width of the choke, naturally, but sim-city decisions will change a little bit.
On April 30 2011 09:39 kNightLite wrote: Huh. I was worried that the pylon field change would be bad for cannon placement, but your post actually convinced me this was a good change. You can still cover three sides of a nexus with one pylon, which is really all you need vs harass. The only time you'd want more is as a lategame mineral sink, in which case building additional pylons is nothing.
Actually I think he's more concerned about anti-air defense, say vs. muta. You can't conveniently place cannons to over the whole mineral line now without 2 pylons or putting a pylon in the middle between the mineral line and the Nexus. (Behind the min line isn't really an option, since it can be "kited" as it were and pylons aren't that durable atm.) Big deal? Honestly it's only a big deal in that it means you can't put the pylon somewhere else. I thought it was kind of a silly change to make, and disliked it as it's clearly (yet another) change designed to remove options from the game, but I don't think it's that significant in this case.
Then build 2 pylons beside ur mineral line. Problem solved. You're building 17 or 18 pylons in ur base anyway. When I play toss after a while (after spreading them around the perimeter of my base basically) I have to bunch some of my pylons together because there simply isn't enough room for them otherwise.
Blizzard giveth, Blizzard taketh away. I feel this thread is useful in that it is a good illustration of the (potential) effects of the change, and a warning for players to take care if and when the changes are implemented.
However, it is really not a big deal. By the time you are going to be harassed at the mineral line by mutas and drops, you can have an extra pylon near your mineral line to power cannons. Also, as Tyler said on SOTG the pylon radius was far smaller in BW and players were just fine with that.
But please, don't directly compare different races' defensive structures, the races are different, and these differences do not mean the game is not balanced, turrets/cannons/crawlers is a completely apples to oranges to watermelons comparison, and I can just as easily "complain" that turrets only shoot air, can't move places, can't regen shields or health. Having an extra tether isn't the end of the world.
I'm mostly interested in if 1pylon is enough to energize full wallins in shaku/taldarim. 6pool might be very powerful, if you can't do the forge+gate+gate wall with 1 pylon.
On April 30 2011 09:40 emc wrote: add a 2nd pylon?, i don't see why you'd want 1 pylon to power a bunch of cannons, it can get sniped by mutas/drop easily.
this...obviously the shorter radius decreases the amount and placement of cannons. i mean did this really need a thread? but we just gotta adapt now if this change goes through.
I thought the pylon radius was to big the first place. Guaranteed they play a little more of a role with warpgates but pylon radius in bw was smaller then that atleast I think it was and it was fine with them.
Here are some examples where pros need all that 1.3.2 pylon range, and please don't tell me they could spare 100 minerals for another pylon at this point in the game.
Most of these are from recent tournies like recent GSL or MLG. If it's not OK to do screenshots of GSL someone please delete this post if you have to.
GSL, Alicia vs Losira- Trying to wall from ramp to nexus, no spare pylons.
GSL, Coca vs Squirtle- No pylons to spare, trying to wall off and cover two distant sides with 1 pylon.
GSL, July vs Huk - he put pylon in middle of minerals because he moved all his probes already, but an example of 1 pylon and 2 cannons -
Root vs EG, KiwiKaki vs Idra - notice how he puts cannons at max distance so he has more room to warp-in and cannons can cover each other, and no one pylon taken out unpowers a cannon-
Root vs EG, Kiwikaki vs Idra - he puts buildings at max distance to semi wall off with forge and better protect and hide robo bay-
MC vs Check - Notice how he needs to wall of his natural from nexus to ramp, no spare pylons for other side of natural nexus.
"I want to build cannons like I did before the patch by putting a pylon on one side of my nexus and cannons on the other side."
I think the way you positioned the pylon and cannons is a bit dramatic to be honest. The nuances of having to build an extra pylon heavily outweigh the problems with being able to warp in a ton of crap onto the high ground in PvP.
TLDR; 1. Spread out more pylons or 2. Place pylons in more advantageous places.
So I guess I'm going to two pylons on either side or I'll have to not put cannons where I used to put them. I hate it.
[...]
So I believe that reducing the pylon range by 1 is going to be really annoying, especially on your 3rd and 4th base when you don't want to waste extra pylons.
So in the Huk game, he didn't have extra pylons to defend muta harassment or even burrowed harassment at his main.
So in SOTG Gretorp said it'd nerf dark templar warpins and INcontrol said it'd make roach rushes more powerful because they can hit the pylon at the wall. Tyler said he didn't care, but maybe he never plays against mutas, like JulyZerg pulls out and wins games with.
Early game ling and roach allins are going to be even harder to stop is a definite. Is that really needed? Discourage expand buids and encourage 2 gate pressure builds FTW.
This post is just about the effect on building placement:
I love the change, because the P has to think more about the placement and cant randomly throw pylons. This is just another change, that requieres the players skill. We should endorse this
Uh, this is a good thing. Protoss have been able to place an immense amount of cannons in good places for ages that essentially shut down all zerg harass. Meanwhile I have to struggle to lock down just a 3rd from a sole DT (because of the need for both spore vision and spine crawlers). There will be new limits to cannon placement, but frankly it is a good thing and will not ultimately stop a good player from betting a worse one.
On April 30 2011 09:21 RemrafGrez wrote: Wall-ins at a natural after a fast expand. Wall-ins against Zerg. Warp-ins for fat stalkers. Cannon rushing. Countering cannon rushing with your own cannons. Dark templar warp-ins. Voidray and gateway warpins. And of course offensive 4 gating.
So, you have to place 1 more pylon, and/or wall smarter? Not to mention, u have FF to block ramp. Didnt know warp in for stalkers was nerfed, my bad u cant go up the wall into enemy P base where he cant reach the pylon (7.5 range). countering cannon rushing w/your own cannons? bro, idk if u know this, but their pylon has only 6.5 range, too.... So... its no different....? lol DT warp ins, same as stalker. U can still warp them in. Hell, i see people warping them in w/void prisms. And they have a range of like 2 or something tiny. Seems to work for them. Voidray warp ins? Last time i checked, voids cant be warped in....? Offensive 4 gating wont make a difference. You STILL CAN WARP IN. JUST NOT IN RIDIC SPOTS
nope, this kills the 4 gate since the only real way it worked anyway was with ramp breaking with warping in on the high ground... which is incredibly easy to handle with 5.5 range pylon.
This isn't really a big deal obviously no one is going to lose games because of it, but that's exactly the reason why I am whining. It's something that is ingrained into your protoss mind so it is such a nuisance to change! Why force us to re-learn ALL our sim-city placement blizz? Sigh.
On April 30 2011 12:38 x6Paramore wrote: indirect nerf to cannon rushes? yay!
Oh Combat-EX what will you do know?
I kid I kid
anyway, OT - I dont see a major issue here since you should have more than one pylon powering your stuff anyway and there are smarter places to put cannons than where they were put in the pictures.
As an illustration of pylon power field change though it is very effective.
On April 30 2011 09:54 Mastermind wrote: Why are people saying "now you have to think about building placement"? Protoss already had to do that. Now it is just a lot harder.
The pylon radius nerf is suppose to nerf 4gate, but it nerfs protoss in way more ways than just that. I hope this change doesnt make it to the live server. 4gate will already be nerfed enough with the warp gate time change imo.
I kind of agree with this. I haven't played the PTR and I'm no great player anyways, but it's not like there was ever a ton of room for buildings with the old radius and pylons are a precious resource in the early game. A 2-base toss with 80 supply only has 8 pylons. It's not as much as it sounds like given that several of those are powering the simcity and the remainder are needed for in-base vision & power coverage, warp in for the natural, and possibly cannons at the main and natural.
And stalker warpins are going to be even more of a PITA.
On April 30 2011 10:52 RemrafGrez wrote: Here are some examples where pros need all that 1.3.2 pylon range, and please don't tell me they could spare 100 minerals for another pylon at this point in the game.
Most of these are from recent tournies like recent GSL or MLG. If it's not OK to do screenshots of GSL someone please delete this post if you have to.
GSL, Alicia vs Losira- Trying to wall from ramp to nexus, no spare pylons.
GSL, Coca vs Squirtle- No pylons to spare, trying to wall off and cover two distant sides with 1 pylon.
GSL, July vs Huk - he put pylon in middle of minerals because he moved all his probes already, but an example of 1 pylon and 2 cannons -
Root vs EG, KiwiKaki vs Idra - notice how he puts cannons at max distance so he has more room to warp-in and cannons can cover each other, and no one pylon taken out unpowers a cannon-
Root vs EG, Kiwikaki vs Idra - he puts buildings at max distance to semi wall off with forge and better protect and hide robo bay-
MC vs Check - Notice how he needs to wall of his natural from nexus to ramp, no spare pylons for other side of natural nexus.
K, pic #1 what exactly is that pylon powering? Don't tell me you're refering to the cyber core in the main.
Pic #2 move that pylon up a bit and do the exact same thing, except with 1 drone on hold position on that empty pixel beside the mineral and cyber core.
Pic #3 I see absolutely nothing. You're telling me Huk at that stage in the game only had that 1 pylon? He couldn't place 1 pf the other 8 pylons in his base beside his mineral line?
Pic #3 Move the pylon to the right and voila.
Pic #4 He's on 3 base. If you dont think he 1) can spare 100 minerals or 2) has a bunch of redundant pylons in his main, one of which could be placed at his natural then I don't know what to say.
Pic #5 I'm sorry, are we looking at the same picture? I see 1 pylon beside a nexus, and one beside his ramp. I don't see how its indicative of anything.
It's hilarious that people think a slightly reduced radius will actually have any bearing on building placement besides "think it through just a tad more". People will complain about anything >_>
I honestly think protoss players giving legitimate feedback about the pylon radius nerf (which is possibly slightly whiny, admittedly) get a LOT more shit than when zerg gives feedback.
I think it's a pretty huge change, it's going to change a lot of sim city, and force protoss players to place their pylons in an entirely different way. Imagine if you had to place your supply depots a different way, or had to more overlords in a certain fashion that you aren't used to, it could very well have a fairly large impact on gameplay.
I don't know exactly how to feel about it yet, it seems a little much, but I guess we'll probably get used to it.
A lot of tricky pylon placements won't work any more, at the very least. I don't mind that it hurts 4gate and hurts cannon rushes, it just seems a little unnecessary to me.
Further editing: To the poster above me, it's not as though a build time increase or decrease of a few seconds changes THAT MUCH, but it's at the very least annoying to deal with. I just don't think the pylon radius change is necessary. That, to me, wasn't an issue with protoss.
I think it's a pretty huge change, it's going to change a lot of sim city, and force protoss players to place their pylons in an entirely different way. Imagine if you had to place your supply depots a different way, or had to more overlords in a certain fashion that you aren't used to, it could very well have a fairly large impact on gameplay.
Of course it will have an impact on gameplay; nobody's saying it won't. There are build arrangements that will have to be done differently now. In some cases, you're just going to need another Pylon.
But if the game had shipped with the 5.5 radius, nobody would be complaining because that would simply be the way it was. This is just something that the Protoss players are going to have to adjust their builds to compensate for. Just like they have to adjust for the longer WarpGate research time.
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.
I've never been a fan of changes that limit game play and it really seems like they are taking so many strategic options out of the game with each patch. Last patch, complete removal of KA when a nerf would have been fine. Before or during that time aggressive bunkers took another hit, reapers took a hit, aggressive rax's took a hit, zealot build time took a hit (though thats being reverted), and more. All of these changes limited the broad spectrum of openers, which to me, is really stupid if the game is supposed to be dynamic and interesting.
Now lets look what happens when they buff units. Thors strike cannons get buffed and cool thor timing pushes start popping up until now where we are seeing some heavy thor builds in TvP that are really strong. BCs get a speed buff and now they are a solid TvT finisher unit that can pack a punch. Infestors get buffed and now they are everywhere and quite useful... zerg compositions have never looked so fresh and so new. Roaches got a range buff a while back and for a month zerg felt unbeatable until roach play was considered standard. Hallucination research time reduced and now we see protoss using them to scout and more. Phoenix have seen more play...
When you BUFF units you create new and clever ideas. When you NERF units you take away ideas and make the game bland. I'm not suggesting you should ONLY buff, but I think tweaks need to be alot more careful than this because if they eliminate threat after threat then you wont have cool and exciting tactics anymore. You'll just have macro games where your two balls touch and someone COMES out on top (shout out to sotg podcast)
You could put the pylon with a canon behind the mineral line, or build a second pylon. And I don't get why you put an image of a whole lot of canons at the edge of the pylons radius then showing how they aren't powered with the new radius - of course canons at the edge of the current radius won't be powered with the new. Isn't that obvious?
I just don't see this as being such a massive deal. The only situation I can imagine this playing a huge roll is trying to FFE, and even then you could just plan out your building placement a little better. The range being reduced was awesome because that's what was making 4gate so powerful in PvP (warping zealots directly up the ramp) I think protosses having a little conscious thought when placing pylons isn't a horrible thing (especially since they're supposed to be spread throughout your base anyway)
On April 30 2011 13:14 DeckOneBell wrote: I honestly think protoss players giving legitimate feedback about the pylon radius nerf (which is possibly slightly whiny, admittedly) get a LOT more shit than when zerg gives feedback.
I think it's a pretty huge change, it's going to change a lot of sim city, and force protoss players to place their pylons in an entirely different way. Imagine if you had to place your supply depots a different way, or had to more overlords in a certain fashion that you aren't used to, it could very well have a fairly large impact on gameplay.
I don't know exactly how to feel about it yet, it seems a little much, but I guess we'll probably get used to it.
A lot of tricky pylon placements won't work any more, at the very least. I don't mind that it hurts 4gate and hurts cannon rushes, it just seems a little unnecessary to me.
Further editing: To the poster above me, it's not as though a build time increase or decrease of a few seconds changes THAT MUCH, but it's at the very least annoying to deal with. I just don't think the pylon radius change is necessary. That, to me, wasn't an issue with protoss.
Because the "im gonna have to change my sim city" complaints are so hilariously overblown. Seriously its not THAT huge of an impact. Its gonna have to force you to rearrange your sim city a bit and possibly add the 2nd pylon at ur natural instead of just ur first. THat's basically it. AFter the very first few buildings the change will have absolutely no effect on building placement whatsoever. If you're covering crucial areas like your mineral line and cannons with just 1 pylon you're already doing something wrong and needlessly shooting yourself in the food. It's just ridiculous to me that people are complaining about this. I don't see how having to rearrange your first pylon, gateway, forge, and 2nd pylon will have any bearing on anything beyond the early midgame.
On April 30 2011 09:29 RemrafGrez wrote: @ Datum, I know what you mean. And sometimes I would agree if I'm way ahead. But sometimes every 100 minerals counts. And if you are at a risky expansion, you want to spend the least amount of minerals to defend it. On those maps, players may just avoid any cannons and put a pylon far away to warp guys in. I don't know, but I don't like the limited options. Sometimes I like to put 1 cannon near nexus and 1 slightly far away to warp guys in if they drop on my minerals. Or one far away to spot drops. How many pylons do I want to lose if I lose my expansion? If I'm bulding gateways there, then OK, more pylons is fine. But if I'm not... I don't know.
You're concerned about losing pylons if you lose your expansion? I think losing an additional pylon is the least of your concerns.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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?
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 14:15 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..
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
i dont think pylon radius is an issue i just think you have to get used to it :p i like the new change because saccing an overlord for is slightly less random and the pvt warpin on cliffs from lowground pylon felt abit too annoying and pvp it was abit silly to be able to warp in zealots above the ramp so 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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
pretend all you like, but most protoss players will be happy with the overall changes on the PTR.
the only effect the pylon range will have on building placement is that you will need to find a 'standard' pylon position instead of just randomly throwing one down knowing that it will power a 100 mile radius.
And I don't understand the 4 gate argument against pylon range in 1.3.2. Stalkers have range 6 so they can ALWAYS hit a low ground pylon that can warp to high ground. And you only need two stalkers to kill a being built pylon if you spot it fast. 3 stalkers if you spot it late. Who won't have 3 stalkers by that time after the huge warpgate research nerf in pvp??? Pretty sure that covers silver through grandmasters. And if a bronze can 4gate perfectly, he wont be in bronze long.
On April 30 2011 20:58 RemrafGrez wrote: And I don't understand the 4 gate argument against pylon range in 1.3.2. Stalkers have range 6 so they can ALWAYS hit a low ground pylon that can warp to high ground. And you only need two stalkers to kill a being built pylon if you spot it fast. 3 stalkers if you spot it late. Who won't have 3 stalkers by that time after the huge warpgate research nerf in pvp??? Pretty sure that covers silver through grandmasters.
I think there are some positions where stalkers can't touch it, and you have a little sliver that you can warp a couple zealots into.
The main issue is that you attack while placing the pylon. Your (very minimal anyway) forces are occupied while the pylon goes up. Killing the probe is pretty much the only way to stop the pylon going up.
Anywho I couldn't care less about this change as a toss player. I'll have to be a touch more careful with my building placement - but that's something I try to improve anyway.
On April 30 2011 19:29 MorroW wrote: i dont think pylon radius is an issue i just think you have to get used to it :p i like the new change because saccing an overlord for is slightly less random and the pvt warpin on cliffs from lowground pylon felt abit too annoying and pvp it was abit silly to be able to warp in zealots above the ramp so easily
Yea I love how people will complain about everything. Pylon radius was massive before. Now it's smaller. It's far similar to BW now and in BW guys spent hours and hours figuring out building placements perfectly. Cannons are even more powerful in SC2. People will just have to get used to it, your race is by no means broken now.
Err build an extra pylon? It's no big deal seriously, and as the above posters mentioned, you'll have to put in extra effort to figure out the most efficient way to wall in
No tested and stalkers can always hit the pylon. Somebody show me otherwise because i may change my opinion... But i tested pretty thoroughly and even found a sliver on metalopolis at 9 oclock pylon near nat minerals that only allowed one zealot, but stalker could hit it. And one zealot going to die anyway.
Maybe before warpin research nerf it was hard to have enough to defend ramp and kill pylons, but in ptr you can even build units as fast as a warpgater with regular gateways.
On April 30 2011 11:54 CanucksJC wrote: Maybe I'll see less cannon rushing on the ladder thank god
Yeah. It's funny that many protoss are complaining in regard of the pylon energy radius because now they have to adapt to new building placements or building one more pylon in a certain area. But when they want to build 3 pylons at the bottom of a ramp of a zerg main they manage to get the minerals.
In my humble opinion I think that is all a matter of adapt to the new radius in the early game. Because in middle and late game it's common to see lots of pylon energy radius overlapping.
Think of it this way: the pylon range before was too big and now it is normal. Anyway when sc2 beta came out it really looked like the pylon range was bigger than in sc1.
On April 30 2011 10:13 PowerDes wrote: Simple fix: Do not change building radius, only warp in radius.
This pylon radius is crucial to forge fast expanding against zerg. One cannon in front, one in the back will prevent a couple of roaches from ranging the expansion/workers from behind.
If you aren't bitching, you don't play protoss.
This ^
It would so much more awesome if there were just 2 different radiuses. The difference is flippin huge.
hmmm just saying but the radius in BW was "like" this so i don't see the fuss really helps against 4 gates and makes you be more careful with your pylon placements so i think its a good move from blizzard
In broodwar you didnt have to warpin with pylon range and popular maps had tight chokes more often. Plus gateway units didnt crumble to maurauders, roaches, and hydras.
Speaking of sc2 maps, I guess you need an extra pylon to fast expand on scrap station, where the rocks already got players killed on fast expand.
this is actually a smart nerf by blizzard because it really wont affect protoss bases but it will neglect warping in the enemies base. you just need to construct additional pylons for those cannons now
On April 30 2011 21:53 GiantEnemyCrab wrote: this is actually a smart nerf by blizzard because it really wont affect protoss bases but it will neglect warping in the enemies base. you just need to construct additional pylons for those cannons now
Ok, this is a fair post. It seems obvious it is a nerf pvt and pvz, because it doesnt really help pvp like people, icluding me, originally thought. If that was blizzards intetion then OK, somebody thought dark templar up cliff warpin was broken. But if it was a pvp fix they screwed up, especially if they keep either gateway buildtime changes or warp research nerf.
Everybody says be more careful with pylon placement, but putting a stalker by wall on either side of ramp is all the care needed to defend 4 gate.
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
wasent the radius of pylons in BW short aswell. then theres the fact who the hell uses cannons anyway ? 5 for youre third 4th maybe but thats it and you have 2 pylons there anyway. .....i rlly dont see the point
On April 30 2011 22:20 Shadowcloak wrote: wasent the radius of pylons in BW short aswell. then theres the fact who the hell uses cannons anyway ? 5 for youre third 4th maybe but thats it and you have 2 pylons there anyway. .....i rlly dont see the point
Pylons and buildings in general were a lot tougher back then. I just wish they'd remove armoured from buildings, everything dies too fast.
It's fine, we just need to think more about our pylon placement but it really is not going to be as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. Most of the time i'm spamming down pylons in useless locations. It won't make a difference.
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".
Sorry to say, but that is quite a relevant argument. Balling effect of all units in SC2 effectively contracts the terrain, which leads to smaller maps and smaller mains, which should lead to a smaller psionic matrix as compared to BW. This has not been the case until viable patch 1.3.3. Notice how BW mains were massive and yet, the pylon radius in BW is smaller than the current SC2 pylon radius, and SC2 is the one with comparatively smaller mains? I think pylon radius nerf had it a long time coming, especially with the added warp-in advantage which BW did not possess.
It's all a matter of getting used to it guys. And it really isn't as absurd AT ALL if you compare it to the harsh, unforgiving, idiosyncratic BW pylon/building placement.
The original range looks absurdly far to me rather than the new one looking to small, personally i'm looking forwards to the change even though i'll have to be a bit more careful in my building placement now.
I've always placed cannons behind my mineral lines when playing against zerg anyway... So it won't change anything. You'll just have to think a bit befoir placing them.
I'm a protoss player, and I must say I love this change! I don't see it having any significant effect on the PvZ or PvT matchup, but it should have a huge effect on PvP, in a good way... With this change the 4gate offensive warp-in should in my eyes be a lot easier to defend, so hopefully we won't see much of it after this patch.
Currently Protoss are taking too many risks in the game, because they can have a lot of stuff being powered by 1 pylon (1 pylon can cover 21 gates, 21!). I actually think this will, when people get use to new radius, make Protoss win more, because they not going to warp in random pylons when supply blocked, but are forced to play smarter.
On April 30 2011 10:52 RemrafGrez wrote: Here are some examples where pros need all that 1.3.2 pylon range, and please don't tell me they could spare 100 minerals for another pylon at this point in the game.
Most of these are from recent tournies like recent GSL or MLG. If it's not OK to do screenshots of GSL someone please delete this post if you have to.
GSL, Alicia vs Losira- Trying to wall from ramp to nexus, no spare pylons.
GSL, Coca vs Squirtle- No pylons to spare, trying to wall off and cover two distant sides with 1 pylon.
GSL, July vs Huk - he put pylon in middle of minerals because he moved all his probes already, but an example of 1 pylon and 2 cannons -
Root vs EG, KiwiKaki vs Idra - notice how he puts cannons at max distance so he has more room to warp-in and cannons can cover each other, and no one pylon taken out unpowers a cannon-
Root vs EG, Kiwikaki vs Idra - he puts buildings at max distance to semi wall off with forge and better protect and hide robo bay-
MC vs Check - Notice how he needs to wall of his natural from nexus to ramp, no spare pylons for other side of natural nexus.
I really don't get the picture you are posting, they're extremely being taking out of context, since 3 of them are with the players being in a engagement, so we can't tell if the protoss had more pylons there, but they just got destroyed before the screenshot was taking, so see no real reason why people should response to them. And I bet you, if you're taking a look in the Protoss main, there will be some random placed pylon that could have been placed better.
Also, if pylons are being used to make some sort of a wall, which has absolutely nothing to do with the power radius, they're in a big risk of being destroyed, so most players will have some sort of backup pylons anyway, to power the buildings, otherwise, the fault is on the Protoss, not the patch.
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
On May 01 2011 03:05 threepsuedo wrote: big ramps:
screenshots taken on scrapstation
Move the cyber core up 1 square, walling off the middle area and making the hole in the bottom rather than middle of the map. Problem solved.
Or, scout after pylon like every other Protoss and make a full wall or something when you see a 6 pool.
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
I don't see why they don't just have two separate radii, one for warping in units and one for placing buildings, as this here is clearly detrimental to the game.
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
I don't think it's anywhere near a big of a deal as you make it out to be. Yes, the radius is smaller, but it's still easily big enough to place defensive pylons/cannons providing you think about your building placement beforehand.
I always knew that reducing pylon radius was going to affect wall offs and how roaches / maruaders can deactivate pylons near ramp since they now must be placed at a closer range. This cannon visual is also very informative.
Could blizzard just change warp in radius without changing pylon radius?
On May 01 2011 03:36 shammythefox wrote: I don't see why they don't just have two separate radii, one for warping in units and one for placing buildings, as this here is clearly detrimental to the game.
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
On May 01 2011 03:05 threepsuedo wrote: big ramps:
screenshots taken on scrapstation
Move the cyber core up 1 square, walling off the middle area and making the hole in the bottom rather than middle of the map. Problem solved.
Or, scout after pylon like every other Protoss and make a full wall or something when you see a 6 pool.
That wouldnt be walled off against zerglings, they could get between gateway & core.
Don;t you get a 2nd pylon before the cyber core anyway?
On May 01 2011 04:00 fighter2_40 wrote: I always knew that reducing pylon radius was going to affect wall offs. Could blizzard just change warp in radius without changing pylon radius?
lol you gotta be some kinda fortune teller dude!
but your warpin idea is good. i dont give a F*** about cannons tbh, i just want my forge FE to work. and the new pylons just take away too much.
On May 01 2011 04:00 fighter2_40 wrote: Could blizzard just change warp in radius without changing pylon radius?
That would come at the cost of elegance, flavor and "easy to learn" values. Of course if the need was great enough these costs would be paid but I dont see that need being justified in this situation.
On May 01 2011 03:36 shammythefox wrote: I don't see why they don't just have two separate radii, one for warping in units and one for placing buildings, as this here is clearly detrimental to the game.
On May 01 2011 03:25 loveeholicce wrote:
On May 01 2011 01:50 RemrafGrez wrote:
On April 30 2011 22:09 loveeholicce wrote:
On April 30 2011 19:26 RemrafGrez wrote:
On April 30 2011 14:48 Scarecrow wrote:
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
On May 01 2011 03:05 threepsuedo wrote: big ramps:
screenshots taken on scrapstation
Move the cyber core up 1 square, walling off the middle area and making the hole in the bottom rather than middle of the map. Problem solved.
Or, scout after pylon like every other Protoss and make a full wall or something when you see a 6 pool.
That wouldnt be walled off against zerglings, they could get between gateway & core.
Don;t you get a 2nd pylon before the cyber core anyway?
Yea, but to have to put the 2nd instead of the third pylon into your wall off means you don't have the option to keep your tech hidden at all or the number of gateways etc. It just limits a couple more builds, say an ultra fast twilight council, because protoss can't deny scouting as easily as the other races (marines with range, cheap and fast cost efficient lings).. you literally have to just kind of stand there with the zealot. Putting 2nd pylon in the wall isn't a massive deal, but it does limit a few options to do riskier plays and is generally not where you want to have to put a 2nd one. Its map dependent of course
On April 30 2011 21:33 Chaosvuistje wrote: Oh no, you can no longer reach all the way around the nexus to place cannons there using one pylon.
In return, this is what you get. Worse timed 4gate in PvP. Worse cannon rushes in PvP. Worse pylon warp in on top of your ramp in PvP.
I really don't understand the big deal here.
I agree with this. I mean, I guess wallin's will be harder off of fewer pylons, but I'm sure people will figure it out. And the benefits way outweigh the nuisance of re-figuring out wallins. I'm wondering how much this will effect cannon-rushers and if this intentionally or unintentionally nerfs Combat Ex...
On May 01 2011 03:36 shammythefox wrote: I don't see why they don't just have two separate radii, one for warping in units and one for placing buildings, as this here is clearly detrimental to the game.
On May 01 2011 03:25 loveeholicce wrote:
On May 01 2011 01:50 RemrafGrez wrote:
On April 30 2011 22:09 loveeholicce wrote:
On April 30 2011 19:26 RemrafGrez wrote:
On April 30 2011 14:48 Scarecrow wrote:
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
On May 01 2011 03:05 threepsuedo wrote: big ramps:
screenshots taken on scrapstation
Move the cyber core up 1 square, walling off the middle area and making the hole in the bottom rather than middle of the map. Problem solved.
Or, scout after pylon like every other Protoss and make a full wall or something when you see a 6 pool.
That wouldnt be walled off against zerglings, they could get between gateway & core.
Don;t you get a 2nd pylon before the cyber core anyway?
Yea, but to have to put the 2nd instead of the third pylon into your wall off means you don't have the option to keep your tech hidden at all or the number of gateways etc. It just limits a couple more builds, say an ultra fast twilight council, because protoss can't deny scouting as easily as the other races (marines with range, cheap and fast cost efficient lings).. you literally have to just kind of stand there with the zealot. Putting 2nd pylon in the wall isn't a massive deal, but it does limit a few options to do riskier plays and is generally not where you want to have to put a 2nd one. Its map dependent of course
great change, makes hiding tech a tradeoff (no wall then). Currently its too hard to scout a protoss, because of easy wallin. fast stargate, fast dt, fast colossi, hidden 4gate (without the obvious chrono), weird timing pushes. Z basically has to roll dice in order to win. Playing safe (being able to defend anything) will set the Z behind too much. Also i like P being somewhat more vulnerable to early game attacks in case he teches hard :D
On May 01 2011 04:56 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: anybody figured out what effect this has on cannon rushes (i play Z) ?
While I haven't tested, I am super positive this is going too make cannon rushing harder. I think they are going too have too make at least 2 pylons no matter what too get a cannon rush too work with the patch but may be wrong.
I decided to acquire some screenshots of BW to compare the Pylon Radius between games. I thought this would be a good idea since a lot of people in this thread have been talking about.
^This picture aptly demonstrates how far you can place cannons in relation to the nexus. Note that I could have built cannons within the mineral line, and they would be right up against the limit of the pylon radius^
^This second picture is to show how far out you can place cannons on a lone pylon, without and interrupting nexus and assimilator cluttering up the picture^
These next three pictures I found quite interesting:
What I discovered: -In Brood War, a pylon's radius extends 4 hexes upwards and downwards. -A pylon's radius extends 8 hexes left and right. -However, for cannons and cannons alone the pylon only has an effective radius of 7 in width. This means you can only have 3 cannons of width instead of 4. -A nexus, gateways and stargates are all 4 hexes wide by 3 high -Most other buildings (Core, Robo, etc) are 3 hexes wide by 2 high
Vs Starcraft 2: -Currently, pylon radius is 7.5, to be 6.5 in next patch -Nexus is 4 by 4, virtually all other buildings are 3 by 3
You must note that because pylons in BW do not extend as high as their width, and most buildings are not square, it is hard to directly compare between games as to how much this effects gameplay. Also, cannons only had 100/100 hp/shields.
While I wanna rage and say no one 4 gates anymore above mid diamond, then I realize blizz cares (understandably so) more about the guy who gets the game just cause he heard its pretty good than people who play sc as a lifelong hobby, or competitive level plays. Considering they put nitro pack to factory, cut out voidray speed, and admit people aint gonna use mothership in competitive play, I think its pretty safe to assume they will go through with this change and theres nothing we can do to stop David Kim.
this change is good, probably gonna help take out some PvP 4 gates, but damn, just lay down 2 pylons and think about where you should place it really not a big change just gives toss less of an ability to warp in over gaps or up ledges undetected
Blizzard is smart. This not only makes proxies more difficult just because of range, but also because you'll need more pylons at home and thus will be making more of a commitment if you make a proxy pylon. I like it. Props.
On May 01 2011 05:30 DragonDefonce wrote: While I wanna rage and say no one 4 gates anymore above mid diamond, then I realize blizz cares (understandably so) more about the guy who gets the game just cause he heard its pretty good than people who play sc as a lifelong hobby, or competitive level plays. Considering they put nitro pack to factory, cut out voidray speed, and admit people aint gonna use mothership in competitive play, I think its pretty safe to assume they will go through with this change and theres nothing we can do to stop David Kim.
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.
Im not the best player, but its sounds legitimate. The increased warpgate time change in combination with decrease in the amount of buildings able to be powered per pylon would force a later 4gate and the increase in supply capacity with due to more pylons could lead to a stronger albeit later 4gate.
Unless you build everything super tight around 1 pylon, which is bad because it both makes them an easy target and easy to scout, you would need more pylons to space everything out properly and get at least similar coverage. Even 1 more pylon could be significant if it was the earliest possible with the new warpgate timing.
Or will the effectiveness be deflated due to the time the enemy get to scout and build up. If its way off, then sorry, but it sounds like a legitimate questions.
On May 01 2011 03:36 shammythefox wrote: I don't see why they don't just have two separate radii, one for warping in units and one for placing buildings, as this here is clearly detrimental to the game.
On May 01 2011 03:25 loveeholicce wrote:
On May 01 2011 01:50 RemrafGrez wrote:
On April 30 2011 22:09 loveeholicce wrote:
On April 30 2011 19:26 RemrafGrez wrote:
On April 30 2011 14:48 Scarecrow wrote:
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.
Pretend all you like, but on fast expand builds more pylons will be needed early on with some maps with big natural chokes. Terran gets to build cc in main before expand. Zerg has best chace at fast expand by design. Protoss have pylons and cannons for fast expand. Now it is harder and baneling busts and 2base sling roach allins are even bettet against it.
Roach ling all ins are better because theres an extra pylon in the natural? O_O
And no, protoss have sentries for fast expand. Sentries. You live and die by forcefields in the early game, not pylon radius
Fast expands need walls, cannons, then sentries. Some maps already kill p for trying just look at the pro screenshots... Sentries are not enough for some builds. As for ling roach allins, you need some sort of wall to have a chance. Some maps are going to be impossible to wall on with first natura area pylon worse than before.
I don't know what roach ling all ins you're running into but I've never heard of any that hit before toss gets a chance to place their 2nd or 3rd pylon lol.
On May 01 2011 03:05 threepsuedo wrote: big ramps:
screenshots taken on scrapstation
Move the cyber core up 1 square, walling off the middle area and making the hole in the bottom rather than middle of the map. Problem solved.
Or, scout after pylon like every other Protoss and make a full wall or something when you see a 6 pool.
That wouldnt be walled off against zerglings, they could get between gateway & core.
Don;t you get a 2nd pylon before the cyber core anyway?
Yea, but to have to put the 2nd instead of the third pylon into your wall off means you don't have the option to keep your tech hidden at all or the number of gateways etc. It just limits a couple more builds, say an ultra fast twilight council, because protoss can't deny scouting as easily as the other races (marines with range, cheap and fast cost efficient lings).. you literally have to just kind of stand there with the zealot. Putting 2nd pylon in the wall isn't a massive deal, but it does limit a few options to do riskier plays and is generally not where you want to have to put a 2nd one. Its map dependent of course
Sorry, what? What kind of a twilight council comes before the 3rd pylon lol O_O. where are u getting these examples
just place the pylons better. It's not that hard. By the time you actually need cannons in your base, you have to have 4 or 5 pylons already. Just spread them out nicely.
I'm not going to comment on the balance of the thing since I only play protoss at diamond, but I find something off here. In the op, he presents a decent argument, and though he says he hates it, he does not say that it puts protoss in an unwinnable situation or something like that. Yet he still gets a bunch of hate and people telling him things that they don't actually know about (by not playing protoss). To any zergs reading this thread and thinking protoss posts that argue against this are complete bullshi*, there are at any time at least 3 times this many threads made by zergs, and a bunch of good protoss players get extreme amounts of unjustified hate despite doing nothing wrong. Not even to mention the whining in the LR threads. Perhaps this gives you some perspective. (I know not all zergs are this way, but some of you are guilty)
i don't get why "balance" means that turrets/cannons/spores/spines must be similar in terms of placement. turrets can't even attack ground. womp womp. turrets can't move like spines and spores. womp womp. turrets have the best DPS (i think). womp womp. blah blah
like the endless debate about t1/2/3 units lol. why are terran t1 units good? why do terran t3 units kind of suck? womp womp
Wow, some of you guys are so... There has never been the complaint "OMG! It's just so hard to power my buildings with pylons!" If anything, players have more problems finding new places to put pylons since their whole base has been powered since ~70 supply.
On May 01 2011 14:56 ampson wrote: I'm not going to comment on the balance of the thing since I only play protoss at diamond, but I find something off here. In the op, he presents a decent argument, and though he says he hates it, he does not say that it puts protoss in an unwinnable situation or something like that. Yet he still gets a bunch of hate and people telling him things that they don't actually know about (by not playing protoss). To any zergs reading this thread and thinking protoss posts that argue against this are complete bullshi*, there are at any time at least 3 times this many threads made by zergs, and a bunch of good protoss players get extreme amounts of unjustified hate despite doing nothing wrong. Not even to mention the whining in the LR threads. Perhaps this gives you some perspective. (I know not all zergs are this way, but some of you are guilty)
This x2
You pretty muched summed up what I wanted to say, as a Protoss player I get tons of heat on ladder, and if I win my race is OP, whenever protoss gets nerfed, I hear lots (not all but lots) of zergs saying now you need more skill instead of easy mode and toss nerfs are always justified blah blah, but if zerg gets even a slight nerf OMG IMBA UNFAIR <_<
I actually think zerg is the currently the strongest race (inb4 flaming the hell out of me), and with players like Spanishiwa showing others how it can be done, if it continues this way I am curious how long it is before the zergs will dominate the top of ladder/tournaments.
But I'm going way off topic, so I'll end my post now ^^.
On May 01 2011 16:16 Vei wrote: Cool now protoss will have to have smart building placement
Lines like these confuse me, Protoss already puts more effort into building placement than any other race, if you are saying building placement is easy as Protoss then shouldn't you be rallying to inconvenience other races too?
I can't remember the amount of times where I've had to use the edges of my Pylon range to put down Cannons to defend a six pool/proxy gate.
In terms of balance ramifications, this just fixes the issues of being able to Warp-in DT's/Zealots from areas that are not possible to be hit by 6 range units.
Other than that, it just conveniences Protoss--which is dumb.
you have to put your building one grid square closer to a pylon.
ONE SQUARE...
stop trying to get sympathy or blizzards attention or whatever. it's nothing. it would be like zerg complaining about the fungal growth change or terran complaining about the bunker change... oh wait.
in conclusion - there are too many whining scrubs playing blizzard games. do these guys actually play the game with any seriousness? i doubt it, they wouldn't have enough time after the forum camping waiting to see the new patchnotes for more potential moan fodder.
Sorry, the people posting in this thread are... well, I'd rather not be banned for stating blunt truths, so I'll stick with depressingly uninformed.
This is an annoying nerf. Really annoying. It's not the end of the world, but it's a significant change simply for building and cannon placement. Wall-ins, sim-city and cannon placement, particularly when you desire to over-lap pylon power zones in order to prevent a single pylon being a crippling blow due to power loss is all changing. Protoss is uniquely annoyed by this pylon power feature, as creep spread is not particularly game-changing (Hatch creep extends to cover the mineral line, so placement of defensive structures isn't a problem, and tech structures are limited so there is no space problems, so you cannot claim an analogy) Terran, obviously, can build anywhere.
That being said, I wish they simply make it so you cannot warp in from the low ground to higher elevations, it would be the best fix to warpgates.
you have to put your building one grid square closer to a pylon.
ONE SQUARE...
The way you make it sound, why make the change at all? It is only one square right?
It is fine that some people don't quite feel the change is as big as others are making it, but don't downplay it to that level of absurdity. The Pylon area is reduced to 85% of what it is now, it is like increasing the cost of stim by 5HP. There isn't that big of a difference at face value, but over a long period of time--there is a noticeable effect.
So much bitterness from the non-Protoss in the thread.
Anyways, I've found this change makes cannon rushes much more effective in PvP. As you can't cover your nexus with a single pylon anymore the defender is much more vulnerable from at least one side.
Not zergling tight i fear. Probe is slightly bigger than zergling
I didn't know they were bigger. Nonetheless, I also tested it with zerglings and it seems to work just fine.
Can you put the zealot so only one ling can hit it at once? If two lings can hit it at once it can easily be broken in the timing window between zealot and sentry.
I haven't really tested to see how much could hit it. You can add onto this wall by adding a pylon to the right of the pylon later in the game if it is a concern, and moving the zealot slightly to the right.I don't know the timing of the units or buildings since I'm a terran player. Perhaps someone else can give insight on what unit/buildings were used previously to stop those rushes people are talking about.
you have to put your building one grid square closer to a pylon.
ONE SQUARE...
The way you make it sound, why make the change at all? It is only one square right?
It is fine that some people don't quite feel the change is as big as others are making it, but don't downplay it to that level of absurdity. The Pylon area is reduced to 85% of what it is now, it is like increasing the cost of stim by 5HP. There isn't that big of a difference at face value, but over a long period of time--there is a noticeable effect.
the obvious reason for the change was to allow stalker/marauder to snipe lower ground pylon to stop base warp-ins which would otherwise bypass a wall-in.
increasing the cost of stim is a terrible comparison. that change would directly weaken bio units, the pylon change doesn't directly weaken anything - it merely forces protoss to change their building placement slightly.
the difference will be negligible. same as the bunker change. imo both of these are nice changes, but neither of them were essential.
On May 01 2011 19:24 AnalThermometer wrote: So much bitterness from the non-Protoss in the thread.
Anyways, I've found this change makes cannon rushes much more effective in PvP. As you can't cover your nexus with a single pylon anymore the defender is much more vulnerable from at least one side.
Thanks for checking... I was afraid that cannon rushes were going to be harder to defend. For the non protoss, imagine you cant siege a tank to stop an enemy tank push because you built your depot in the wrong spot.
On May 01 2011 05:19 Geovu wrote: I decided to acquire some screenshots of BW to compare the Pylon Radius between games. I thought this would be a good idea since a lot of people in this thread have been talking about.
^This picture aptly demonstrates how far you can place cannons in relation to the nexus. Note that I could have built cannons within the mineral line, and they would be right up against the limit of the pylon radius^
^This second picture is to show how far out you can place cannons on a lone pylon, without and interrupting nexus and assimilator cluttering up the picture^
These next three pictures I found quite interesting:
What I discovered: -In Brood War, a pylon's radius extends 4 hexes upwards and downwards. -A pylon's radius extends 8 hexes left and right. -However, for cannons and cannons alone the pylon only has an effective radius of 7 in width. This means you can only have 3 cannons of width instead of 4. -A nexus, gateways and stargates are all 4 hexes wide by 3 high -Most other buildings (Core, Robo, etc) are 3 hexes wide by 2 high
Vs Starcraft 2: -Currently, pylon radius is 7.5, to be 6.5 in next patch -Nexus is 4 by 4, virtually all other buildings are 3 by 3
You must note that because pylons in BW do not extend as high as their width, and most buildings are not square, it is hard to directly compare between games as to how much this effects gameplay. Also, cannons only had 100/100 hp/shields.
In conclusion: Iunno lol.
Nice analysis! But im confused... So you could put cannons in minerals on the far side of a pylon next to a nexus in broodwar? If i read that right, the change is making it smaller than before in BW in many cases!! And it just felt bigger because gateways are smaller now? Now i am even more depressed.
Guys pylons are 100 minerals and you get them for supply every 20 seconds. Look at any protoss game, once u get past 5 minutes there's so much redundancy with pylon placement simply because there isn't that much place to put them all and use their entire radius without overlapping. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. I can see some1 making a case that this change will affect Protoss forge FE sim city, although I still tend to disagree, but saying this will be a big deal because you can now warp in less stuff per pylon? Really? Have 2 pylons beside your mineral line instead of one. Voila, you can now place cannons anywhere you want =_=
I think the impact it has on PvP makes having to be a little more careful about building placement toally worth it. We will still be able to get the buildings down we need, it just wont be as easy...
wait what.. really?? How is putting up a extra pylon in the back of your base instead of anywhere else gonna be annoying/affect anyones gameplay ATT ALL?..
On May 01 2011 19:34 kyophan wrote: I haven't really tested to see how much could hit it. You can add onto this wall by adding a pylon to the right of the pylon later in the game if it is a concern, and moving the zealot slightly to the right.I don't know the timing of the units or buildings since I'm a terran player. Perhaps someone else can give insight on what unit/buildings were used previously to stop those rushes people are talking about.
Thanks that definitely helps, but on the flipside it does nearly guarantee your tech being scouted by overlord. Also takes 3 more 3x3 buildings like gateways to build anti bane bust whereas before it only took one. So thats 300 minerals extra and one less pylon to scout edge of base or hide tech. Pretty annoying to say the least.
Actually thats 3 less buildings to scout edge of base for scout overlords and nydases. And if you really want to be baneling proof you have to build a third pylon behind your gateways or theyll lose power during busts. Talk about the butterfly effect from "only one square".
You raise many effects of the nerf to pylon radius and you show the things which protoss may have to change. But your constant complaining lowers the quality of your post dramatically, i can guarantee that many people read less than half of this then went somewhere else concluding that this is a QQ thread, which you make it sound like it is.
I cant make up my mind whether or not i like this change or not.
I can understand it in the sense that you will not be able to place a pylon that can warp in on high ground without high ground being able to see the pylon.
but early game this can be a little annoying. i want overlap on my powerfields so that it isnt easier for people to kill one pylon and me be screwed. and i want to be able to hide my tech.
I think i will wait and play it before i make any judgement calls. tough one.
so you are telling us that in 1.3.3 protoss will have to add a 2nd pylon to their nexus to be able to defend properly. so what's the problem ? losing 100 minerals on the pylon and not being that cost-effective as before?
i would be happy that you have to use more pylons now. I mean now the chance of fail pylons is reduced. But at the same time sniping pylons will unpower something more likey.
I liked bw because 4 canons you kill the pylon below the canons hehe. In sc2 i think going for the canons is most of the time more effectiv because the pylon radius is sooo damn hugee compared to bw. (buildings are so much bigger in bw so imo the radius feels smaller in bw )
On May 01 2011 05:19 Geovu wrote: I decided to acquire some screenshots of BW to compare the Pylon Radius between games. I thought this would be a good idea since a lot of people in this thread have been talking about.
^This picture aptly demonstrates how far you can place cannons in relation to the nexus. Note that I could have built cannons within the mineral line, and they would be right up against the limit of the pylon radius^
^This second picture is to show how far out you can place cannons on a lone pylon, without and interrupting nexus and assimilator cluttering up the picture^
These next three pictures I found quite interesting:
What I discovered: -In Brood War, a pylon's radius extends 4 hexes upwards and downwards. -A pylon's radius extends 8 hexes left and right. -However, for cannons and cannons alone the pylon only has an effective radius of 7 in width. This means you can only have 3 cannons of width instead of 4. -A nexus, gateways and stargates are all 4 hexes wide by 3 high -Most other buildings (Core, Robo, etc) are 3 hexes wide by 2 high
Vs Starcraft 2: -Currently, pylon radius is 7.5, to be 6.5 in next patch -Nexus is 4 by 4, virtually all other buildings are 3 by 3
You must note that because pylons in BW do not extend as high as their width, and most buildings are not square, it is hard to directly compare between games as to how much this effects gameplay. Also, cannons only had 100/100 hp/shields.
In conclusion: Iunno lol.
Nice analysis! But im confused... So you could put cannons in minerals on the far side of a pylon next to a nexus in broodwar? If i read that right, the change is making it smaller than before in BW in many cases!! And it just felt bigger because gateways are smaller now? Now i am even more depressed.
Yeah, that is more or less it. Of course, the pylon radius also felt smaller simply because units took up too much space. In BW (esp as Terran) you actually need to play a practice game simply to find a good proper building placement on every single map in every position or else you will end up with a nightmare of a base for macroing, tanks will get stuck everywhere and you won't be able to fit more than 4 factories in you base, lol.
if you think about it, its a buff. now since your second pylon will be closer to the other, so situations where you have 1 pylon powering everything getting sniped wont be so common
On May 02 2011 02:43 br0fivE wrote: if you think about it, its a buff. now since your second pylon will be closer to the other, so situations where you have 1 pylon powering everything getting sniped wont be so common
its not a big deal at all.
lol that's a pretty good way to think about it . This change will definitely be interesting as I think this could make cannon rushes less powerful.
Although on state of the game tyler said that the bw pylon radius was small, but judging from the picture it was as big too allow the same or more amount of cannons then in sc2 was that just for gateways I assume?
This is great. Finally pylon sniping is a viable tactical option as opposed to just killing the buildings. You need to make a lot of the things for supply anyways.
On May 02 2011 02:43 br0fivE wrote: if you think about it, its a buff. now since your second pylon will be closer to the other, so situations where you have 1 pylon powering everything getting sniped wont be so common
its not a big deal at all.
I can't tell if you're trolling. Because there's no possible way to construe a 25% reduction in pylon power range to be a buff. You could always have built the second pylon. There was nothing stopping you.
That said, it's not a huge deal, just a minor nerf that will mostly effect forge builds (either cannon rushes or forge expand) and (most prominently) the offensive 4-gate. But it's not a buff.
On May 02 2011 03:55 Sueco wrote: This is great. Finally pylon sniping is a viable tactical option as opposed to just killing the buildings. You need to make a lot of the things for supply anyways.
Not sure what you mean, now there will be less buildings powered by a single pylon, so if anything, any single pylon is now less important as a tactical target.
Cannons were probably the strongest, cheapest, easiest static defense in the game, I'm glad to see their effectiveness slightly reduced via the pylon problem.
sorry i didnt read any replies or full thread but i noticed in the pictures i didnt see a pylon in the mineral line which will obviously cover a much larger area.
Its regular for all races to put defenses in their mineral line to increase defense whilst slightly lowering economy.
edit: yeah read a few posts - my points pretty much been made.
This change really doesn't effect mid late game. In fact, I might even say its good because it will put players in habit of not relying on one pylon to power everything.
Having said that, the biggest implication of this outside of pvp is pvz. Early expand simcity will be harder. Each pylon when executing an FE needs to be carefuly planned to power everything, wall off nicely, and to spot all around your base (how many people lost to nydus?).
Think about this: roaches getting 1 more range made them stupidly good for early aggression. Pylon radius getting reduced 1 will make simcity much harder to that extent. For example, now you cannot put two big buildings(gate, forge, cyber) in line next to each other radially from the pylon. This is actually a big deal when you can't just afford to put down a random pylon at your whim. Also, it still begs the question: is it necessary at this point where people have found ways around 4gate?
You can still place a canon in front and behind your nexus with only 1 pylon.
The point to the nerf was that Protoss could place a proxy pylon outside your base AND out of stalker range AND be able to warp in behind your wall. Now after the pylon power nerf in order to warp in units behind the wall Protoss will have to place their proxy pylon in range of Stalker fire.
1.3.2 Pylon = 7.5 - (.5 range needed for room to warp units) >>[7 range from the wall] 1.3.3 Pylon = 6.5 - (.5 range needed for room to warp units) >>[6 range from the wall] Stalker attack range = 6 Marauder attack range = 6
Depending on their placement of the proxy pylon your units should be able to kill it before he warps into your main (provided you scout it immediately).
I dont understand all the people saying this is not a probelm at all...
It's a nerf, period. and the change wasnt intended to reduce Protoss effectiveness by any means, it's supposed to just fix stupid 4 gate PVP action.
All the stupid comments about "just put another pylon there bro" are useless, it's affecting other matchups outside of PvP without it beeing intended to do so...
I dont see why its such a big deal that protoss now has to think a bit when placing their buildings??
I wish they had to think when placing their Force Fields. 8)
tyler, on sotg said that way back when he first starting playing sc2 he was dumfounded by the range on the pylon so he thinks its just going back to what it should have been. i agree, and despite the races having to be different and all... its still better than creep since you dont have to place pylons by pylons. ikik creep makes shit go faster (:
I haven't seen a single post in this entire thread that successfully argues that this nerf is a legitimate balance problem. It's honestly not that hard to deal with.
Example from recent GSL game of Bomber vs IMnuts of why it's bad to put pylons behind minerals in a lot of positions. You end up blocking your zealots from getting to the drop and give the enemy safe areas of escape.
And I have done some tests on 1.3.2 with the old pylon range, and stalkers can always hit the pylons that are made to warp guys in. Like I said before, it only takes 2 stalkers to kill a pylon if you spot it quick, or 3 if you spot it late. And all Protoss units have more site range than pylon warpin range so you just need to place units near the edge of your base. And I found that any tricky warpin spots that allow less zealots to warpin also allow less stalkers to hit... but the up side is that stalkers standing in the warpin field even deny warpins. I guess Blizzard just wants immortals and sentries to be able to hit pylons too.
On May 01 2011 05:19 Geovu wrote: I decided to acquire some screenshots of BW to compare the Pylon Radius between games. I thought this would be a good idea since a lot of people in this thread have been talking about.
^This picture aptly demonstrates how far you can place cannons in relation to the nexus. Note that I could have built cannons within the mineral line, and they would be right up against the limit of the pylon radius^
^This second picture is to show how far out you can place cannons on a lone pylon, without and interrupting nexus and assimilator cluttering up the picture^
These next three pictures I found quite interesting:
What I discovered: -In Brood War, a pylon's radius extends 4 hexes upwards and downwards. -A pylon's radius extends 8 hexes left and right. -However, for cannons and cannons alone the pylon only has an effective radius of 7 in width. This means you can only have 3 cannons of width instead of 4. -A nexus, gateways and stargates are all 4 hexes wide by 3 high -Most other buildings (Core, Robo, etc) are 3 hexes wide by 2 high
Vs Starcraft 2: -Currently, pylon radius is 7.5, to be 6.5 in next patch -Nexus is 4 by 4, virtually all other buildings are 3 by 3
You must note that because pylons in BW do not extend as high as their width, and most buildings are not square, it is hard to directly compare between games as to how much this effects gameplay. Also, cannons only had 100/100 hp/shields.
In conclusion: Iunno lol.
Thanks for doing the research, really good numbers!
Seeing that the poster above could not find a comparison between BW pylons and pre/post patch pylons, I decided that we can look at the pylons in terms of area.
To calculate area, we need radii/major and minor axis + Show Spoiler +
BW pylon extends 8 squares to the left and 8 to the right, and 4 squares up/down. 1.3.2 pylon has radius 7.5 squares in all directions. 1.3.3 pylon has radius 6.5 squares in all directions.
Using the formula for the are of an ellipse for BW pylon and circle for SC2 pylon, I found this: + Show Spoiler +
Effective area of BW pylon: 100.5 square units Effective area of 7.5 radius pylon: 176.7 square units Effective area of 6.5 radius pylon: 132.7 square units.
It's pretty obvious that SC2 pylons are far superior and have more area because of the 3D element of the game, regardless of pylon nerf. Yet, no-one seemed to complain in BW...
Also, interestingly enough, BW buildings have different dimensions to SC2 BW gate/core: 4x3 units = 12 square units SC2 gate/core: 3x3 units = 9 square units As though not enough, SC2 pylons can further utilize this advantage due to smaller building dimensions.
Just build additional pylons. I for one am glad that pylons which are placed so that protoss can warp in inside the main are now easier to snipe, especially PvP.
Don't most people tend to use the cannons as a stall tactic making a wall at an entrance? The change doesn't affect that too much. Placing them any way you are explaining makes the pylon have a vulnerable spot where it could easily be picked off and your cannons are worthless anyways patch or not.
Is it an annoyance? Yes, but I much rather have a PvP Match Up where I don't lose to a 4gate based upon not playing perfect. I'm sure I have lost more PvP matchups to a silly mistake than I will ever lose to the pylon having slightly less range.
Because ofcourse, at all points in the game you're going to have one single pylon in your base, amirite?
Just put another pylon on the other side in preparation, by the point in the game where harass becomes a big problem you should easily have the pylons in the correct placements to put canons where ever you see fit, the post about the 4gate warpin to high ground, this is a good thing..
I might be misunderstanding something here, but this OP might be the biggest overstatement of a problem ever. Can't you just build one addition pylon for all those old cannon spots? is it that big a deal ? Even with new smaller radius you can still get a cannon right in the middle of the minerals and one at the bottom of the nexus.
On May 02 2011 21:53 Juffalo wrote: I might be misunderstanding something here, but this OP might be the biggest overstatement of a problem ever. Can't you just build one addition pylon for all those old cannon spots? is it that big a deal ? Even with new smaller radius you can still get a cannon right in the middle of the minerals and one at the bottom of the nexus.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure they intended this change to actually matter.
This change has a bigger impact on Forge fast expand openings potentially, since toss walls pylon high ground then building next on a great number of maps.
On May 02 2011 23:58 Passo wrote: This change has a bigger impact on Forge fast expand openings potentially, since toss walls pylon high ground then building next on a great number of maps.
my god, you may need TWO pylons now! seriously though I don't see this change as anything to panic over, it's there to prevent the pylon from being out of range of being attacked from a cliff it can warp in on-top of.
Your screen shots really serve no purpose. You're basically tracing the circumference of a larger circle with cannons, then demonstrating that you can't place the same cannons around a circle with a slightly smaller circumference. This boils down to - hey look, this smaller circle is smaller than a larger circle! Which apparently needs images to clearly convey.
The new radius looks at least a bit more similar to the brood war pylon radius. I suppose it was never intended for it to be able to power up so many buildings in the first place (without even mentioning warp in radius).
This is so silly 4 gate is being nerfed and that the only time the pylon range was truly abusive. All other things such as warping dts on high ground require an alternate tech investment and by the time all the components are in place your opponent shouldn't die to your harass.
On May 03 2011 02:12 Nothingtosay wrote: This is so silly 4 gate is being nerfed and that the only time the pylon range was truly abusive. All other things such as warping dts on high ground require an alternate tech investment and by the time all the components are in place your opponent shouldn't die to your harass.
Great because harassment shouldn't be used to kill someone.
On May 02 2011 04:49 Ghost-z wrote: You can still place a canon in front and behind your nexus with only 1 pylon.
The point to the nerf was that Protoss could place a proxy pylon outside your base AND out of stalker range AND be able to warp in behind your wall. Now after the pylon power nerf in order to warp in units behind the wall Protoss will have to place their proxy pylon in range of Stalker fire.
1.3.2 Pylon = 7.5 - (.5 range needed for room to warp units) >>[7 range from the wall] 1.3.3 Pylon = 6.5 - (.5 range needed for room to warp units) >>[6 range from the wall] Stalker attack range = 6 Marauder attack range = 6
Depending on their placement of the proxy pylon your units should be able to kill it before he warps into your main (provided you scout it immediately).
I've never seen any PvP where the protoss puts the pylon out of range of stalker fire. Sometimes they even put down 2 pylons. Stalker DPS is crap. You can't even kill 1 pylon before it finishes and warps units in. Besides placing the pylon that far doesn't provide for much warp in space.
The current SC2 pylon radius is a lot larger compared to BW.
Using the Nexus as a base for comparison is bad, because they are the only building that has more than doubled in size, to 25 squares in SC2 from only 12 in BW, while the grand majority of buildings have actually been reduced from 12 to 9, so the relative size of the pylon field is even larger.
On May 03 2011 04:36 lololol wrote: BW, number of green squares while building a...
Gateway: 190 Photon Cannon: 158
SC2:
Gateway: 232 Photon Cannon: 208
The current SC2 pylon radius is a lot larger compared to BW.
Using the Nexus as a base for comparison is bad, because they are the only building that has more than doubled in size, to 25 squares in SC2 from only 12 in BW, while the grand majority of buildings have actually been reduced from 12 to 9, so the relative size of the pylon field is even larger.
I feel a little better after looking at Geovu's BW screenshots and notes about buildings being generally smaller in SC2 and your green squares count. I realize now that building placement outside of the Nexus and forge fast expand are not the end of the world with this change.
But the original reason I was worried was cannon coverage at minerals lines, so looking at the newer bigger Nexus does matter I think, since it is preventing some mineral line cannon placement with 1.3.3 pylons. The forge fast expand will be changed, so for that Protosses will just learn which maps are worth it and which aren't.
I'm confused as to why people are saying "now protoss will have to think about their building placement" when terrans, after their wall-in, don't have to think about building placement (can build anywhere, half their buildings can be lifted off) and zergs have so few buildings to place to begin with.
Seriously, there are more than one reasons why you might agree with the change, why pick the worst one.
On May 03 2011 04:55 DreamRaider wrote: to begin with u need at least 2 pylons otherwise enemy units will just target the single pylon to take down an entire defense grid of cannons...
So this patch shouldnt really change much about base defense in terms of 3rd and 4th
This kind of comments are just ridiculous.
Yes - sometimes you need to build few cannons on one pylons and you want them spread out as much as possible (you add additional pylons later), i.e. while expanding or walling off ramps or chokes. Also if you'd want to have EVERY building powered by at least 2 pylons - you would need to sacrafice pylon spotters in your base and on the map.
No - I dont mind pylon change.
Just build one more pylon - Just drop extra supplies instead of using MULE. What about that?
Found a very easy PvP anti-4gate method... all you need to do is place your buildings along the walls by your ramp. You need 2 or 3 pylons and 4 gateway sized buildings, so that works perfectly for all builds. Worst thing that can happen is they warp in zealots stuck behind your pylons. So many ways to deal with 4 gate! Give me back my pylon power range.
On May 03 2011 06:07 Aerakin wrote: I'm confused as to why people are saying "now protoss will have to think about their building placement" when terrans, after their wall-in, don't have to think about building placement (can build anywhere, half their buildings can be lifted off) and zergs have so few buildings to place to begin with.
Seriously, there are more than one reasons why you might agree with the change, why pick the worst one.
I dunno, in ZVZ i care a hell of a lot about my building placement to try and make ling counterattacks less likely to make me instantly lose. And I have to deal with the fact that I dont really have a lot of buildings to work with when doing this, too. :p
Honestly, pylon radius is going to be fine. You can still cover both sides of a nexus pretty reasonably from mutas, mutas only have 3 range. You can still wall in fine. Forge FEs will be slightly more complex, but not nearly as complex as they were in BW, where only CERTAIN sides of each building were ling-tight, and eyeballing it didn't always work.
On May 03 2011 04:36 lololol wrote: BW, number of green squares while building a...
Gateway: 190 Photon Cannon: 158
SC2:
Gateway: 232 Photon Cannon: 208
The current SC2 pylon radius is a lot larger compared to BW.
Using the Nexus as a base for comparison is bad, because they are the only building that has more than doubled in size, to 25 squares in SC2 from only 12 in BW, while the grand majority of buildings have actually been reduced from 12 to 9, so the relative size of the pylon field is even larger.
No offense to the quoted poster, who is just providing info to people talking about BW pylon radii, but it's well established that BW and SC2 are different games. So why does BW keep coming up in this thread?
I think that the pylon radius nerf is on the balance probably a good thing at least for PvP, but not because the pylon radius was smaller in BW, because Protoss players need to think more about building placement, or because they should have to pony up for unneeded pylons to power their bases for some reason. It's going to make warp-in agression and offensive cannons less threatening and that's probably a good thing for all vs P matchups.
I also think the OP does raise an important point about mineral-line defense. Protoss defenses against mutalisks are mineral-expensive (pylons, cannons, and stalkers). Increasing the number of pylons needed to reduntandly power the necessary cannons to defend from mutalisks may wind up being a concern for Protoss in some situations. And as others have pointed out FE simcities are also going to be more vulnerable and slower to construct in some cases.
I think this change will make FFE/Nexus first weaker for a few reasons:
1) There are a lot of maps where I place my first pylon at the top of the ramp when I FFE/Nexus first in case I scout a super-early pool, and the new pylon radius will be too small to power a forge at the bottom of the ramp.
2) A single pylon on one side of the Nexus will no longer be able to power a cannon on the opposite side -- that will make a difference in FFE/Nexus first on maps with open naturals (such as Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis) where you need at least two early cannons to defend the expansion adequately.
While FFE/Nexus first will probably still be an option, it will most likely be even more vulnerable to early aggression, which will probably limit the map pool it will be effective on.
On May 05 2011 17:16 Melchior wrote: I think this change will make FFE/Nexus first weaker for a few reasons:
1) There are a lot of maps where I place my first pylon at the top of the ramp when I FFE/Nexus first in case I scout a super-early pool, and the new pylon radius will be too small to power a forge at the bottom of the ramp.
2) A single pylon on one side of the Nexus will no longer be able to power a cannon on the opposite side -- that will make a difference in FFE/Nexus first on maps with open naturals (such as Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis) where you need at least two early cannons to defend the expansion adequately.
While FFE/Nexus first will probably still be an option, it will most likely be even more vulnerable to early aggression, which will probably limit the map pool it will be effective on.
Well said. I have updated the OP to provide information about the new NesTea strategy that kills Protoss fast expands on these maps. Pylon radius going to make it worse. Is this fair?
On May 03 2011 07:05 RemrafGrez wrote: Found a very easy PvP anti-4gate method... all you need to do is place your buildings along the walls by your ramp. You need 2 or 3 pylons and 4 gateway sized buildings, so that works perfectly for all builds. Worst thing that can happen is they warp in zealots stuck behind your pylons. So many ways to deal with 4 gate! Give me back my pylon power range.
While I do appreciate trying to block off their warp in area, this placement has an immediate disadvantage once they get an observer out and can destroy your buildings from the low ground if they manage an easy contain with sentries.
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/g7XSm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NfhcE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/M4e6K.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3XPQl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8gnRt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xgkIi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/JO698.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xBPMc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rgCGB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Htfof.jpg)
like Liquid'Tyler said![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pRkz3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u5PrI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iXCbf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SF2F9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3ALTT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/prX6w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lPhGi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HCxkS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iZuSU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zmCnW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/t9pHW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/amZnq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qZz7F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xrMRZ.jpg)
