Situation report Patch 1.3.3 - Page 12

On May 14 2011 01:37 TimeSpiral wrote:


Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.

On May 14 2011 01:40 TheGreenBee wrote:
So why is it ok for P and T to not lose when unprepared for air attacks; but Zerg is OK to lose when unprepared?

On May 14 2011 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:
I usually pretty on-board with Blizzard's explanations, but some of these are just silly, imo of-c.

I remember in the very early days of SC2 public you'd say to yourself, "uh oh, he's going Void Ray." This was indicated by any number of scoutable things. And for a while, it was amazingly hard to deal with. Then we all figured it out and it became a pathetic strategy as it was being used back then.

I'm pretty sure I remember a time when if someone (possibly a Protoss player) said, "yeah ... I got beat by Mass Thor," the other person would look at them funny and go, "You lost to Mass Thor?" Chuckle, throw out a troll face and an 'l2p' and virtually walk away, still chuckling.

Now all of the sudden Mass Thor is too much to handle? Lol. It just seems to me like if you don't want Thors to be used "en masse" (what does that even mean? Five, Ten, Twelve, Fifteen?) then why are they a single-target DPS unit? Their cost is super high, build time is super long, and they only hit one unit at a time. I'd be willing to say that mass [INSERT ANY OTHER Tier3 UNIT] would out DPS a Mass Thor army (but I could be wrong).

Also, the "we don't like how it looks" part of the explanation was pretty funny. Really? Then something shocking was said. They were saying that they understand that upgrades are designed to modify or alter the counter-role/efficacy of certain units/comps but then essentially said, we'd rather the Templar based army counter every single possible comp a Terran can build.

Don't even get me started on the Bunker ... It is just not a fight worth starting. The mineral change is not a huge deal, but the principle behind it is outrageous.

+ Show Spoiler [Protoss Flowchart ->] +

On May 13 2011 19:15 sleepingdog wrote:


Yeah, god forbid that Blizz patches the game so it is played how they intend it to...

Even though I disagree that mass-thors are really viable, I completely understand their reasoning. They obviously refer to the problem that mass-thors with strike-cannons hard-counter immortals as long as your thor-count is high enough to take out the "first row" of immortals. Strike cannon is as hard as a counter as it gets because it reduces the DPS of the attacked unit to....yes....zero.
This is a much harder counter than gravitron beam, because the unit is also DESTROYED not only immobilized.

My conclusion is, that Blizz wants immortals/templar being able to battle against thors - and that terrans who like to use high(er) numbers of thors have to implement ghosts in their play to take out templars before using strike cannons. Which, basicly, makes sense to me.

On May 14 2011 01:39 Effay wrote:

It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.

On May 14 2011 01:49 TheGreenBee wrote:
I now know why the Protoss colossus deathball was never nerfed: they are aesthetically pleasing to the eyes.

On May 14 2011 01:50 TimeSpiral wrote:


Another myth ...

If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.

I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.

People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or apltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.

On May 13 2011 23:24 MoreFaSho wrote:
I have a little bit of a problem with the Thor logic, not a big problem, but a little problem.
Let's say they didn't like that colossus was so good in PvP so they decide to give templars a better chance they just arbitrarily give Colossus 300 energy (but still no spell) so that feedback will almost kill them if they've been on the field for too long. It wouldn't affect other match-ups, but it would still be a bad mechanic.

The thor in this case used to be energy dependent, but they never HAD to use the spell, it reminds me a little of how annoying it used to be to get my corruptors fedback even though if I had to choose between being feedbackable and having corruption or not I would probably have picked not, corruptors are just bad units except that they can become broodlords (whereDoesAllTheEnergyGo.com?).

On May 14 2011 01:55 TheGreenBee wrote:


Except Zergs can die to a "not beefy" 4 pheonix harrass outright or or 2 banshees or or or a couple voidrays etc. As a Terran, I never died to a simple air harrass.. Marines deter them away quite handily.

Straight from the bridge of the Hyperion we bring you the latest situation report for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

On May 14 2011 01:50 TimeSpiral wrote:


Another myth ...

If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.

I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.

People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.

On May 14 2011 01:58 Cloak wrote:


I think most Protoss would be okay with Colossus having an energy bar for a researchable spell that hardcounters their hardcounter (Viking/Corrupter/Void Ray).

On May 13 2011 19:40 Ezekyle wrote:

Alright, admittedly there were 2 reasons for the nerf and only one of them was 'because we don't like it when you do that', but 1) the first reason listed is generally the primary one and 2) I was raging hardcore when I first read their reasoning, and not in the mood for posting level-headed and fair comments. But really, the fact that 'we definitely don't want them to do x' even enters into their discussions of the game is a ridiculous and poisonous notion. Is Blizzard REALLY going to simply decide what strategies are used in each matchup and enforce them through immediately removing anything that goes against that? When the players try out new strategies and evolve the game, you let it happen and put on your banana grin because you've made a deep and interesting RTS. You don't slap them for being naughty and take away their toys, especially when this new strategy has only just emerged and no one even knows whether it's truly viable yet.

Was the thor nerf necessary? I don't know. Some people may scream "THORS WERE IMBAIMBAIMBA UNSTOPPABLE UR RONG!", others may say that "OMG BLIZZARD Y U SO STUPID", but the truth is that there's no real evidence either way. I dislike the thor nerf, not because my race got nerfed, but because of the attitude behind this nerf. Yes, Blizzard had one legitimate reason, but they also had a terrifyingly stupid reason behind what is intended to be the removal of a strategy from the game. They aren't trying to balance the game with this change, they never said anything of the sort. They're trying to wipe out thor-centric strategies, because that isn't how they wanted their game to work. I'm sure everyone's sick of SC2 vs BW by now, but Blizzard never wanted mutalisks to stack up, or lurkers to hold position, or any of the countless other tricks that made that game so much better. They never intended for science vessel-defiler wars to dominate TvZ. They didn't design the Bisu build. And what would the game have been like if they'd actively removed all these things the moment they were discovered?

Is the game broken now? No. Is the game boring now? No. But these things happen over time if a game becomes stagnant. Do I want to watch MMM vs collosus balls until Starcraft 3 comes out? No. But Blizzard's current approach is to make exactly that happen. They're actively removing strategies that could potentially revolutionize and breathe fresh air into a somewhat stale matchup, simply because they didn't design thors to work like that. And that is just plain stupid.