EPTSituation report Patch 1.3.3 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Wargizmo
1237 Posts
| ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
We only need to cover the protoss army in overlords, that way, they will remove the overlord from the game, balancing it completely! If visual aestetics are so important to them, why don't they just tweak the unit by giving it more micro-use? Like have the strikecannon be a movable barrage like that laser from C&C Generals. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:04 motbob wrote: If that's what you took out of what you read, I feel like you perhaps did not read closely enough. That's exactly what they said. They do not want the Thor to be core unit. It proved problematic in some rare cases but not overpowered " While these situations are rare, and the strategies aren’t necessarily overpowered" The rest is just a description of the strategy. Again, not overpowered. They want TvP to be mass Marauders with some supporting units. Gutted! | ||
|
ridonkulous
159 Posts
| ||
|
R3N
740 Posts
| ||
|
TehForce
1072 Posts
Strike Cannon got nerfed because mass Thors could destroy the only unit on p side which is cost effective (immortal) easily on their own. Now you have to mix Thors/Ghosts to create a more diverse army so why exactly is this bad? | ||
|
dust7
199 Posts
| ||
|
dust7
199 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:25 TehForce wrote:Thors could destroy the only unit on p side which is cost effective (immortal) easily on their own. What about Chargelots and Voidrays, or microed Colossi (Range 9 > Range 7)? | ||
|
StUfF
Australia1437 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:28 dust7 wrote: so massing colossi is perfectly fine, but massing thors has to ne prevented? Mass Colossi is terrible? | ||
|
xza
Singapore1600 Posts
| ||
|
Skyze
Canada2324 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:28 dust7 wrote: so massing colossi is perfectly fine, but massing thors has to ne prevented? Protoss doesnt have a unit like the Viking that can take out a thor in 1 volley. (that also stack so you can actually get one volley, immortals blow vs every other terran unit also).. Not to mention, Colossi are incredibly weak alone, while massing just thors can take out insane amounts of units without needing anything. Oh, and then theres repair.. Cant repair colossi. Thors are much stronger, its just that many terrans dont need them because marauders. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:31 xza wrote: The only place i've seen people massing thors is either team games or.... THORzain himself. SlayerS_BoxeR attempted to do a mass Thor strategy in a game against oGsZenio on Terminus Re during his last GSL Up&Down match. However, he lost that match nonetheless. | ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
what blizzard is saying is that he does not like for terrans to just mass thor but they want thor + something else. In this case probably thors + ghost + marines. not saying i agree or disagree with this thinking but people comparing mass colossus with mass thor is not totally on point imo. | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
It's something I felt when Thors were popular in TvZ. They are such an incredibly boring "bulk" unit. Roaches are boring already and when it's Roach against Thor - ZZzzzZZzzz. | ||
|
betaV1.25
425 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:25 TehForce wrote: You can still mass Thors if you want to... T_T Strike Cannon got nerfed because mass Thors could destroy the only unit on p side which is cost effective (immortal) easily on their own. Now you have to mix Thors/Ghosts to create a more diverse army so why exactly is this bad? I am pretty sure lots are allso cost effective vs thors. I dislike the change alot because of ht's. I can perfectly understand that thors with strike cannons were op in the previous setup. But why coudnt they just make them come out of the factory and set the cooldown on 3 min? It would have basicly done the same thing without being so exposed to huge amounts of damage from hts. | ||
|
Ezekyle
Australia607 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:04 motbob wrote: If that's what you took out of what you read, I feel like you perhaps did not read closely enough. 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. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
We generally haven’t reverted changes in the past, but at the same time, we’re not afraid to revert changes when we feel that we’ve made a mistake. soooo that 6+ times they reverted changes and reverted reversions to bunker build time were ALL mistakes? does that make bunkers mistakes? i'm confused. what about zealot build time change + reversions (multiple) they revert a ton of changes. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:35 betaV1.25 wrote: I am pretty sure lots are allso cost effective vs thors. I dislike the change alot because of ht's. I can perfectly understand that thors with strike cannons were op in the previous setup. But why coudnt they just make them come out of the factory and set the cooldown on 3 min? It would have basicly done the same thing without being so exposed to huge amounts of damage from hts. I think the Thor change was also an indirect way of encouraging HT play after the dreaded Amulet nerf. This along with the Archon buff was probably meant to make Templar a viable option in PvT despite the lack of warp-in storms. Encouraging Feedback and Archon play gives Protoss more reason to invest in Templar as opposed to mass Colossi. | ||
|
awha
Denmark1358 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:25 TehForce wrote: You can still mass Thors if you want to... T_T Strike Cannon got nerfed because mass Thors could destroy the only unit on p side which is cost effective (immortal) easily on their own. Now you have to mix Thors/Ghosts to create a more diverse army so why exactly is this bad? Agreed, I cant see what is bad about the change - they even lowered the gas cost of Ghosts to compensate  | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
However, it was slightly problematic in some scenarios where infestors were getting away too easily. Even when it was off of creep, the infestor was slightly faster than normal units -- and on creep, it was considerably faster. We decided to give infestors normal movement speed off of creep to make it easier to catch up to them and kill them. oh so it wasn't that we'd accidently suicide them, but cause so other people can kill them easier...............oO | ||
| ||
