|
On May 13 2011 19:05 MetalSlug wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:02 Ezekyle wrote:
So it's now official that the thor was nerfed purely because Blizzard doesn't want people to use strategies that don't have their official seal of approval?
I don't even know how to describe this. Adjectives fail me. the wording "we don't like this" makes it even worse... im at a loss of words about this. Im actually not against the Thor nerv but the reasoning behind it is so retarded...
Well, a lot of the community didn't like it either. And in the end, I'm sure Blizzard has a stronger grasp on the game on every level than most of us can hope to have, so beyond utter failure I'm more inclined to trust their judgement. Though 150 energy is a hell of a lot xP.
|
On May 14 2011 13:59 Saechiis wrote:
How can anyone NOT find it retarded that they're nerfing Thors because of a spell that is never going to be used again? Why wouldn't they just get rid of the spell so that immortals counter Thors like they should? You know, instead of making both the Thor AND Strike Cannons useless -_-'
useless is a pretty strong word...
|
More like never going to be seen again in TvP because they aren't any good. Especially Strike Cannons that Ability will never be used in a meaningful game again. Just like HSM was never used in one.
|
Archons
After receiving and reviewing a lot of solid feedback about the archon from the StarCraft II community, we came to the agreement that having archons break Force Fields would increase strategic variety in protoss-vs.-protoss matchups. We were slightly worried that s
Lol, aren't they receiving a lot of solid feedbacks that their FG is a fully crap at now, and needs at least to be changed? Actually i'm absolutely not against archon buff, it's just for evidence of blizzard stupidness.
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
One more lol. "We don't like seeing..." Don't you like GTFO instead? Really, did i buy this game to play the way you want, blizz?
Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius
OMG, so change the visual size and pathing radius...!
This company actually is full of jokes, at least balance team.
|
On May 14 2011 14:16 junemermaid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 13:59 Saechiis wrote:
How can anyone NOT find it retarded that they're nerfing Thors because of a spell that is never going to be used again? Why wouldn't they just get rid of the spell so that immortals counter Thors like they should? You know, instead of making both the Thor AND Strike Cannons useless -_-' useless is a pretty strong word...
Strike Cannons is useless yes, the Thor is just semi-useless. Sorry, I feel real silly now, good point.
|
On May 14 2011 13:59 Saechiis wrote:
How can anyone NOT find it retarded that they're nerfing Thors because of a spell that is never going to be used again? Why wouldn't they just get rid of the spell so that immortals counter Thors like they should? You know, instead of making both the Thor AND Strike Cannons useless -_-'
Blizzard should do their utmost to make ALL units attractive enough to be used in all matchups. The change to the Thor makes that unit less desirable again, just like the BC, Carrier and Mothership arent really "viable" right now. The weakness of having energy without having a cheap way to use it up makes Thors and BCs really bad in TvP; High Templars kinda "hard counter" LOTS of units already with Storm and Feedback, so the Blizzard argument of needing a counter is pretty bad when that unit already counters a lot of the Terran army. IMO the true counter to Thors is Chargelots.
Right now I really hope Blizzard adds some new and cheap abilities to Thors and BCs in the next expansion.
|
It's great that blizzard gives insight for the reasons of patches..
but.. why they never buff my race? I have a mere 50% win rate on ladder and I'm vastly superior player to people I play against. This one time I lost to unit Y from the race X, there really is no answer! How to deal with that? But no, Blizzard keeps nerfing my race.
My favorite pro player (who also plays my race) feels the same! So there is proof.
And to bring some statistics, my race only has 49.9923456% win rate in major tournaments. While one of the other races has 51.535125990% win rate. But no, blizzard fails to fix it.
Listen to SotG to get even more proof.
|
On May 14 2011 13:36 HolydaKing wrote:
They don't like Thors en masse because they are fat, okay. But why do they like Colossus en masse? I hate those as well.
Who builds Colossi en masse? If anything, I'd compare colossi to siege tanks. Colossi are a support unit, not a front-line assault unit like the thor. Colossi die horribly if they aren't protected by a large ball of gateway units.
Aside from that, the reason why Thors have been nerfed (perhaps over-nerfed, but hey) was because there were certain situations in which Protoss had no recourse to combat the Thors - immortals were strike-cannoned, magic-boxed VRs were slaughtered by marines and if the Terran decided to support his Thors with blue-flame hellions, then zealots were useless.
|
Imho feedback counters too many T units now, and while very skilled players can counter this with ghosts, unless you have very good apm this is not going to happen in lower tier games, also for me (in diamond) to have any chance of casting a good EMP I need cloak on the ghost, but with the low cost of a observer, the chance of the P ball not having one is slim.
So played toss for the last month and my winrate is much much higher because the apm to control a toss army compared to a T is much much less, and it just got even bigger as T now has to use strike cannon as often as possible to not make feedback kill them.
Maybe just make a toggle on the mana units if they should regain mana? Battlecruisers have the same issue.
|
On May 13 2011 18:58 motbob wrote:Blizzard has explained its reasoning for the recent patch changes. This is always an interesting read and everyone should check it out! http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/140933#blogShow nested quote +Straight from the bridge of the Hyperion we bring you the latest situation report for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. In this edition, we'll be discussing some of the most notable changes in the recently released patch 1.3.3 and shedding some more light on our design philosophy and the thinking behind this update.
Archons
After receiving and reviewing a lot of solid feedback about the archon from the StarCraft II community, we came to the agreement that having archons break Force Fields would increase strategic variety in protoss-vs.-protoss matchups. We were slightly worried that strategies such as mass Charge zealots plus archons would be too difficult to stop with only ground units, but in testing this on the PTR, we found that the relationship between the zealot- and archon-based strategies vs. the more standard robo-tech builds were proving to be fun.
Archons have generally been a slightly weak unit for their cost. This was a conscious design decision that we made since we wanted Morph to Archon to be a "recycle" ability. However, due to the size of the archon, we felt an increase in attack range was necessary so that the unit can get attacks in more easily, especially on the defensive.
Warpgate research, sentry build time, pylon radius
These three changes were made specifically to address the 4-gateway issue. The slight increase in Warp Gate research time should only really affect early-game strategies such as the 4-gate all-in. It was a challenge to find a research time high enough to achieve this goal without affecting other, non-early game strategies, but we eventually settled on 160. Regarding the sentry, it's the only tier-1 unit that's rarely used on the offensive in PvP 4-gate all-ins. However, they're almost always used on the defensive, so buffing this unit was the way to go in order to make defending easier.
The pylon power radius reduction will help the defending player take them out easier from above ramps, as well as make it so there are limited spots below cliffs where the opponent can build them in order to offensively warp in above. On the flip side, because protoss bases generally have plenty of pylon power, we’re not too worried about this affecting the defensive side too much -- though players might need to pay more attention to their base layouts.
On top of these changes, we're also looking into slightly changing how vision works on ramps so that if you use Force Field on your ramp just right, the opposing protoss player will not be able to spawn above your ramp or Blink stalkers up past a perfectly positioned Force Field. We will continue to monitor how the changes we made in 1.3.3 are working out before making the final call.
We hope these changes will resolve the 4-gate issue in PvP.
Bunker Salvage Rebate Reduction
This change was one of the most frequently requested by the community, and players made a lot of valid arguments as to why this change was necessary. We've seen too many bunker rushes vs. zerg, and we felt that adjusting the salvage return rate would be a positive change. Players will also have to think about mineral loss before constructing multiple bunkers on the defensive, which also feels right.
Ghost Build Cost
This cost change was a strategic, high-level change. We wanted ghosts to have a place in as many of the existing unit compositions out there as possible. For example: we wanted at least a few ghosts to come into play with the standard armies we currently see in each matchup. We feel ghost EMP is a vital tool at the highest skill levels, and we didn’t like how players had to choose between ghosts or something else. Therefore, we decided to keep the total costs the same while decreasing the gas cost so that they can more easily be added to whichever army terran players are currently using.
We realize having to manage so many units (including the ghost) can be difficult for many players, but at the same time we felt ghosts are only really vital at the highest skill levels because their counter-units are also micro-intensive.
Thor Strike Cannon is no longer cooldown-based
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. Some rare strategies involve mass numbers of Thors using 250mm Strike Cannons to lock down protoss, leaving them with few options for response. While these situations are rare, and the strategies aren’t necessarily overpowered, there were still a few things we didn’t like.
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
Second, we felt counter relationships were turning too heavily. The nature of lockdown abilities in general is that they have the potential to heavily turn the tide of battle against armies that would otherwise counter your units. Most of these abilities, especially for an ability as strong as this one, have to be fairly difficult to bring out and easier to counter. We feel that having the additional counters of EMP/Feedback to the Strike Cannons ability is better so that we don’t get into degenerating situations where the opponent is stuck without recourse.
Infestor Speed Decrease
We like how infestors have been functioning across the board since the last patch. We feel the previous infestor buffs heavily contributed to making matchups solid, especially at the higher skill levels.
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.
Spore Crawler Root Time
Air-based strategies vs. zerg are common due to zerg anti-air units coming out later than other races. Because of this, it actually makes sense for spore crawlers to be more flexible than other races' anti-air structures. If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game. However, what we didn't like was when zerg players still suffered considerable damage from void rays, phoenixes, and banshees, despite being prepared with spore crawlers that were slightly out of position. We decided to make this change so that it's somewhat easier to fend off these attacks, especially when you already have some spore crawlers in play.
As a side note, we don't feel the same way about spine crawlers, as there are being plenty of other anti-ground units zerg players can use along with the spine crawlers from the beginning of the game.
So it's true that Blizzard want Starcraft 2 to be plaid as they intend it to be plaid.
"Even though it's very rare and balanced, we don't want to see thors en masse ..."
Pathetic, if it goes like that for too long the game will end up like War3 where there basically was only 1 viable strat per map per race.
People who have not experienced Warcraft3 put too much trust in Blizzard abilities to balance a game and make it better gameplay wise.
|
I feel like the Ghost change balances out the Thor change. Sure Protoss can get tons of High Templars, but they can't get enough to storm the bio, feedback the Thors(or medivacs), and deal with a significant number of ghosts.
|
On May 14 2011 18:24 TeWy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 18:58 motbob wrote:Blizzard has explained its reasoning for the recent patch changes. This is always an interesting read and everyone should check it out! http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/140933#blogStraight from the bridge of the Hyperion we bring you the latest situation report for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. In this edition, we'll be discussing some of the most notable changes in the recently released patch 1.3.3 and shedding some more light on our design philosophy and the thinking behind this update.
Archons
After receiving and reviewing a lot of solid feedback about the archon from the StarCraft II community, we came to the agreement that having archons break Force Fields would increase strategic variety in protoss-vs.-protoss matchups. We were slightly worried that strategies such as mass Charge zealots plus archons would be too difficult to stop with only ground units, but in testing this on the PTR, we found that the relationship between the zealot- and archon-based strategies vs. the more standard robo-tech builds were proving to be fun.
Archons have generally been a slightly weak unit for their cost. This was a conscious design decision that we made since we wanted Morph to Archon to be a "recycle" ability. However, due to the size of the archon, we felt an increase in attack range was necessary so that the unit can get attacks in more easily, especially on the defensive.
Warpgate research, sentry build time, pylon radius
These three changes were made specifically to address the 4-gateway issue. The slight increase in Warp Gate research time should only really affect early-game strategies such as the 4-gate all-in. It was a challenge to find a research time high enough to achieve this goal without affecting other, non-early game strategies, but we eventually settled on 160. Regarding the sentry, it's the only tier-1 unit that's rarely used on the offensive in PvP 4-gate all-ins. However, they're almost always used on the defensive, so buffing this unit was the way to go in order to make defending easier.
The pylon power radius reduction will help the defending player take them out easier from above ramps, as well as make it so there are limited spots below cliffs where the opponent can build them in order to offensively warp in above. On the flip side, because protoss bases generally have plenty of pylon power, we’re not too worried about this affecting the defensive side too much -- though players might need to pay more attention to their base layouts.
On top of these changes, we're also looking into slightly changing how vision works on ramps so that if you use Force Field on your ramp just right, the opposing protoss player will not be able to spawn above your ramp or Blink stalkers up past a perfectly positioned Force Field. We will continue to monitor how the changes we made in 1.3.3 are working out before making the final call.
We hope these changes will resolve the 4-gate issue in PvP.
Bunker Salvage Rebate Reduction
This change was one of the most frequently requested by the community, and players made a lot of valid arguments as to why this change was necessary. We've seen too many bunker rushes vs. zerg, and we felt that adjusting the salvage return rate would be a positive change. Players will also have to think about mineral loss before constructing multiple bunkers on the defensive, which also feels right.
Ghost Build Cost
This cost change was a strategic, high-level change. We wanted ghosts to have a place in as many of the existing unit compositions out there as possible. For example: we wanted at least a few ghosts to come into play with the standard armies we currently see in each matchup. We feel ghost EMP is a vital tool at the highest skill levels, and we didn’t like how players had to choose between ghosts or something else. Therefore, we decided to keep the total costs the same while decreasing the gas cost so that they can more easily be added to whichever army terran players are currently using.
We realize having to manage so many units (including the ghost) can be difficult for many players, but at the same time we felt ghosts are only really vital at the highest skill levels because their counter-units are also micro-intensive.
Thor Strike Cannon is no longer cooldown-based
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. Some rare strategies involve mass numbers of Thors using 250mm Strike Cannons to lock down protoss, leaving them with few options for response. While these situations are rare, and the strategies aren’t necessarily overpowered, there were still a few things we didn’t like.
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
Second, we felt counter relationships were turning too heavily. The nature of lockdown abilities in general is that they have the potential to heavily turn the tide of battle against armies that would otherwise counter your units. Most of these abilities, especially for an ability as strong as this one, have to be fairly difficult to bring out and easier to counter. We feel that having the additional counters of EMP/Feedback to the Strike Cannons ability is better so that we don’t get into degenerating situations where the opponent is stuck without recourse.
Infestor Speed Decrease
We like how infestors have been functioning across the board since the last patch. We feel the previous infestor buffs heavily contributed to making matchups solid, especially at the higher skill levels.
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.
Spore Crawler Root Time
Air-based strategies vs. zerg are common due to zerg anti-air units coming out later than other races. Because of this, it actually makes sense for spore crawlers to be more flexible than other races' anti-air structures. If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game. However, what we didn't like was when zerg players still suffered considerable damage from void rays, phoenixes, and banshees, despite being prepared with spore crawlers that were slightly out of position. We decided to make this change so that it's somewhat easier to fend off these attacks, especially when you already have some spore crawlers in play.
As a side note, we don't feel the same way about spine crawlers, as there are being plenty of other anti-ground units zerg players can use along with the spine crawlers from the beginning of the game. So it's true that Blizzard want Starcraft 2 to be plaid as they intend it to be plaid. "Even though it's very rare and balanced, we don't want to see thors en masse ..." Pathetic, if it goes like that for too long the game will end up like War3 where there basically was only 1 viable strat per map per race. People who have not experienced Warcraft3 put too much trust in Blizzard abilities to balance a game and make it better gameplay wise.
Heroes handicapped WC3 much more than any balancing could fix. This is not an issue we will have in SC.
Not to mention, the MAIN downfall of WC3, was not introducing new maps. Having the same maps for 6 years is really retarded, but thats what happened. Imagine if BW was still being played on Lost Temple.. Add Flash ontop of that. Would he ever lose a game since 2007? Doubtful.
|
On May 14 2011 18:36 Novalisk wrote:
I feel like the Ghost change balances out the Thor change. Sure Protoss can get tons of High Templars, but they can't get enough to storm the bio, feedback the Thors(or medivacs), and deal with a significant number of ghosts.
Circular non-sensical argument.
Terrans as well can't have marines/ghosts/marauders/medivacs/(vikings) and too many thors after that since thor is a high supply unit.
|
On May 14 2011 18:38 Skyze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 18:24 TeWy wrote:On May 13 2011 18:58 motbob wrote:Blizzard has explained its reasoning for the recent patch changes. This is always an interesting read and everyone should check it out! http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/140933#blogStraight from the bridge of the Hyperion we bring you the latest situation report for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. In this edition, we'll be discussing some of the most notable changes in the recently released patch 1.3.3 and shedding some more light on our design philosophy and the thinking behind this update.
Archons
After receiving and reviewing a lot of solid feedback about the archon from the StarCraft II community, we came to the agreement that having archons break Force Fields would increase strategic variety in protoss-vs.-protoss matchups. We were slightly worried that strategies such as mass Charge zealots plus archons would be too difficult to stop with only ground units, but in testing this on the PTR, we found that the relationship between the zealot- and archon-based strategies vs. the more standard robo-tech builds were proving to be fun.
Archons have generally been a slightly weak unit for their cost. This was a conscious design decision that we made since we wanted Morph to Archon to be a "recycle" ability. However, due to the size of the archon, we felt an increase in attack range was necessary so that the unit can get attacks in more easily, especially on the defensive.
Warpgate research, sentry build time, pylon radius
These three changes were made specifically to address the 4-gateway issue. The slight increase in Warp Gate research time should only really affect early-game strategies such as the 4-gate all-in. It was a challenge to find a research time high enough to achieve this goal without affecting other, non-early game strategies, but we eventually settled on 160. Regarding the sentry, it's the only tier-1 unit that's rarely used on the offensive in PvP 4-gate all-ins. However, they're almost always used on the defensive, so buffing this unit was the way to go in order to make defending easier.
The pylon power radius reduction will help the defending player take them out easier from above ramps, as well as make it so there are limited spots below cliffs where the opponent can build them in order to offensively warp in above. On the flip side, because protoss bases generally have plenty of pylon power, we’re not too worried about this affecting the defensive side too much -- though players might need to pay more attention to their base layouts.
On top of these changes, we're also looking into slightly changing how vision works on ramps so that if you use Force Field on your ramp just right, the opposing protoss player will not be able to spawn above your ramp or Blink stalkers up past a perfectly positioned Force Field. We will continue to monitor how the changes we made in 1.3.3 are working out before making the final call.
We hope these changes will resolve the 4-gate issue in PvP.
Bunker Salvage Rebate Reduction
This change was one of the most frequently requested by the community, and players made a lot of valid arguments as to why this change was necessary. We've seen too many bunker rushes vs. zerg, and we felt that adjusting the salvage return rate would be a positive change. Players will also have to think about mineral loss before constructing multiple bunkers on the defensive, which also feels right.
Ghost Build Cost
This cost change was a strategic, high-level change. We wanted ghosts to have a place in as many of the existing unit compositions out there as possible. For example: we wanted at least a few ghosts to come into play with the standard armies we currently see in each matchup. We feel ghost EMP is a vital tool at the highest skill levels, and we didn’t like how players had to choose between ghosts or something else. Therefore, we decided to keep the total costs the same while decreasing the gas cost so that they can more easily be added to whichever army terran players are currently using.
We realize having to manage so many units (including the ghost) can be difficult for many players, but at the same time we felt ghosts are only really vital at the highest skill levels because their counter-units are also micro-intensive.
Thor Strike Cannon is no longer cooldown-based
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. Some rare strategies involve mass numbers of Thors using 250mm Strike Cannons to lock down protoss, leaving them with few options for response. While these situations are rare, and the strategies aren’t necessarily overpowered, there were still a few things we didn’t like.
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
Second, we felt counter relationships were turning too heavily. The nature of lockdown abilities in general is that they have the potential to heavily turn the tide of battle against armies that would otherwise counter your units. Most of these abilities, especially for an ability as strong as this one, have to be fairly difficult to bring out and easier to counter. We feel that having the additional counters of EMP/Feedback to the Strike Cannons ability is better so that we don’t get into degenerating situations where the opponent is stuck without recourse.
Infestor Speed Decrease
We like how infestors have been functioning across the board since the last patch. We feel the previous infestor buffs heavily contributed to making matchups solid, especially at the higher skill levels.
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.
Spore Crawler Root Time
Air-based strategies vs. zerg are common due to zerg anti-air units coming out later than other races. Because of this, it actually makes sense for spore crawlers to be more flexible than other races' anti-air structures. If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game. However, what we didn't like was when zerg players still suffered considerable damage from void rays, phoenixes, and banshees, despite being prepared with spore crawlers that were slightly out of position. We decided to make this change so that it's somewhat easier to fend off these attacks, especially when you already have some spore crawlers in play.
As a side note, we don't feel the same way about spine crawlers, as there are being plenty of other anti-ground units zerg players can use along with the spine crawlers from the beginning of the game. So it's true that Blizzard want Starcraft 2 to be plaid as they intend it to be plaid. "Even though it's very rare and balanced, we don't want to see thors en masse ..." Pathetic, if it goes like that for too long the game will end up like War3 where there basically was only 1 viable strat per map per race. People who have not experienced Warcraft3 put too much trust in Blizzard abilities to balance a game and make it better gameplay wise. Heroes handicapped WC3 much more than any balancing could fix. This is not an issue we will have in SC. Not to mention, the MAIN downfall of WC3, was not introducing new maps. Having the same maps for 6 years is really retarded, but thats what happened. Imagine if BW was still being played on Lost Temple.. Add Flash ontop of that. Would he ever lose a game since 2007? Doubtful.
Really the new maps at the end didn't help.
If the map was too weird (too small, too big) it would destroy the "balance" of the MU.
If the map was too standard, everybody would be doing pretty much the same thing.
|
On May 14 2011 18:40 TeWy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 18:36 Novalisk wrote:
I feel like the Ghost change balances out the Thor change. Sure Protoss can get tons of High Templars, but they can't get enough to storm the bio, feedback the Thors(or medivacs), and deal with a significant number of ghosts. Circular non-sensical argument. Terrans as well can't have marines/ghosts/marauders/medivacs/(vikings) and too many thors after that since thor is a high supply unit.
I never said Terran needs to mass everything to win, and a Ghost is a pretty low supply unit for its cost.
|
On May 14 2011 18:24 Mech0z wrote:
Imho feedback counters too many T units now, and while very skilled players can counter this with ghosts, unless you have very good apm this is not going to happen in lower tier games, also for me (in diamond) to have any chance of casting a good EMP I need cloak on the ghost, but with the low cost of a observer, the chance of the P ball not having one is slim.
So played toss for the last month and my winrate is much much higher because the apm to control a toss army compared to a T is much much less, and it just got even bigger as T now has to use strike cannon as often as possible to not make feedback kill them.
Maybe just make a toggle on the mana units if they should regain mana? Battlecruisers have the same issue.
you do realize emp is effective vs all protoss units right?
also both emp and snipe outrange feedback so if the protoss keeps winning those battles he is playing better
|
i like their reasoning behind the thor change. if a handful of vikings can safely counter mass (would say 5+) colossus to the point it makes the strat risky/bad, a handful of HTs should have similar use vs mass thors. without mana, terran becomes pretty unstoppable with mass thor if they get a bit ahead and can turtle. being obligated to go voids is pretty dumb - with HTs immortals can still be viable with proper micro - and of course terran can trump this with ghosts if he's the better player.
along with the archon buff the patch promotes more diverse unit compositions in general - can't complain about that.
|
On May 14 2011 14:31 Jimbo77 wrote:Show nested quote +Archons
After receiving and reviewing a lot of solid feedback about the archon from the StarCraft II community, we came to the agreement that having archons break Force Fields would increase strategic variety in protoss-vs.-protoss matchups. We were slightly worried that s Lol, aren't they receiving a lot of solid feedbacks that their FG is a fully crap at now, and needs at least to be changed? Actually i'm absolutely not against archon buff, it's just for evidence of blizzard stupidness. Show nested quote +First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible. One more lol. "We don't like seeing..." Don't you like GTFO instead? Really, did i buy this game to play the way you want, blizz? OMG, so change the visual size and pathing radius...! This company actually is full of jokes, at least balance team.
just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
i'm assuming that you counter the archon buff with a whine about fungal growth (FG) ? nah, zerg needs the poweful fungal growth... and there is no point even considering a nerf until zerg learn to abuse it. i'm a terran player - and still it was blatantly obvious that zerg needed something as massive as the fungal buff to have a chance against 200/200 deathball a-move strategies.
get off your high horse. the reason you have thors is because blizzard added them to the game, they can do what they like.
if you don't agree - make like a tree.
|
I don't like how they are 'forcing' players to get ghosts.
|
i'm a terran player - and still it was blatantly obvious that zerg needed something as massive as the fungal buff to have a chance against 200/200 deathball a-move strategies.
You are blatantly obviously wrong. Instead of thinking of how to change the whole P death ball approach they just made one sided imba FG... lol... really entertaining.
get off your high horse. the reason you have thors is because blizzard added them to the game, they can do what they like.
The reason i'm a little disappointed is because i bought this game, did not get it for free. Bought with some hopes and expectations. And if they will do whatever they like, as you said, they'd better make fully refund. At least for me.
Of course it's a little exaggeration, but i want you to get realize that you are totally wrong here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
