Situation report Patch 1.3.3 - Page 21

On May 14 2011 19:45 KaiserJohan wrote:
Thor en masse being imba?

Can anyone produce a high-level game TvP where T won with mass thors?

On May 14 2011 19:39 Venomous Drone wrote:

By the way, most terrans against which I play seem to have excess gas at the end of the game, so i dont quite see the reasoning behind the ghost cost change. It would seem that making them MORE gas intensive and less mineral intensivewould be better. I may be wrong as i dont play terran so just an idea.

On May 14 2011 20:02 Huragius wrote:
Well, they removed the mass thor strategy, but now all they will see is bio. I don't think anyone will mix-in thors in their builds against Protoss, better alternative would be to add ghosts and more marauders, lol. And really, why the fuck they haven't done anything about collosus ? Is massing them in every match-up and a-moving is what they intended and thors not ?...

On May 14 2011 19:59 ridonkulous wrote:

first nobody said its imba (definatly not blizzard) i see only low league players complaining about thors who are happy terran got nerfed
2nd your sample size of one game is laughable and proves nothing

On May 14 2011 20:29 Piledriver wrote:



What a stupid post. The first poster (KaiserJohan) asked for a high level TvP game where T won with mass thors and the second poster (fearus) posted an example. He didnt say that Thors were imba, simply a game where Thors won the game outright for Terran.

I think you are just a butthurt terran looking to vent your frustration on a random forum poster.

Edit: Oh wow, a bunch of posters follow it up with similarly retarded posts. Well done.

On May 14 2011 20:10 thesums wrote:

5) I get archon being able to resist concussive, but plus 1 range = same range as mutalisk. So with the faster shield regen than in BW, they are pretty much a bit too powerful i think.

On May 14 2011 20:29 Piledriver wrote:



What a stupid post. The first poster (KaiserJohan) asked for a high level TvP game where T won with mass thors and the second poster (fearus) posted an example. He didnt say that Thors were imba, simply a game where Thors won the game outright for Terran.

I think you are just a butthurt terran looking to vent your frustration on a random forum poster.

Edit: Oh wow, a bunch of posters follow it up with similarly retarded posts. Well done.

On May 14 2011 20:58 s3rp wrote:
Well they wanna have Thors in a Supporting role . Problem is they don't support anything other then by standing in the way and fire against clumped Mutas. For anything else Thors are pretty bad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.