|
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.
lol 'infestor is good but they should die more easily'. i knew it blizz!!!
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.
lol so T/P without prepare for air is ok while Z deserves to lose the game? hahhaa.
i still feel like the blizz have some kind of weird hatred towards Z lol
|
On May 13 2011 19:55 Zrana wrote:
Out of interest, if you build a thor but dont research 250mm cannons, does the thor still have energy?
yes it has, just like Banshees they gain energy after beeing build even if their spell isn't researched yet.
Actually it would be fine if they removed that, so units with no core spell don't gain energy until it is researched, might make both banshees and thors more balanced vs. HT.
|
It would have been better if Blizzard never told us what they think. Half of these notes are bullshit 
|
On May 13 2011 19:49 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:43 Garm wrote:On May 13 2011 19:14 ridonkulous wrote:
yes because mass marauders and vikings are so much more appealing to watch than thors
give us some t3 options vs retarded strong late game toss army otherwise terrans will just keep all ining or 2 base pushing and keep losing in normal macro games.
ps. just noticed they dont like mass spine crawlers too .... LOL Thors are still plenty viable TvP, they just made it so that protosses have a way of dealing with the strike cannon. Except they way they did it makes them significantly weaker in a late game army scenario versus templar tech, feedback + storm will just roll mech over.
Then make some ghosts to EMP the templar before they can feedback. With the cost change, ghosts are now more affordable with a gas-heavy composition, such as mech. I think that makes for a more interesting dynamic than just spamming C-left click and watching every immortal die without the protoss having any way to counter it.
|
On May 13 2011 19:55 Zrana wrote:
Out of interest, if you build a thor but dont research 250mm cannons, does the thor still have energy?
Yes.It's just funny how all the Terran high tech units can be feedbacked and almost instagibed.
|
I believe the justification for the Thor change is out of touch with the way the game is actually played. The length of time it take now for Thors to build up energy to even cast Strike Cannons is extremely prohibitive, and that it must be researched means very few players would bother to pursue such a strategy in it's current implementation.
Furthermore, the justification is used with regard to late-game battles, along the lines of 'mass thors shut down entire enemy armies'. But this simply isn't true. Against Zerg, the only unit worth cannoning is the Ultralisk, which can't be stunned. Against Terran, the only unit worth cannoning is... another Thor, and I don't really recall seeing hot thor-on-thor action very often.
Protoss does have the immortal and the colossi, both worthy victims of the strike cannon attack. But the colossi has longer range and more speed than the thor, transforming this into a micro battle. The only remaining argument for this change is that Thors beat Immortals, which is conceptually and intuitively odd. In practice, however, was this every actually an issue that was tilting PvT in favor of the T? Additionally, this is most useful in the early game, when fast thor rushes can wreak havoc over an immortal or two.
But Blizzard indicates the late game is their primary concern; when the P can field void rays and colossi, along with the ubiquitous zealot/stalker (all of which are good enough against thors), it would seem that P has ample methods avaliable to deal with the threat of the mech, or more pertinently, the threat of strike cannons, which no longer functionally exists; furthermore, the odds a P somehow missing the buildup of mass thors is next to nil; surely a strong P can deal with it on their own?
It does appear that Blizzard is not especially fond of emergent gameplay, but even taking that into account, the scenarios they indicate as problematic don't seem to have any bearing on how the game is played on a medium-to-high level. That they have a clear idea of the way they want the game to be played is evident in other areas, too; the Ghost change bluntly states they wish to see Ghosts used everywhere.
I do agree with the other change in this patch in general, though I have to wonder if my reasons for liking them are in line with Blizzard's reasons for changing them. I would like them to take a step back now, however, and leave the game be.
|
On May 13 2011 19:59 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:55 Zrana wrote:
Out of interest, if you build a thor but dont research 250mm cannons, does the thor still have energy? Yes.It's just funny how all the Terran high tech units can be feedbacked and almost instagibed.
err.. a 100 gas ghost does 1000+ dmg to protoss units. Not to mention can take out all your HT's energy so no feedback/storm, then you have a 150 gas unit that sits there and dies.
Ghosts are insanely good by themselves too, if anyone remembers in beta when Jinro did mass ghost vs zerg, like 10 ghosts took out huge armies of mutas in seconds.
Are you really complaining about feedback?
|
On May 13 2011 19:45 betaV1.25 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:41 eviltomahawk wrote:On May 13 2011 19:35 betaV1.25 wrote: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. 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. I am totally confused right now, are saying that Templar's were not a viable option in PvT? Anyway i am all for more options in matchups, but at the moment i only see 1 option in PvT for the terran and that is bio+healing followed by ghosts and vikings if you see a collo production fac. ninja edit: outside of the all in rine/shee/tank
I think that before this patch, Templar were a viable but difficult option in PvT considering that Colossi are a lot more attractive after warp-in storms were removed via the Amulet nerf. After all the complaining from the community that Templar may no longer be viable and that Colossi would rule the matchup, Blizzard responded by buffing the two other abilities of the Templar tech tree: Feedback (against Thors) and Archons so that Templar tech is not completely abandoned in favor of a deeper investment into Colossi tech.
Also, I think Thors are still viable in TvP as long as Templar aren't out on the battlefield. Perhaps Thors can be used to punish Protoss players who invest into Robo tech too much or who stay on pure Gateway compositions too much. They'll be more of a "cute" unit now in TvP, but I think it'll be interesting to see a possible synergy between Thors and Ghosts to counter Immortals and HTs.
|
Lots of whiners looking for things to bitch about Blizzard for.
This situation report is starting to make me optimistic: Blizzard is starting to settle down and the game is starting to be ironed out of its less favourable wrinkles.
Thor change is reasonable. Ghost change is perfectly reasonable. Archon and Warpgate changes are reasonable. Infestor and Spore changes are reasonable.
The game is taking a direction towards having a higher skill ceiling and being less all-inny. How is this a bad thing?
|
On May 13 2011 20:04 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:45 betaV1.25 wrote:On May 13 2011 19:41 eviltomahawk wrote:On May 13 2011 19:35 betaV1.25 wrote: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. 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. I am totally confused right now, are saying that Templar's were not a viable option in PvT? Anyway i am all for more options in matchups, but at the moment i only see 1 option in PvT for the terran and that is bio+healing followed by ghosts and vikings if you see a collo production fac. ninja edit: outside of the all in rine/shee/tank I think that before this patch, Templar were a viable but difficult option in PvT considering that Colossi are a lot more attractive after warp-in storms were removed via the Amulet nerf. After all the complaining from the community that Templar may no longer be viable and that Colossi would rule the matchup, Blizzard responded by buffing the two other abilities of the Templar tech tree: Feedback (against Thors) and Archons so that Templar tech is not completely abandoned in favor of a deeper investment into Colossi tech. Also, I think Thors are still viable in TvP as long as Templar aren't out on the battlefield. Perhaps Thors can be used to punish Protoss players who invest into Robo tech too much or who stay on pure Gateway compositions too much. They'll be more of a "cute" unit now in TvP, but I think it'll be interesting to see a possible synergy between Thors and Ghosts to counter Immortals and HTs.
Exactly.. Templars were SO bad after KA was removed.. they needed to do something. But then they buffed Ghosts also, which negates those changes. So, back to only colossi for me.
|
On May 13 2011 20:05 Zerokaiser wrote:
Lots of whiners looking for things to bitch about Blizzard for.
This situation report is starting to make me optimistic: Blizzard is starting to settle down and the game is starting to be ironed out of its less favourable wrinkles.
Thor change is reasonable. Ghost change is perfectly reasonable. Archon and Warpgate changes are reasonable. Infestor and Spore changes are reasonable.
The game is taking a direction towards having a higher skill ceiling and being less all-inny. How is this a bad thing?
Agreed, people will always look for something to complain about.
Every single reasoning in this situation report gives me confidence that blizzards balance team is beginning to understand what makes a good and balanced RTS game.
|
I knew they did the thor revert due to thorzain's build. It was obviously uncounterable without mass carrier and we all know that's a virtual impossibility without dying. Alternatively 2x number of immos + support presents serious resource issues.
I'd prefer they left energy off until SC was researched tho. Now Thor is just a target to protoss HTs and prolly won't be built at all.
|
Best situation report yet. Let's hope the patch has the effect they wanted it to have!
|
Love those situation reports! Please make more in the future, Blizzard!
<3
|
On May 13 2011 19:56 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +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. lol 'infestor is good but they should die more easily'. i knew it blizz!!! Show nested quote +
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.
lol so T/P without prepare for air is ok while Z deserves to lose the game? hahhaa. i still feel like the blizz have some kind of weird hatred towards Z lol
...due to zerg anti-air units coming out later than other races.
Terran have marines and Protoss stalker and sentry for early game.
They are only saying that they have no problem with a zerg that don't take any steps to protect themselves through scouting or preemptive measures to outright lose. And the spore crawler change was for the situations where the zerg have read his opponent right and still loses.
|
noooo i was partly wrong on the thors change, interpreted to much with the archon, damn it. Best thing on the patches is to guess the explainations hehe. As much as i like the 1 or 2 unit type strats, terran is the race that needs 4-5 and everyone needs some micro, i guess thats a lovely challenge for anyone playing terra.
|
On May 13 2011 20:17 FeyFey wrote:
noooo i was partly wrong on the thors change, interpreted to much with the archon, damn it. Best thing on the patches is to guess the explainations hehe. As much as i like the 1 or 2 unit type strats, terran is the race that needs 4-5 and everyone needs some micro, i guess thats a lovely challenge for anyone playing terra.
Oh dont make me laugh .. Terrans wiht MMM+vikings have to only stim and AMove the protoss.Maybe a little micro on the vikings .. The only unit they should actually micro is the ghost, if they add it in the composition. Protoss already have to micro zealots in from of the army, sentry -forcefields and guardian shields, colossus, Ht- storms and feedback. I mean to micro the Ht is already more difficult than the ghost
|
On May 13 2011 19:17 Bagi wrote:
I don't really understand this reasoning for the thor nerf.
They say they want the thor to be a support unit, but its not really designed to be one. The siege tank is a support unit - just having a few of them can turn the tide of battle with their splash damage, but they don't really work on their own. The colossus is the same, having a few of them can be hugely advantageous but they're not designed to be your main army.
Thors? They're not a strategic support unit, they're a 6 supply marauder. A few thors don't do anything special besides forcing mutas to go magic box. Is that what Blizzard wants their sole purpose to be?
This summarizes what I feel too. I understand the "we want them as support not as the main part of an army" and I think thats a fine argument really. But they are quite far from that atm.
To be more of a support unit (the kind of unit you add 2-5 of at the back of your army, think colossi or siege tanks) they probably need
- Less hit point/armor (to be more vulnerable on their own, they're currently very strong on their own, support units shouldnt be that)
- Higher damage and/or longer range and/or splash. Just something that makes them exceed what 3 marauders can do, and makes you want Thors over just some extra bio units. Currently you dont really want that (except against muta balls).
Every other explanation made sense to me.
|
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
Wish they'd give 1% of this love to carrier. I've seen 2 in all of GSL, not to mention what a venerable unit it was from BW.
|
On May 13 2011 20:35 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +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 Wish they'd give 1% of this love to carrier. I've seen 2 in all of GSL, not to mention what a venerable unit it was from BW.
You will see them when mech (tank based) becomes viable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
