|
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. Cry me a river. Ghost effect 100% of toss units, not just half, is area effect not single unit, and has longer range.
|
On May 13 2011 19:57 -Archangel- wrote:It would have been better if Blizzard never told us what they think. Half of these notes are bullshit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" If you say so, you and your minority friends can go and whine "I DONT WANT INTERESTING INFORMATION!" all you want, the rest of us don't have to listen.
On May 13 2011 19:40 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote + 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. the bunker and zealot build times were not reversions in the same sense the thor energy was a reversion. build times were changes based on the metagame that changed due to other reasons, aka the build times were not balanced at the time of change but became more blanced after the change. the thor energy is a reversion because the only real reason to do it was because of extremely rare curcumstances where the terran got so many thors that they could hard counter their own hard counter, even though no change had been made to said hard counter, in other words, the thor was more balanced at the time of change than after the change, thus needing a revertion.
personally I love the patch notes but I was confused about the thor thing until now, I have never heard of any mass thor strategy but I agree that using big enormous units as the bulk of your army is not something pretty to look at as a spectator, for example an army of pure ultralisk is UGLY (lucky noone makes pure ultralisk because they are ****ing terrible en masse).
|
Blizzard actually thinks the Thor is a Support Unit ? What the hell ? Against anything but stacked Mutas they have zero synergy with my normal Army. They don't do anything my normale Army can't do but a billion times more effective and they are slow as hell .
|
edit: WTF how did that happen ^^
|
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.
While I agree with the fact that carriers take way too long to build, the unit is actually flawed. It won't work regardless of what buff in PvT because marines would still evaporate interceptors, and vikings will still absolutely murder them. In PvP in theory they could be good, but really, what PvP goes as long as carriers ( we can all hope that one day.... ).
In PvZ on the other hand, with voidray backup, carriers are nothing more than an I WIN unit. With a lack of dark swarm, a high food count hydralisk, a corruptor that does badly if there are more than 10 voidrays on the field, and mutalisks get absolutely manhandled by interceptors. There simply isn't any AA that deals with carriers effectively on the zergs side. The only hope you have is to somehow magically fungal all the interceptors, and that can only be done the second the carriers start engaging something.
I suggest all the protoss to turtle up on 3 base and build up voidrays and carriers on for example Tal Darim. Then take a fourth and a fifth while turtling. There is nothing the zerg has in its arsenal once this ball gets too big, on the contrary with void/collosus, where mass mutalisk techswitches deal with it quite effectively.
|
On May 13 2011 20:39 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:59 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: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. Cry me a river. Ghost effect 100% of toss units, not just half, is area effect not single unit, and has longer range.
ghosts and good emp hits are necessity if u even want to have half decent chance to win a fight vs toss army, dont make it sound like it was insta win because without it T army will just get rolled over.
|
So mass upgraded thors with strike cannon can potentially lead to unwinnable scenarios for toss? Sounds eerily familiar of situations in another matchup that no one cares about. What happened to "just don't let them get to that point" or "OMG X (thor in this case) is sooo immobile so just harass and drop" that Z players have had to listen to since day 1. I'm sorry but this nerf was way too soon.
|
It's kinda funny how they don't like Terrans getting large numbers of Thors but seeing Zerg and Terran ground armies being incinerated by mass Colossus time and time again is perfectly fine. Way to go David Kim.
|
On May 13 2011 19:30 dust7 wrote:Show nested quote +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)? They all fail to mass thor.
Chargelots need ~50 hits to kill a +3 armor thor. Meanwhile Thors are 3 shottting chargelots with thier massive 50DPS not to mention mass hellions burning them up which support. Stalker same pathetic results. VR clump and take massive damage to thor splash not to mention the 12 vikings supporting shooting at them. Colossi get one shotted by SC and can't even do their pathetic 18DPS since they are frozen until they die. Immo's one shotted by SC DT's die because you build a raven and have scans
Trust me I've played ~20 custom games vs mass thor and only thing effective is mass carrier with phoenix support both +3 attack.
|
On May 13 2011 20:13 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:56 BurningSera wrote: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 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. but they aren't giving us good scouting or good preemptive measures...
all of the changes are a step forwards though imo, it just hurts to read some of their reasoning for them :/
|
On May 13 2011 20:54 Mercury- wrote: It's kinda funny how they don't like Terrans getting large numbers of Thors but seeing Zerg and Terran ground armies being incinerated by mass Colossus time and time again is perfectly fine. Way to go David Kim. Colossi are more like stronger Siege Tanks.
|
This explanation is kinda stupid ?! I mean c'mon no one ever heard of critical mass ? They don't want Thor to be a core unit but massing colossus and some air units with 10 zeals is a pro strategy to use!?!?If you say that Thor makes other units impossible to scout then make it like colossus to walk over them.....I hope i don't get banned or something cuz of my rant but i found rly stupid and bizzare how they try to explain the thor change.
|
Gj blizzard on fixing zvp...oh wait.
|
Sound reasoning by Blizzard. I don't necessarily agree with everything but I can't disagree with any of their thoughts in particular.
On May 13 2011 20:44 Chaosvuistje wrote: In PvZ on the other hand, with voidray backup, carriers are nothing more than an I WIN unit. With a lack of dark swarm, a high food count hydralisk, a corruptor that does badly if there are more than 10 voidrays on the field, and mutalisks get absolutely manhandled by interceptors. There simply isn't any AA that deals with carriers effectively on the zergs side. The only hope you have is to somehow magically fungal all the interceptors, and that can only be done the second the carriers start engaging something.
I suggest all the protoss to turtle up on 3 base and build up voidrays and carriers on for example Tal Darim. Then take a fourth and a fifth while turtling. There is nothing the zerg has in its arsenal once this ball gets too big, on the contrary with void/collosus, where mass mutalisk techswitches deal with it quite effectively This is not a thread to make balance complaints in, regardless you are deliberately underselling corruptors and infestors. Corruptors are just just barely not cost-for-cost, supply-for-supply with void rays if you use corruption (super duper close), and demolishes carriers in both categories thanks to being +massive. Likewise infestors can demolish air only armies with the new fungal growth. Meanwhile vikings actually don't murder carriers (about equal). So please, don't spout such stuff.
|
All good, well thought out changes. One of the most positive patches thus far.
|
On May 13 2011 20:55 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 20:13 nihlon wrote:On May 13 2011 19:56 BurningSera wrote: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 ...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. but they aren't giving us good scouting or good preemptive measures... all of the changes are a step forwards though imo, it just hurts to read some of their reasoning for them :/
I think their reasonings are pretty sound in most cases . That a player can outright lose if they don't scout is reasonable. Then the fact that it's hard to scout in certain situations is another matter.
|
On May 13 2011 19:41 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +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. Templars were still used a lot vs Terran at higher levels actually. Maybe not in Gold and below where mass Thors are apparently unstoppable too.
|
On May 13 2011 20:02 Skyze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 19:59 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: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?
*terran players* *complaining*
why are you so supprised.
|
On May 13 2011 20:44 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 20:35 tdt wrote: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. While I agree with the fact that carriers take way too long to build, the unit is actually flawed. It won't work regardless of what buff in PvT because marines would still evaporate interceptors, and vikings will still absolutely murder them. In PvP in theory they could be good, but really, what PvP goes as long as carriers ( we can all hope that one day.... ). In PvZ on the other hand, with voidray backup, carriers are nothing more than an I WIN unit. With a lack of dark swarm, a high food count hydralisk, a corruptor that does badly if there are more than 10 voidrays on the field, and mutalisks get absolutely manhandled by interceptors. There simply isn't any AA that deals with carriers effectively on the zergs side. The only hope you have is to somehow magically fungal all the interceptors, and that can only be done the second the carriers start engaging something. I suggest all the protoss to turtle up on 3 base and build up voidrays and carriers on for example Tal Darim. Then take a fourth and a fifth while turtling. There is nothing the zerg has in its arsenal once this ball gets too big, on the contrary with void/collosus, where mass mutalisk techswitches deal with it quite effectively. NP. Same thing that stops col balls. Posters above this are whining about.
|
Their reason for the thor change is really vague and strange.
I wish they instead would answer some of the questions and concerns of the community. Why were thors nerfed when they were hardly ever used? Was mass thor even good at all?
Also, they say that now thors can be countered with EMP/FB, and players wont feel like they cant do anything against it. But thors were NEVER used in TvT, and even if they were it was never more than like 1 or 2. And i've never seen a strike cannon being used in TvT, never. The fact is that this change was purely a TvP change, and that i've never seen "mass thors". I wish they would go more in depth with this.
Also, the "players couldnt see other units because of the thor" argument is actually just too funny. And giving thors energy certainly wouldnt help this "problem". data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
I felt like it boiled down to "yea we just didnt like this" instead of WHY they didnt like it.
|
|
|
|