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.
wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
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.
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.
If that's what you took out of what you read, I feel like you perhaps did not read closely enough.
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.
Two reasons. One was that they didn't like it on a visual standpoint, and the other was that it was bad design for Strike cannons to work as well as it did
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...
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.
Yeah I think your eyes are blinded by nerf rage ;P Seriously I think they had very good reasoning for it, and I have no idea how you got that from what was in the post
We will never know if the thor strategies were imbalanced or not, but the strike cannons were NEGATING the counter units that protoss would make. In that regard, yea its reasonable why blizzard wasn't happy with an ability that powerful.
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...
Really?
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.
This is, imo, the best patch blizzard has released yet. Every change makes perfect sense without affecting the overall balance of the game too much in anyone's favor. Essentially this patch makes pvp SOOOO much more flexible especially the sentry build time reduction and the massive + range of archons.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
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
"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."
Completely missing the point...I think Blizzard should have an internal discussion about IdrA's paradigm, races need either a method of scouting or a reactionary defense. This is saying that Zerg shouldn't be allowed to get the economic advantage they need to win...
Blizzard is saying that A) Mass Thors with uncounterable Strike Cannon Ability turns out to be very difficult to deal with and you get easily into a situation where you are in an unwinnable situation B) Massing Thors as an available option is just stupid because it produces boring and not enjoyable games.
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.
Yeah, god forbid that Blizz patches the game so it is played how they intend it to...
Even though I disagree that mass-thors are really viable, I completely understand their reasoning. They obviously refer to the problem that mass-thors with strike-cannons hard-counter immortals as long as your thor-count is high enough to take out the "first row" of immortals. Strike cannon is as hard as a counter as it gets because it reduces the DPS of the attacked unit to....yes....zero. This is a much harder counter than gravitron beam, because the unit is also DESTROYED not only immobilized.
My conclusion is, that Blizz wants immortals/templar being able to battle against thors - and that terrans who like to use high(er) numbers of thors have to implement ghosts in their play to take out templars before using strike cannons. Which, basicly, makes sense to me.
It sure sounds like a good patch. Not that it doesn't make any difference for most of us.
However i found the Thor explanation be a bit too much "we don't want you to use Thor in X way so we changed it".
I expected more "Thor is so damn op so we nerfed it" argument.
Anyways, David Kim sure knows what he is doing being one of the highest (if not the highest) ranked randoms in the world so I'm not gonna even try to argue from my gold league point of view.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
Hmmm... I don't think multiple unit/building selection works with enemy units unless observing.
Nevertheless, I do agree with Blizzard not wanting the Thor to become the "core" of an army. They were designed to be basically the ground equivalent of a capital ship like the Battlecruiser or Carrier, so it would be overpowered if massing too many of the unit gives too much of an un-counter-able advantage.
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?
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
It's a shame that Blizzard feels that way about Thors, such a cool unit, but now they're only really good vs Zerg who go mass muta and in certain TvP one-base all ins.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
well in mass colosssi, you have to have vr/phoenix or stalker ( gate units support) otherwise the colossi gonna get wrecked by air (obviously)
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.
I love most of the reasoning. Especially: "First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse.".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Sorry Blizzard , but i will use whatever i want as my main army in the game i don't need strategical insight from you , even if you have to nerf it to oblivion . If you don't like how the Thors or other units look or play in mass you should have thinked more before making them .
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
And I ask you what other options would the P have?
As a terran, I feel like strike cannon is such a stupid ability anyway. It seems like blizzard should just remove it rather than add the energy back in, I understand them wanting to make the thor a support unit, but it seems like they are doing this the wrong way. As it is immortals, and badly microed colossus are the only units I would ever try to use strike cannon on, and I guess other thors.
I can't remember the last time i researched strike cannon in a non team game. It's like corruption, you use it because you have the unit, but you don't get the unit for the spell. Where as this isn't true with the phoenix's graviton beam which is often a primary reason you get a phoenix.
I feel like I have no flexibility in TvP, that I'm locked into playing the matchup with marauders and support units(vikings, ghosts, medivacs, etc) or doing some kind of 1/2base all in. Where as I feel like protoss air/robo/templar tech lines are all somewhat viable in PvT.
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.
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
I'm forever bronze and the Insane AI rushed my 3gate expo with 6 thors. I dunno how he did it, but it really hurt!
Seriously though, I think Thors need some sort of buff. People just magic box their mutas so that it doesn't matter any more. Strike Cannons are no longer usable, which is a shame overall but they needed a nerf in TvP. They really need SCVs to function properly, and that's a huge investment if you aren't gonna end it there and then with one big push.
Big, bulky units in general are bad (except colossi). I'd like to see some sort of buff. Splash? Tanks do that, so it might be bad design, but I guess ground splash would be cool. I dunno. As I said, forever bronze.
Thanks for the article, this is pretty much what I figured all of the changes would be about, the only thing that I hadn't really thought of was that the fact that units could be hidden around their Thor. I don't really know if that was actually a big deal due to the fact that Thors are rather slow and faster units would run past them giving an idea of the composition and unit count. Great patch and I can't wait to go collect the tears of Thor pushing Terrans with some HTs
About thor nerf in TvP: Thor with no energy: the hard counter = immortal - the only unit for which you may learn the 250mm cannons (stalkers are too week for a channeled spell and colossuses are too far); Thor with energy: now protoss may choose FB to counter because with no immortals on the field, terran will not be researching cannons - in consequence: more energy to FB and another useless slot for terran.
On May 13 2011 19:47 johanngrunt wrote: Pretty sure White Ra (or some other pro) said 3-0-3 Toss loses to 1-1 Marauder Viking.
Atm PvT is slightly in favor of the Terran anyway, and Ghosts are getting better.
No reason to not slightly nerf some other aspect of T.
PvT is slightly in favor of terran based on what ?
based on terran can mass Marauder/vikings and still win in lategame? Terran is the race with the fewest weaknesses, and easiest massable counters.
while they might feel weak them selfs, why have both other races explore their full techtree, while Terran masses 1 T1 Core Unit and and some support units (Medivacs,Vikings)
That makes fighting Terran alot harder cause both races have to take alot of risks against the sheer power of Terran Units.
On May 13 2011 19:47 johanngrunt wrote: Pretty sure White Ra (or some other pro) said 3-0-3 Toss loses to 1-1 Marauder Viking.
Atm PvT is slightly in favor of the Terran anyway, and Ghosts are getting better.
No reason to not slightly nerf some other aspect of T.
PvT is slightly in favor of terran based on what ?
Based on every stat in professional SC2 games. Go look at the Korean stats since April, or the TLPD stats of 1.3 to 1.3.3, both show Terran in a large lead.
And white-ra or whoever said that is absolutely correct, you need 3-3 Protoss to even deal with 1-1 marauder. Once its 3-3 marauder, you basically require mass colossi or um.. I dunno I think you need to win the game before 3-3 marauder or you lose. Storm doesnt do enough damage, not to mention ghosts are as cheap as a sentry now so not like you can ever save up energy.
The ghost buff is the biggest herp derp of this patch.. Thors "nerf" is minute compared to how much one 100gas ghost hurts a WHOLE protoss army (over 1500 HP down in one un-dodgable second).. Wonder why Protoss players aren't complaining about this as much as terrans complaining about a unit no one uses anyways except Thorzain? The only time I ever saw thors used, was that ridiculous 2 thor mass marine/scv all-in, which was soo hard to stop by protoss even if you got mass immortals (marines rip immortals to nothing).. Feedback actually may be able to help vs that now!
On May 13 2011 19:47 johanngrunt wrote: Pretty sure White Ra (or some other pro) said 3-0-3 Toss loses to 1-1 Marauder Viking.
Atm PvT is slightly in favor of the Terran anyway, and Ghosts are getting better.
No reason to not slightly nerf some other aspect of T.
PvT is slightly in favor of terran based on what ?
Just another troll man.Ignore the idiot.And LOL at the reasoing behind the Thor nerf. I can't really understand what ppl are in that balance team but I think they need to get they're head checked before they make another patch.
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.
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.
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 19:55 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.
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 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.
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!!!
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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 .
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 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 19:25 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.
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 :/
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.
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.
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.
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 19:25 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 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.
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".
I felt like it boiled down to "yea we just didnt like this" instead of WHY they didnt like it.
The reasoning is total akward , in a strategic game you should have more choices then just the usual compositions . And if that is the reason they have to take a look into cloak banshee openings > mech turret creeping over whole map with viking bc support and see any toss composition melt against it even flying arround witha fleet of carriers wont work since vikings are faster . When something is flawed that Terran cant with current balance based on avaible stuff lose a single game to toss.
e: i dont see with the reasoning how they balance this game this game getting as big as BW e: thor massing itself was never issue for toss if scouted in time a decent toss shouldnt lose to that
On May 13 2011 21:08 Deadlyfish wrote: 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".
What would you even use Strike Cannon on in mirror? Other Thors and PFs maybe, but Thors and Tanks outrange PFs' anyway and I doubt Thors are imba vs Thors.
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.
They should be since they cost over twice as much. Anyway zergs are just whining they may have to do something besides A move, they can get their own colossi and burn up toss too.
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.
They should be since they cost over twice as much. Anyway zergs are just whining, they can get their own colossi and burn up toss too.
yea we understand ur point, protoss is weakest race, deathball is shit everyone who lost to it is shit ... seriously get out of here, i havent read more biased piece of crap in a long time and u seem to spam it in every freaking topic.
Meh. All I see is a weak attempt to justify a hasty change based on a few tournament games. The first reason they give is a load of tosh. Pathing? Cluttering up army? Can someone explain to me how this is a legitimate reason? Do they really expect us to believe people were having problems distinguishing other units in a mass thor army? or that scouting it was an issue in any way? Like a said, a load of rubbish.
The second reason just states how hasty this change was. The strike cannons countered immortals/colossi too much and opponents were stuck without recourse? Well how could you possibly know what protoss players (other than MC and Tyler) would've come up with to counter this strategy? Do you mean to tell me that you guys tried out every single permutation a protoss player could've done and the result was a big fat nothing? How is this different from zerg players complaining about stalker/colossi/void ray? They had to develop ways to exploit weaknesses in that playstyle and learn to put pressure rather than just maxing out. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that protoss couldn't have figured out similar ways to halt this mass thor style.
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.
They should be since they cost over twice as much. Anyway zergs are just whining, they can get their own colossi and burn up toss too.
yea we understand ur point, protoss is weakest race, deathball is shit everyone who lost to it is shit ... seriously get out of here, i havent read more biased piece of crap in a long time and u seem to spam it in every freaking topic.
this!
zerg always have to be the better player to win against the protoss late game deathball..while toss only need to a move and f click click click click click click click
On May 13 2011 21:12 Serashin wrote: The reasoning is total akward , in a strategic game you should have more choices then just the usual compositions . And if that is the reason they have to take a look into cloak banshee openings > mech turret creeping over whole map with viking bc support and see any toss composition melt against it even flying arround witha fleet of carriers wont work since vikings are faster . When something is flawed that Terran cant with current balance based on avaible stuff lose a single game to toss.
e: i dont see with the reasoning how they balance this game this game getting as big as BW e: thor massing itself was never issue for toss if scouted in time a decent toss shouldnt lose to that
SC 2 is already much bigger than BW, at least in terms of eSports outside of Korea. There really isn't any sort of BW pro-scene left in the West, and what exists here for SC 2, today, is larger than anything BW has had in the past.
I dont understand how this changed anything. 1. People never use 250 mm cannons. 2. I don't understand Blizzard's reasoning for this change. They don't want people to have thors as the core of their army, but then decide to buff them. I dont see the logic. "People use speedlings way too much - let's give them permanent metabollic boost!"
On May 13 2011 21:18 Telcontar wrote: Meh. All I see is a weak attempt to justify a hasty change based on a few tournament games. The first reason they give is a load of tosh. Pathing? Cluttering up army? Can someone explain to me how this is a legitimate reason? Do they really expect us to believe people were having problems distinguishing other units in a mass thor army? or that scouting it was an issue in any way? Like a said, a load of rubbish.
The second reason just states how hasty this change was. The strike cannons countered immortals/colossi too much and opponents were stuck without recourse? Well how could you possibly know what protoss players (other than MC and Tyler) would've come up with to counter this strategy? Do you mean to tell me that you guys tried out every single permutation a protoss player could've done and the result was a big fat nothing? How is this different from zerg players complaining about stalker/colossi/void ray? They had to develop ways to exploit weaknesses in that playstyle and learn to put pressure rather than just maxing out. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that protoss couldn't have figured out similar ways to halt this mass thor style.
I honestly think it's balancing for lower levels where stuff like mass Thor probably dominates. They also said the Ghost change was for the highest levels when it's standard for every Master+ Terran to use them vs P.
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.
They should be since they cost over twice as much. Anyway zergs are just whining, they can get their own colossi and burn up toss too.
yea we understand ur point, protoss is weakest race, deathball is shit everyone who lost to it is shit ... seriously get out of here, i havent read more biased piece of crap in a long time and u seem to spam it in every freaking topic.
this!
zerg always have to be the better player to win against the protoss late game deathball..while toss only need to a move and f click click click click click click click
On May 13 2011 21:12 Serashin wrote: The reasoning is total akward , in a strategic game you should have more choices then just the usual compositions . And if that is the reason they have to take a look into cloak banshee openings > mech turret creeping over whole map with viking bc support and see any toss composition melt against it even flying arround witha fleet of carriers wont work since vikings are faster . When something is flawed that Terran cant with current balance based on avaible stuff lose a single game to toss.
e: i dont see with the reasoning how they balance this game this game getting as big as BW e: thor massing itself was never issue for toss if scouted in time a decent toss shouldnt lose to that
SC 2 is already much bigger than BW, at least in terms of eSports outside of Korea. There really isn't any sort of BW pro-scene left in the West.
lol blizzard is just like "oh lol you think you're going to do something besides bio against protoss? you silly bastards, stray from the marauder again and we'll take away mules!"
honestly its getting ridiculous how much blizzard is steering terran toward bio in TvP, its more than that, its fucking stupid, it looks silly and its sure as hell not fun to play.
because i believe in constructive criticism...
nerf the marine, bring back tanks to 50 dmg vs everything, and the game might be entertaining to watch again.
On May 13 2011 21:30 captainwaffles wrote: lol blizzard is just like "oh lol you think you're going to do something besides bio against protoss? you silly bastards, stray from the marauder again and we'll take away mules!"
honestly its getting ridiculous how much blizzard is steering terran toward bio in TvP, its more than that, its fucking stupid, it looks silly and its sure as hell not fun to play.
because i believe in constructive criticism...
nerf the marine, bring back tanks to 50 dmg vs everything, and the game might be entertaining to watch again.
yes lets make zvt imbalanced again...
and tvt boring tank viking vs tank viking...
User was temp banned for this, and other terrible posts.
patch is good but i saw something that is eaven bether.. look on raps change that will be inserted in near future... in my opinion BLINK stalker are aslo efective becous they can see UP RUMPS and after one stalker blink in they ALL after blink up ramp... i think if you are aproach Ramp you shouldnt be able to see up rump....
now balance is going like this....spanishiwa stile..
for zerg now (infestor buff is big buff for em)
zerg now is able to skip mid game unites like rouchs hidras...becous of infestor buff...and build only zerglings untill T3 unites....(maby some banglings)agenst bouth P OR T
and that is i think wrong gameplay...
Terran from beta play MMM agenst toss...nothing changed there...sry they add now some ghoust in play...
but vs zerg thay have troble becous with INFESTOR BUFF that is BIO nerf... (before that they solwe everything with marines..)maby after 1.3.3 ghoust will do bether vs zerg...
but there is big problem becous after zerg go to T3 seige tanks (with 50 vs armored) dont do enaph dps vs ultralisc... or eaven worse if brodlords come in play...and bio is not posible becous of infestors..
protoss play now after 1.3.3 with mass warpegates templar tech or dethball stile.. or now eaven imortalls have their use...
my opinion is that simply now unites that are too good is colloss, banglings, Force fealds,stim pack... marines .. that unites and abylitis should be revorked to more unites in game be usfull and create better gameplay (early game mid game late game) ...
also i think seige tanks should be from 50 dps buffed to 60 dps vs armored...(this i would like to see on ptr i dont sey that is up or op or something.. ) sry of my eng THx for reading
On May 13 2011 21:34 thebole1 wrote: patch is good but i saw something that is eaven bether.. look on raps change that will be inserted in near future... in my opinion BLINK stalker are aslo efective becous they can see UP RUMPS and after one stalker blink in they ALL after blink up ramp... i think if you are aproach Ramp you shouldnt be able to see up rump....
now balance is going like this....spanishiwa stile..
for zerg now (infestor buff is big buff for em)
zerg now is able to skip mid game unites like rouchs hidras...becous of infestor buff...and build only zerglings untill T3 unites....(maby some banglings)agenst bouth P OR T
and that is i think wrong gameplay...
Terran from beta play MMM agenst toss...nothing changed there...sry they add now some ghoust in play...
but vs zerg thay have troble becous with INFESTOR BUFF that is BIO nerf... (before that they solwe everything with marines..)maby after 1.3.3 ghoust will do bether vs zerg...
but there is big problem becous after zerg go to T3 seige tanks (with 50 vs armored) dont do enaph dps vs ultralisc... or eaven worse if brodlords come in play...and bio is not posible becous of infestors..
protoss play now after 1.3.3 with mass warpegates templar tech or dethball stile.. or now eaven imortalls have their use...
my opinion is that simply now unites that are too good is colloss, banglings, Force fealds,stim pack... marines .. that unites and abylitis should be revorked to more unites in game be usfull and create better gameplay (early game mid game late game) ...
also i think seige tanks should be from 50 dps buffed to 60 dps vs armored...(this i would like to see on ptr i dont sey that is up or op or something.. ) sry of my eng THx for reading
Rump = fleshy hindquarters of an animal (ty dictionary), but I assume you mean ramp? hehe
I dont believe they should buff tanks. They are already used so much against the other races. It would be too har to balance...
i really don't understand the reaons for blizzard doing this.Beside the thor rush, i almost never saw the 250mm cannon turn out the tide of a battle, and blame awsthetics for the change, is even more wrong...
Personally I didn't mind the idea of countering strike cannons with EMP and Feedback. I just feel that in many situations you won't need that energy bar because strike cannon is such a situational ability so in TvP you might end up feeling like you need to EMP your own thors, or strike cannon rocks or a doodad to reduced the effect of Feedback, which just feels wrong.
Maybe I would be a bigger fan of the change if having strike cannon in a fight was something even somewhat scarier than it is now, however that would likely mean tweaking it's other stats which is probably way too much for a minor patch.
On May 13 2011 21:18 Telcontar wrote: Meh. All I see is a weak attempt to justify a hasty change based on a few tournament games. The first reason they give is a load of tosh. Pathing? Cluttering up army? Can someone explain to me how this is a legitimate reason? Do they really expect us to believe people were having problems distinguishing other units in a mass thor army? or that scouting it was an issue in any way? Like a said, a load of rubbish.
The second reason just states how hasty this change was. The strike cannons countered immortals/colossi too much and opponents were stuck without recourse? Well how could you possibly know what protoss players (other than MC and Tyler) would've come up with to counter this strategy? Do you mean to tell me that you guys tried out every single permutation a protoss player could've done and the result was a big fat nothing? How is this different from zerg players complaining about stalker/colossi/void ray? They had to develop ways to exploit weaknesses in that playstyle and learn to put pressure rather than just maxing out. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that protoss couldn't have figured out similar ways to halt this mass thor style.
I definetly agree with you, I really don't like how they reacted this quickly to something that hadn't even had time to become a major game problem for protoss players...
On May 13 2011 21:12 Serashin wrote: The reasoning is total akward , in a strategic game you should have more choices then just the usual compositions . And if that is the reason they have to take a look into cloak banshee openings > mech turret creeping over whole map with viking bc support and see any toss composition melt against it even flying arround witha fleet of carriers wont work since vikings are faster . When something is flawed that Terran cant with current balance based on avaible stuff lose a single game to toss.
e: i dont see with the reasoning how they balance this game this game getting as big as BW e: thor massing itself was never issue for toss if scouted in time a decent toss shouldnt lose to that
SC 2 is already much bigger than BW, at least in terms of eSports outside of Korea. There really isn't any sort of BW pro-scene left in the West.
On May 13 2011 21:30 captainwaffles wrote: lol blizzard is just like "oh lol you think you're going to do something besides bio against protoss? you silly bastards, stray from the marauder again and we'll take away mules!"
honestly its getting ridiculous how much blizzard is steering terran toward bio in TvP, its more than that, its fucking stupid, it looks silly and its sure as hell not fun to play.
because i believe in constructive criticism...
nerf the marine, bring back tanks to 50 dmg vs everything, and the game might be entertaining to watch again.
yes lets make zvt imbalanced again...
and tvt boring tank viking vs tank viking...
have to break it to you but tvt metagame is already shiftings back towards pure mech im pretty sure soon u will see mostly mech tvts because its just superior to bio/mech builds
On May 13 2011 21:30 captainwaffles wrote: lol blizzard is just like "oh lol you think you're going to do something besides bio against protoss? you silly bastards, stray from the marauder again and we'll take away mules!"
honestly its getting ridiculous how much blizzard is steering terran toward bio in TvP, its more than that, its fucking stupid, it looks silly and its sure as hell not fun to play.
because i believe in constructive criticism...
nerf the marine, bring back tanks to 50 dmg vs everything, and the game might be entertaining to watch again.
yes lets make zvt imbalanced again...
and tvt boring tank viking vs tank viking...
the siege tank alone didn't make the MU imbalanced, and zerg has sinced had buffs, so why the fuck not?
marine tank is boring as hell, fuck i think its even more boring, much less emphasis on positioning more on the fucking marine... tanks are only there to kill marines, if the tank didn't do a good job of it the MU would be marine on marine wars.
enough with blob vs blob, i want to see some actually thought and positioning.
So strike cannon is too strong versus Protoss, so now Protoss has an ability against Thors that is even better on Thors that don't even have the strike cannon upgrade to begin with. Feedback takes away half of a Thors life.
Having to investing in an upgrade to disable a counter to that upgrade which is in stronger effect when you don't even have the upgrade makes no sense.
So there you are playing a game like a casual 4v4 and you have a bunch of Thors and suddenly HTs show up. Alright, so in order to soften the blow, you invest in strike cannons to be able to get rid of the energy. So you get that upgrade and decide to get rid of your energy by blasting away on some SCVs. Well, that doesn't even work most of the time because the strike cannon ability costs so much friggin energy. So then you get ghosts to emp your own thors that you happen to have built and then just win the game with nukes instead.
"Hey yo, why are you getting strike cannons?"
- "Why? Well to counter the counter to strike cannons of course!"
I'd be okay if Thors came with strike cannons again without having to research it.
Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
On May 13 2011 21:34 thebole1 wrote: patch is good but i saw something that is eaven bether.. look on raps change that will be inserted in near future... in my opinion BLINK stalker are aslo efective becous they can see UP RUMPS and after one stalker blink in they ALL after blink up ramp... i think if you are aproach Ramp you shouldnt be able to see up rump....
now balance is going like this....spanishiwa stile..
for zerg now (infestor buff is big buff for em)
zerg now is able to skip mid game unites like rouchs hidras...becous of infestor buff...and build only zerglings untill T3 unites....(maby some banglings)agenst bouth P OR T
and that is i think wrong gameplay...
Terran from beta play MMM agenst toss...nothing changed there...sry they add now some ghoust in play...
but vs zerg thay have troble becous with INFESTOR BUFF that is BIO nerf... (before that they solwe everything with marines..)maby after 1.3.3 ghoust will do bether vs zerg...
but there is big problem becous after zerg go to T3 seige tanks (with 50 vs armored) dont do enaph dps vs ultralisc... or eaven worse if brodlords come in play...and bio is not posible becous of infestors..
protoss play now after 1.3.3 with mass warpegates templar tech or dethball stile.. or now eaven imortalls have their use...
my opinion is that simply now unites that are too good is colloss, banglings, Force fealds,stim pack... marines .. that unites and abylitis should be revorked to more unites in game be usfull and create better gameplay (early game mid game late game) ...
also i think seige tanks should be from 50 dps buffed to 60 dps vs armored...(this i would like to see on ptr i dont sey that is up or op or something.. ) sry of my eng THx for reading
Rump = fleshy hindquarters of an animal (ty dictionary), but I assume you mean ramp? hehe
I dont believe they should buff tanks. They are already used so much against the other races. It would be too har to balance...
haha lol yes ramp i was fast write and becaus of that i made mestace sry
i think it would help PvP balance that you cant see up rump if you dont have at list one unit on ramp...
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
Here's the Thing . Thors are besides against Mutas horrible in a Support role. There's nothing Thors do that will make my Army any better. In big numbers Thors are good in low numbers not so much.
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
I have, in one year and two months of playing starcraft 2, never seen ANYONE go mass thors. That's just not feasible. I really wonder how anyone can mass a unit that costs 300/200 and 6 supply and not lose to early pressure.
Though not officially stated by blizzard, but still commonly used to justify the Thor nerf, i dislike the opinion that it was done to make Hts more attractive in TVP. In Fact they were pretty nice against nearly every unit T has except ONE.
Storm brings havoc to: Riens, Rodeurs, Helions, Vikings, narrow tank lines, Banshees, ghosts, SCV, Reaper
I really think if they don't either buff the range of the Strike Cannon, so it COUNTERS Colossus or remove the Strike cannon completely they should maybe change the SC so it doens't need research and give us an upgrade to remove it including the damn engery bar......
I honestly believe that Terran T3 does NOT have any real viability except against mass Mutas. I mean 3-6 Colossus or Broodlords are so freaking scary, even Ultras are very strong against a tank based terran army, but who gives a shit about 3-6 thors added to a bioball, or about BC's in general? You really dont want to build them. They are expansiv units that need long tech and building time just to weaken your army. Also they are immobile. While Zerg and Toss Armys get pretty scary Units you REALLY WANT to HAVE, Terrans T3 is not cool at all. I mean can't they just nerf all that organic waste we terrans need to build and buff the cool units?
edit: I think the SC2 balance is great for such a young game and I dont think Terra is UP or anything was OP, I just think Races should be a bit more even in the different parts of the game.
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
I have, in one year and two months of playing starcraft 2, never seen ANYONE go mass thors. That's just not feasible. I really wonder how anyone can mass a unit that costs 300/200 and 6 supply and not lose to early pressure.
Omg if you didn't watch Thorzain's TvP against MC you really shouldn't be discussing about Thors >_>
I dont know why everyone is complaining blizz explained why they made the changes they did and to me it was perfectly reasonable.
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.
Lets hope they adress ultras next those can be problem as well.
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.
Reading this made me remember that Archons weren't supposed to be an actual unit... *shakes head*
I'm pretty happy with the patch, although I suppose I would be since none of my shit got nerfed...
On May 13 2011 19:08 recklessfire wrote: We will never know if the thor strategies were imbalanced or not, but the strike cannons were NEGATING the counter units that protoss would make. In that regard, yea its reasonable why blizzard wasn't happy with an ability that powerful.
The problem is that the strike cannon has a limited use, but the "counter unit" (High Templar) has a wide variety of use with the Psi Storm, Feedback and the new improved version of Archons. I think it would be fair to remove the energy from "1 spell units" (Thor, BC) altogether unless the spell is researched. You have the choice to get it at the cost of an achilles heel, but right now Terrans have the achilles heel even without having the spell. That doesnt seem fair.
On May 13 2011 18:58 Blizzard wrote: If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
Why cant the same "rule" apply to Protoss and mass Thors? They are HUGE and expensive and not easy to produce en masse. Protoss have a really fast way to switch their unit styles from ranged stalkers to Zealots which should be able to rip apart the Thors and which are too small to make a use of Strike Cannone very efficient.
The reasoning with the size is their own frigging fault, because they designed the unit (which was bigger initially).
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.
I can understand everything else about the Thor nerf but the line I highlighted really irks me as to how patches will be done in the future. Not that it matters because it doesn't change anything about the Thor except you have to EMP them every so often. The Thor as it stands can whole sale replace the Tank in TvP. This sort of reasoning makes me worried about what happens if people do start using masses of Thors in late game TvP... Will Blizzard just nerf the thing to hell?
I have yet to play or watch a TvT where thors fight thors xD but it is good to have EMP as a counter... wait! Ghosts are also not the most common unit in TvT... and why would you build them, simply make marauders to destroy his thors and win!
The thor has one use: Scare mutalisks!
But blizzard thinks he has another purpose: He looks good, that is why you should always build one so that your bio can dance around it!
seriously, TvP, make addons with your factory, or scout with it... apart from some blueflamehellions you cannot build anything useful with it against protoss.
On May 13 2011 19:28 dust7 wrote: so massing colossi is perfectly fine, but massing thors has to ne prevented?
when will people learn to actually fing READ AND COMPREHEND what is being said??
They said: They didnt like massive thor armies because they didnt have a counter with immortals being strike-cannoned so they gave them a counter (feedback) in order to push players towards making armies where thors are more like support units and not the core of the army. Colossi ALREADY have a counter of sort as, unlike thors, they are being targeted by AtA units (VIKINGS) and ALREADY are not the core of a protoss army in terms of quantity (do you ever see 10 colossus w/ 8 stalkers and 6 zealots?). Mass Vikings will actually prevent a protoss to go, lets say, 2gate 3robo mass colossi while templars will actually prevent a terran from going 2racks 3 factory (this is just an example, i dont claim those to be actual strategies)
Is it so difficult for you to understand that thats what they're saying? Or do you think what i said is false? Elaborate.
Started playing mech and thors vs protoss when energy was removed.... now they buff Templar tech AND re-add energy, guess I had my fun with thors / mech based play vs P because building Thors now in that match up is totally fucking useless... THNX BLIZZ your reasons were certainly valid, NOT. Time to start working on bio/starport vs protoss cause the ground doesn't belong to Terran anymore anyways.
I have a little bit of a problem with the Thor logic, not a big problem, but a little problem. Let's say they didn't like that colossus was so good in PvP so they decide to give templars a better chance they just arbitrarily give Colossus 300 energy (but still no spell) so that feedback will almost kill them if they've been on the field for too long. It wouldn't affect other match-ups, but it would still be a bad mechanic.
The thor in this case used to be energy dependent, but they never HAD to use the spell, it reminds me a little of how annoying it used to be to get my corruptors fedback even though if I had to choose between being feedbackable and having corruption or not I would probably have picked not, corruptors are just bad units except that they can become broodlords (whereDoesAllTheEnergyGo.com?).
Meh...250mm stricke canon is another stupid visual idea that blizzard wanted to work. Thor has some huge canon of his back, better make this in an ability no matter what !
I don't like thy use that kind of mentality to design SC2 Units.
Yay, thors are support units.... that are only good in TvZ to force zerg to magic box. I have no idea why i would get couple of thors in TvP to support my army against protoss. I really doubt getting 1-3 thors in my army would change outcome of any battle, well unless protoss is doing mass phoenix. >_>
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
On May 13 2011 19:28 dust7 wrote: so massing colossi is perfectly fine, but massing thors has to ne prevented?
why are you so stupidly idiotic? when will people learn to actually fing READ AND COMPREHEND what is being said??
They said: They didnt like massive thor armies because they didnt have a counter with immortals being strike-cannoned so they gave them a counter (feedback) in order to push players towards making armies where thors are support units. Colossi ALREADY have a counter of sort as, unlike thors, they are being targeted by AtA units (VIKINGS).
Is it so difficult for you to understand that thats what they're saying? Or do you think what i said is false? Please elaborate.
Vikings or Banshees(less used) are the 2 only possibilitys to stop engage an army that is including Colossus, so you need air units in order to stand any chance as terran. Both are pretty fragil and can get sniped by stalkers.
So why shouldnt a toss have to go voidrays against Thors? If there are 2-3 thors within an early terran army you actually dont need a counter to them at all. You melt the bio and kill them afterwards since the terran wont have enough air to snipe your colossus.
And if the terran goes mass Thors, hell to be honest it does not sound that scary at all and i saw Thorzain using them, but whatever thorzaine used in the TSL3 until now was just insane. Guess just looking at him we should nerf basicly everthing. Same goes for MC or ppl like Nestea.
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.
They should be since they cost over twice as much. Anyway zergs are just whining, they can get their own colossi and burn up toss too.
yea we understand ur point, protoss is weakest race, deathball is shit everyone who lost to it is shit ... seriously get out of here, i havent read more biased piece of crap in a long time and u seem to spam it in every freaking topic.
Not really please don't put words in my writing, I think game is balanced, blizz is a genius. There were certain strategies that were IMBA like VR harass doing like 50 DPS but it's all be straightened out. My point was, as video shows, the so called indomitable death ball has a counter so guys need to stop whining and use it and others besides saying "just don't let them get it".
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
A terran army = 4 thor A protoss army with 4 Colossi.
On May 13 2011 23:07 Naphal wrote: seriously, TvP, make addons with your factory, or scout with it... apart from some blueflamehellions you cannot build anything useful with it against protoss.
Compare 1 Thor to 4 Marauders.
Costs 300/200 vs 400/100
Supply 6 vs 8
DPS vs Armored 46.8 vs 53 (80 when stimmed)
DPS vs Unarmored 46.8 vs 26 (40 when stimmed)
HP 400 vs 500 (420 when stimmed)
Thors are less vulnerable to Area Effect damage like Storm and Colossus attacks Thors can shoot up Thors have +1 range Thors can be repaired, but not healed by a medivac Thors are slow as shit, but can be carried by a medivac and insta-dropped with the click of a button Thors have little need for weapon upgrades unless you're talking vs Air
There is nothing wrong with Thors as a unit in TvP. People just aren't using them for their strengths outside of strike cannon.
In all, I really don't like the change. I'd much prefer they just remove strike cannon altogether. The only real use I've seen of it is vs Immortals, and giving energy back to Thors makes them vulnerable to HTs, which should be around for storms anyway, there-by reducing their utility otherwise.
If anything, the argument should be to remove the energy bar AND Strike Cannon. Both of those details do very little for the unit as a whole.
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
Uh Vikings/Corrupters? Dealing with mass colossi is easy because both races have a perfect counter unit - something the colossi can't shoot and does good damage to the colossi.
Mass colossi is hardly ever done anymore anyways, it's shit. They don't do well against marauders or roach/drop play, which is the current metagame.
I think it is too early to say that Thors aren't good anymore in TvP. They still deal sick damage, but now you have to protect them with ghosts (which unit is now more accesible), and this can lead to interesting battles in higher level of play.
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
I know Mass Collosi is way scarier then Mass Thor. 10 Collosi will wipe any army short of mass thors which they can kite no matter the composition in seconds unless their is a cloud of air to air -_- Collosi i feel is probably the single stupidest thing in the game, yet the way the game is right now essential part of Protoss.
Thors (and especially 250mm Strike Cannon) are not a very well designed unit in general. They take up too much supply and are too buff with SCV repair. I don't have suggestions for how to change the Thor, but that's my 2 cents.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
Uh Vikings/Corrupters? Dealing with mass colossi is easy because both races have a perfect counter unit - something the colossi can't shoot and does good damage to the colossi.
Mass colossi is hardly ever done anymore anyways, it's shit. They don't do well against marauders or roach/drop play, which is the current metagame.
The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
The one thing I like about the energy change is that it adds complexity to the game. Since I don't play terran or protoss it is hard for me to understand how big of a change this is, but I tend to think people are overrating with the "omg I can't use mech anymore". This happens every time a unit is changed and more often than not it seems to not be true.
Two things people seem to be brushing over in favor of complaining are that templar tech is slow and expensive, toss can't just pull it out of his ass if he has already committed to robo tech. Second, would terrans really rather have their bio army getting stormed than have their thors getting feed backed? Everyone is saying the are forced back into bio now because templar tech is good against mech (one mech unit really, though I guess storm can be good against hellions) - but templar tech wipes the floor with bio. Yeah you can use ghosts to counter it but that is more of a support unit and it can be used with both bio or mech.
Blizzards reasoning seems to be more solid, simply because of how good the thor was used against the immortal. By itself that doesn't seem that bad, but when you consider that the immortal is the only toss unit that is supposed to be "good" vs. mech, it's a pretty big problem. Overall I like the idea of soft counters and every tech path being viable against every other tech path IF it is played properly, so this is a good step in that direction. The thor is also such a great multipurpose unit (like many terran units), of course it will still be used.
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
Uh Vikings/Corrupters? Dealing with mass colossi is easy because both races have a perfect counter unit - something the colossi can't shoot and does good damage to the colossi.
Mass colossi is hardly ever done anymore anyways, it's shit. They don't do well against marauders or roach/drop play, which is the current metagame.
Stand army compositions are pretty cost effective against thors (I'm talking marine/marauder, roach/hydra/ling, zeal/stalker/robo units). You actually have to get counter units to beat mass colossus. Massed thors were never a problem, except in very specific timing pushes.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
Also, you can't talk about massed thors or massed colossus in a vacuum, you have to think about it in the context of a game. Yeah, if you're having unit tester battles then you can easily counter a guy going mass colossus by getting air counters. But in an actual game, you can't just easily change your army composition to counter colossus.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
Well, even if people don't go mass colossi anymore, Colossi are still way scarier than Thor. A gateway army + 4 colossi is way better and scarier than a erran army + 4 Thor.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
Regular army does terribly against Thor. Guessing you've never actually played against Thors? They could be dealt with (possibly aside from some timings), but you sure as hell had to adjust your composition big time. Regular play gets demolished.
Well, even if people don't go mass colossi anymore, Colossi are still way scarier than Thor. A gateway army + 4 colossi is way better and scarier than a erran army + 4 Thor.
Well I guess to a Zerg the colossi are scarier. To a Protoss the Thors are scarier.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
Viking/Corruptor, both units that are known for their high usefulness against ground armies and their immunity to stalker fire...
If you have not got enough vikings to one-shot each colossus, you'll generally lose more than half of your army before the colossi are down. Colossi basically force T&Z into wasting supply on air units that will be useless the moment the colossi are down.
Weakness to air attacks is the only weakness a 9 range colossus has. It's highly mobile, both speed-wise and in its ability to run up and down on cliffs, it grants high-ground vision and is not hindered by units standing in its way. Oh and it has quite a lot of hitpoints, too. Where terran needs about 10+ tanks to start being really destructive on ground forces (that are armored; tanks don't do squat against unarmored targets), you only need 3-5 colossi combined with gateway units to melt any ground army. Protoss meatwalls are also generally way stronger in terms of hitpoints compared to a terran meatwall.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
These situation reports are really good and I definately like that they reveal their reasonings behind the moves. Some reasons seem a bit weird or not well thought out though, for example the archon nerf being mostly for PvP seems weird as i think the changes affect other matchups more. The thor reasoning is also worded a bit weird making it seem they simply didn't like mass thor armies, which were rarely used anyway (exception goody and thorzain i guess). Simply saying thors countering immortals wasn't ideal would have been better imo.
Overall I still think it's quite a good patch, just the subtle changes needed to refine some matchups and nerf some aggresive strats.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
If you go viking corruptor you are fucked against a heavy thor army. What's your point? Mass collosi isn't that scary if you play it right (getting vikings and corruptors). What is scary is actually knowing how many collosi a protoss have. If I know he's overproducing them I'm happy.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
If you go viking corruptor you are fucked against a heavy thor army. What's your point? Mass collosi isn't that scary if you play it right (getting vikings and corruptors). What is scary is actually knowing how many collosi a protoss have. If I know he's overproducing them I'm happy.
Except you don't normally have viking/corruptor in your army unless you're countering colossus. It's not that tricky a concept to grasp...
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
If you go viking corruptor you are fucked against a heavy thor army. What's your point? Mass collosi isn't that scary if you play it right (getting vikings and corruptors). What is scary is actually knowing how many collosi a protoss have. If I know he's overproducing them I'm happy.
I don't understand. Thors are as easy as Colossi to counter. Somes early pushes were hard to deal with, but still... Blizzard is overreacting to the Thor thing. The " Thor need to be a support unit " don't make sens in my eyes.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
So, what is the trend now with the brotoss buddies?
Citadel line of course - DT harass + Templar + Archons. Doesn't suffer from the horrible immobility of robo (important for current PvZ), and does better against the mass marauder play that is in vogue.
I don't understand. Thors are as easy as Colossi to counter. Somes early pushes were hard to deal with, but still... Blizzard is overreacting to the Thor thing. The " Thor need to be a support unit " don't make sens in my eyes.
How are they easy to counter? Immortals and void rays are the only things that pretty comfortably deal with them, and those two units both have gigantic weaknessess (250mm on immos, charge issue + marines owning them for VRs).
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
Regular army does terribly against Thor. Guessing you've never actually played against Thors? They could be dealt with (possibly aside from some timings), but you sure as hell had to adjust your composition big time. Regular play gets demolished.
Regular army does terribly against Thor. Guessing you've never actually played against Thors? They could be dealt with (possibly aside from some timings), but you sure as hell had to adjust your composition big time. Regular play gets demolished. Err, for T and Z, you only need to focus more on bread and butter units like marine/marauder or roach/ling. Beefy armies are the counter to mass thor.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The sadest part is when your opponent then later stops building colossi and you have Anti-Air that will become useless.
This is pretty much the only time colossi works anymore.
Dunno why people act like everyone goes mass colossi, the trend has been strongly away from colossi at all for a while.
If you don't have viking/corrupter you're just fucked against a colo heavy army composition. But a 'regular' army does fine against a thor heavy army, assuming roughly even army counts (ie, he's not hitting a timing window where you're caught with your pants down).
If you go viking corruptor you are fucked against a heavy thor army. What's your point? Mass collosi isn't that scary if you play it right (getting vikings and corruptors). What is scary is actually knowing how many collosi a protoss have. If I know he's overproducing them I'm happy.
Except you don't normally have viking/corruptor in your army unless you're countering colossus. It's not that tricky a concept to grasp...
What he says. You're basically forced to build units you've absolutely no use for otherwise because of that one unit that is nigh unkillable without aforementioned units.
Colossi on the field is basically "abandon all plans and get as much vikings/corruptors as you can ASAP."
How are they easy to counter? Immortals and void rays are the only things that pretty comfortably deal with them, and those two units both have gigantic weaknessess (250mm on immos, charge issue + marines owning them for VRs).
They're easy to counter because they are the slowest unit in the game. You don't need to think about unit vs unit. Think about how zerg deal with deathball. Thor don't have even half of the mobility of a colossus, abusing that is easy.
I don't want to be tough, but protoss always seems to think about how to win in direct fights because their units are often the best at that.
On May 14 2011 00:01 Jyvblamo wrote: Err, for T and Z, you only need to focus more on bread and butter units like marine/marauder or roach/ling. Beefy armies are the counter to mass thor.
I kinda assumed we were talking about PvT. Mass thor is pretty terrible in TvT, and yeah, it's simple enough to counter in TvZ. PvT you need to tailor a very specific counter to their thor composition, depending on what they support them with. Just throwing lots of gateway junk at them doesn't work at all.
They're easy to counter because they are the slowest unit in the game. You don't need to think about unit vs unit. Think about how zerg deal with deathball. Thor don't have even half of the mobility of a colossus, abusing that is easy.
Yes I agree, but some maps just don't allow you to - eg crossfire. Earliesh timing pushes make such a response effectively impossible too. On Taldarim or something thors are pretty lolworthy, sure.
I appreciate the reasoning they gave about each change. You might disagree on certain points but it sure is nice feeling like they're listening
Edit: I was under the impression the Thor energy change was more to limit the super early timing pushes with 1-2 thors with strike cannon. Now you have to wait awhile to use it and micro more in the event of HTs on the field. Can't say one way or another if that's unfair in the late game but the reasoning made sense to me.
I'm shocked at how many Terrans are upset that there is now more than one unit that Protoss has that can do anything against them, especially considering how easily that one unit was completely shut down with the Strike Cannons. This change will hopefully actually result in more strike cannons blowing stuff up, which can only be a good thing, and if you're that worried about the damage from feedback because you don't want to use Strike Cannons for a while longer just EMP your Thors with the reduced cost Ghosts or something I guess.
As a Zerg player Thors never really bothered me except with Muta play which is unaffected anyway so I never really had a problem with them, but even I could see the huge problem with Immortal being the counter to Thor and other heavy mech and Thor's Strike Cannons negating that counter completely with absolutely no other option for a Protoss player.
Regarding Colossi, yeah you have to get air units to deal with them effectively (though again it's not uncommon to see ground forces, especially with ghosts, snipe them off pretty quickly) but at least there is a counter to it that can't be literally immediately shut down in a similar fashion to Strike Cannon on Immortal before the energy return. In a similar way, Protoss would have to have robo and templar tech and produce HT's if they want access to both of the efficient counter routes, so it's basically the same thing, albeit maybe more expensive for the Protoss player as I understand it since most Terran will already have a starport for medivacs as standard play.
All in all, I actually have nothing bad to say about this patch.
I actually didn't understand the Thor explanation. I was under the impression that mass Thor was more common vs Zerg and Thor Rush was more common vs Protoss. So this makes the Thor Rush weaker, but I don't see how this changes the potency of mass Thor.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
On May 14 2011 00:12 DoubleReed wrote: I actually didn't understand the Thor explanation. I was under the impression that mass Thor was more common vs Zerg and Thor Rush was more common vs Protoss. So this makes the Thor Rush weaker, but I don't see how this changes the potency of mass Thor.
Because strike cannons were basically a requirement in order to nullify immortals. Sure you can emp them, but the reason strike cannons were good was because it lowered immortal dps to 0. Now that isn't the case because getting enough energy for strike cannons takes forever in addition to running the risk of being feedbacked.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
Collosi are pretty much the unit in all PvX match ups. Gateways are fodder needed to Collosi can't be sniped. They aren't really the support unit because their spammed and often take more population then the gateway army.
I don't think thors are completely useless like the majority of people in this thread, I think they are still a very strong unit. I like the nerf.
That said, their reasoning is silly. Thor should have been nerfed because thor on immortal battles came down to the protoss needing to just outproduce the terran entirely - in other words, the only way you can beat a meching play is by macroing better, and that's a little silly. I though they were slightly OP pre patch.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
Collosi are pretty much the unit in all PvX match ups. Gateways are fodder needed to Collosi can't be sniped. They aren't really the support unit because their spammed and often take more population then the gateway army.
3-3 gatway units are scary dont tell me they are just "fodder" because thats not true they can definately fight for their own and hts is a gatway unit too which can used as a substitute to colo.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
Collosi are pretty much the unit in all PvX match ups. Gateways are fodder needed to Collosi can't be sniped. They aren't really the support unit because their spammed and often take more population then the gateway army.
You've never played P have you?
Colossi aren't even that common anymore, and gateway units are most certainly the meat and bones, taking up most of our supply. Colossi (or more commonly now, templar) are purely to stop mass ranged units (hydra, marines) from destroying the gateway army.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
Collosi are pretty much the unit in all PvX match ups. Gateways are fodder needed to Collosi can't be sniped. They aren't really the support unit because their spammed and often take more population then the gateway army.
Nah, depends on your style. Collosi can be a support unit if you go some strats, or basically your whole army if you go some other strats.
I think the same remains true with thors.You can still get 'em en masse, but it's better for the terran to have a mix. The same is basically true with collosi.
Talk about biased changes. Really sounds like all the balance devs play as Protoss as their main race... guessing they got sick of fighting against the Thorzain Thor build on ladder. Sounds like they just want Templar as the counter to Thor centric armies. Even if you add Ghosts to the Thor mix feedback becomes your strongest spell against both Ghosts and Thors. Why not remove Strike Canon altogether and keep Thors without any energy because 150 mana is ridiculous and you pretty much have to go Strike Canon to dump your mana so you don't get pwned by Templar.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
Collosi are pretty much the unit in all PvX match ups. Gateways are fodder needed to Collosi can't be sniped. They aren't really the support unit because their spammed and often take more population then the gateway army.
You've never played P have you?
Colossi aren't even that common anymore, and gateway units are most certainly the meat and bones, taking up most of our supply. Colossi (or more commonly now, templar) are purely to stop mass ranged units (hydra, marines) from destroying the gateway army.
Kolossi / Templar , non-Gateway Units are the Main DPS of the Protoss army the Gateway ball is just the Support. I need to hardcounter those things ASAP as Terran or i'm dead. With Terran well the Endgame Units ( not counting ghosts ) are just something you can build instead of your regular Units but don't actually make your army any better .
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
Collosi are pretty much the unit in all PvX match ups. Gateways are fodder needed to Collosi can't be sniped. They aren't really the support unit because their spammed and often take more population then the gateway army.
You've never played P have you?
Colossi aren't even that common anymore, and gateway units are most certainly the meat and bones, taking up most of our supply. Colossi (or more commonly now, templar) are purely to stop mass ranged units (hydra, marines) from destroying the gateway army.
They are still common...They just aren't massed. The ideal Protoss army has at least 3/4 Colossus in there at all times. There is no Protoss composition that wouldn't do better with 4 Colossus as opposed to 0 Colossus.
It is just a shift, people just used the money they would burn on more Colossus and invested it into quick upgrades against Terran, as Mass Colossus is terrible against Ghost/Viking+MMM. That and Zerg late game armies tend to make you not want to invest money into anything other than Templars and Stalkers :/
And even if they aren't massed they still require Anti-Air as a counter. 3-4 Thors ( which probably won't have good upgrades ) won't require a Protoss to add units they normally wouldn't build.
massed immos would always beat massed thors for popcap and gas cost, dont know what game these donks at blizzard hq are playing. Actualy when having 10+ thors vs 15+ immortals strike cannon is only going to be bad and your better of with attack upgrades and emp then armor and strike cannons. The only problem for protoss vs this style was like map architecture eg crossfire/xel naga were its hard to get a good concave so it was a good build on these 2 maps. On those maps however mass blink stalkers would destroy thor compositions always just cause moblity and in base race senarios. But noobs whined about it on the forums so I guess blizzard just nerfed it for them to be quiet.
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
I have, in one year and two months of playing starcraft 2, never seen ANYONE go mass thors. That's just not feasible. I really wonder how anyone can mass a unit that costs 300/200 and 6 supply and not lose to early pressure.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
collosi ARE a support unit just massing them should not be so damn powerful
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
I have, in one year and two months of playing starcraft 2, never seen ANYONE go mass thors. That's just not feasible. I really wonder how anyone can mass a unit that costs 300/200 and 6 supply and not lose to early pressure.
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
I have, in one year and two months of playing starcraft 2, never seen ANYONE go mass thors. That's just not feasible. I really wonder how anyone can mass a unit that costs 300/200 and 6 supply and not lose to early pressure.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
collosi ARE a support unit just massing them should not be so damn powerful
It is only powerful in PvP.
Against Terran and Zerg, mass Colossus is awful. Quicker upgrades and Templar tech > over production of Colossus
Thors are pretty much dead now in TvP unfortunately. It's really not possible to use them as a support unit with bio in general. The big strength of bio is the mobility and Thors are the least mobile unit in the game, ,so you actually gimp your bio army by 'supporting' them with Thors. And since they don't share upgrades, you will end up with 0/0 Thors which get eaten alive by heavy upgraded P armies
The only real way to combine Thor with bio is a Thor-rush, but that build is close to dead now that it takes forever to get enough energy for a strike-cannon (leaving it super vulnerable to Immortals). And since mass Thor is basically suicide now, I doubt we will see them again in this matchup. Well, it was fun while it lasted for like 2 whole weeks
Have to say I'm very dissapointed that Blizzard is willing to severely limit the strategic options in the game, just so it's played as they imagined it is supposed to be. Perhaps Thor-based strategy was infact imba, but they could have gone with a smaller nerf to keep it viable without being overpowering. Instead they just gimp it to such a degree that Terran has no choice but to go bio again, since that is the way Blizzard wants it. Just like when T started using BC's against P a long time ago and BC got nerfed. And when T started doing heavy tank builds and Tanks got nerfed. Terrans better stop experimenting with non-bio builds as it will just end with more units getting nerfed
I usually pretty on-board with Blizzard's explanations, but some of these are just silly, imo of-c.
I remember in the very early days of SC2 public you'd say to yourself, "uh oh, he's going Void Ray." This was indicated by any number of scoutable things. And for a while, it was amazingly hard to deal with. Then we all figured it out and it became a pathetic strategy as it was being used back then.
I'm pretty sure I remember a time when if someone (possibly a Protoss player) said, "yeah ... I got beat by Mass Thor," the other person would look at them funny and go, "You lost to Mass Thor?" Chuckle, throw out a troll face and an 'l2p' and virtually walk away, still chuckling.
Now all of the sudden Mass Thor is too much to handle? Lol. It just seems to me like if you don't want Thors to be used "en masse" (what does that even mean? Five, Ten, Twelve, Fifteen?) then why are they a single-target DPS unit? Their cost is super high, build time is super long, and they only hit one unit at a time. I'd be willing to say that mass [INSERT ANY OTHER Tier3 UNIT] would out DPS a Mass Thor army (but I could be wrong).
Also, the "we don't like how it looks" part of the explanation was pretty funny. Really? Then something shocking was said. They were saying that they understand that upgrades are designed to modify or alter the counter-role/efficacy of certain units/comps but then essentially said, we'd rather the Templar based army counter every single possible comp a Terran can build.
Don't even get me started on the Bunker ... It is just not a fight worth starting. The mineral change is not a huge deal, but the principle behind it is outrageous.
Protoss Flowchart -> -> Is he building Thors? -> Decides to not win the game. -> 15 minutes pass -> ZOMFG Mass Thor! -> Mass Thor begins to march across the map -> 5 minutes pass -> Mass Thor arrives at opponents base -> gg, mass thor imba. Leave game.
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
Well they're quite good at eating up splash damage from storms if toss goes HT's an-OH WAIT now feedback owns them. Well I guess ghosts are less gas now so I can EMP my own units -_-
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
They're talking about enemies' view when seeing your army as well.
On May 13 2011 19:00 curreh wrote: wow we posted this at the exact same time mot ahaha, you can delete mine lol <3 I understand the thor energy reasoning a lot more now, I think they had good grounds to do it on I think 4 gating still needs a few changes, it seems to remain quite strong but the archon changes were a good step forwards!
thor is not supposed to be main army units, just support same reasoning should then be applied to collosi ? maybe ?
You think colossi aren't a support unit..?
collosi ARE a support unit just massing them should not be so damn powerful
I don't understand. What do you mean by massing them? It's awful to just mass colossus, they need a lot of gateway units to hide behind. If you have a lot of collosi behind a lot of gw units, they are fulfilling their role. If you have a lot of colossi and few gw units, you, um, die.
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
Well they're quite good at eating up splash damage from storms if toss goes HT's an-OH WAIT now feedback owns them. Well I guess ghosts are less gas now so I can EMP my own units -_-
OR you could ... use some apm to emp templars. Yeah I know, it's a strange idea. Silly me.
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
Well they're quite good at eating up splash damage from storms if toss goes HT's an-OH WAIT now feedback owns them. Well I guess ghosts are less gas now so I can EMP my own units -_-
OR you could ... use some apm to emp templars. Yeah I know, it's a strange idea. Silly me.
OR i could EMP BOTH ? It's not like im guarrateed to hit every templar the Protoss has. If he's clumping them like an idiot yeah maybe. If i EMP my Thor i guarantee he's not going to get hit by Feedback.
Excellent patch. Great buff on ghosts to make TvP more micro intensive. I love the encouragement of HT in the PvT matchup, also to make it more micro intensive.
Love the nerf on Thors, making a mass Thor strategy unviable is great. Now it'll be Thor + ghost vs Immortal + HT which would be AWESOME to see.
Great PvP changes making the matchup much more interesting and watchable.
This is not a BALANCE patch per se, it's a WATCHABLE patch. Balance is not everything. Watchable, enjoyable is more important that strict balance. This patch makes the game more watchable, entertaining and enjoyable to play. Great job Blizzard.
On May 14 2011 01:40 TheGreenBee wrote: So why is it ok for P and T to not lose when unprepared for air attacks; but Zerg is OK to lose when unprepared?
Terran does lose to unprepared air attacks. Its why the 3 gate voidray cheese is effective.
On May 14 2011 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote: I usually pretty on-board with Blizzard's explanations, but some of these are just silly, imo of-c.
I remember in the very early days of SC2 public you'd say to yourself, "uh oh, he's going Void Ray." This was indicated by any number of scoutable things. And for a while, it was amazingly hard to deal with. Then we all figured it out and it became a pathetic strategy as it was being used back then.
I'm pretty sure I remember a time when if someone (possibly a Protoss player) said, "yeah ... I got beat by Mass Thor," the other person would look at them funny and go, "You lost to Mass Thor?" Chuckle, throw out a troll face and an 'l2p' and virtually walk away, still chuckling.
Now all of the sudden Mass Thor is too much to handle? Lol. It just seems to me like if you don't want Thors to be used "en masse" (what does that even mean? Five, Ten, Twelve, Fifteen?) then why are they a single-target DPS unit? Their cost is super high, build time is super long, and they only hit one unit at a time. I'd be willing to say that mass [INSERT ANY OTHER Tier3 UNIT] would out DPS a Mass Thor army (but I could be wrong).
Also, the "we don't like how it looks" part of the explanation was pretty funny. Really? Then something shocking was said. They were saying that they understand that upgrades are designed to modify or alter the counter-role/efficacy of certain units/comps but then essentially said, we'd rather the Templar based army counter every single possible comp a Terran can build.
Don't even get me started on the Bunker ... It is just not a fight worth starting. The mineral change is not a huge deal, but the principle behind it is outrageous.
Protoss Flowchart -> -> Is he building Thors? -> Decides to not win the game. -> 15 minutes pass -> ZOMFG Mass Thor! -> Mass Thor begins to march across the map -> 5 minutes pass -> Mass Thor arrives at opponents base -> gg, mass thor imba. Leave game.
For the record, I find the first part of the justification for the Thor change hilariously stupid, and the change itself way too rushed, even if it does accomplish its purpose. I'd rather if they wait at least another month before starting to fiddle with the Thor again.
That said, you're really not doing yourself any favors by going from criticizing the change to whining about Templar and Protoss players. Templar counter every Terran unit composition to the same extent that Ghosts counter every Protoss unit composition, they're both spellcasters that are useful almost no matter what the other dude does. Also, I'm not even sure if Feedbacking a Thor just for the sake of damage is worth it over Storm - it's certainly not immediately obvious to me.
Finally, I really didn't see a lot of Protoss players whining or asking for Thor nerfs. Maybe I don't read enough LR threads, or something. Tyler said that he didn't know how to deal with the thor/hellion timing push once it gets off the ground, but he wasn't crying imba or anything of the sort.
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.
Yeah, god forbid that Blizz patches the game so it is played how they intend it to...
Even though I disagree that mass-thors are really viable, I completely understand their reasoning. They obviously refer to the problem that mass-thors with strike-cannons hard-counter immortals as long as your thor-count is high enough to take out the "first row" of immortals. Strike cannon is as hard as a counter as it gets because it reduces the DPS of the attacked unit to....yes....zero. This is a much harder counter than gravitron beam, because the unit is also DESTROYED not only immobilized.
My conclusion is, that Blizz wants immortals/templar being able to battle against thors - and that terrans who like to use high(er) numbers of thors have to implement ghosts in their play to take out templars before using strike cannons. Which, basicly, makes sense to me.
Also, I feel they wanted to remove some of the linearity that accompanied mass thor in TvP by offering another way to play against the strategy. Also, is allows Protoss to deal with strike cannon. I always felt there was something wrong with an ability like that where it's basically up to Terran to use the ability well but the other player has absolutely no way to stop it.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
I think this goes back to Idra's argument that it's impossible to scout for these kinds of things, and thus being "totally unprepared" is not actually the Zerg's fault sometimes.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or apltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except Zergs can die to a "not beefy" 4 pheonix harrass outright or or 2 banshees or or or a couple voidrays etc. As a Terran, I never died to a simple air harrass.. Marines deter them away quite handily.
On May 13 2011 23:24 MoreFaSho wrote: I have a little bit of a problem with the Thor logic, not a big problem, but a little problem. Let's say they didn't like that colossus was so good in PvP so they decide to give templars a better chance they just arbitrarily give Colossus 300 energy (but still no spell) so that feedback will almost kill them if they've been on the field for too long. It wouldn't affect other match-ups, but it would still be a bad mechanic.
The thor in this case used to be energy dependent, but they never HAD to use the spell, it reminds me a little of how annoying it used to be to get my corruptors fedback even though if I had to choose between being feedbackable and having corruption or not I would probably have picked not, corruptors are just bad units except that they can become broodlords (whereDoesAllTheEnergyGo.com?).
I think most Protoss would be okay with Colossus having an energy bar for a researchable spell that hardcounters their hardcounter (Viking/Corrupter/Void Ray).
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or apltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except Zergs can die to a "not beefy" 4 pheonix harrass outright or or 2 banshees or or or a couple voidrays etc. As a Terran, I never died to a simple air harrass.. Marines deter them away quite handily.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Nice theory except, the player should be unprepared as a fault of their own. Being unprepared for something because they have no way to scout is not their fault. Thus Idra stands correct. You need to be able to scout so that you CAN prepare OR you need a way to stop any attack. Spores don't do anything vs marines or hellions thus spores are not an all purpose defense.
The first argument that Blizz uses to defend the Thor nerf is quite reasonable. When there are 2/3 Thors on the field it is really hard to focus the small marines/SCVs. Even after the change that increased the target priority to repairing SCVs, gateway units were still struggling to reach the Thor, with all the units around them, and in such a situation it is really hard to prioritize your targets. If you get chargelots and maybe immortals, you get stomped because the zealots are trying to reach the Thors, who usually engage first, while the rest of the army cleans them up. The strike cannon destroys any immortals on the fields and the toss is left with a pathetic gateway composition that gets smashed by the Thors. If you hold the first wave as a toss, the second one with 5-6 Thors is reaaaaally difficult to stop. That is why the second thing Blizz mentioned also has a point. No point in discussing this change, it makes perfect sense. Overall the patch is excellent and I am pretty happy it.
On May 13 2011 23:24 MoreFaSho wrote: I have a little bit of a problem with the Thor logic, not a big problem, but a little problem. Let's say they didn't like that colossus was so good in PvP so they decide to give templars a better chance they just arbitrarily give Colossus 300 energy (but still no spell) so that feedback will almost kill them if they've been on the field for too long. It wouldn't affect other match-ups, but it would still be a bad mechanic.
The thor in this case used to be energy dependent, but they never HAD to use the spell, it reminds me a little of how annoying it used to be to get my corruptors fedback even though if I had to choose between being feedbackable and having corruption or not I would probably have picked not, corruptors are just bad units except that they can become broodlords (whereDoesAllTheEnergyGo.com?).
I think most Protoss would be okay with Colossus having an energy bar for a researchable spell that hardcounters their hardcounter (Viking/Corrupter/Void Ray).
So basically they never want to see mass thors and therefore likely mech unless its 95% siege tanks because the unit is "too big". Why they hell did they replace goliaths with thors in the first place then?
Wow, what silly reasoning for the Thor nerf. Its like Blizzard has the idea that you must be able to fight every composition head on, or its imbalanced. Its kind of funny how no one was complaining about the Thor before the PTR changes came out, and suddenly its the most imbalanced thing in the world after. It reminds me of when Blizzard first stated they were looking at psi storm during Blizcon. People suddenly discovered that they weren't bad, or playing the match up wrong, the game was imbalanced. I'm starting to wonder, given Blizzard's experience with WOW, is this type of balancing a kind of tool to make people feel better about their own skill level?
Anyways yay for more bio TvP, when Collosi are nerfed, which is inevitable given the way that Blizzard functions maybe vikings wont even be necessary. I've completely lost faith in Blizzard since the amulet removal. It seems that most of their balance patches either cater to noobs, like the warp gate time nerf, or are intended to make the game conform to a specific playstyle that they have determined is best.
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.
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.
Yeah, I think people were too quick to jump on you without actually reading the OP themselves. When I read "first, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse." I facepalmed. It really does seem like they want to mold each matchup how they see fit. YOU WILL MMM EVERY PVT AND FUCKING LIKE IT. "Thor is OP"? Fine. "We don't actually want you to use Thors besides making mutas magic box." WTF!?
Besides that, I think the Thor is a really cool unit, and always thought in a mech comp they were just like giant goliaths to me. Siege tanks are the support units. And the Thor air splash is too pitiful to make it really good anti-air support. How many times in ZvT have I seen the Thor generally being shat on by mutas? It almost seems their sole purpose is to scare mutas away for a bit which is really, really lame.
I guess this is a side effect to Blizzard being determined to make a "balanced eSport". At the cost of interesting gameplay, they simplify the gameplay because it's easier to balance.
I'm sure their are plenty of people relieved to see a nerf to an opposing race. I play protoss and I like Thors. And I'm OK with this change. I did Thormech in beta and it was still good and HT tech comes waaaay later anyway. 1 more counter doesn't hurt, but their philosophy behind the change is a bit disturbing.
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
As game designers, they can choose between two scenarios:
1. The archon is a unit you might want to make, so you as the player have to decide whether you want to merge one now or keep your templar around for later.
2. The archon is kinda bad, so you really don't want to make them until there's nothing left to do with your templar.
Blizzard consciously chose scenario #2 . . .
the relationship between the zealot- and archon-based strategies vs. the more standard robo-tech builds were proving to be fun
But giving the player a meaningful choice turned out to make the game fun.
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
If EMP is so vital, why does anyone choose anything else :o
I'm a protoss player and I played some games against a terran that went mass thors frequently and when i say mass, i mean MASS!...It is quite strong. Like 20+ thors and and maybe a couple of marines and vikings. He would just sit on 2 base and deny scouting by putting up turrets around his base, then just roll out with this unstoppable army, just stomping everything in its way. It was quite funny haha.
The only thing that i found to work quite effectively was zealot/dark templar, but you have to have a ton of zealots and dts to stop this army, thors with strike cannon just absolutely destroy immortals/colossi and even own phoenix and void rays with repair support. Even with zealot dark templar compositions, you also have to have a ton of gateways to reinforce your army en masse because thors just have insane dps and dont die easily.
IMO the thor change was necessary and very welcome.
a terran can die to one banshee that will simply kill all the marines that are being build lol. Atleast a queen can deal damage to a banshee without a 100/100 upgrade from a tech lab . And if you die to 4 phoenix as a zerg you probably only got 1 queen, which is like a terran that only got 2 marines XD.
Well zerg doesn't seem to aprreciate what they can do, i guess its okay to tell Blizzard that they should allow terran and toss to be able to produce workers from raks and gates, and remove that for the zerg, so they can produce 1 worker per hatch and can use the larva for fighting units only. So they never have to decide if they want to build workers or not. I would like that as a terran . Though i would probably die alot to the super production of the zerg XD
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
I wish they stop trying to eliminate strategies and forcing certain compositions in strategies. Just let the players come up with strategies and counter strategies.
On May 13 2011 22:24 XenoX101 wrote: Guys this isn't supreme commander, mass thor shouldn't be as viable a strat as it was before. Besides, you can still go mass thor, it's just an appropriately risky strat now rather than a braindead "lets mass tier 3" with an insta hard counter to its hard counter immortals.
if it was supreme commander all matchups would involve only marines, marauders, reapers, zerglings, banelings, roaches, zealots, sentries and stalkers unless the game went on past 20 minutes.
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.
hahaha omg that just made me laugh sooo hard ..........
On May 14 2011 02:29 butter wrote: If EMP is so vital, why does anyone choose anything else :o
Because ghosts are very gas intensive. If a Terran wanted a ghost, they would not be able to afford say, a raven or a tank. This makes it very difficult to determine how you want your unit composition to look like because of the limited resources. While EMP is vital, at least in TvP, it's not something you want to over produce because then you can't finish the army due to lacking in your main army but at the same time you want enough to be able to do maximum damage. Comparing this to archons, it's more of a matter of deciding to make the archon or not after you've already spent the resources on templar.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
You can't be greedy... you can't have it all. You can't be aggressive AND be safe AND have the econ advantage at the same time. You have to give up at least one of those things. Zerg players want all three. Build queens and you get safety and economy. Two out of the three is pretty good.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
Exactly what are these buids though?
Hellion- Build Queens,Spread Creep Air Atk- Build Queens,Spread Creep Drop-Build Queens,Spread Creep AnyType of Frontal attack- Roaches and Lings
And Zerg isn't the only race that has to deal with this crap. Every Race does. Its only that people don't want to Build Queens,Spread Creep. They get 1 queen per hatch and to them its the end of the line. I see so many Zergs scout an air attack and only stick to 1 queen. I remember a game with dimaga he scouted an air attack. And all he did was Build Queens and Drone, Queens and drones.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
You can't be greedy... you can't have it all. You can't be aggressive AND be safe AND have the econ advantage at the same time. You have to give up at least one of those things. Zerg players want all three. Build queens and you get safety and economy. Two out of the three is pretty good.
You read my mind. This exactly. Zergs want all three. Sadly you can only have 2.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
You can't be greedy... you can't have it all. You can't be aggressive AND be safe AND have the econ advantage at the same time. You have to give up at least one of those things. Zerg players want all three. Build queens and you get safety and economy. Two out of the three is pretty good.
The zerg responses in this thread are pretty hilarious.
WHAT!? WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE NO MATTER WHAT! YOU ARE RIDICULOUS BLIZZARD LOLOLOLOLOL.
I'm not sure if it's the Idra-ness rubbing off on them or worse.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
You can't be greedy... you can't have it all. You can't be aggressive AND be safe AND have the econ advantage at the same time. You have to give up at least one of those things. Zerg players want all three. Build queens and you get safety and economy. Two out of the three is pretty good.
but right now, if we choose safety (spine crawlers, queens) and possibility of aggression (zergling speed), we end up with an econ disadvantage... if we choose safety and econ (spanishiwa style) then we get out-econ'd by greedy players, and if we choose econ and possibility of aggression (no spines, less queens, no blind units, zergling speed) then we have no safety and die to allins. and since no race has good scouting atm we can't even choose in an educated manner, we have to blind guess which two we need.
zergs dont want a "gimme an advantage in everything build" we want a "allow me to stay even with my opponent without taking huge risks" build and that build currently doesn't exist.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
You can't be greedy... you can't have it all. You can't be aggressive AND be safe AND have the econ advantage at the same time. You have to give up at least one of those things. Zerg players want all three. Build queens and you get safety and economy. Two out of the three is pretty good.
You do not get economy from building lots of Queens. Spanishiwa is weak to economic play. You're building lots of all-purpose defense. It sounds to me like you have to give up both economy and aggression for safety...
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
Exactly what are these buids though?
Hellion- Build Queens,Spread Creep Air Atk- Build Queens,Spread Creep Drop-Build Queens,Spread Creep AnyType of Frontal attack- Roaches and Lings
And Zerg isn't the only race that has to deal with this crap. Every Race does. Its only that people don't want to Build Queens,Spread Creep. They get 1 queen per hatch and to them its the end of the line. I see so many Zergs scout an air attack and only stick to 1 queen. I remember a game with dimaga he scouted an air attack. And all he did was Build Queens and Drone, Queens and drones.
Bio all-ins: Banelings, Zerglings, and Spinecrawler support Air/Cloak: Queens, Sporecrawlers Hellions and Marine/Hellions: Queens, Roaches, Spinecrawlers Marauder/Hellion: Roach/Ling/Bling, Spinecrawler support Fast Medivac: Queens, Roaches, Zerglings Economy: Drones
Why would zergs have an issue with building queens and spreading creep? Where did you get that idea? Just because there are bad zerg players doesn't mean anything.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
Exactly what are these buids though?
Hellion- Build Queens,Spread Creep Air Atk- Build Queens,Spread Creep Drop-Build Queens,Spread Creep AnyType of Frontal attack- Roaches and Lings
And Zerg isn't the only race that has to deal with this crap. Every Race does. Its only that people don't want to Build Queens,Spread Creep. They get 1 queen per hatch and to them its the end of the line. I see so many Zergs scout an air attack and only stick to 1 queen. I remember a game with dimaga he scouted an air attack. And all he did was Build Queens and Drone, Queens and drones.
And thats just terran. Granted, if I scout gas , I just build queens and banelings. Because banelings deal well with marines and queens + spinecrawlers deal well with banshees and hellions. So thats kind of a 'general' safe opening.
I do not mind blizzard saying that I should outright lose if I am completely caught with my pants down. Its been that way since broodwar. Its just that as zerg you encounter those a lot more than terran or protoss, which makes the race frustrating to play.
There is no big problem earlygame in ZvT ( if you don't count close positions and bunkered ramps ). Its ZvP thats hard to adjust to even as a masters zerg.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
Well, I was originally responding to Blizzards statement about Zerg's early game anti-air defense. Their statement made a lot of Zergs react strongly. Here it is because it is buried in nested quotes.
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
I was not trying to pick up where Day9 left off and argue against a Phantom IdrA who is not present to respond. Plus, seriously doubt I could argue with IdrA anyway. He has a professional understanding of the game at a level that would most likely dismiss any points I could possibly make.
But, I've no problem arguing with the random Internet troll/scrub (don't get all butthurt, I'm not excluding myself from this category).
This early game argument about Zerg does drive me nuts though ;P Zerg's ability to mass produce, tech switch, and power their economy scale at incredible rates and become ever more frightening every 44 game seconds. Zerg player's fly in overlords, scout the front, and leave a ling at the ramp so when they see or sense something they can react and be in decent shape by the time the one base play hits them.
But what I hear is that they also want an near-absolute scout like Scan or Observer? I think there is a very specific reason why this does not exist. Maybe it is for the good, maybe it's not. But if Zerg also got a near-absolute scout then they would actually be impossible to punish, and possibly impossible to truly defeat in an even match.
Zerg builds a Spawning Pool, and can tech to a Baneling Nest or a Roach Warren, or both. This is in addition to the Queen/Ling/drone defense. They can invest in a roach warren or a bling nest but do not have to spend five minutes building up those numbers. They spot something that requires roaches? Bam. They can have mas roach very quickly. Problem solved.
The Terran cannot just have "mass tank" if they invested in a Factory. Protoss cannot just have mass immortal if they have a Robo Fac.
A scout on the same level of efficacy as the Scan or Observer/Hallucinate would be too good for Zerg, in my opinion. I could be wrong, of course, but I think that is the reason in early game Zerg is left "guessing."
Did any of that come through? I'm not sure if I'm articulating this well.
Seriously, what is up with the Zerg whining that they can't get everything (econ, aggressive, safe, tech) with one build? The game wasn't built that way, otherwise, it would get very stale. Why would anyone play any other race when one race can do everything and be safe?
Think about, if Protoss or Terran fast expands, they are obviously vulnerable at the beginning of the game. Yes, building cannons/bunkers/defense obviously helps but this means that their tech will slow down OR they might have less units or even less workers due to building defense. If the other two races have to sacrifice something, why can't Zerg players understand this as well?
Every time I hear a Zerg whine about being safe, its frustrating. You can't simply have everything otherwise, there would be no point in playing this game at all. The game is all about choices, you have to take your pick.
Zerg builds a Spawning Pool, and can tech to a Baneling Nest or a Roach Warren, or both. This is in addition to the Queen/Ling/drone defense. They can invest in a roach warren or a bling nest but do not have to spend five minutes building up those numbers. They spot something that requires roaches? Bam. They can have mas roach very quickly. Problem solved.
The Terran cannot just have "mass tank" if they invested in a Factory. Protoss cannot just have mass immortal if they have a Robo Fac.
A scout on the same level of efficacy as the Scan or Observer/Hallucinate would be too good for Zerg, in my opinion. I could be wrong, of course, but I think that is the reason in early game Zerg is left "guessing."
Did any of that come through? I'm not sure if I'm articulating this well.
No, that doesn't make sense. Why would that be fair that we have to guess? That's the reason why our tech takes way longer and we have to invest more in it.
And we DO have good scouting. Overseers and Overlord Speed stuff is fine. It's the time at which we get these which is the issue. Delaying Lair, like a lot of people are suggesting, makes this guessing period much longer and makes your play much more risky.
but right now, if we choose safety (spine crawlers, queens) and possibility of aggression (zergling speed), we end up with an econ disadvantage... if we choose safety and econ (spanishiwa style) then we get out-econ'd by greedy players, and if we choose econ and possibility of aggression (no spines, less queens, no blind units, zergling speed) then we have no safety and die to allins. and since no race has good scouting atm we can't even choose in an educated manner, we have to blind guess which two we need.
zergs dont want a "gimme an advantage in everything build" we want a "allow me to stay even with my opponent without taking huge risks" build and that build currently doesn't exist.
So do you think the problem is largely with Terran and not with Protoss?
If a zerg player is totally unprepared, we don't mind them just outright losing the game.
I find something terribly wrong with this statement..
Why? That's a pretty obvious and fundamental principal.
It's a good principle except it's basically impossible for zerg to be properly prepared without sacrificing significant amounts of economy.
Another myth ...
If your opponent launches a potentially killing-blow attack, and you are "totally unprepared" then you losing the game outright is an acceptable and probable outcome. This principle is fundamental in that it affects everyone who plays the game, regardless of race.
I remember IdrA during a recent SotG asking "what is the all-purpose Zerg defense for early game?" and when he got his response, from Day9, he rejected it. To put it simply, hatchery tech. To put it even more simply, and to specifically address anti-air, Queens & Spores. Zerg essentially starts the game with the ability to produce a larva and gas independent all-purpose attack macro caster unit. Stop complaining.
People think that Terran and Protoss just haphazardly build marines and stalkers in early game. Give your opponents a little bit of credit, and respect. Each unit is built for a reason. If you surprise Terran or Protoss with a beefy air attack you can cause major damage or outright win the game. A random, or paltry number of Marines and Stalkers will not cut it.
Except air attacks are not the only things that kill zergs outright though. There are several builds in ZvT that will kill the zerg outright if unprepared, all requiring extremely different defenses. Air builds are just one of several all-in possibilities that terrans can do. Without scouting, there is really no way to play safe without falling economically behind dramatically.
Yes Queens are great, but there if I make a bunch of queens as a zerg player, are you really scared of any kind of attack anytime soon? No, they completely give up map control and any threat of attack
Your statements do not address the issue IdrA was talking about.
Exactly what are these buids though?
Hellion- Build Queens,Spread Creep Air Atk- Build Queens,Spread Creep Drop-Build Queens,Spread Creep AnyType of Frontal attack- Roaches and Lings
And Zerg isn't the only race that has to deal with this crap. Every Race does. Its only that people don't want to Build Queens,Spread Creep. They get 1 queen per hatch and to them its the end of the line. I see so many Zergs scout an air attack and only stick to 1 queen. I remember a game with dimaga he scouted an air attack. And all he did was Build Queens and Drone, Queens and drones.
And thats just terran. Granted, if I scout gas , I just build queens and banelings. Because banelings deal well with marines and queens + spinecrawlers deal well with banshees and hellions. So thats kind of a 'general' safe opening.
I do not mind blizzard saying that I should outright lose if I am completely caught with my pants down. Its been that way since broodwar. Its just that as zerg you encounter those a lot more than terran or protoss, which makes the race frustrating to play.
There is no big problem earlygame in ZvT ( if you don't count close positions and bunkered ramps ). Its ZvP thats hard to adjust to even as a masters zerg.
What aspect of ZvP early game is problematic? It always seem that early game, the ball is in the Zerg's court. You have access to when the Protoss is expanding, what first 2 units they make, and how much Chrono is being spent on the Gateway/Cyber. Conversely, Protoss is blind until he aggresses or grabs an Obs. 4 Gate isn't that problematic any more and Tech all-ins are handled by noticing the lack of Gateway units, making a couple more Queens, and getting Lair. I'm not really seeing these crushing early game strategies. Protoss wins by going 2 base deathball these days.
The levels of Zerg whining in this thread of an Idra proportion.
Most of the qq is kind of ridiculous and simplistic too. It's absolutely true that T and P can do a lot more off 1 base than Z. It's absolutely true there's some crazy ass all ins to be done. It's also absolutely true that zerg can actually -scout- some of these all ins. No, I don't mean you're always going to be able to sac an ovi and see exactly what I'm building, but as a P player, I don't know what a T is doing until i get my obs out, does that mean I think the game is imbalanced? No. You worker scout to gather info, not just for the sake of scouting.
Did he take a gas? No -> Marine / scv all in, fast expand. -> respond appropriately. Yes -> Steal other gas to delay cloak banshee type stuff, keep scouting the front for reactor hellion stuff, potentially sac ovi (if applicable), if continually starved for info at the front, if he hasnt taken an expo at a reasonable time, prepare for other crazy ass all ins (roaches are good vs most of these, as are queens, as are spines.)
It would take me 52 pages of how to respond to every single scenario in the game, but playing P isn't as different from playing Z in the early game as everyone likes to make it out to be. If I don't use the information that I gather with my scouting worker to make an appropriate decision, I can outright die or come out behind just like a Zerg can. However, since P is so "imba" according to every Z on the planet, this little fact gets swept under the rug. Zerg has an unmatched production capability in the early midgame, if you have to expend a few more drones early on to be safe from something, you -can- recover that that deficit. Of course you won't be as far ahead as you would be if you knew exactly what he was doing, but it's a game of limited information for a reason, with a maphack all this discussion would be moot.
Anyways, no race is imba, just gotta learn what to do in every possible scenario, use every little clue, etc. Let the QQ resume!
On May 13 2011 18:58 motbob wrote: 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.
[/QUOTE]
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
2nd bold.. yeah.. I mean we have drones and lings right? no need to actually have air to ground when you have units that attack ground.. with that reasoning, i'm mighty concerned that protoss have cannons which shoot both up and down, when they (gasp) also have stalkers which "fill the same roll!" Such an ignorant thing to say on their part..
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Actually both Terran and Protoss do have an auto lose button. It's called forgetting to put your depot back up or not putting your zealot on hold position. I'd say that is the equivalent of forgetting to build a spore crawler.
but right now, if we choose safety (spine crawlers, queens) and possibility of aggression (zergling speed), we end up with an econ disadvantage... if we choose safety and econ (spanishiwa style) then we get out-econ'd by greedy players, and if we choose econ and possibility of aggression (no spines, less queens, no blind units, zergling speed) then we have no safety and die to allins. and since no race has good scouting atm we can't even choose in an educated manner, we have to blind guess which two we need.
zergs dont want a "gimme an advantage in everything build" we want a "allow me to stay even with my opponent without taking huge risks" build and that build currently doesn't exist.
So do you think the problem is largely with Terran and not with Protoss?
the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Actually both Terran and Protoss do have an auto lose button. It's called forgetting to put your depot back up or not putting your zealot on hold position. I'd say that is the equivalent of forgetting to build a spore crawler.
I don't think he's talking about a mistake like forgetting to make something or forgetting to micro something, I think he's talking about guessing wrong and instalosing which is a problem zerg definitely has at this point in the game
I think it's unfortunate that they view the Thor like that. To say they made a mistake changing it the first time is just head scratching. Additionally to say they changed it because of "rare strategies" ouch.
The visual radius blocking scouting? Really? So 250mm cannon was leading to rare mass thor strategies which led to opponents having a difficult time actually "seeing" what units (mainly marines) are hiding under the thor? So therefore the change to an energy bar which requires 3 minutes to fully charge had to be made?
I honestly would have rather had them completely remove the ability. I'd rather my unit be lacking in the very strong single target channeling ability than be vulnerable to an instant damage ability that outranges it.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've already had a number of TvPs where the fight ends with just about an even exchange with 1 or 2 thors really low and with high energy only to be hit by feedbacks off of warped in templar, and finished off by a few zealots.
I also think that 3 thors might not work as well as colossus do, and if anything, small numbers of thors encourages scvs being brought along to auto repair them. And that in turn opens up a whole ton of threads somewhere on the internet complaining about them. I just really hope that heart of the swarm introduces units that are from design standpoints rather than this "lets make really cool units that are nice to look at but are impossible to balance the game around"
but right now, if we choose safety (spine crawlers, queens) and possibility of aggression (zergling speed), we end up with an econ disadvantage... if we choose safety and econ (spanishiwa style) then we get out-econ'd by greedy players, and if we choose econ and possibility of aggression (no spines, less queens, no blind units, zergling speed) then we have no safety and die to allins. and since no race has good scouting atm we can't even choose in an educated manner, we have to blind guess which two we need.
zergs dont want a "gimme an advantage in everything build" we want a "allow me to stay even with my opponent without taking huge risks" build and that build currently doesn't exist.
So do you think the problem is largely with Terran and not with Protoss?
the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Doesn't Terran have a lot more all in options? Can't you easily scout protoss? Doesn't protoss have a harder time scouting Zerg than Zerg does protoss early game?
If it's a game design issue... then you're not saying that Zerg has a disadvantage. You're saying that it's a guessing game and you don't like that... am I correct?
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Actually both Terran and Protoss do have an auto lose button. It's called forgetting to put your depot back up or not putting your zealot on hold position. I'd say that is the equivalent of forgetting to build a spore crawler.
i dont usually say 'no' to anyone's opinion but i feel like do now. No, T/P dont have auto lose button. depot/hold-zealots can potentially cause you damage but if you have no units to defend the lings runby AND didnt scout that he has quite some amount of lings, is your own fault.
Z? if you didnt prepare for 2port banshee, 4banshee fly into your base you are GGed. read the post, Blizzard acknowledged that zerg has weak early AA.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Actually both Terran and Protoss do have an auto lose button. It's called forgetting to put your depot back up or not putting your zealot on hold position. I'd say that is the equivalent of forgetting to build a spore crawler.
i dont usually say 'no' to anyone's opinion but i feel like do now. No, T/P dont have auto lose button. depot/hold-zealots can potentially cause you damage but if you have no units to defend the lings runby AND didnt scout that he has quite some amount of lings, is your own fault.
Z? if you didnt prepare for 2port banshee, 4banshee fly into your base you are GGed. read the post, Blizzard acknowledged that zerg has weak early AA.
Blizzard acknowledged that there was a problem when the spore crawlers were out of position. "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."
So this patch fixes that. Now zergs are happy right?
If 2 port banshee were impossible to stop, why isn't that build standard in TvZ?
If you're P or T and lings are in your main, you auto lose. Your main army could be slightly out of position and you lose. It could be early game and you don't have many units. It could be that your main army is engaging the main army of zerg and you auto lose. Both mistakes are equivalent. They're mistakes that shouldn't happen and they're mistakes that if you make, you deserve to lose... just like if you forget to make a spore crawler.
On May 14 2011 03:40 Endymion wrote: 1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Cloaked banshees or DTs are an instant lose button for every race, if they are not prepared.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
On May 14 2011 03:53 randplaty wrote: If it's a game design issue... then you're not saying that Zerg has a disadvantage. You're saying that it's a guessing game and you don't like that... am I correct?
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Actually both Terran and Protoss do have an auto lose button. It's called forgetting to put your depot back up or not putting your zealot on hold position. I'd say that is the equivalent of forgetting to build a spore crawler.
i dont usually say 'no' to anyone's opinion but i feel like do now. No, T/P dont have auto lose button. depot/hold-zealots can potentially cause you damage but if you have no units to defend the lings runby AND didnt scout that he has quite some amount of lings, is your own fault.
Z? if you didnt prepare for 2port banshee, 4banshee fly into your base you are GGed. read the post, Blizzard acknowledged that zerg has weak early AA.
Blizzard acknowledged that there was a problem when the spore crawlers were out of position. "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."
So this patch fixes that. Now zergs are happy right?
If 2 port banshee were impossible to stop, why isn't that build standard in TvZ?
If you're P or T and lings are in your main, you auto lose. Your main army could be slightly out of position and you lose. It could be early game and you don't have many units. It could be that your main army is engaging the main army of zerg and you auto lose. Both mistakes are equivalent. They're mistakes that shouldn't happen and they're mistakes that if you make, you deserve to lose... just like if you forget to make a spore crawler.
Okay, I don't even want to get into "who is weaker" arguments, I just want to point out that it seems rather silly to compare walling your main to having spores. One you might have to do if they build cloaked/air units, and will slightly set you back economically if you do it when it isn't needed. The other is needed every single game against zerg, costs almost nothing outside of APM and slight reduction of mining time, and is something that you generally just have to get in the habit of doing. Technically speaking not building a spore is not *always* a "mistake" if they do a good job of denying scout info and tricking you, but not raising the depot or putting a zealot on hold position, always, always is. You don't always know if you need a spore crawler, but you always know you need to wall off.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
On May 13 2011 18:58 motbob wrote: 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.
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
2nd bold.. yeah.. I mean we have drones and lings right? no need to actually have air to ground when you have units that attack ground.. with that reasoning, i'm mighty concerned that protoss have cannons which shoot both up and down, when they (gasp) also have stalkers which "fill the same roll!" Such an ignorant thing to say on their part..
Yeah, I've never seen a protoss lose to a cloaked banshee for instance, this is ridiculous.
Okay, I don't even want to get into "who is weaker" arguments, I just want to point out that it seems rather silly to compare walling your main to having spores. One you might have to do if they build cloaked/air units, and will slightly set you back economically if you do it when it isn't needed. The other is needed every single game against zerg, costs almost nothing outside of APM and slight reduction of mining time, and is something that you generally just have to get in the habit of doing. Technically speaking not building a spore is not *always* a "mistake" if they do a good job of denying scout info and tricking you, but not raising the depot or putting a zealot on hold position, always, always is. You don't always know if you need a spore crawler, but you always know you need to wall off.
I agree with you on all points that you made. Unfortunately, that's not the issue. I was merely addressing the "autolose" argument. All races have an "autolose" button. Merely because that autolose button exists does not mean that zerg is flawed.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
only if they're your units.... you can only select one non-controllable unit at a time
if anything.. protoss have it way worse than zerg. You REQUIRE a robo to defend banshees. Zerg can do whatever they want, because as long as they have a lair (which almost every game past 5 minutes does), they are automatically prepared to deal with banshee or DT.
If you are a zerg, and didnt scout (which is easy, lings/ovies) and didnt build any spores or queens, then YES, you do deserve to lose automatically to banshee or voidray.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
So you're saying that the game design is flawed for all three races? Or is it still only Zerg. I can accept that you don't like the way the game is designed overall, but if you're only referring to Zerg, I can't say that I'd agree because all races have pluses and minuses.
On May 14 2011 04:17 Skyze wrote: if anything.. protoss have it way worse than zerg. You REQUIRE a robo to defend banshees. Zerg can do whatever they want, because as long as they have a lair (which almost every game past 5 minutes does), they are automatically prepared to deal with banshee or DT.
If you are a zerg, and didnt scout (which is easy, lings/ovies) and didnt build any spores or queens, then YES, you do deserve to lose automatically to banshee or voidray.
yep, you REQUIRE something you were going to get anyways, just like a lair.
and also, in what dimension is scouting as zerg easy?
On May 14 2011 04:18 randplaty wrote: So you're saying that the game design is flawed for all three races? Or is it still only Zerg. I can accept that you don't like the way the game is designed overall, but if you're only referring to Zerg, I can't say that I'd agree because all races have pluses and minuses.
I'm saying the guessing game is bad for all three races but zerg gets the worst of it.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
Okay, I don't even want to get into "who is weaker" arguments, I just want to point out that it seems rather silly to compare walling your main to having spores. One you might have to do if they build cloaked/air units, and will slightly set you back economically if you do it when it isn't needed. The other is needed every single game against zerg, costs almost nothing outside of APM and slight reduction of mining time, and is something that you generally just have to get in the habit of doing. Technically speaking not building a spore is not *always* a "mistake" if they do a good job of denying scout info and tricking you, but not raising the depot or putting a zealot on hold position, always, always is. You don't always know if you need a spore crawler, but you always know you need to wall off.
I agree with you on all points that you made. Unfortunately, that's not the issue. I was merely addressing the "autolose" argument. All races have an "autolose" button. Merely because that autolose button exists does not mean that zerg is flawed.
Well we can certainly agree that zerg is not flawed. Though I would be lying if I said I have never felt like that in the past - but lets be honest, this game is frustrating as fuck to play for all three races. Zergs have been so gung ho about getting 70 drones as fast as possible they became extremely predicable and initially (at release) zerg was in a pretty bad spot but between balance changes and meta game changes I believe that is completely in the past now, but the mentality still lingers. Even the recent problems with ZvP have blossomed into a situation were zerg is doing well and protoss doesn't even know WTF to expect now. All of that imba talk was based on judging the entire matchup on the roach/hydra/corrupter composition, which was a much bigger problem than anything Blizz has done - begging for balance changes before extensively trying new things.
Okay, I don't even want to get into "who is weaker" arguments, I just want to point out that it seems rather silly to compare walling your main to having spores. One you might have to do if they build cloaked/air units, and will slightly set you back economically if you do it when it isn't needed. The other is needed every single game against zerg, costs almost nothing outside of APM and slight reduction of mining time, and is something that you generally just have to get in the habit of doing. Technically speaking not building a spore is not *always* a "mistake" if they do a good job of denying scout info and tricking you, but not raising the depot or putting a zealot on hold position, always, always is. You don't always know if you need a spore crawler, but you always know you need to wall off.
I agree with you on all points that you made. Unfortunately, that's not the issue. I was merely addressing the "autolose" argument. All races have an "autolose" button. Merely because that autolose button exists does not mean that zerg is flawed.
Well we can certainly agree that zerg is not flawed. Though I would be lying if I said I have never felt like that in the past - but lets be honest, this game is frustrating as fuck to play for all three races. Zergs have been so gung ho about getting 70 drones as fast as possible they became extremely predicable and initially (at release) zerg was in a pretty bad spot but between balance changes and meta game changes I believe that is completely in the past now, but the mentality still lingers. Even the recent problems with ZvP have blossomed into a situation were zerg is doing well and protoss doesn't even know WTF to expect now. All of that imba talk was based on judging the entire matchup based on the roach/hydra/corrupter composition, which was a much bigger problem than anything Blizz has done - begging for balance changes before extensively trying new things.
I agree with you. It is very frustrating and I'd prefer that there would be no "autolose" buttons for ANY race. On Inside the game with djWHEAT, iNcontrol talked about how positioning is more important than it was in SC2 and because of that macro is relatively less important than it was in BW. I don't remember his exact words, but if you position incorrectly, all 15 minutes of perfect macro spent building up your army is gone in about 30 seconds and due to 1 mistake. That's extremely frustrating. That's a game design issue. It wasn't that way in BW.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
You can't select multiple enemy units though can you?
Okay, I don't even want to get into "who is weaker" arguments, I just want to point out that it seems rather silly to compare walling your main to having spores. One you might have to do if they build cloaked/air units, and will slightly set you back economically if you do it when it isn't needed. The other is needed every single game against zerg, costs almost nothing outside of APM and slight reduction of mining time, and is something that you generally just have to get in the habit of doing. Technically speaking not building a spore is not *always* a "mistake" if they do a good job of denying scout info and tricking you, but not raising the depot or putting a zealot on hold position, always, always is. You don't always know if you need a spore crawler, but you always know you need to wall off.
I agree with you on all points that you made. Unfortunately, that's not the issue. I was merely addressing the "autolose" argument. All races have an "autolose" button. Merely because that autolose button exists does not mean that zerg is flawed.
Well we can certainly agree that zerg is not flawed. Though I would be lying if I said I have never felt like that in the past - but lets be honest, this game is frustrating as fuck to play for all three races. Zergs have been so gung ho about getting 70 drones as fast as possible they became extremely predicable and initially (at release) zerg was in a pretty bad spot but between balance changes and meta game changes I believe that is completely in the past now, but the mentality still lingers. Even the recent problems with ZvP have blossomed into a situation were zerg is doing well and protoss doesn't even know WTF to expect now. All of that imba talk was based on judging the entire matchup based on the roach/hydra/corrupter composition, which was a much bigger problem than anything Blizz has done - begging for balance changes before extensively trying new things.
I agree with you. It is very frustrating and I'd prefer that there would be no "autolose" buttons for ANY race. On Inside the game with djWHEAT, iNcontrol talked about how positioning is more important than it was in SC2 and because of that macro is relatively less important than it was in BW. I don't remember his exact words, but if you position incorrectly, all 15 minutes of perfect macro spent building up your army is gone in about 30 seconds and due to 1 mistake. That's extremely frustrating. That's a game design issue. It wasn't that way in BW.
So this patch fixes that. Now zergs are happy right? If 2 port banshee were impossible to stop, why isn't that build standard in TvZ?
No its not impossible, the whole problem is, that you have to build the different defenses beforehand. I have to have enough Sporecrawlers and Queens to defend against it, but i also would need to have enough Banelings to defend against a potential Bio All-in and i would also need to have enough roaches to defend against a potential Helion All-in and while all that i would still need to have a better econ than my opponent to actually have a chance in the midgame if he plays a macro oriented strategy. Just building the respectiv techbuildings isn't enough, because larvae limits the amount of units i can actually build. If you move out right after i build a round drones, i have to wait 40 seconds til my Queen-larvae pops and then i need to wait another 20-30 Seconds til the units pop, and potentially i need to wait even longer to morph those banelings. The highest amount on larvae per hatchery i could have is 2 without losing larvae production from the hatchery itself. Which means 4 Roaches or 8 Ling/Blings, do you call that a good defense?
All that is probably not a balanceflaw but it is a desingflaw, because zerg can defend everything as long as the player behind it guesses right, but would you like to play like that?
T/P doesn't have that problem in such a scale. For example a sentry expand is safe against a huge variaty of all-ins if executed properly, so the missing scouting informations early game aren't affecting you as much.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
And Idra too. He complains about it but still guess right 95% of the time :o
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
And Idra too. He complains about it but still guess right 95% of the time :o
Only because he has some arbitrary measurement in his head where good and bad are not defined by winning. Reminds me of that article that gets linked around here and talks about the same thing - inventing rules for the game that do not correspond with the true rules of the game.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game. Also you can prepare to defend a bio all-in and then go offensive if it turns out that it was a 1 rax expand, it's not the best decision but it's not auto-loss either. That is just one example, but in almost everything in SC, there are ways to play out of the sub-optimal decision, which is why Day 9 talks about there not being such a thing as "hard counters".
There is too much one dimensional thought and lack of creativity in the community. Just look at the game July played last night against whatever poor terran he crushed, he went "all in" TWICE and just made it work. People act like their opponents will always play perfectly and they can never overcome anything.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 03:46 MonsieurGrimm wrote: the problem is with all three races. allins and greedy plays have been strengthened in SC2 (chrono, inject, mules, reactors) but scouting has not... it's a game design issue.
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
This was an interesting read. I like their reasoning behind the changes and all of them make sense to me. Making infestors easier to kill is debatable, mine slit their own wrists if I turn my back on them for more than a second but I guess it's different for competant players.
What I like less is how people take an explaination that Blizz give and auto-interpret it to side with the bias they already held regardless of the facts.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:00 Treemonkeys wrote: [quote]
Because chrono, inject, mules, and chrono can never be used to build defense.
not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
This thread has degenerated into who can whine the most. We all play SC2 people and yes, the race you play is the worst and you have to be a vastly superior player to win against the other races.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:11 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] not when you were spending them on your economy or tech in order to stay even with your opponent.
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
1st bold, are you serious blizzard? no other race has such an instant lose button, especially if going for early aggression, and not only do you embrace it but you openly condone it? wow..
Actually both Terran and Protoss do have an auto lose button. It's called forgetting to put your depot back up or not putting your zealot on hold position. I'd say that is the equivalent of forgetting to build a spore crawler.
i dont usually say 'no' to anyone's opinion but i feel like do now. No, T/P dont have auto lose button. depot/hold-zealots can potentially cause you damage but if you have no units to defend the lings runby AND didnt scout that he has quite some amount of lings, is your own fault.
Z? if you didnt prepare for 2port banshee, 4banshee fly into your base you are GGed. read the post, Blizzard acknowledged that zerg has weak early AA.
Blizzard acknowledged that there was a problem when the spore crawlers were out of position. "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."
So this patch fixes that. Now zergs are happy right?
If 2 port banshee were impossible to stop, why isn't that build standard in TvZ?
If you're P or T and lings are in your main, you auto lose. Your main army could be slightly out of position and you lose. It could be early game and you don't have many units. It could be that your main army is engaging the main army of zerg and you auto lose. Both mistakes are equivalent. They're mistakes that shouldn't happen and they're mistakes that if you make, you deserve to lose... just like if you forget to make a spore crawler.
i was referring to your 'depot/hold-zealot is the same as without getting spore in time', which is clearly not true. T/P need those buildings anyway(if they dont wall is their risk) while i need to build an early evo and do at least 2spores(which can be totally useless) to hold early air.
you dont see 2port banshee that much now because all pro zergs do scout and if they dont see anything before 6mins they will sac a overlord. if the overlord scout fails you will see a spore goes up/more queens. it is a standard now every zergs will strongly aware of banshee/dt cheese, since they are fatal.
and you are saying main army attack while lings runby? that is nothing to do with 'auto lose button'. you should know the risk of lings runby before you move out and forget depot up.
let get this straight: ~7mins 2banshee with cloak arrive, and T/P/Z didnt see that coming at all->
Toss: you have stalker, all you need to do is react correctly(build obs or cannon) while banshees cloak, they wont cloak for long anyway. lets say >50% chance you will be GGed(depends on micro/mistakes of both sites).
Terran:scan.marines. we all seen this one quite often in TvT...
Z:lets say you are lucky you have 3queens, they will be focused down by cloaked 2banshees....do i need to say more? is basically same case as P but we dont have any tier 1 AA like stalker. higher chance of getting GGed than P. is this so called 'auto lose button'? i dont know, but i can assure you that if the T was competent, the Z is 100% lost the game for sure.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote: [quote]
If he is going all in, you're not staying even, you're getting too far ahead economically. The game does not favor all in's, though some maps do/did.
sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
On May 14 2011 04:48 Sapphire.lux wrote: This thread has degenerated into who can whine the most. We all play SC2 people and yes, the race you play is the worst and you have to be a vastly superior player to win against the other races.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote: [quote]
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
I really feel that the last episode of sotg hurt the community. Now every thread in teamliquid degenerate in a "zerg is flawed" argument, when at the same time zerg players winrate in tourneys has never been higher against protoss or terran. A lot of new builds are created, zergs are winning a lot everywhere but it's not enough because "zerg is flawed". There is still zero proof of that, but idra said it so it must be true >< All this coinflip and flawed argument is really ridiculous, because it goes against the facts and the results.
On May 14 2011 00:10 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm shocked at how many Terrans are upset that there is now more than one unit that Protoss has that can do anything against them, especially considering how easily that one unit was completely shut down with the Strike Cannons.
You are only looking at part of the picture. Protoss not only gained a way to deal with thors but they did it in a way that terrans lost a way to deal with HTs. There is not a whole lot that can properly deal with HTs that terran has. Much like protoss didn't have much to deal with thors. So the way Blizzard went about it certainly warrants some discussion.
Not only that but having to get strike cannons to have your thors be less vulnerable to the counter against strike cannons is obviously flawed.
correct, although I do think that if zerg guesses wrong they get punished harder.. so I suppose they have a disadvantage in that way.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
On May 14 2011 04:16 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] sure, you want to have only a slight advantage against an allin player and devote the rest to defense. the problem is, as I said in my first post, that scouting is shit for all three races so it's incredibly difficult to gauge what your opponent is doing and react appropriately.
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
I think Flash's winning rate is much higher than 70% after he became actually good... perhaps the last two years? I'd venture saying it's probably around 90% during that period.
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.
No. If you read between the lines, you'll see they saw mass-Thor strategies as being completely OP. The problem isn't that they didn't sanction the strategies, but rather that the startegy broke the game.
On May 14 2011 05:00 MrCon wrote: I really feel that the last episode of sotg hurt the community. Now every thread in teamliquid degenerate in a "zerg is flawed" argument, when at the same time zerg players winrate in tournays has never been so high against protoss or terran. A lot of new builds are created, zergs are winning a lot everywhere but it's not enough because "zerg is flawed". There is still zero proof of that, but idra said it so it must be true >< All this coinflip and flawed argument is really ridiculous, because it goes against the facts and the results.
If people can't step outside Idra's line of thought, fuck em, it will truly only hold them back in this game and most will probably either get over it or just give it up on the game. Until that happens it can be annoying though.
Yes there is a element of chance/luck in this game, it is actually impossible to create a game with limited information without having that. At the same time, it is much more complicated than the people who want to simplify it by calling it a coin toss. The decision making and "guessing" as some want to call it, is a skill in itself, and perhaps the most important skill required to be good at SC, after you have the mechanics down.
On May 14 2011 04:28 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big. [quote] except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed, skill isn't everything when it comes to winning, the design of the game matters too.
I have a feeling they don't explain it all either, ofc. Cus for example they explained the Sentry change, but it also works because it balances out the WG timing in other matchups because Sentries are commonly gotten in PvZ and PvT anyways, so they can just use more chrono on WG to make up for the 20 sec nerf. (Actually idk if they thought about this, or if they did PvP seemed to be the main reason so I guess that's why).
On May 14 2011 05:00 MrCon wrote: I really feel that the last episode of sotg hurt the community. Now every thread in teamliquid degenerate in a "zerg is flawed" argument, when at the same time zerg players winrate in tournays has never been so high against protoss or terran. A lot of new builds are created, zergs are winning a lot everywhere but it's not enough because "zerg is flawed". There is still zero proof of that, but idra said it so it must be true >< All this coinflip and flawed argument is really ridiculous, because it goes against the facts and the results.
If people can't step outside Idra's line of thought, fuck em, it will truly only hold them back in this game and most will probably either get over it or just give it up on the game. Until that happens it can be annoying though.
Yes there is a element of chance/luck in this game, it is actually impossible to create a game with limited information without having that. At the same time, it is much more complicated than the people who want to simplify it by calling it a coin toss. The decision making and "guessing" as some want to call it, is a skill in itself, and perhaps the most important skill required to be good at SC, after you have the mechanics down.
This is spot on. Using more familiar words, he is talking about "game sense." How do you play the game based on the information you have about hat is happening? This is an absolutely critical component of playing this game well at every single level.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed.
My logic is flawed because Blizz could break the game if they wanted to? You aren't making any sense.
I think if 4 gates are strong now its because people are cutting less probes to do it. They aren't relying on the timing of the warpgate. I've been doing it lately with great success, I don't use chrono on warpgate, I use it on units or a fast +1 atk (usually finishes right around the time my 4 gate is ready). Because you get more workers and fighting units before you attack, its harder to scout and it can be much more deadly and easy to transition out of. The thing is though, because we aren't relying as much on an earlier timing, our chronoboosts and extra minerals (we don't need the gates as soon) can be put to offense or defense. I think the change has been great so far and I have noticed a difference in all of my PvP's so far. Its still a little like Colos wars, but I think that will change also the farther we get from just 4 gating all the time. I love how 4 gate could actually be a good pressure build now, instead of the obvious all-in'ing that was happening between all Protoss players, just stuck on 1 fucking base.
On May 14 2011 04:37 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed.
My logic is flawed because Blizz could break the game if they wanted to? You aren't making any sense.
What if they guess correctly? I would argue that if the Zerg guesses correctly, there's nothing T or P can do to stop them. For example, if the Zerg guesses that the Protoss is going to move out at the 10 minute mark with a push and they make 50 zerglings and intercept, the game is over. Zerg wins. So in a sense the disadvantage balances the advantage.
It's true that if they guess incorrectly, its bad for them... they lose 25 potential drones... so it's roulette.
it's still shitty game design.. sure, risk and chance and guessing all have their place but it should be possible for a player to come back from the disadvantage they obtain by guessing incorrectly through good play, but in SC2 that doesn't seem to happen (with rare exceptions) because the advantage/disadvantages are too big.
On May 14 2011 04:27 Treemonkeys wrote: [quote]
Welcome to RTS games with fog of war. Making correct decisions off of limited information is a cornerstone not only of the game but of the entire genre.
except right now it's not correct decisions, it's correct guesses. the limited information you can get (even after investing into scouting) isn't definitive, it isn't even close and it doesn't narrow down your opponent's options much either.
So is nestea some kind of statistically anomaly? How on earth is he able to make the correct decisions so often?
he's really good. I don't think that helps him beat a nexus-cancel warpgate allin without blind countering it, though. nor does it help him tell between a 1rax expand or a 6rax allin.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
I think Flash's winning rate is much higher than 70% after he became actually good... perhaps the last two years? I'd venture saying it's probably around 90% during that period.
You can search yo :p From 2009/05/13 (2 years to the day), his winrate is 76%. That makes him a BW God, yet he's still losing a full quarter of his games.
As a comparison, the likes of Nestea and IdrA - who I think everyone would agree are good but no bonjwas like Flash - have winrates of around 65%.
On May 13 2011 19:09 darmousseh wrote: This is, imo, the best patch blizzard has released yet. Every change makes perfect sense without affecting the overall balance of the game too much in anyone's favor. Essentially this patch makes pvp SOOOO much more flexible especially the sentry build time reduction and the massive + range of archons.
I personally would have liked more wg research time as a protoss player, but other than that I think it was a good patch overall.
Which is why every tournament uses a Best of X format, you can't get away with doing the same thing every game.
no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed.
My logic is flawed because Blizz could break the game if they wanted to? You aren't making any sense.
edited my post to make more sense
Well you still aren't making any. The skill of any game is inherently defined by that game, weather it is considered "flawed" or not.
The flaws you speak of have nothing to do with SC2 specifically, but they would be "flaws" with ANY rts game that uses fog of war. So play a different game.
Lets make a game where you have a limited amount of information, and you can take steps against each other to obtain and/or deny information.
Now lets make it possible where in that same game, you can ALWAYS have the information you need to make the correct decision.
It is a contradiction that cannot exist in reality.
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.
Fixed it for you Colossus or HT and good storms are necessary if you even want to have a half decent chance to win a fight vs Terran army.
On May 14 2011 04:41 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] no, but it's still a cointoss. just because someone did something the previous game doesn't mean he definitively will or will not do it in this game or future games.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed.
My logic is flawed because Blizz could break the game if they wanted to? You aren't making any sense.
edited my post to make more sense
Well you still aren't making any. The skill of any game is inherently defined by that game, weather it is considered "flawed" or not.
The flaws you speak of have nothing to do with SC2 specifically, but they would be "flaws" with ANY rts game that uses fog of war. So play a different game.
Lets make a game where you have a limited amount of information, and you can take steps against each other to obtain and/or deny information.
Now lets make it possible where in that same game, you can ALWAYS have the information you need to make the correct decision.
It is a contradiction that cannot exist in reality.
I have no problem with limited information or some amount of guessing. What I have a problem with is when guessing wrong flat out wins you the game, regardless of skill. If skill at guessing is the only skill there is, then SC2 is pretty much rock paper scissors with pretty graphics and you're right, I should find a new game. But it'll be a sad day when we accept that's the case.
Right now I feel like guessing correctly/incorrectly yields too much advantage or disadvantage. I don't want guessing and limited information removed, I want the impact of it reduced to a point where a player can come back through outplaying his opponent (mechanics, decisionmaking, experience, etc... those skills which aren't guessing)
On May 14 2011 00:10 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm shocked at how many Terrans are upset that there is now more than one unit that Protoss has that can do anything against them, especially considering how easily that one unit was completely shut down with the Strike Cannons.
You are only looking at part of the picture. Protoss not only gained a way to deal with thors but they did it in a way that terrans lost a way to deal with HTs. There is not a whole lot that can properly deal with HTs that terran has. Much like protoss didn't have much to deal with thors. So the way Blizzard went about it certainly warrants some discussion.
Not only that but having to get strike cannons to have your thors be less vulnerable to the counter against strike cannons is obviously flawed.
...?
Thors shouldn't be a counter to Templar...Ghosts should be? When there is a unit that is strong enough to just sit in storm and kill your whole army, there is a problem. Battlecruisers and Thors should both have energy for the same reason.
Also, you're wrong about needing to research Strike Cannons to help stop the Templar counter. You just EMP your own Thors like people have been doing since beta. Now that ghosts are easier to get, you might as well use Strike Cannons too and just EMP Templar.
At least it now won't be mindless C CLICK C CLICK C CLICK to victory, and Protoss has a chance to do something about it.
I'm sure this has already been mentioned somewhere, but then I still want to repeat it:
We decided to give infestors normal movement speed off of creep to make it easier to catch up to them and kill them.
normal movement speed... do they realize that an infestor is now slower than a fucking ultralisk off creep?! they could at least admit that it's speed is now "slow" and not "normal"
We decided to give infestors normal movement speed off of creep to make it easier to catch up to them and kill them.
normal movement speed... do they realize that an infestor is now slower than a fucking ultralisk off creep?! they could at least admit that it's speed is now "slow" and not "normal"
On May 14 2011 05:38 iaretehnoob wrote: I'm sure this has already been mentioned somewhere, but then I still want to repeat it:
We decided to give infestors normal movement speed off of creep to make it easier to catch up to them and kill them.
normal movement speed... do they realize that an infestor is now slower than a fucking ultralisk off creep?! they could at least admit that it's speed is now "slow" and not "normal"
We decided to give infestors normal movement speed off of creep to make it easier to catch up to them and kill them.
normal movement speed... do they realize that an infestor is now slower than a fucking ultralisk off creep?! they could at least admit that it's speed is now "slow" and not "normal"
2.25 is pretty much the SC2 baseline speed, so yeah, it's normal. On the slow side for Zerg as they generally have very fast units, but overall it's a normal speed. Siege tanks, marines, marauders, hydras, colossi, immortals and probably a bunch more all have 2.25 speed.
Maybe this game isn't for you then, honestly. There are ways to win mind games, but there is no way to guarantee you will win every game of SC2, and that seems to be what you are looking for. The annoying part is people acting like BW wasn't exactly like this. That's why people in BW with 70% win rates are so godly, 100% win rate is not realistically possible.
yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed.
My logic is flawed because Blizz could break the game if they wanted to? You aren't making any sense.
edited my post to make more sense
Well you still aren't making any. The skill of any game is inherently defined by that game, weather it is considered "flawed" or not.
The flaws you speak of have nothing to do with SC2 specifically, but they would be "flaws" with ANY rts game that uses fog of war. So play a different game.
Lets make a game where you have a limited amount of information, and you can take steps against each other to obtain and/or deny information.
Now lets make it possible where in that same game, you can ALWAYS have the information you need to make the correct decision.
It is a contradiction that cannot exist in reality.
I have no problem with limited information or some amount of guessing. What I have a problem with is when guessing wrong flat out wins you the game, regardless of skill. If skill at guessing is the only skill there is, then SC2 is pretty much rock paper scissors with pretty graphics and you're right, I should find a new game. But it'll be a sad day when we accept that's the case.
Right now I feel like guessing correctly/incorrectly yields too much advantage or disadvantage. I don't want guessing and limited information removed, I want the impact of it reduced to a point where a player can come back through outplaying his opponent (mechanics, decisionmaking, experience, etc... those skills which aren't guessing)
The impact is reduced based on how good you are at decision making, these drastic situations you talk about are already pretty rare at the highest level and will become more and more rare as the game gets figured out - basically as the skill level of game sense gets higher.
4 gate nexus cancel is as nasty as it is new, I'm sure it will get figured out. There is already a decent enough response to it, you can do the 24 drone roach/ling all in to punish if it is 3 gate expand and be ready to defend if it is a 4 gate nexus cancel. This doesn't work on all maps but people will also figure out better ways to deal with it...or worst case every toss abuses the fuck out of 4 gate nexus cancel and then the map pool will change to deal with it.
On May 14 2011 05:38 iaretehnoob wrote: I'm sure this has already been mentioned somewhere, but then I still want to repeat it:
We decided to give infestors normal movement speed off of creep to make it easier to catch up to them and kill them.
normal movement speed... do they realize that an infestor is now slower than a fucking ultralisk off creep?! they could at least admit that it's speed is now "slow" and not "normal"
They are as fast as marine, marauder or zealot.
and colossus, their protoss equivalent (although colossus can cliffwalk, but still.)
I like all the patch changes bar the Thor Strike Cannon change. Not because it now has energy, I think that will lead to cool micro battles between getting the strike or EMP off before the feedback hits. Combined with the Archon buff I hope we will see more Templar based play. However, I really don't like how long it takes to get or regain a Strike cannon. It now takes an absolute age, so that kinda makes it completely useless.
On May 14 2011 04:49 MonsieurGrimm wrote: [quote] yeah, but what I'm saying is that a skilled player should be able to come back from a disadvantage, but in SC2 the impact of an incorrect guess is almost insurmountable. if you're playing against someone half as good as you, you should be able to have a 99% win rate.. I don't feel like this is the case in SC2.
It isn't this way in brood war either. There are plenty of people who aren't even close to being as good as flash but can snipe him with a cheese or all in build. And yet hes still considered a god with his "mere" 70% win rate. And no, a skilled player shouldn't be able to come back from a disadvantage unless their opponent screws up. That is why its a disadvantage.
what I meant was a more skilled player, sorry :S. a player with more skill than his opponent makes fewer mistakes, and therefore can get back into the game, but in SC2 your opponent needs to make so many mistakes to lose the advantage.
maybe 99% was an exaggerated figure, but my point still stands, if you're playing against someone half as good as you you should be able to win more than half the time.
If you're truly better than your opponent you shouldn't be at a disadvantage anyways, that means you screwed up or they're better than you.
if by screwed up you mean guessed wrong, yeah I guess you screwed up.
You're point is completely flawed because you have some arbitrary measurement of skill inside your head where winning and losing at SC2 does not apply. The opponent who has "more skill should win" but doesn't - then it is your definition of skill that is flawed, not the game.
so if blizzard patched the game tomorrow and zealots had 2000 hp, nestea would be a worse player than my bronze league protoss friend? its your logic which is flawed.
My logic is flawed because Blizz could break the game if they wanted to? You aren't making any sense.
edited my post to make more sense
Well you still aren't making any. The skill of any game is inherently defined by that game, weather it is considered "flawed" or not.
The flaws you speak of have nothing to do with SC2 specifically, but they would be "flaws" with ANY rts game that uses fog of war. So play a different game.
Lets make a game where you have a limited amount of information, and you can take steps against each other to obtain and/or deny information.
Now lets make it possible where in that same game, you can ALWAYS have the information you need to make the correct decision.
It is a contradiction that cannot exist in reality.
I have no problem with limited information or some amount of guessing. What I have a problem with is when guessing wrong flat out wins you the game, regardless of skill. If skill at guessing is the only skill there is, then SC2 is pretty much rock paper scissors with pretty graphics and you're right, I should find a new game. But it'll be a sad day when we accept that's the case.
Right now I feel like guessing correctly/incorrectly yields too much advantage or disadvantage. I don't want guessing and limited information removed, I want the impact of it reduced to a point where a player can come back through outplaying his opponent (mechanics, decisionmaking, experience, etc... those skills which aren't guessing)
The impact is reduced based on how good you are at decision making, these drastic situations you talk about are already pretty rare at the highest level and will become more and more rare as the game gets figured out - basically as the skill level of game sense gets higher.
4 gate nexus cancel is as nasty as it is new, I'm sure it will get figured out. There is already a decent enough response to it, you can do the 24 drone roach/ling all in to punish if it is 3 gate expand and be ready to defend if it is a 4 gate nexus cancel. This doesn't work on all maps but people will also figure out better ways to deal with it...or worst case every toss abuses the fuck out of 4 gate nexus cancel and then the map pool will change to deal with it.
well, yeah, all we can do is wait and see what happens... but I'm not convinced yet.
I think we should leave it at that, though. this discussion has nowhere else to go and I think we fleshed out the argument nicely :D
WTF, so Blizzard made thor useless in TvP (thor rush no longer viable, and now countered by templar in late game) because they are physically too large? Just make it smaller for christs sake. Colossus stack ON TOP of a toss army, why the hell isn't that a problem? Get three or four and I can't see what the hell kind of tech you have under there.
"I can't see you army cuz your thor is in the way so lets just make it so people don't use thors and we won't have this problem." Worst balance logic I've ever heard.
The secondary argument of strike cannons being too good is also laughable. Strike cannons do very close to the same dps as normal thor attack, plus it makes the thor immobile and makes other units' pathing wonk out so they can't attack. There are only 2 situations where strike cannons are useful: killing immos in an early thor rush (in large thor numbers, one cannot get a concave worth crap and the immos win easy due to smaller size, and the infantry pathing getting messed) and halting retreating colossus. The second of which should never happen unless the toss player has terribad micro.
I don't want to go MMM every single damn game, especially since it is hard countered by toss in late game.
I'd rather have NO strike cannons and no energy than useless strike cannons and a giant vulnerability to templar.
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.
I agree that I think this patch is ridiculous as it makes Thors exceedingly weak in the TvP match-up. I guess now before big battles you have to EMP your own Thors just to make them less susceptible to Feedback so that they don't start off the fight with half hitpoints.
I'm usually behind Blizzard's patches, but then there are some (the two that come to mind are this and the Nitro Pack nerf) that I think that take a prominent strategy and rather than nerf it make it completely impossible to do. For example, a better way to change the mass Reaper TvZ that had emerged would be to increase the cost of Nitro Packs (perhaps make it cost 100/100) so that early game it would be harder to execute, but it wouldn't completely remove the strategy.
Of course, instead all it really did was completely remove Reapers from the TvZ match-up. There are better ways that they could have executed this patch too, for instance: they could have increased the CD of the Thor cannons and make them start with the CD active. Or, they simply could just reduce the energy cost to use Thor Cannons, so that they are still weak to Feedback, but the cannons are also usable earlier in the game.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
i completely dissagre with the mass thor resoning. If were talking bronze leage turtle untill 200/200 thors sure its overpowered but i dont think ive seen a game in sc2, professionally with MASS thors.
I personally think that if they went with giving the Thor energy again, they'd at least give it 150 starting energy or an upgrade for it. The good thing about the non-Energy Strike Cannon is that Thor came out with the ability to use them right out of the gate.
Hmmmm I've seen all GSL games and plenty of TSL/NASL/MLG etc and I don't remember a single thor in TvP except thorzain vs tyler on xelnaga caverns. "We don't like thors en masse", huh?
I feel the thor nerf was overreaction from Blizzard. Like "omg, Thorzain beat Tyler and MC using a thor build ! Let's nerf it !" I mean, those 2 games are the 2 only competitive usage of thor centric play in TvP, so no one really had time trying to counter it, and now they nerf it. I can understand part of the reasoning, but it's more game "modeling" than game balancing if I understand correctly.
Thor: 400 hp, starts with 50 mana, and max 200 mana. Strike Cannon uses 150 energy, so only Thors who have been around for a while will be affected badly and by that time they can use Strike cannons\be emp'd.
Its still a nerf, but its not like the optimal way to counter thors will be Mass feedbacking(and I still prefer them wasting a feedback on a Thor than on a banshee\medevac/thor ) Ltes just wait and see. I don't think the Thorzain build is really affected that badly by this
On May 14 2011 06:14 gogatorsfoster wrote: i completely dissagre with the mass thor resoning. If were talking bronze leage turtle untill 200/200 thors sure its overpowered but i dont think ive seen a game in sc2, professionally with MASS thors.
It would of knocked Fruit Dealer out of GSL1 against oGsTOP on Kulas if ultralisks didn't have nuclear missile splash damage at the time.
It was 15 2-2 thors vs like 10 1-2 ultra without armor upgrade, lol.
Am I the only one who doesnt like Blizzard reasoning, not in they way they patch but in the way they think. I was a bit shocked when I read that they didnt want Thors to be a unit can you can mass and that it was rather "this" kind of unit.
It seems to me like they want the game to be played the way they think it should be played without leaving a room for players to come up with new stuff.
On May 14 2011 06:14 gogatorsfoster wrote: i completely dissagre with the mass thor resoning. If were talking bronze leage turtle untill 200/200 thors sure its overpowered but i dont think ive seen a game in sc2, professionally with MASS thors.
"Mass" is a relative term, in the context of the post i'd wager they're just referring to thors being the primary bulk of your army.
I've seen first-hand some profoundly strong 2 base thor timings that come with 5-6 thors, marines, and about 15-20 scv's. Even if you play the safest build possible (2g 1r), scout it very early, identify the impending timing rush, and keep up with him in economy while building a "counter" army of gateway units & continuosly chrono'd immortals, if he controls it right the chances of your survival is still low.
If you've never seen it or experienced it, then you probably just haven't played enough protoss on the ladder.
With this change that push will have 2-3 fewer strike cannons, which is all the protoss needs to survive it assuming they'd prepared properly.
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?
It doesn't matter if it's being ironed out that way if it's being made incredibly boring. Instead of being creative in any way to solve a (not even definitive) issue, they more or less completely removed a strategy because they didn't like the idea of it. It's this kind of crap that will ultimately make SC2 as stagnant and as boring as WC3 was to watch.
Not only that, this sets a precedent of Blizzard saying that they don't like the players making innovations, and they only want us to play the game the way they want it to be played. That is completely counterproductive if you want something to actually succeed as an e-sport.
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.
It takes a zealot 29 hits to kill a thor when thor has +3 armor and the zealot +3weapons.
Nerfing thors this heavily was really uncalled for. Want to know a few other units which obliterate enemy armies in seconds? Colossi, HTs. Go figure
Agreed with most of it, save the Thor comment. If players want to go mass Thor and they can make it work, let them! There shouldn't be anything preventing players from coming up with Thor-centric strategies. The unit has its own weaknesses and strength already.
The Thor as a support unit Blizz? Look at its health, its damage, its cost and its place in the Tech Tree. It is not a support unit, it is basically a huge marine with a lot more hitpoints. If you want it more as a support unit Blizz, up the range on the ground weapons or let the air attack hit Colossi. Currently Thors are generally always up front.
Just because blizz "doesn't like mass Thor" is no reason to discourage players doing it. Mass Ultralisk and mass Colossus is fine, what's wrong with mass Thor. I can think of dozens of ways Protoss and Zerg could deal with it, old strike cannons or not.
Also, hostile EMP in TvT against Thors Blizz...hah! I'd LOVE to see mass Thor in TvT, if it ever happened. And even then, what on earth would you possible want to use the strike cannons on?
Note to few posts above: Chargelots eat Thors alive, +3 armor or not, Thors just get surrounded by massive amounts of Chargelots and once that happens the Thor dies very very quickly. Zealots are only 100 minerals compared to the 300/200 of a single Thor, it's pretty easy to mass them against mass Thor.
I can't believe all you Terran players are whining so much about the Thor nerf. Thor's are ridiculously strong even without Strike Cannons. I would bet that at least half of you having a whinge don't even research Strike Cannons. You're just having a fucking cry cause your race got a nerf, regardless of whether it affects your play or not.
Fully upgraded Thor DPS: (61)
Fully upgraded Immortal DPS vs Armoured: (45)
Fully upgraded Hydralisk DPS: (18.1) x 4 = 72.4
It has 33% more damage than an Immortal which we all know does INSANE damage vs Armoured. And almost as much damage as four Hydralisks. Not to mention it can be mass repaired.
Do you people even realise what the change does? It simply means you can't rush Thors and have Strike Cannons available immediately. All of you complaining probably sit in your base and turtle to 200/200 anyways.
Stop fucking whining when something gets changed for a valid reason for once.
On May 14 2011 08:44 foxmeep wrote: I can't believe all you Terran players are whining so much about the Thor nerf. Thor's are ridiculously strong even without Strike Cannons. I would bet that at least half of you having a whinge don't even research Strike Cannons. You're just having a fucking cry cause your race got a nerf, regardless of whether it affects your play or not.
You are missing the big point which is that Thors without strike cannons have been nerfed much more by this than Thors with strike cannons.
On May 14 2011 08:44 foxmeep wrote:Do you people even realise what the change does? It simply means you can't rush Thors and have Strike Cannons available immediately.
This is wrong. Thors can get Fedbacked and lose half their health even if you don't have strike cannons. This is a nerf that has nothing to do with the ability itself.
On May 14 2011 08:44 foxmeep wrote: I can't believe all you Terran players are whining so much about the Thor nerf. Thor's are ridiculously strong even without Strike Cannons. I would bet that at least half of you having a whinge don't even research Strike Cannons. You're just having a fucking cry cause your race got a nerf, regardless of whether it affects your play or not.
Fully upgraded Thor DPS: (61)
Fully upgraded Immortal DPS vs Armoured: (44.7) x 2 = 89.4
Fully upgraded Hydralisk DPS: (18.1) x 4 = 72.4
It nearly has as much DPS as two Immortals vs Armoured and four Hydralisks.
Do you people even realise what the change does? It simply means you can't rush Thors and have Strike Cannons available immediately. All of you complaining probably sit in your base and turtle to 200/200 anyways.
Stop fucking whining when something gets changed for a valid reason for once.
Edit: read the stats off Liquipedia wrong.
Try actually using the Thor instead of coming up with nonsense critics and insults. The Thor's raw DPS isn't the issue, it's applying it optimally and actually getting to Thors. Actually going Thors and being able to take full advantage of them is incredibly hard.
Against Protoss the range 9 on the Colossus and Chargelot surrounds make it extremely difficult for Thors to be useful. They generally just get stuck in a Chargelot surround trying to hit something. Void Rays deal with them very effectively as well.
Against Zerg, the Thor is so immobile it is basically nothing more than a more immobile Colossus with less range and no splash damage.
Sure, it would decimate any kind of upfront gateway or roach army (as would MMM), but who throws that against a Thor army?
The Thor is a good unit, no doubt, but it is hardly the omg unit that needed a nerf. Just can't just look at the raw DPS and health and state how strong it is. Actually try and use it ingame and you'll find out how hard it is to make Thors work.
On May 14 2011 08:44 foxmeep wrote: I can't believe all you Terran players are whining so much about the Thor nerf. Thor's are ridiculously strong even without Strike Cannons. I would bet that at least half of you having a whinge don't even research Strike Cannons. You're just having a fucking cry cause your race got a nerf, regardless of whether it affects your play or not.
Fully upgraded Thor DPS: (61)
Fully upgraded Immortal DPS vs Armoured: (44.7) x 2 = 89.4
Fully upgraded Hydralisk DPS: (18.1) x 4 = 72.4
It nearly has as much DPS as two Immortals vs Armoured and four Hydralisks.
Do you people even realise what the change does? It simply means you can't rush Thors and have Strike Cannons available immediately. All of you complaining probably sit in your base and turtle to 200/200 anyways.
Stop fucking whining when something gets changed for a valid reason for once.
Edit: read the stats off Liquipedia wrong.
Try actually using the Thor instead of coming up with nonsense critics and insults. The Thor's raw DPS isn't the issue, it's applying it optimally and actually getting to Thors. Actually going Thors and being able to take full advantage of them is incredibly hard.
Against Protoss the range 9 on the Colossus and Chargelot surrounds make it extremely difficult for Thors to be useful. They generally just get stuck in a Chargelot surround trying to hit something. Void Rays deal with them very effectively as well.
Against Zerg, the Thor is so immobile it is basically nothing more than a more immobile Colossus with less range and no splash damage.
Sure, it would decimate any kind of upfront gateway or roach army (as would MMM), but who throws that against a Thor army?
The Thor is a good unit, no doubt, but it is hardly the omg unit that needed a nerf. Just can't just look at the raw DPS and health and state how strong it is. Actually try and use it ingame and you'll find out how hard it is to make Thors work.
You're basically telling me that because Thors are difficult to use effectively, it doesn't warrant ANY form of nerf on them. Well sorry, that's not how things work. They hard countered immortals with Strike Cannons, which were designed to be a counter to units like Thors. They decided to change this.
I'll give you a tip to vastly increase the effectiveness of your Thors. Go look at Broodwar Reaver/Shuttle micro, and apply that to your Thor. In fact, I daresay it would fully address all the issues you just mentioned.
Yeah Reaver Shuttle Micro against Stalkers with Blinks what a great idea. And since Strike Cannon are not autocast and Thor don't do anykind of Aoe it's completely different. So you tell me i have to fly in my Thors into the opponent army ( which could be killed easily if i do that ) land all of them seperately and then use strike Cannons on Colossi . Yeah that sounds reasonable.
On May 14 2011 09:57 s3rp wrote: Yeah Reaver Shuttle Micro against Stalkers with Blinks what a great idea. And since Strike Cannon are not autocast and Thor don't do anykind of Aoe it's completely different. So you tell me i have to fly in my Thors into the opponent army ( which could be killed easily if i do that ) land all of them seperately and then use strike Cannons on Colossi . Yeah that sounds reasonable.
Who says you have to fly INTO their army? Thor has 7 range, more than any gateway/Zerg unit. You should have tanks/vikings to deal with Colo anyways, that's not what Thors are for. Who flies Reavers directly into an enemy army?
If he blinks to kill your Medivac, not only should you be able to drop the Thor before he kills it, he will lose every single one of those stalkers to the rest of your army.
Again, all I hear is "I can't A-move and win with it, so it shouldn't be nerfed.". This mentality has plagued SC2.
On May 14 2011 09:57 s3rp wrote: Yeah Reaver Shuttle Micro against Stalkers with Blinks what a great idea. And since Strike Cannon are not autocast and Thor don't do anykind of Aoe it's completely different. So you tell me i have to fly in my Thors into the opponent army ( which could be killed easily if i do that ) land all of them seperately and then use strike Cannons on Colossi . Yeah that sounds reasonable.
Who says you have to fly INTO their army? Thor has 7 range, more than any gateway/Zerg unit. You should have tanks/vikings to deal with Colo anyways, that's not what Thors are for. Who flies Reavers directly into an enemy army?
If he blinks to kill your Medivac, not only should you be able to drop the Thor before he kills it, he will lose every single one of those stalkers to the rest of your army.
Again, all I hear is "I can't A-move and win with it, so it shouldn't be nerfed.". This mentality has plagued SC2.
Ok i misunderstood i thought you wanted me to flank with Medivacs carrieng thors to kill Thors . But if thats no what you want me to do why exactly should Thors be in Dropsships ? Theres no reason to Drop and Pick them Up all the time .
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?
Pretty sure that the changes were made in mind for gold league and below. Massing thors are never quite viable above those leagues, but when you have two players turtling it out and not scouting it can become quite a unbeatable army composition.
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?
Pretty sure that the changes were made in mind for gold league and below. Massing thors are never quite viable above those leagues, but when you have two players turtling it out and not scouting it can become quite a unbeatable army composition.
think mass bc are 10x times better than thors for low league turtlers, should we expect a nerf soon?
I've tried to read a lot of this thread, but hopefully I didn't miss this. I see quite a bit about the Thor change, and how it nerfs Thors without strike cannon. So, why not just make Thors have no energy until Strike Cannon is researched at which point all Thors that have already been produced get their energy bar and an instant 50 energy?
On May 14 2011 08:44 foxmeep wrote: I can't believe all you Terran players are whining so much about the Thor nerf. Thor's are ridiculously strong even without Strike Cannons. I would bet that at least half of you having a whinge don't even research Strike Cannons. You're just having a fucking cry cause your race got a nerf, regardless of whether it affects your play or not.
Fully upgraded Thor DPS: (61)
Fully upgraded Immortal DPS vs Armoured: (44.7) x 2 = 89.4
Fully upgraded Hydralisk DPS: (18.1) x 4 = 72.4
It nearly has as much DPS as two Immortals vs Armoured and four Hydralisks.
Do you people even realise what the change does? It simply means you can't rush Thors and have Strike Cannons available immediately. All of you complaining probably sit in your base and turtle to 200/200 anyways.
Stop fucking whining when something gets changed for a valid reason for once.
Edit: read the stats off Liquipedia wrong.
Try actually using the Thor instead of coming up with nonsense critics and insults. The Thor's raw DPS isn't the issue, it's applying it optimally and actually getting to Thors. Actually going Thors and being able to take full advantage of them is incredibly hard.
Against Protoss the range 9 on the Colossus and Chargelot surrounds make it extremely difficult for Thors to be useful. They generally just get stuck in a Chargelot surround trying to hit something. Void Rays deal with them very effectively as well.
Against Zerg, the Thor is so immobile it is basically nothing more than a more immobile Colossus with less range and no splash damage.
Sure, it would decimate any kind of upfront gateway or roach army (as would MMM), but who throws that against a Thor army?
The Thor is a good unit, no doubt, but it is hardly the omg unit that needed a nerf. Just can't just look at the raw DPS and health and state how strong it is. Actually try and use it ingame and you'll find out how hard it is to make Thors work.
You're basically telling me that because Thors are difficult to use effectively, it doesn't warrant ANY form of nerf on them. Well sorry, that's not how things work. They hard countered immortals with Strike Cannons, which were designed to be a counter to units like Thors. They decided to change this.
I'll give you a tip to vastly increase the effectiveness of your Thors. Go look at Broodwar Reaver/Shuttle micro, and apply that to your Thor. In fact, I daresay it would fully address all the issues you just mentioned.
So you are just completely ignoring my point that thors without cannons got nefed even more and for basically no reason? I don't think anyone really cares all that much that strike cannons is a little less good.
thats no what you want me to do why exactly should Thors be in Dropsships ? Theres no reason to Drop and Pick them Up all the time .
I love the thor unit but it can sometimes really be very immobile depending on the matchup. My entire style in TvZ is to use Thors, Tanks, Marines/Marauders (depending on comp) and Blueflame hellions to slowly build up to a massive cost effective ball and it really works.
I do an early timing attack if they go for a quick third and take my own and the only problem with having a build with Thors as one of your main units is it is very slow, moving them around in dropships eliminates this problem and infact I should start trying to use it more since I always forget.
Well but thats not what i understood in Reaver Micro. That would be Dropping and Picking Up Units in Midfight . Which would be kinda pointless with Thors.
Well yeah you can use Medivacs for Thors to move around but i'm just not convinced getting Thors at all is worth it against Protoss. Just don't see them as a good Unit in that Matchup. They just don't improve my normal Army komposition.
Isn't the Situation report a little late to express why it shouldn't be changed, I don't know. Probably going on the PTR which has no effect on your actual ranking and trying the mass Thor strategy or whatever strategy it is you like using with Thors and see if it still works. Then leaving feedback as to why it should or shouldn't work. Toss isn't going HT all the time in PvT especially since we lost the Amulet. Why not just throw a ghost with it incase of feed back something that could be discovered on the PTR also 2 WEEKS AGO? Might delay you a little bit before you push out but its not like the Thors are getting there anytime soon.
Either way Blizzards decision given in the situation report is valid if that was their only criteria then its valid criteria.
On May 14 2011 11:25 s3rp wrote: Well but thats not what i understood in Reaver Micro. That would be Dropping and Picking Up Units in Midfight . Which would be kinda pointless with Thors.
Well yeah you can use Medivacs for Thors to move around but i'm just not convinced getting Thors at all is worth it against Protoss. Just don't see them as a good Unit in that Matchup. They just don't improve my normal Army komposition.
I didn't mean that they need to be micro'd EXACTLY like reaver/shuttle, obviously they're different units. But the same concept can be applied to them, vastly improving their utility as opposed to just having it walk all over the map.
And it is handy to pick up a low HP Thor and repair it instead of letting it die.
On May 14 2011 11:55 s3rp wrote: Still not seeing why i would even get Thors to begin with in TvP.
Watch the last MC vs Thorzain game in the TSL (RO8?) they are pretty good. As I said I don't think this nerf will make them unusable as many people are saying but then again every time an unit gets nerfed people will always talk about how X or Y unit is now useless
On May 13 2011 23:23 ehalf wrote: I have to say: is mass colossi allowed? Whats the difference between mass colossi and thors... Fucking retard blizzard.
I'm more worried about facing 10 thors than I am facing 10 collosi.
Really? I doubt most people will agree with that. Massed thors are way easier to deal with than massed colossus.
I know Mass Collosi is way scarier then Mass Thor. 10 Collosi will wipe any army short of mass thors which they can kite no matter the composition in seconds unless their is a cloud of air to air -_- Collosi i feel is probably the single stupidest thing in the game, yet the way the game is right now essential part of Protoss.
Colossus is the worst designed unit in the game. emo, mass thors u have to micro to do strike canons, and there is delay b4 the strike canons strikes, while colossus u just a-move and pull away from air atk.... =.=
On May 14 2011 11:55 s3rp wrote: Still not seeing why i would even get Thors to begin with in TvP.
Watch the last MC vs Thorzain game in the TSL (RO8?) they are pretty good. As I said I don't think this nerf will make them unusable as many people are saying but then again every time an unit gets nerfed people will always talk about how X or Y unit is now useless
Noboby ever used Thors before Blizzard removed Energy on them because they sucked like hell with Energy. Nobody ever used or even researched Strike Cannons. Even without Energy they just were good on some small Maps. Well now they killed the Strike Cannon ( 150 Energy rofl , it takes 3 Minutes to get that ) and are once again Feedback fodder . Just don't see it. What does a Thor do that my improves my normal army , at all ? Slow like hell , mediocre DPS , just 1(+1/2/3) Armor and even the 400 HP are not that much considering the cost and what else i can get for that.
And btw Thorzain vs MC. MC didn't scout the Thorr AT all ( no observe even near Thorzains Main ), and had pretty just Gateway Unit without Upgrades when Thorzain attacked with 5 Thors. Hell thats supposed to happen . Thors can be decent in a push but in lategame Army komposition they are bad. They suck in large Fights because they only slowly single DPS and don't even have the range or mobilty to fire at the targets where that would be useful.
Speaking only as someone who watches SC2 for entertainment (when I play I usually play Random or Toss, but I haven't played for a while) I think the Thor nerf is bad.
I say this just because I like to see Thors used in games. Thor energy was removed because no one used to use Strike Cannons or Thors really. I don't really want to go back to not seeing Thors used when I watch matches; they are a visually distinctive unit that looks cool and just generally looks less boring than a tidal wave of bio units. For the same reason I'd really like to see Carriers and Ultras used more, and I'm glad that Archons have been buffed so might be seen more. It's all well and good to appreciate the tiny timing intricacies and positional play and so fourth but only the most avid e-sports watcher is really going to appreciate watching, for instance, PvP and watch a succession of 4-warpgate plays. Whereas everyone in the world can appreciate a big cool looking unit doing something big and cool looking.
To be fun to watch the game needs the big high tier units to be used and seen to create that spectacle. That's why in Brood War I love watching high skilled Protoss players - insane storm micro is not only very hard to do and shows off the talent of the player but also it's big, spectacular, cool looking and makes a tonne of shit explode.
That said I agree that from a balance perspective the Thor is a problematic unit. The effect of the Strike Cannons as they stand is fundamentally one-sided since it's a targeted spell rather than an AoE or something. I think energy is bad for the varying reasons that it was originally removed from the Thor, but Blizzard certainly don't seem to like the ability in its current state when it uses a cooldown based system either. I think they really should do a re-design of the ability if they are absolutely married to the Thor having it rather than flip-flopping back and fourth on the energy issue.
I don't particularly care much for the protoss changes if it only effects PvP, however ...
I do feel like Blizzard is creating patches not necessarily designed to to fix a problem with balance but to alter the game in a way Blizzard wants, and this ultimately is a bad thing for the competitive scene.
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.
At least they have a freaking weakness. Mineral for mineral strike cannon thors OWNED immortals. At least Protoss can use templar now.
Yeah that 1.875 Speed of Thor is definitly a strong Point. Also Thors are so big that on most Maps they block alot of own Units in Combat.. I also wanna mention the buggy AI Thors have that totally goes nuts when dealing with Air and Ground combined.
On May 13 2011 23:43 s3rp wrote: The Opponent has 10 Colosus mean you can't engage with ANY kind of ground Unit . If this isn't scary i don't know what else is . And 10 Kolossi doesn't mean you can't have some sentry and Gateway Support. And with some support 10 colossi will melt anything on the Ground.
And die horribly to viking/corrupter...it's not scary.
The "definitive" way to kill your opponent is to kill all his buildings. Vikings and Corruptors help you do that in which way? They dont, so no one builds them until they have to face something in the air. Terrans don't even have a good secondary use of these anti-air units and are totally screwed when they are left over with some Vikings.
Blizzard is acting really stupid on this one by adding a second counter unit to the matchup, but hopefully BCs and Thors will get another cheap ability to use their energy. IMO these two units should have zero energy until the upgrade is researched OR at least a maximum of 150 energy. The only countermeasure a Terran has is to EMP his own units, but the size and clumsy mobility of the Thor does require almost 1 EMP for each Thor. C'mon Blizzard, be fair and give Terrans a way to use that energy or remove the stupid stuff in the first place.
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.
At least they have a freaking weakness. Mineral for mineral strike cannon thors OWNED immortals. At least Protoss can use templar now.
We hardly saw anyone playing mass Thors vs Protoss, and USUALLY when they tried they got owned by mass Gateway units. Except some exceptional games by Thorzain.
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 -_-'
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 -_-'
I hear you. the energy for the spell is just a liability now, but it was a problem (obviously) before for use poor noob Protosses.
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 -_-'
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 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.
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!
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 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!
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.
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 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!
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.
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 18:36 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.
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.
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.
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.
They nerf thor strike cannon because they lock down toss units leaving them with few responses...however forcefield leaves zerg with plenty of responses right? I mean, how often does anyone see mass thor compared to a few sentries (capable of throwing near infinite FF)? How costly are thors compared to sentries?
That reason just doesnt convince me. As for thor unit pathing and size obscuring army...what about ultras? They have a worse time with pathing due to theior melee attack.
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.
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.
Because it is not about the end of the game, but about seeing them earlier I think. Additionally, this makes Ghosts more viable as a part of Mech builds versus Protoss, which are -in my opinion- a great thing, because they bring back values from broodwar - positioning, map control, other types of harassment, further spread out games, more fun to watch fights.
I LOVE the changes they made to Archons. I think DT builds are great fun to watch when they are used in a non-cheesy way, such as the DT-Expand style in TvP. And now this really increases the viabilitiy of DT builds while also adding a couple of cool new styles to TvZ. Finally an alternative to Colossi, while making Zealots more important again, I think this is absolutely cool. Bringing back a certain amount of Broodwar atmosphere, too. At the same time we might see more rather quick HT techs perhaps? Would enable another variant even.
My hope is that this produces more harass-heavy, far spreadout games. DT openings are great for that purpose of spreading oneself, and having chargelots enables some cool harass style with units that are easier to throw away than Stalkers, and thus allow more frequent harassment. More spread out could also mean more Warp Prisms in return, and there we are bringing back a lot of underused units.
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
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 ?...
only if a T plays Bio they have overgas, like most zerg players have overmins. If you play mech you don't even need orbitals only for scans ^.^ . And as they stated high level of play, so not for master players
1) sentry build time is nice. maybe we will see protoss use it more to fend off stupid 3 rax all ins lol (hard to watch ppl do that, its pretty lame unless you are punishing a particular build you SCOUTED, and not praying it works)
2) i like the delayed 4gate, so many protoss 4 gate, and vs 2 rax expand it just dont work. So please protoss players do yourselves a favor and stop 4 gating all the time ! It is boring for you and me lol, and it is not going to work unless you actually trick me by maybe hiding the gates and pretending to expand (not very likely)
3) I dont like the fact thors use energy cause of feedback, if they want to nerf terran they should have nerfed the marine; either stutter step or 5 hp (back to SC1 hp)
4) i like the bunker, so now it wont be "free"
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.
6) Zerg spore burrow buff is excellent.
7) slower infestors is nice, so you can actually punish infestors when everything comes in one ctrl group :D
8) no comment about the ghost. vs zerg is nice since composition is gas heavy, but vs protoss sometimes is kinda hard, but we do have mules...so i am nto sure about this (since i pretty much only face 4gates still at plat level)
9) radius on pylon is nice so they cant warp stuff into my base as easily.
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 ?...
it's not "ned moar colosuz".
most protoss get like 4-5 colossus then focus on support units and stargate/HT's.
when's the last time a terran thought "i think i'll get 4-5 thors and then focus on X" ? :p
Have you watched the match carefully? You should notice the plus 2 on thorzain's mech armor, and that makes all the difference. And thorzain just had way more stuff, and unit comp-wise, MC had too many sentries, which are bad vs mech as FF dont work. Plus his hallucinations were seen by thorzain (either raven or scan I forget), so it is matter of outplaying and not imba.
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
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.
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
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.
Not sure if you included me there but the my replay was to "fearus " for showing that example as a response to mass Thor being imba.
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.
The faster shield regen is immaterial in actual combat because shields only regenerate when a unit hasn't been attacked for a set amount of time. IIRC in BW shields regenerated slowly even in combat.. Plus with their previous 2 range, they were literally kited by every possible unit that wasnt a zergling. Now atleast they have an opportunity to get some shots off before they evaporate due to being in the front lines.
i really hate that thor arguement... it just doesn't seem like the right way of going about buisness "Hi, we've made this unit, but we don't like it when people use it"
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.
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
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.
sorry to disappoint you im not butthurt nor terran player (nice try tho), Im just tired of reading bullcrap some low league players produce in here,.i used thors several times and failed my winrate with bio was much higher i might not care about the unit but i support variety of strategies for the health of the game and blizzard just killed few new ones with a shitty explanation before they even started being used. Its true i misread quoted post (sorry fearus ) but in my defense I can find plenty of posts in this topic which apply to what i said.
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.
essentially not true.
thor ground dps per supply is higher than any other terran unit except marine against non-armoured, and is only slightly worse than marine, marauder and tank against armoured.
but thor comes good when you factor in the extra high hp, which means that the dps is maintained fully until 400 hp has been depleted... 6 marines have a combined 270 hp, with no armour, and dps drops by 1/6th every 45 hp lost - even more inefficient against splash damage.
ergo - thor has the highest average dps per supply out of every terran unit.
the air attack is very weak, but at 10 range it makes it very difficult for air to do anything if the thor supported by marines or turrets.
the weird thing is that thor can't use anti-air to shoot colossus, the 10 range weak-ass dps might be favourable to 7 range imba dps. queen uses air attack versus colossus, but thor can not.
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.
The community has been saying this since launch. NOW they've reached that conclusion? What?
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.
Sensible. Still only a half-measure to fix the broken warpgate/gateway mechanic.
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.
Same thing. Almost a year to figure this out? What?
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.
This makes sense. I never understood why ghosts were a semi-caster with the cost of a real caster.
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.
Yet another half-baked change to fix the fundamentally broken decision of changing the T1 hydra before Beta began.
maybe if they increased thor speed to something like colo (like they did with bc) it would be used as a supporting unit, atm its just slow ass pile of crap in pvt
On May 14 2011 18:07 Coeus1 wrote: 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.
This is an absolutely fantastic post! I feel the same way, some of these posts are bordering on the absurd.
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.
Dear Blizzard,
Colossi obscure units since day 1 of Starcraft 2. Why is it ok for Protoss to obscure their units and not for Terrans? If anything the Colossus is the worse offender here because he moves in synchrony with the Gateway units while the Thor is much slower. Sure the ability to repair with "hidden SCVs" might be rather strong, but you dont need many High Templars hidden beneath Colossi to deal rather strong surprise damage.
Not sure I like the Thor being little else but a glorified turret, but overall I think this was a good patch. We'll see as time goes along whether PvP is really fixed though
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse.
So, and? Thus? Meaning? Personal preference doesn't come in to this Blizzard, AT ALL.
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.
But mass Colossi obscuring the Protoss army or Zerg bringing 10 overlords with them hiding half the army is fine? Obscuring the army is fine, nothing wrong with it. Heck, in teamgames some Zergs group their overlords over their ally's tech structure such as a Dark Shrine, I consider that to be clever thinking, not a bug or something to remove.
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.
Again, personal preference from Blizzard. If I want to build 20 Thors, you have no right to say 'Well I don't like that, let's nerf it'. Mass Thor is very difficult and tricky to actually pull off. They are very slow, form bad concaves and especially Protoss has dozens of ways of dealing with Thors. Even staying alive to get 20 Thors is a challenge. If any Terran wants a Thor-centric army, there is no reason for Blizzard to discourage it for the stated reasons.
The reasons Blizzard provided feel a lot like nothing more than personal preference, with no regard for the actual balance.
P.S. Seeing a dozen collector edition Thors on the field is pure awesome.
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.
Blizzard has demonstrated an alarming amount of failure in truly understanding BW or SC2 in terms of the reality of the game. Where the hell are you getting this confidence from?
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.
the weird thing is that thor can't use anti-air to shoot colossus, the 10 range weak-ass dps might be favourable to 7 range imba dps. queen uses air attack versus colossus, but thor can not.
I think when Blizzard patched this they were doing it because Thors would exclusively attack with the AA and neglect anything on the ground that was closer. Queens ironically didn't function like this and I don't even know why they worked differently from the start.
If you can't make a creep colony to later change, then as Idra has repeatedly said you need crawlers to move and to adjust. And 6 seconds isn't going to kill somebody.
And no, more people than idra have said it. (Day9 etc)
Their reasoning is basically "we want people to not make drones and spinecrawlers, but to make units early game"
I don't like that sort of artificial interference.
Thor was a little unimpressive as well, but the rest were reasonable.
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.
Excuse me? What about fungal growth? Damage + root is not fun? But I guess its easily counterable because it has an instant effect with 9 range.
If you can't make a creep colony to later change, then as Idra has repeatedly said you need crawlers to move and to adjust. And 6 seconds isn't going to kill somebody.
About your post, I haven't interpreted what blizzard said in the same way. Anyways, yes 6 seconds can definitely kill someone. And if not 6 seconds, then multiple periods of 6 seconds. That's 6 seconds of time a void or phoenix or void and phoenix or etc can pick off a couple drones or even a queen. Unless you were sarcastic here?
Edit:
Also, I don't think enough people consider the possible conflict between the game designers (and even the art directors) and the balancers.
It seems that the preference thing with the mass Thors is definitely a game designer and art director choice, while the Archon changes were obviously a balancer choice.
Of course we don't know what positions each department has in regards to this kind of stuff, but it would make sense.
Wow, i was very unsure about the thor change before. After reading this is think it's clearly just bad. Visual reasons and they prefer it to be a support unit are both obviously bad reasons. Then oh it needs an emp/feedback counter? Well, lets forget emp cause TvT you wouldn't use that as the counter. So clearly to help P. The problem here is that the strat never played out over a sufficient period of time. We dunno if they could have countered somehow or if it was a matter of never letting terran get there.
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.
Dear Blizzard,
Colossi obscure units since day 1 of Starcraft 2. Why is it ok for Protoss to obscure their units and not for Terrans? If anything the Colossus is the worse offender here because he moves in synchrony with the Gateway units while the Thor is much slower. Sure the ability to repair with "hidden SCVs" might be rather strong, but you dont need many High Templars hidden beneath Colossi to deal rather strong surprise damage.
A curious customer who dislikes logic fails.
Damn right! I can't believe that Blizzard replied like that - it sounds like trolling! I mean i am ok with most of balance changes etc. up until now but the reasoning behind this opens a can of worms...
Seriously i am crap at this game (low masters) but i don't think Thors are really worth getting except as a turret at your base when the zerg goes heavy on mutas. They are slow and crap at anti-air with magic boxed units. Now this...
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.
Dear Blizzard,
Colossi obscure units since day 1 of Starcraft 2. Why is it ok for Protoss to obscure their units and not for Terrans? If anything the Colossus is the worse offender here because he moves in synchrony with the Gateway units while the Thor is much slower. Sure the ability to repair with "hidden SCVs" might be rather strong, but you dont need many High Templars hidden beneath Colossi to deal rather strong surprise damage.
i feel slightly worried for starcraft 2 and its future as an E sport after this patch.
blizzard is constantly trying to "force" balance to fit their idea of how the game "should be played" .
if blizzard doesnt take a step back and just let stuff develop (except in the case of some sort of magic super OP bullshit strat unbeatable stuff) then this game will start to stagnate and i hope to hell it doesnt come to that.
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.
Dear Blizzard,
Colossi obscure units since day 1 of Starcraft 2. Why is it ok for Protoss to obscure their units and not for Terrans? If anything the Colossus is the worse offender here because he moves in synchrony with the Gateway units while the Thor is much slower. Sure the ability to repair with "hidden SCVs" might be rather strong, but you dont need many High Templars hidden beneath Colossi to deal rather strong surprise damage.
A curious customer who dislikes logic fails.
You can see under the legs...
... but not behind the upper body, which is relevant when the Protoss has 4+ Colossi and walks around with his tight ball. Just watch some of the TSL3 3rd/4th matches and ask yourself: Can I see all of the Protoss units at all times? Thats where I had to answer NO.
"I cant see all the units around the Thors" is something which applies only to a SNAPSHOT and not a moving continuous battle. The speed of the Thor compared to the units which might be huddling around its feet is a lot different, but if you do the same comparison for Protoss units you dont see that speed gap. So there are two more reasons why the explanation from Blizzard is kinda bogus ...
Uh, Blizzard saying: "we dislike X" and the existence of X for another unit, does not mean they fail at logic or are hypocritical. Case in point, Colossi might obscure units, but perhaps Blizzard can't remove or change them without severe repercussions, which isn't the case for Thors. And mind you, the only issue is having too many of them, and Colossi have been nerfed a lot since alpha.
there is 2 points of viuwe to the game and game balance : that is statiscitc (balance) and gameplay (what is hepening in game)
from statistic (blizzard point of viuwe game is balanced)but : exemples : maraders < zealot (that is truth fro statistics if marader is stending and zealots come to him and kill him )
but gameplay shows that stimed maraders run and shot at zealot and zealot is dead...(this is yust exemples)
or exemple whay they nerf thors (from statistic thor is op vs toss ) simply unite is too strong there is few unites that conter thors... like imortall and thor (from statistics is stronger than imortal)
but gameplay show : that imortall is coming with 5 or 6 stalkers that also do good dps vs thors... so agean gameplay shows that statistic is wrong....
or mutalisc > void ray : from statistic point of viuwe
but in gameplay void ray comes with death ball colloss and mass stalkers that rape mutalisc...
so you can see the point what i say i think you do .... so from gamepaly we i think can see game imbalance and state of game...and not from statistics....
I THINK that blizzard should look more gameplay than statistic of balance... and fix game to be more interesting to play and whatch than now.... simply i think stim pack colloss banglings FF need to be revorked...
zerg now with infestor buff have cance to skilp mid game and to go on T3 that vs terran is preaty imba i think... ( i sugest that seige tanks need buff in dps from 50 to 60 vs armored FOR PTR yust sugesting in that case) simply ultralisc are to much for seige tanks...this is yust my opinion SRY for my ENG thx for reading...
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.
Excuse me? What about fungal growth? Damage + root is not fun? But I guess its easily counterable because it has an instant effect with 9 range.
if you didn't notice Infestors can be EMPed or Feedbacked, so what the point? it was alot easier to deal with heavy Infestor play (while it is still hard!) than with mass SC-thors.
Thors are basically a great overall unit, high dps, high life, air and ground attack. both Colossus oder T3 of Zerg are neither, all of those be easily countered by Air.
While in 1v1 situations air might be good against Thors, in Mass Situations almost nothing works. even voidrays suck due to splash and marine backup.
The thing is an Immortal already is a very specialised unit (heavy Damage against Armor, no Antiair, slow , short range) That it can be countered so easily by the unit that it is supposed to counter is not really balanced.
On May 15 2011 18:57 Grumbels wrote: and Colossi have been nerfed a lot since alpha.
?
dont think i remember a single nerf to collosus since beta and that one big article which talked about the development of the units said the collosus worked differently, was judged to weak and then got buffed into its current form during alpha.
the only change i remember is less dmg/shot with higher attack rate which in the end gave the collosus just more value out its upgrades and overall was more of a buff then a nerf.
so i dont quite see where you draw that statement from.
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.
Excuse me? What about fungal growth? Damage + root is not fun? But I guess its easily counterable because it has an instant effect with 9 range.
if you didn't notice Infestors can be EMPed or Feedbacked, so what the point? it was alot easier to deal with heavy Infestor play (while it is still hard!) than with mass SC-thors.
Thors are basically a great overall unit, high dps, high life, air and ground attack.
They are NOT a overall great Unit because they can do everything but nothing well and are slow as shit. I'd rather have them specialed at something .
On May 15 2011 18:57 Grumbels wrote: and Colossi have been nerfed a lot since alpha.
?
dont think i remember a single nerf to collosus since beta and that one big article which talked about the development of the units said the collosus worked differently, was judged to weak and then got buffed into its current form during alpha.
the only change i remember is less dmg/shot with higher attack rate which in the end gave the collosus just more value out its upgrades and overall was more of a buff then a nerf.
so i dont quite see where you draw that statement from.
Maybe it's better to not go off memory?
Colossus The damage has been decreased from 20 to 15. The rate of fire has been improved from 2.2 to 1.65.
Colossus Thermal Lances damage decreased from 23 to 20
They used to one-shot unupgraded marines, drones, scv's, probes, zerglings. Furthermore, higher damage is usually preferable over higher attack speed, because the former is more powerful with micro.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
To me it is the same when Protoss has colossus. You can`t see unit under it so its kinda retarded that they would nerf something that works well against prot...oh wait, blizzard doesn`t want their Protoss to be in danger of becoming balaced.
Of course it is. Just because it's still possible in the game doesn't mean that Blizzard is happy with it. Go on, suggest how you would change Overlords obscuring other units without making them ground units or invisible.
interesting that there seems to be a wide spread opinion with p being the dominant race when if you have checked gsl code s code a results since the 1st gsl one may argue different just wondering
Those are quite horrible reasons imo. The bunker nerf... it just doesn't change anything really. I mean toss/zerg players think it's some big change, but it really isn't.
Thor nerf... Well their reasonings are a joke imo. Heavy thor play is already very hard to do, without getting outmacroed, it's very hard to engage(since if your first thor dies before he takes out his target, your 2nd thor dies before he does too and it snowballs until no thor has taken out his target, this was before nerf). Also nerf because they took to much visual space... wtf.
Infestor nerf...Terran has stim and toss has stalkers, both are quite ok to chase down infestors. I actually thought they did it to make them easier to control, but...
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
To me it is the same when Protoss has colossus. You can`t see unit under it so its kinda retarded that they would nerf something that works well against prot...oh wait, blizzard doesn`t want their Protoss to be in danger of becoming balaced.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should make Protoss units not clump under the colossus? Yes, spread them out more so that EMP, siege tanks and fungals are less effective against the deathball. I'm sure other terrans will love you for that suggestion!
p.s. to the guy you were quoting - umm, you can't select multiple units of your opponent.
"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."
That's an interesting view they have. It's the same reason why they got rid of the viking flower- because it made it difficult to see how many vikings there are.
I don't understand it given you can select all the units and look at the UI to count the number.
To me it is the same when Protoss has colossus. You can`t see unit under it so its kinda retarded that they would nerf something that works well against prot...oh wait, blizzard doesn`t want their Protoss to be in danger of becoming balaced.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should make Protoss units not clump under the colossus? Yes, spread them out more so that EMP, siege tanks and fungals are less effective against the deathball. I'm sure other terrans will love you for that suggestion!
p.s. to the guy you were quoting - umm, you can't select multiple units of your opponent.
No, he's suggesting it's a horrible reason to nerf an already bad unit that was possibly finding its very niche build order/playstyle.
Toss/zerg players keep raving on "lolololo make something else than t1 units lolololol noob", but it's very frustrating that when you do, blizzard takes it away, slaps you on the hand and says "MMM you moron!".
Edit: The saddest part is, if they want thor to be a support unit, they have to realize why it isn't being used as one currently. Reason: It has no real synergy with the majority of terran units(hellion/tanks only) due to their speed. So when you get thors, you're trading slight beefyness(Actually not really, you are hoping your opponent aoes the thor, since the thor has actually less life against units other than colossi/ht/archon) for a lot of mobility, mobility which is the reason why majority of terran unit combos work. Sadly, making thor faster I believe would make it to strong, so it's just back to being a support unit for mech play... *sigh*
The best situation report was the TSL Grand Finals. Just look at how much Thorzain used his signature unit. Yeah. Good job Blizzard, really good job :/.
I wanted to ask any Master + Terrans what they think about the ghost change. I'm starting to think it was more of a nerf. I always seem gas heavy in TvX. Maybe it's just me.
We've seen too many bunker rushes vs. zerg, and we felt that adjusting the salvage return rate would be a positive change.
I find this somewhat hilarious.
Soldier: "Sir, should we start building bunkers near the Zerg Base?" Commander: "No way! HQ isn't giving full refunds anymore on them." Soldier: "But Sir, we could cripple the Zerg forces and win this battle!" Commander: "No full refund, No bunker! You have your orders! Attack!"
I respect Blizzard for explaining their reasoning.
But there're too many "we wants" in there. "We think the unit should be used this way, not that way..". I'm in no position to question Blizzards game design, but I think their desire to make StarCraft 2 a spectator sport is getting in the way of some fundamental principals of game design.
I like how everything is seen as a nerf first, and units are stopped being used. The high templar is probably the best example. OMG nerfed, don't play. And slowly its coming back and the other people just get suprised by one storm and lose their whole army, because they forgot how to fight storm. And no they came back before the archon buff, because storm works just way better against some combinations where colossi fail.
simply state of game after this patch isnt changed that much as we expected...
simply there is 2 meny problems in this game...in gamplay balance and fun to whatch part of it...
simply look at PVP = ageant 4 gate but now its 5 gate..
PvT = archons and ghoust work a litle bit more and that is ok ( they buff archons so they buff T3 gateway and its cool) but ageant MMM is boring to whatch...
ZvP = death ball still works preaty well but Zerg now find other ways to conter it (bnglings drops mass rouchs (with few coropters 5) zerglings infestors ultralisc mutalisc combo...
P v Z is the best (exept when deathball come in play (becous of colloss)) balanced and moust fun to whatch game....
T v Z is all abouth marines + seige tanks and if zerg skip with zergling infestor to T3 and then ultralisc rape mecha and brodlords rape everything... (wikings are almoust usles vs infestors...coropters..) to me moust boring gameplay and game to whatch....
simply plenty of things need to be done to fix gameplay and balance.... exemple in Z v T if fungel dont atc air...then maby terran will have difence from brodlords... but then i think P air will own ZErg...
i think changes and things that need to be revorked or nerfed ... : is stim pack (to much dps for T1) balngings (instant storm also to afective agenst armored) colloss (to much dps vs armored as vs light) Force Fealds (they can use bouth of difense and ofense (i think range nerf would be good to be only difensive spell ) seige tanks ( almoust usles vs toss and vs zerg T3 ) so i think buff from 50 to 60 vs armored would be great for PTR ....that is my opinion thx for reading sry for my ENG
We wanted ghosts to have a place in as many of the existing unit compositions out there s possible. For example: we wanted at least a few ghosts to come into play with the standard armies we currently see in each matchup.
Regarding carriers:
We don't feel that just because a unit is not built every matchup it necessarily needs to be improved.
Okay, the last quote is not verbatim, but I couldn't find the exact place it was said.
WTF Blizz, you don't buff carriers because you see nothing wrong with them being rarely built, but you specifically buff ghosts so they are built every time?
carriers is not build becous you dont have time now to build them... (becous of MMM T1 gameplay that blizzard put to as..) they do all staff on purpes WOL is only 3rd Part of Game....
carriers shouldnt be buffed becous they are ok now... but they will have great use when mech gameplay come in play ...and then carriers are wery efective agenst terran mech...
but blizzard dont whont to terran play mech now (that is one of reason they nerf thors) they whont terran go MMM...
when HOTs comes they will force terran mech belive me... and after cerriers will be usfull
but agean now there is a lot of problems with balance the moust is TvZ...simpy plenty of problems in that matchup...
They want casters to be popular, because casters tend to make for entertaining games.
They would have to completely redesign the carrier to make it always viable, as it is bad against mass ranged units (no aoe), but if it was good against them it would be OP.
ye you are wright but caster play is wrong aprouch for SC universe ... for WC3 is ok but SC should be more unites less casters... but ok for now there is one more segment in sc universe that is caster gameplay... but agean i expect that unites be more usfull then that you need casters that your unites work...
for exemple i need to combine EMP + seige tanks to work agenst toss ? that is not good in my opinion... i am more for buff seige tanks than buff casters to unite to work...
also vs MMM to your T1 conter MMM you need storms to kill MMM...agean i dont like it i like more to unites be able to conter unites insted of casters suport....
Thor changes were pretty bogus. People finally found a use for strike cannons (and therefore, the thor, outside of TvZ) and then they make strike cannons worthless again.
I suspect you can still go ghost, thor, hellion in TvP and make it work. But whether or not we'll ever see strike cannons researched again i don't know. I don't recall seeing thorzain do it against naniwa.
So many other options available to them to make immortals more viable against thors. Makes me angry.
Spine crawler root time i don't care about, would prefer their build time be decreased.
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
40 DPS vs ground doesn't sound appealing to you? It's not a core unit of your army sure, but supported with MMM and vikings it becomes dangerous. Mass thors, however, falls very quickly to a mass of marines. (no splash for the thors, they deal large damage to one unit very well, but fall to many weak units)
The ghost buff wasnt needed at all!!! Or can someone tell me why they did that? I mean infestor = 150 gas ht = 150 gas and also now terrans dont have to decide between ghosts and sth else to say it with blizz words. So what? everyone else has to decide geting specific stuff such as spellcasters instead of sth else and terra doesnt have to? WTF?
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
40 DPS vs ground doesn't sound appealing to you? It's not a core unit of your army sure, but supported with MMM and vikings it becomes dangerous. Mass thors, however, falls very quickly to a mass of marines. (no splash for the thors, they deal large damage to one unit very well, but fall to many weak units)
Thors doesn't synergy well with MMM because they are slow, medivacs can't heal them and it doesn't benefit from bio upgrades. You will be most likely making air upgrades for vikings or getting ghosts to support your bio ball rather than make thors with the spare gas you might have.
carriers shouldnt be buffed becous they are ok now... but they will have great use when mech gameplay come in play ...and then carriers are wery efective agenst terran mech... .
a lot of fail in the sentence aboe.
carriers are okay? since when? theyre next to useless atm.
On May 18 2011 01:04 thebole1 wrote: carriers is not build becous you dont have time now to build them... (becous of MMM T1 gameplay that blizzard put to as..) they do all staff on purpes WOL is only 3rd Part of Game....
carriers shouldnt be buffed becous they are ok now... but they will have great use when mech gameplay come in play ...and then carriers are wery efective agenst terran mech...
but blizzard dont whont to terran play mech now (that is one of reason they nerf thors) they whont terran go MMM...
when HOTs comes they will force terran mech belive me... and after cerriers will be usfull
but agean now there is a lot of problems with balance the moust is TvZ...simpy plenty of problems in that matchup...
Carriers get completely and utterly destroyed by both Corruptors and Vikings. That's the main reason they aren't being used - they take a year and a half to tech to and then the other races have easily available very hard counters to them.
On May 18 2011 01:04 thebole1 wrote: carriers is not build becous you dont have time now to build them... (becous of MMM T1 gameplay that blizzard put to as..) they do all staff on purpes WOL is only 3rd Part of Game....
carriers shouldnt be buffed becous they are ok now... but they will have great use when mech gameplay come in play ...and then carriers are wery efective agenst terran mech...
but blizzard dont whont to terran play mech now (that is one of reason they nerf thors) they whont terran go MMM...
when HOTs comes they will force terran mech belive me... and after cerriers will be usfull
but agean now there is a lot of problems with balance the moust is TvZ...simpy plenty of problems in that matchup...
Carriers get completely and utterly destroyed by both Corruptors and Vikings. That's the main reason they aren't being used - they take a year and a half to tech to and then the other races have easily available very hard counters to them.
Yeah The only time Carriers have ever worked for me is if I am completely destroying the Terran and they just make a lot of marauders to stay alive. The carriers are funny and fun to watch kill the marauders but if they are only useful really late game or in breaking a lot of tanks and even then I would rather have void rays :/
love the reason they buffed ghosts. they have always hated the idea that terran should have to choose between things and shouldn't be able to just build an army composition of literally anything they could ever want.
but oh well. they're wrong about spine crawlers because while zerg does have many anti-ground options, getting too much of it too early on puts them behind.
i liked the patch, but thought that these were overall some pretty stupid things. i also found it funny that they thought the loss of 25 minerals would take away any incentive to bunker rush. because it doesnt.
Carriers get completely and utterly destroyed by both Corruptors and Vikings. That's the main reason they aren't being used - they take a year and a half to tech to and then the other races have easily available very hard counters to them.
yes but my point is if terran go mech seige tanks and hellions and other staf... cerriers are extrimly usfull.... but if you go MMM + wiking + ghoust... its not that big deal to made plenty of wikings after MMM but after mech you will have troble to build em...
cerriers are suprise unites that if you mass them you will own your oponent so hard..
so untill HOTS mech gameplay we will not see to meny carriers (or if they nerf stim pack and buff seige tanks dps from 50 to 60 vs armored) and mech become more usfull...then carriers will be usfull agean...
I actually found stargate openings with the void ray rush actually counters mass thors hardcore.. Like seriously blizzard never took for account on stargate openings and just looked at robo tech... Very disappointing..
As for the bunker nerf lol I guess the community as long as they keep up the qq blizzard will do so. I agree 100% salvage is kinda stupid but seriously the bunker build time is really pissing me off 40 seconds is not enough time to throw down bunkers in case of an all in as a reactionary tool.. It feels like terran defensive mechanics are actually worse than protoss FF and the new spanishwa hype of spine/queen. I always lose because my bunker is 3-2 seconds between completion and the scv gets sniped.. Someone needs to speak for terrans for exchange...
Carriers get completely and utterly destroyed by both Corruptors and Vikings. That's the main reason they aren't being used - they take a year and a half to tech to and then the other races have easily available very hard counters to them.
yes but my point is if terran go mech seige tanks and hellions and other staf... cerriers are extrimly usfull.... but if you go MMM + wiking + ghoust... its not that big deal to made plenty of wikings after MMM but after mech you will have troble to build em...
cerriers are suprise unites that if you mass them you will own your oponent so hard..
so untill HOTS mech gameplay we will not see to meny carriers (or if they nerf stim pack and buff seige tanks dps from 50 to 60 vs armored) and mech become more usfull...then carriers will be usfull agean...
Carriers are not surprise units. Do adequate scouting and realize that while he's massing up Carriers (which take forever to build), his army isn't as big. Combine that with proper scouting/scanning and poof you are easily prepared to hold off Carriers with a lot of Vikings.
On May 18 2011 04:43 freetgy wrote: Canons take 40s Spines take 50s
why should bunkers be faster as a reactionary defense tool? especially since they are salvagable they should take actually more time imho.
so you have to build them cautiously and not spam them.
Yes, it's a problem with all static defense, not just Bunkers. Needing to build static defense as a precaution instead of as a reaction takes away a lot of tension and excitement from the game.
On May 18 2011 03:46 thebole1 wrote: cerriers are suprise unites that if you mass them you will own your oponent so hard..
so untill HOTS mech gameplay we will not see to meny carriers (or if they nerf stim pack and buff seige tanks dps from 50 to 60 vs armored) and mech become more usfull...then carriers will be usfull agean...
your repeated errors in spelling lead me to believe that these aren't typos, but you seriously don't know how to spell. it's "many" not "meny". "useful" not "usfull". I before E except after C.
on a relevant note, no one builds carriers because the tech path is too grueling, leaving you with a bunch of gateway units for the majority of the game. if the terran pokes at your door even once you'll flop over faster than a street hooker at the sight of a 100 dollar bill. unless you're playing Sim City 2 NR 40 minutes with your opponents, "massing" carriers is as viable as brushing your teeth with rocks. + Show Spoiler +
which is not viable at all, in case you planned on trying it
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
it is actually not that bad, the nerf just makes it so you need ghosts to support your thors tvp
On May 18 2011 04:51 Drazzyo wrote: 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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
it is actually not that bad, the nerf just makes it so you need ghosts to support your thors tvp
The patch change just made Thors a shitty strategy in general, especially compared to bio. The Ghost change made bio significantly more effective now that Ghosts are noticeably cheaper (and yes, 50 gas is a noticeable difference).
On May 18 2011 03:46 thebole1 wrote: cerriers are suprise unites that if you mass them you will own your oponent so hard..
so untill HOTS mech gameplay we will not see to meny carriers (or if they nerf stim pack and buff seige tanks dps from 50 to 60 vs armored) and mech become more usfull...then carriers will be usfull agean...
your repeated errors in spelling lead me to believe that these aren't typos, but you seriously don't know how to spell. it's "many" not "meny". "useful" not "usfull". I before E except after C.
on a relevant note, no one builds carriers because the tech path is too grueling, leaving you with a bunch of gateway units for the majority of the game. if the terran pokes at your door even once you'll flop over faster than a street hooker at the sight of a 100 dollar bill. unless you're playing Sim City 2 NR 40 minutes with your opponents, "massing" carriers is as viable as brushing your teeth with rocks. + Show Spoiler +
which is not viable at all, in case you planned on trying it
Really? The guy's from Serbia and you're going to bitch about his English?
Really? The guy's from Serbia and you're going to bitch about his English?
Hey, now he knows how to spell two more words and learned a general rule of spelling that most Americans still grapple with. It isn't so much bitching as it is reaching out and helping someone out. I can't say the same for you though, you're sitting here bitching about my post.
Carriers get completely and utterly destroyed by both Corruptors and Vikings. That's the main reason they aren't being used - they take a year and a half to tech to and then the other races have easily available very hard counters to them.
yes but my point is if terran go mech seige tanks and hellions and other staf... cerriers are extrimly usfull.... but if you go MMM + wiking + ghoust... its not that big deal to made plenty of wikings after MMM but after mech you will have troble to build em...
cerriers are suprise unites that if you mass them you will own your oponent so hard..
so untill HOTS mech gameplay we will not see to meny carriers (or if they nerf stim pack and buff seige tanks dps from 50 to 60 vs armored) and mech become more usfull...then carriers will be usfull agean...
if you're going to mass something in secret, it might as well be colossi. if the terran player has no vikings colossi will do just as well as carriers would have, and its much quicker to make a colossus (75s) than a carrier (120s). colossi also benefit from ground upgrades and come from a robotics which is a much more common building to have pvt than a stargate.
that said, if your opponent is letting you sneakily mass a bunch of tier 3 units without scouting or attacking, you probably would win with anything you made. it would be incredibly careless to allow someone to build multiple stargates and a fleet beacon and multiple units that take 120 seconds to build without noticing.
Honestly, I can't think of a situation where massing void rays doesn't do as good if not better than mass carriers. You can get them so much sooner, and you don't have to sacrifice as much to tech to get them. They handle vikings and corrupters much more easily, and they are solid at killing armored units (terran mech, ultralisks). Honestly the only situation I can see carriers being better is vs. mass lings or something like that, but then air in general is a mistake when you could have gone for colossi.
Really? The guy's from Serbia and you're going to bitch about his English?
THX for suport ..
if you whatch early SC2 games where terran goes mech.. gameplay you will see some games where huk pull out plenty of carriers and win games... i dont see eny problem with carriers right now at WOL where blizzard made on purpes gameplay with Terran go BIO insted of MECH...
i am sure of this every time terran go mech toss will pull out carriers and win or be close to win...
if you whatch BW games you will se if terran go plenty of seige tanks and toss then trow army and swich to carriers and win game...
to me and that is my opinion for WOL carriers simply dont have that much use becous of intended gameplay of MMM terrans ... but when HOTS come they will probubly force mech play in game and then unites (gameplay) will be from T1 to T2 to T3....or if blizzard buff mech and nerf bio in some new patchs....
i am toss player so i like carriers a lot but simply they BLIZZARD LIMITED gameplay in WOL becous its only 3rd part of true game that is how i see it....
On May 18 2011 04:51 displaced wrote: I before E except after C.
There are more exceptions to the rule than those that abide by it. Fyi.
I before E except after C... Or sounding like ay like neighbor or weigh... or if it's weird...
On topic, I don't entirely understand why they feel that reverting back to the the energy model was the only way to balance mass-thor + strike cannons vs P. I agree that the model was not working the way they wanted it to, but now instead of 1 strike cannon every 45 seconds, ready the moment the thor pops out of the factory, you have... 1 strike cannon every 300? seconds, ready 200? seconds after the unit pops out of the factory (could be slightly off on energy regen per sec, but not far.)
And they're SUPER vulnerable to feedback now. If they HAD to use an energy model, what about taking a page out of the nexus - 100 max energy instead of 200, with it being 75 or 100 energy to use strike cannons? I just feel like it's already been determined that strike cannon never gets used under this 150 energy model. Couple with the fact that immortals are the picture perfect example of what unit to use strike cannons on (anything less beefy isn't worth the time, they die faster to standard thor fire than the "charge-up time" of strike cannon takes), colossus die to thors without it, and ultralisks are un-stunnable.
Also, if thors are supposed to be support units, why do they act like a core unit? (meaty, good damage, good range, shoots air too) rather than a support unit (really good in one or two of these things but lacking in others)
Now Protoss has a HARD Thor-counter in all 3 tech trees. High Templar, Void Ray, and Immortal. In one change they added not one but two counters :\ Immortal + Void ray would have been enough, but HT too? Feels like a bit much to take away from thors.
I think I like the ghost change, at least. Love seeing thorzain use his ghosts, and this plays directly into that. On the other hand, it's extremely thematically weird to me for a spellcaster to cost more minerals than gas. 150/150 for what at first glance appears to be "the weakest" of the 3 ground-based casters (HT, Ghost, Infestor) felt like a lot already.
On May 18 2011 04:51 displaced wrote: I before E except after C.
There are more exceptions to the rule than those that abide by it. Fyi.
Now Protoss has a HARD Thor-counter in all 3 tech trees. High Templar, Void Ray, and Immortal. In one change they added not one but two counters :\ Immortal + Void ray would have been enough, but HT too? Feels like a bit much to take away from thors.
None of those are hardcounters. You cannot just blindly make HT whenever you see a Thor. Sure you can FB them, but you need another unit to deal the damage. Using HT against Thors require micro and other units ... so is it a counter? Yes, but not a hardcounter.
Immortals are the same thing. If you have strike cannon, you can destroy the immortals. Immortals do not hardcounter Thors unless you don't research strike cannon.
Void Rays do not do well against thors in large numbers. So they're not a hardcounter to Thors either.
On May 18 2011 04:51 displaced wrote: I before E except after C.
There are more exceptions to the rule than those that abide by it. Fyi.
Now Protoss has a HARD Thor-counter in all 3 tech trees. High Templar, Void Ray, and Immortal. In one change they added not one but two counters :\ Immortal + Void ray would have been enough, but HT too? Feels like a bit much to take away from thors.
None of those are hardcounters. You cannot just blindly make HT whenever you see a Thor. Sure you can FB them, but you need another unit to deal the damage. Using HT against Thors require micro and other units ... so is it a counter? Yes, but not a hardcounter.
Immortals are the same thing. If you have strike cannon, you can destroy the immortals. Immortals do not hardcounter Thors unless you don't research strike cannon. Void Rays do not do well against thors in large numbers. So they're not a hardcounter to Thors either.
Void Rays destroy Thors in large numbers. Don't know what game you're playing...
On May 18 2011 04:51 displaced wrote: I before E except after C.
There are more exceptions to the rule than those that abide by it. Fyi.
Now Protoss has a HARD Thor-counter in all 3 tech trees. High Templar, Void Ray, and Immortal. In one change they added not one but two counters :\ Immortal + Void ray would have been enough, but HT too? Feels like a bit much to take away from thors.
None of those are hardcounters. You cannot just blindly make HT whenever you see a Thor. Sure you can FB them, but you need another unit to deal the damage. Using HT against Thors require micro and other units ... so is it a counter? Yes, but not a hardcounter.
Immortals are the same thing. If you have strike cannon, you can destroy the immortals. Immortals do not hardcounter Thors unless you don't research strike cannon.
Void Rays do not do well against thors in large numbers. So they're not a hardcounter to Thors either.
Yes, but they just nerfed the shit out of strike cannons. Now you will never have anywhere near enough strike cannons ready to take out immortals, unless he lets you sit on your mass thor for a long time. That's fine, immortals should be more viable vs thor than they were pre-patch.
It feels right now in late game PVT you can make HT's blindly vs whatever. They work well against pretty much all builds now, and with good control, can keep a handle on ghosts.
Of course you need something BESIDES high templar. Nobody ever made an army of pure high templar (except in Day9 Monobattles...) and nobody ever will expect it to work.
Void rays ANNIHILATE thors in large numbers. Even with worse upgrades, the most basic magic boxing of void rays is much easier than it ever was doing it with mutas, because of void rays' lower speed and larger collision size. Even if you don't focus fire and the thors do, void rays come out WAY on top, and are less expensive + faster to build. Not only that, but they're a pretty reasonable thing to build against a meching style. Vikings are scary but void rays vs vikings but VRs don't exactly auto-lose, but that's neither here nor there.
On May 18 2011 08:09 Stratos_speAr wrote: Void Rays destroy Thors in large numbers. Don't know what game you're playing...
in theory yes, pratical no, guess someone needs to watch artosis gsl qualifier matches
Haven't watched them, but I routinely use VR's to counter a decent number of Thors. VR's don't clump nearly as much as other units, so as long as you try to keep them spread apart you're perfectly fine. Thors shoot slow as can be and VR's do a LOT of damage to Thors.
whay you ppl cray soo much abouth thors ? did you ever heard abouth ghoust EMP ? you EMP your thors and they will do good agenst toss.. also build some blue flame hellions becous you need em vs zealots... (zealots do good agenst thors)
thors ghoust and hellions are great combo vs toss try it ..
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.
BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush.
Void rays ANNIHILATE thors in large numbers. Even with worse upgrades, the most basic magic boxing of void rays is much easier than it ever was doing it with mutas, because of void rays' lower speed and larger collision size. Even if you don't focus fire and the thors do, void rays come out WAY on top, and are less expensive + faster to build. Not only that, but they're a pretty reasonable thing to build against a meching style. Vikings are scary but void rays vs vikings but VRs don't exactly auto-lose, but that's neither here nor there.
Not true. Go play with VRs in a unit tester. Make 10 thors and TRY to get your VRs to magic box them. See how many VRs you need in order to beat 10 thors. It doesn't work. VRs don't have a magic box the way mutas do. They naturally clump whether or not you click inside the box. You have to manually micro VRs to get them to spread. It's VERY difficult. You basically need a surround in order to beat Thors with VRs.
If you just a click into thors, 20 VRs will lose to 10 thors unupgraded on both sides. Try it in a unit tester. In real games its even worse because there are usually a ton of marines around.
Can VRs be used to counter thors? Yes, but usually in small numbers. In large numbers its VERY difficult. My point is that VRs don't simply HARD counter Thors. They are situational just like almost every unit in SC2.
On May 18 2011 08:09 Stratos_speAr wrote: Void Rays destroy Thors in large numbers. Don't know what game you're playing...
in theory yes, pratical no, guess someone needs to watch artosis gsl qualifier matches
Haven't watched them, but I routinely use VR's to counter a decent number of Thors. VR's don't clump nearly as much as other units, so as long as you try to keep them spread apart you're perfectly fine. Thors shoot slow as can be and VR's do a LOT of damage to Thors.
Yes if you keep them spread apart you're good. But my point is that it's not easy. The more Thors they have, the more VRs you need, the more difficult it is to keep your VRs separate.
A lot of you need to look at the strike canon nerf more objectively.
Firstly, from a design perspective, blizzard has said they intended for the thor to be heavy front line support. You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army, much like ghosts, or battlecruisers, or hellions, or high templars, or colossus, or many other units weren't intended to be the core of an army. Debating whether it ever was used as such, whether is should be used as such, and whether this will fix it or not is fine, but don't add in baseless accusations of their intentions.
Secondly, from a balance perspective, they are saying it is frustrating to deal with a unit which has a mechanic that kills units that would normally counter it, when said mechanic is easier to execute than it is to prevent. There is discussion over the relationship between thors and voidrays, which I think is pretty irrelevant and missing the point; I think we can infer this change primarily had the relationship between thors and immortals in mind. Short of amazing execution, I personally don't think it's very interesting to see any number of immortals nullified by researching strike cannons.
I think blizzard envisions a battle being more along the lines of fewer thors supporting the bulk of the army, with harder to execute (and thus more precious) strike cannons being directed at pivotal and important targets such as colossus. It's not to say that the vision of the thor's functionality is reciprocated perfectly by the functionality of the other races' units yet; they are simply moving the thor in the direction of the role they wish it to fill in a theoretically balanced game.
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.
BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush.
Cool, well hatch first isn't an entitlement sorry to say.
I cant see how thor is a support unit in any way now that magic box was found. It has no utility at all except dishing out and surviving a beating. Raven, ghost or even tank can be called a support unit but thor is clearly a core unit as it is designed now.
On May 19 2011 04:56 SetStndbySmn wrote: A lot of you need to look at the strike canon nerf more objectively.
Firstly, from a design perspective, blizzard has said they intended for the thor to be heavy front line support. You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army, much like ghosts, or battlecruisers, or hellions, or high templars, or colossus, or many other units weren't intended to be the core of an army. Debating whether it ever was used as such, whether is should be used as such, and whether this will fix it or not is fine, but don't add in baseless accusations of their intentions.
Secondly, from a balance perspective, they are saying it is frustrating to deal with a unit which has a mechanic that kills units that would normally counter it, when said mechanic is easier to execute than it is to prevent. There is discussion over the relationship between thors and voidrays, which I think is pretty irrelevant and missing the point; I think we can infer this change primarily had the relationship between thors and immortals in mind. Short of amazing execution, I personally don't think it's very interesting to see any number of immortals nullified by researching strike cannons.
I think blizzard envisions a battle being more along the lines of fewer thors supporting the bulk of the army, with harder to execute (and thus more precious) strike cannons being directed at pivotal and important targets such as colossus. It's not to say that the vision of the thor's functionality is reciprocated perfectly by the functionality of the other races' units yet; they are simply moving the thor in the direction of the role they wish it to fill in a theoretically balanced game.
Objectively, where does the fact that the change nerfs Thors without strike cannons more than Thors with stirke cannons fit into your analysis?
Most people are not really concerned that strike cannons is weaker all that much. Personally I am more annoyed that building Thors is no longer an alternative in reaction to seeing templars. Which is the other side of the coin.
why should bunkers be faster as a reactionary defense tool?
Because you need units for bunkers to be at least affective, while spines and cannons just give you defence without units. As for the thor, its only role from my view can be found in tvz against stacked mutas but zergs are learning and use magic box or some other tactic to negate the splash from the thor, or in tvt late game mech. Other thatn that, thor is good for nothing. Before this patch at least you could do something with it, now you cant do shit. A guy before me said :
Toss/zerg players keep raving on "lolololo make something else than t1 units lolololol noob", but it's very frustrating that when you do, blizzard takes it away, slaps you on the hand and says "MMM you moron!".
whic really made me laugh. the worst thing is that its actually true.
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.
BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush.
Cool, well hatch first isn't an entitlement sorry to say.
wasnt an entitlement in SC1 either. but know the diffrence? in SC1 there were RISKS invovled in stopping a hatch, but those risks outweighed the bunker rush if the hatch was stoped. if it wasnt stoped then u are down 100-200 minerals.
in Sc2? if u stop the hatch with a bunker rush then ur ahead. if it fails then ur down 25-50 minerals. good job blizz.
bunker rushing in SC2 has become a no brainer and has no thoght process invovled. if u see a zerg going hatch a terrans natural instinct is to bunker rush since there is no risk involved in it for them to think twice. they just do it because if it fails it will only cost them 25-50 minerals if they salvage.
in SC1 there were risks on both sides and not just 1 side. going hatch first against terran was dangerous because of a potential bunker rush stopping it, but on the same token terran was also taking a slight risk because he is gonna be investing in 100-300 minerals to try and stop a hatch first. so there were risks on BOTH sides not just one. in sc2 there is only risk for the zerg. loosing 25 minerals is minuscule ESPECIALLY with terran having mules -_-.
On May 19 2011 04:56 SetStndbySmn wrote: A lot of you need to look at the strike canon nerf more objectively.
Firstly, from a design perspective, blizzard has said they intended for the thor to be heavy front line support. You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army, much like ghosts, or battlecruisers, or hellions, or high templars, or colossus, or many other units weren't intended to be the core of an army. Debating whether it ever was used as such, whether is should be used as such, and whether this will fix it or not is fine, but don't add in baseless accusations of their intentions.
Secondly, from a balance perspective, they are saying it is frustrating to deal with a unit which has a mechanic that kills units that would normally counter it, when said mechanic is easier to execute than it is to prevent. There is discussion over the relationship between thors and voidrays, which I think is pretty irrelevant and missing the point; I think we can infer this change primarily had the relationship between thors and immortals in mind. Short of amazing execution, I personally don't think it's very interesting to see any number of immortals nullified by researching strike cannons.
I think blizzard envisions a battle being more along the lines of fewer thors supporting the bulk of the army, with harder to execute (and thus more precious) strike cannons being directed at pivotal and important targets such as colossus. It's not to say that the vision of the thor's functionality is reciprocated perfectly by the functionality of the other races' units yet; they are simply moving the thor in the direction of the role they wish it to fill in a theoretically balanced game.
Objectively, where does the fact that the change nerfs Thors without strike cannons more than Thors with stirke cannons fit into your analysis?
Most people are not really concerned that strike cannons is weaker all that much. Personally I am more annoyed that building Thors is no longer an alternative in reaction to seeing templars. Which is the other side of the coin.
I don't see how they aren't an option at all. I think it was HasuObs vs BratOk on Terminus, but BratOk eventually transitioned into late game Thors and Hasu just didn't even bother Feedbacking the Thors after the first few times, it barely hurt the thor as it was never on full energy, it just wasn't worth using the energy to Feedback a Thor when you had Storm as an option as well, he just flat out ignored them until he had enough of an advantage where he could throw away energy
I have to say its very imbalanced imo. TvP is like only spellcasting on high level ladder. Protoss can simply feedback the whole TERRAN army since Thors have a energy bar -> Thors half hp then, Battlecruiser half hp, Medivac dies instantly, and marines + marauder get stormed aways together with the Hellions. Also in TVZ storm is just too strong
Also it is pretty impossible to coutner a thor marine marauder ball with some Hellions
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.
I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.
ultras also are a support unit to a army and also walks slower than your lings. your point?
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.
BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush.
Cool, well hatch first isn't an entitlement sorry to say.
wasnt an entitlement in SC1 either. but know the diffrence? in SC1 there were RISKS invovled in stopping a hatch, but those risks outweighed the bunker rush if the hatch was stoped. if it wasnt stoped then u are down 100-200 minerals.
in Sc2? if u stop the hatch with a bunker rush then ur ahead. if it fails then ur down 25-50 minerals. good job blizz.
bunker rushing in SC2 has become a no brainer and has no thoght process invovled. if u see a zerg going hatch a terrans natural instinct is to bunker rush since there is no risk involved in it for them to think twice. they just do it because if it fails it will only cost them 25-50 minerals if they salvage.
in SC1 there were risks on both sides and not just 1 side. going hatch first against terran was dangerous because of a potential bunker rush stopping it, but on the same token terran was also taking a slight risk because he is gonna be investing in 100-300 minerals to try and stop a hatch first. so there were risks on BOTH sides not just one. in sc2 there is only risk for the zerg. loosing 25 minerals is minuscule ESPECIALLY with terran having mules -_-.
This really shows that you have not thought the bunker rush through. When does a bunker rush fail? When you don't get the bunker up or your bunker gets overrun. How does the salvage help you there? Right - it doesn't. When does salvage come into play in a bunker rush? When you have established a position and push further in (though most of the time this is prevented by creep) or when you have killed off the hatch and are pulling out. And then no Terran would mind to let those 100 min bunkers stand because the damage is done and by far outweighs the investment.
Salvage barely plays a role in bunker rush considerations. Salvage is rather a consideration on defense, where it's an incentive to create a bunker that is a worthless structure unless you fill it with units. So while other defenses (cannons, spines) remain useful when you push out, the bunker is empty and deserted. That's the point where salvage is useful. Note that this does not make the bunker free, because 100 minerals now are better than 100 minerals 5 mins later.
Can you all just please, please STOP FUCKING COMPARING SC:BW and SC2. JUST FUCKING STOP IT. Its not the same game, it doesn`t have same mechanics, its fucking stupid to compare. Go play SC:BW if you like it so much. This comparison just pisses me off. Its NOT the same game! There are some things that need to be fixed for all races but again STOP COMPARING TO SC:BW!!!
they are not comparing sc bw to sc2... but some things (fundamental RTS) staf should work diferent than in sc2.... and that fundamental RTS (basic) things are implemented in sc bw as well...
On May 20 2011 21:06 yeahsc2 wrote: Can you all just please, please STOP FUCKING COMPARING SC:BW and SC2. JUST FUCKING STOP IT. Its not the same game, it doesn`t have same mechanics, its fucking stupid to compare. Go play SC:BW if you like it so much. This comparison just pisses me off. Its NOT the same game! There are some things that need to be fixed for all races but again STOP COMPARING TO SC:BW!!!
Dont think the comparison can be avoided.
StarCraft 2 clearly strives to be the ultimate RTS and the ultimate E-sport, and its predecessor set the standard for both, so if you cant compare it to Brood War then what do you compare it to?
On May 18 2011 10:08 thebole1 wrote: whay you ppl cray soo much abouth thors ? did you ever heard abouth ghoust EMP ? you EMP your thors and they will do good agenst toss.. also build some blue flame hellions becous you need em vs zealots... (zealots do good agenst thors)
thors ghoust and hellions are great combo vs toss try it ..
On May 18 2011 10:08 thebole1 wrote: whay you ppl cray soo much abouth thors ? did you ever heard abouth ghoust EMP ? you EMP your thors and they will do good agenst toss.. also build some blue flame hellions becous you need em vs zealots... (zealots do good agenst thors)
thors ghoust and hellions are great combo vs toss try it ..
What u mean by EMP your thors??
EMP drains also energy from your own units. Then they have no energy and don´t get (much) damage against feedback. Bad part you can´t ever use strike canon
On May 20 2011 20:53 Thrombozyt wrote: This really shows that you have not thought the bunker rush through. When does a bunker rush fail? When you don't get the bunker up or your bunker gets overrun. How does the salvage help you there? Right - it doesn't. When does salvage come into play in a bunker rush? When you have established a position and push further in (though most of the time this is prevented by creep) or when you have killed off the hatch and are pulling out. And then no Terran would mind to let those 100 min bunkers stand because the damage is done and by far outweighs the investment.
Salvage barely plays a role in bunker rush considerations. Salvage is rather a consideration on defense, where it's an incentive to create a bunker that is a worthless structure unless you fill it with units. So while other defenses (cannons, spines) remain useful when you push out, the bunker is empty and deserted. That's the point where salvage is useful. Note that this does not make the bunker free, because 100 minerals now are better than 100 minerals 5 mins later.
I don't even care about salvage that much, I don't personally like the mechanic, but I have no idea whether it improves or hurts balance, but you're completely wrong. I've played out probably 100+ bunker rushes (high masters zerg) and a ton of time you stop a forward push with a spine poking at a bunker and then marines hop out, they salvage and run away. If it weren't for salvage, they'd be 75 minerals (formerly 100) poorer.
As for the 100 minerals now vs 100 minerals later, yes obviously this is true, but I think people exaggerate this a lot. The "interest rate" in sc2 is the ability to: 1) build scvs or 2) build a command center to get mules/scvs
Sure if you don't build a bunker you can get up an extra rax earlier in some spots, but unless this time delayed a command center or delayed an scv building then it didn't cost anything that couldn't end up in an equivalent state in the future.
EPT
