|
But dude, it's been 42% PvT for the last 5 days. Must be serious imbalance right?
EDIT: On a more seriously note, I apologize for further deteriorating the quality of the discussion.
However, I don't understand why DT's should be undesirable as a midgame tempo-unit. I mean, their gas cost is severe, hence they would delay Colossus if used extensively. They don't add to the main army, like most of Terran's harass units do.
It would give Protoss some incentive to experiment with Chargelot HT, without breaking the match-up lategame. Same in PvZ, it gives Protoss further opportunity to slow down a Zerg, so that the Muta-switches become less severe and easier to deal with, with the availability of HT's and Storm. It also buffs Protoss in basetrade situations where Muta-ling previously had a critical advantage.
|
On October 22 2014 02:41 TokO wrote:
But dude, it's been 42% PvT for the last 5 days. Must be serious imbalance right?
EDIT: On a more seriously note, I apologize for further deteriorating the quality of the discussion.
However, I don't understand why DT's should be undesirable as a midgame tempo-unit. I mean, their gas cost is severe, hence they would delay Colossus if used extensively. They don't add to the main army, like most of Terran's harass units do.
It would give Protoss some incentive to experiment with Chargelot HT, without breaking the match-up lategame. Same in PvZ, it gives Protoss further opportunity to slow down a Zerg, so that the Muta-switches become less severe and easier to deal with, with the availability of HT's and Storm. It also buffs Protoss in basetrade situations where Muta-ling previously had a critical advantage.
They're just such a boring unit. The only interesting thing that happens with DTs is the desperate counterplays the Z/T make in an attempt to survive when they have no detectors, like surrounding their detector with workers or Maru's genius supply depot to force the DT to run into detector range. The unit itself behaves just like a Zealot. That's not great.
DTs are a classic "defending against them takes more skill than harassing with them" mechanic, and I think all of those are bad for the game.
|
On October 22 2014 04:12 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 02:41 TokO wrote:
But dude, it's been 42% PvT for the last 5 days. Must be serious imbalance right?
EDIT: On a more seriously note, I apologize for further deteriorating the quality of the discussion.
However, I don't understand why DT's should be undesirable as a midgame tempo-unit. I mean, their gas cost is severe, hence they would delay Colossus if used extensively. They don't add to the main army, like most of Terran's harass units do.
It would give Protoss some incentive to experiment with Chargelot HT, without breaking the match-up lategame. Same in PvZ, it gives Protoss further opportunity to slow down a Zerg, so that the Muta-switches become less severe and easier to deal with, with the availability of HT's and Storm. It also buffs Protoss in basetrade situations where Muta-ling previously had a critical advantage. They're just such a boring unit. The only interesting thing that happens with DTs is the desperate counterplays the Z/T make in an attempt to survive when they have no detectors, like surrounding their detector with workers or Maru's genius supply depot to force the DT to run into detector range. The unit itself behaves just like a Zealot. That's not great.
Pretty much this. And I dont think Protoss needs more hard to scout variety on gateways.
I think if they want to add more variety to PvT on the Protoss side, the go-to should be macro Stargate play, e.g. VR or Carrier changes.
HTs and DTs on the other side have their place anyways.
|
I guess they are pretty boring, but what's more boring is to just do the same build every game. Defending against them takes more skill than harassing with them is basically something that is the case with the majority of harass units.
How would you suggest to change the Stargate units without breaking either match-up lategame? Protoss lategame air composition is already very strong, possibly the strongest in the game.
The problem with both match-ups tend to not be straight up lategame balance, but rather that Zerg and Terran always comes into the lategame faster or with higher tempo. This would give Protoss a more viable choice, which could open up for more action on the map and mistakes to be made on both sides. And it would do so without affecting the lategame balance per se.
I mean, Terran drops in 4 different places, and it's the most sensational play ever, if Protoss DT harasses 2-3 places, people start fuming with anger. What's up with this racism?
|
On October 22 2014 04:36 TokO wrote:
I guess they are pretty boring, but what's more boring is to just do the same build every game. Defending against them takes more skill than harassing with them is basically something that is the case with the majority of harass units.
How would you suggest to change the Stargate units without breaking either match-up lategame? Protoss lategame air composition is already very strong, possibly the strongest in the game.
Why are you worried about breaking balance? These are suggestions for LOTV (unless I'm much mistaken), well LOTV is going to break the game no matter what. I can't speak for PvZ, but lategame PvT isn't some sacred thing that I want to hold on to no matter what.
I mean, Terran drops in 4 different places, and it's the most sensational play ever, if Protoss DT harasses 2-3 places, people start fuming with anger. What's up with this racism?
I'm assuming this is just a joke. If not, let me know and I'll answer. 
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:12 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 22 2014 02:41 TokO wrote:
But dude, it's been 42% PvT for the last 5 days. Must be serious imbalance right?
EDIT: On a more seriously note, I apologize for further deteriorating the quality of the discussion.
However, I don't understand why DT's should be undesirable as a midgame tempo-unit. I mean, their gas cost is severe, hence they would delay Colossus if used extensively. They don't add to the main army, like most of Terran's harass units do.
It would give Protoss some incentive to experiment with Chargelot HT, without breaking the match-up lategame. Same in PvZ, it gives Protoss further opportunity to slow down a Zerg, so that the Muta-switches become less severe and easier to deal with, with the availability of HT's and Storm. It also buffs Protoss in basetrade situations where Muta-ling previously had a critical advantage. They're just such a boring unit. The only interesting thing that happens with DTs is the desperate counterplays the Z/T make in an attempt to survive when they have no detectors, like surrounding their detector with workers or Maru's genius supply depot to force the DT to run into detector range. The unit itself behaves just like a Zealot. That's not great. Pretty much this. And I dont think Protoss needs more hard to scout variety on gateways. I think if they want to add more variety to PvT on the Protoss side, the go-to should be macro Stargate play, e.g. VR or Carrier changes. HTs and DTs on the other side have their place anyways.
I tried several MS-carrier-chargelot rushes. Well, my opponents were like - WTF? And I lost all the time mostly on supply blocks, since MS is a real tank(in the MMO way). So, I think:
1) they need to fix the MS(give it more abilities than recall and cloaking field, maybe shield recharge field for energy?) - or better, remove it and return arbiter or some spellcaster like this with cloaking field from stargate tech. Not mentioning that hero unit(and MS is a hero unit) should be immune to viper... I know, balance of PvZ, but... it is wrong! (one more good reason to remove it)
2) Fix building time of carriers, they survive a lot, but you cannot get them fast enough!!
3) Add a hull cannon to the carrier. So the unit can do some dmg when it has no interceptors. This cannon can be used when interceptors are not used. Something like - in the launching bay is either cannon or interceptor. Basically this would turn carrier into battlecruiser when there are no interceptors/or you do not want to use interceptors. DPS of the cannon has to be lower than BC, obv. I still cannot believe that Protoss has this unit without any support guns...
4) Remove tempest, add some interesting unit, which can be:
4a - microed
4b - is not so one dimensional must have boring unit in all MU. This is the role of Carrier, which can be microed and is interesting unit known from SC1!
We can then balance the game around SH turtle play(where interceptors are too damn expensive because spores, vipers and MS stuff)
---- an interesting note - in WoL there was a way to beat BL/infestor play. It was 4 carriers, MS, some colossus, templar and the rest - void rays. Basically it worked this way - carriers and colossi were killing infestors, void rays and templars were killing mainly clumped air units and the spores? Well, you have 9 range colossi It was working, I think in HSC this was shown by MC. The biggest problem is - clumping and fungal fest. But fungal has been nerfed! 
Edit to this> the problem of this solution(other than building time etc.) - it was shown too late I think. HotS was already in the beta for most people, I think I had the beta too back then. I am not sure whether HSC is in January, but I would bet it was January tourney... though my memory is bad
These all steps can be done in LotV. I do not thing there will be a huge rework of airtoss, but I can hope 
|
On October 22 2014 04:46 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 04:36 TokO wrote:
I guess they are pretty boring, but what's more boring is to just do the same build every game. Defending against them takes more skill than harassing with them is basically something that is the case with the majority of harass units.
How would you suggest to change the Stargate units without breaking either match-up lategame? Protoss lategame air composition is already very strong, possibly the strongest in the game. Why are you worried about breaking balance? These are suggestions for LOTV (unless I'm much mistaken), well LOTV is going to break the game no matter what. I can't speak for PvZ, but lategame PvT isn't some sacred thing that I want to hold on to no matter what. + Show Spoiler +I mean, Terran drops in 4 different places, and it's the most sensational play ever, if Protoss DT harasses 2-3 places, people start fuming with anger. What's up with this racism? I'm assuming this is just a joke. If not, let me know and I'll answer.
No, it's not for LotV, it's something that could fix the current balance right at this moment. People in this thread either only whine about balance and winrates, or they perform their smartassery on semantics without discussing anything substantial.
I understand that DT's are infuriating, but not being frustrating to play against is not a criteria for units to be made viable or not.
|
On October 22 2014 04:36 TokO wrote:
I guess they are pretty boring, but what's more boring is to just do the same build every game. Defending against them takes more skill than harassing with them is basically something that is the case with the majority of harass units.
How would you suggest to change the Stargate units without breaking either match-up lategame? Protoss lategame air composition is already very strong, possibly the strongest in the game.
The problem with both match-ups tend to not be straight up lategame balance, but rather that Zerg and Terran always comes into the lategame faster or with higher tempo. This would give Protoss a more viable choice, which could open up for more action on the map and mistakes to be made on both sides. And it would do so without affecting the lategame balance per se.
I mean, Terran drops in 4 different places, and it's the most sensational play ever, if Protoss DT harasses 2-3 places, people start fuming with anger. What's up with this racism?
I think the tempo is just part of how Protoss plays out. The race has tons of commited powerful aggressive plays of warpgates, so can also go for the tempo play. But their defensive macro play relies on very high tech, which slows Protoss down a lot. I don't see this being fixed with making it even easier for P to go T3. They are already reaching their Colossi/DTs much faster than T/Z usually reach similar techs. (I guess medivacs are similar, but not that massive of a cost commitment involved as support bay, range upgrade)
I think the clue should be to make Protoss midtier play more consistent - which imo is Immortals and Stargate tech (Twilight is really just the "stim" of Protoss)
The problem with SG being in my opinion, that it leads nowhere on its own against Terran. Oracles are a nice opening, phoenix an OK tool, but there is a lack of army backbone unit, similar to the VR in PvZ. It's pretty telling if a Stargate is always proxied and sacrificed, the building just doesn't offer anything in the matchup. (please refrain from posting lengthy about phoenix/colossus. It's an OK style, but quite rare for a reason(
As a concrete change I'd suggest interceptor+2vs light, -1overall. Makes it better against Marine/Ghost/Mine, worse vs Vikings (which Phoenix/VR are for anyways). And vZ better vs mutalisk/hydralisk, worse vs Corruptor (for which you have again range phoenix and VR on that techpath).
|
Might be interesting to give back the voidray speed upgrade but perhaps have it share the cool down with prismatic alignment. So you can choose speed boost when harrassing or extra damage vs armored.
|
On October 22 2014 04:58 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:46 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 04:36 TokO wrote:
I guess they are pretty boring, but what's more boring is to just do the same build every game. Defending against them takes more skill than harassing with them is basically something that is the case with the majority of harass units.
How would you suggest to change the Stargate units without breaking either match-up lategame? Protoss lategame air composition is already very strong, possibly the strongest in the game. Why are you worried about breaking balance? These are suggestions for LOTV (unless I'm much mistaken), well LOTV is going to break the game no matter what. I can't speak for PvZ, but lategame PvT isn't some sacred thing that I want to hold on to no matter what. + Show Spoiler +I mean, Terran drops in 4 different places, and it's the most sensational play ever, if Protoss DT harasses 2-3 places, people start fuming with anger. What's up with this racism? I'm assuming this is just a joke. If not, let me know and I'll answer. No, it's not for LotV, it's something that could fix the current balance right at this moment. People in this thread either only whine about balance and winrates, or they perform their smartassery on semantics without discussing anything substantial. I understand that DT's are infuriating, but not being frustrating to play against is not a criteria for units to be made viable or not.
Well, the balance of PvT doesn't need much (if any) fixing, so I'd hate to see DTs buffed before LOTV. (In fact I'd hate to see them buffed period. Changed, on the other hand, I could get into.) That's like the worst thing you could do to that MU. The difficulty in scouting/identifying it, the difficulty in holding it, the ease of executing it... it'd be worse than what we had with Blink all-ins.
What exactly are you trying to fix, anyway? The Muta wrecking ball?
|
@Big J: Carrier Buffs
I think that's a fair point of discussion though. Carriers would be nice if they were able to be able to use against Bio. Here's what I'm worried about. Is it worth incorporating Carriers, diverting resources from other splash sources such as Colossus? Will building Carriers scale well enough in comparison with Marines? (Usually stimmed Marines kill interceptors really quickly) If Carriers are viable in a critical timing, will the factors contributing to that, lead to snowballing issues if they succeed in an early engagement?
I like Stargate, as Phoenix are one of those units that were buffed in order to let Protoss keep up with Medivac boost and improved Mutalisks. Maybe removing +Shields of WM will make Phoenix Chargelot work again, like they did in Wings of Liberty?
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. Yeah, trying to fix Protoss lower winrates, partially caused by Muta blobs. I personally think it's reasonably balanced, and I'd love to see the metagame develop over the next 2-3 months, over the next serious map pool. However, if something was to be done, I feel like my suggestions are more constructive than whatever was going on with the whining in the previous pages.
|
On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game.
PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention.
P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up.
|
On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@Big J: Carrier Buffs
I think that's a fair point of discussion though. Carriers would be nice if they were able to be able to use against Bio. Here's what I'm worried about. Is it worth incorporating Carriers, diverting resources from other splash sources such as Colossus? Will building Carriers scale well enough in comparison with Marines? (Usually stimmed Marines kill interceptors really quickly) If Carriers are viable in a critical timing, will the factors contributing to that, lead to snowballing issues if they succeed in an early engagement?
I like Stargate, as Phoenix are one of those units that were buffed in order to let Protoss keep up with Medivac boost and improved Mutalisks. Maybe removing +Shields of WM will make Phoenix Chargelot work again, like they did in Wings of Liberty?
Obviously the point of buffing carriers to increase variety in PvT should be that you can use carriers instead of colossi. Given the tech and unit costs it's not realistical to go both outside of superdeathball scenarios.
And eventually P will have to mix in HTs, plainly because they can, given how the Warpgate/Templar techpath works. But as an opening something like oracle/phoenix/carrier with gateway support shouldnt be too bad.
|
On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up.
I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? (Curious for suggestions, not snarky)
It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool.
On October 22 2014 05:35 Big J wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@Big J: Carrier Buffs
I think that's a fair point of discussion though. Carriers would be nice if they were able to be able to use against Bio. Here's what I'm worried about. Is it worth incorporating Carriers, diverting resources from other splash sources such as Colossus? Will building Carriers scale well enough in comparison with Marines? (Usually stimmed Marines kill interceptors really quickly) If Carriers are viable in a critical timing, will the factors contributing to that, lead to snowballing issues if they succeed in an early engagement?
I like Stargate, as Phoenix are one of those units that were buffed in order to let Protoss keep up with Medivac boost and improved Mutalisks. Maybe removing +Shields of WM will make Phoenix Chargelot work again, like they did in Wings of Liberty? Obviously the point of buffing carriers to increase variety in PvT should be that you can use carriers instead of colossi. Given the tech and unit costs it's not realistical to go both outside of superdeathball scenarios. And eventually P will have to mix in HTs, plainly because they can, given how the Warpgate/Templar techpath works. But as an opening something like oracle/phoenix/carrier with gateway support shouldnt be too bad.
Yeah, but I think that if you think purely on the dynamic around the first bio push. The thing I'm worried about is that if you crush the first push, and then you would just go across the map and camp the production with 4-6 carriers. With Colossus, you have the luxury of pulling SCV and have your production untouched while saving up enough forces to fight back any counter-attack. But I generally like this idea anyway. Carriers are awesome, I'm just worried that once they get competitive against stimmed marines, they snowball really quick if the Terran fucks up even a little.
|
On October 22 2014 06:06 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up. I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool.
My question would be why we're creating more diversity for Protoss but not for Terran, when every single Protoss unit with the exception of Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, and Mothership regularly appears in TvP, while Hellions, Hellbats, Siege Tanks, Thors, Banshees, Ravens, and Battlecruisers are nowhere to be found. If anyone needs diversity, it's Terran, and if you're going to buff DTs to give Protoss other midgame options, I'd want to see a buff to the Banshee to make it a useful unit in the MU.
|
On October 22 2014 06:14 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:06 TokO wrote:On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up. I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool. My question would be why we're creating more diversity for Protoss but not for Terran, when every single Protoss unit with the exception of Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, and Mothership regularly appears in TvP, while Hellions, Hellbats, Siege Tanks, Thors, Banshees, Ravens, and Battlecruisers are nowhere to be found. If anyone needs diversity, it's Terran, and if you're going to buff DTs to give Protoss other midgame options, I'd want to see a buff to the Banshee to make it a useful unit in the MU.
Phoenix and Hellions have their use in TvP.
Buffing Protoss options also gives Terran the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response - Phoenix Collosus possibly has some weakness to thors, as displayed by Bbyong. Whilst unit compositions barely change, the playstyle vs Collosi or HT is vastly different.
|
On October 22 2014 06:16 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:14 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 22 2014 06:06 TokO wrote:On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up. I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool. My question would be why we're creating more diversity for Protoss but not for Terran, when every single Protoss unit with the exception of Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, and Mothership regularly appears in TvP, while Hellions, Hellbats, Siege Tanks, Thors, Banshees, Ravens, and Battlecruisers are nowhere to be found. If anyone needs diversity, it's Terran, and if you're going to buff DTs to give Protoss other midgame options, I'd want to see a buff to the Banshee to make it a useful unit in the MU. Phoenix and Hellions have their use in TvP. Buffing Protoss options also gives Terran the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response - Phoenix Collosus possibly has some weakness to thors, as displayed by Bbyong. Whilst unit compositions barely change, the playstyle vs Collosi or HT is vastly different.
And buffing Terran options would give Protoss the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response. If Tanks and Thors become fantastic in TvP, Phoenix/VR would be a great response.
I prefer HT to Colossus as much as the next guy, but I don't see a way of getting it back into the game before LOTV.
|
On October 22 2014 06:19 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:16 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 22 2014 06:14 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 22 2014 06:06 TokO wrote:On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up. I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool. My question would be why we're creating more diversity for Protoss but not for Terran, when every single Protoss unit with the exception of Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, and Mothership regularly appears in TvP, while Hellions, Hellbats, Siege Tanks, Thors, Banshees, Ravens, and Battlecruisers are nowhere to be found. If anyone needs diversity, it's Terran, and if you're going to buff DTs to give Protoss other midgame options, I'd want to see a buff to the Banshee to make it a useful unit in the MU. Phoenix and Hellions have their use in TvP. Buffing Protoss options also gives Terran the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response - Phoenix Collosus possibly has some weakness to thors, as displayed by Bbyong. Whilst unit compositions barely change, the playstyle vs Collosi or HT is vastly different. And buffing Terran options would give Protoss the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response. If Tanks and Thors become fantastic in TvP, Phoenix/VR would be a great response. I prefer HT to Colossus as much as the next guy, but I don't see a way of getting it back into the game before LOTV.
Remove the + shields to widow mines.
Bam.
|
On October 22 2014 06:33 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:19 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 22 2014 06:14 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 22 2014 06:06 TokO wrote:On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up. I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool. My question would be why we're creating more diversity for Protoss but not for Terran, when every single Protoss unit with the exception of Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, and Mothership regularly appears in TvP, while Hellions, Hellbats, Siege Tanks, Thors, Banshees, Ravens, and Battlecruisers are nowhere to be found. If anyone needs diversity, it's Terran, and if you're going to buff DTs to give Protoss other midgame options, I'd want to see a buff to the Banshee to make it a useful unit in the MU. Phoenix and Hellions have their use in TvP. Buffing Protoss options also gives Terran the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response - Phoenix Collosus possibly has some weakness to thors, as displayed by Bbyong. Whilst unit compositions barely change, the playstyle vs Collosi or HT is vastly different. And buffing Terran options would give Protoss the ability to explore more of their tech tree in response. If Tanks and Thors become fantastic in TvP, Phoenix/VR would be a great response. I prefer HT to Colossus as much as the next guy, but I don't see a way of getting it back into the game before LOTV. Remove the + shields to widow mines. Bam.
I don't feel that HT openings were balanced against Terran before the WM buff. I wouldn't feel comfortable going right back to that situation without making other changes... and I don't think Blizzard is comfortable making other changes before LOTV.
|
On October 22 2014 06:14 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 06:06 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:33 pure.Wasted wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 05:15 TokO wrote:
@pure.Wasted: DT's
I have a hard time seeing how it will have these extreme outcomes as you're suggesting. PvT win% is similar to PvZ, so if we're able to justifiably whine about PvZ, then there is the same amount of reason to need to address PvT. DT's are not buffed in themselves. My suggestion necessarily nerfs or keep their early game potency the same, any build-time reduction would be compensated by an increase in gas cost.
I don't agree that this is the worst thing you can do to the MU. Anything that straight up changes the lategame would be worse, as it's relatively balanced at the moment. Anything that changes the early game, such as a buff to sentry and stalker damage, would be worse. This is quite reasonable I think.
Alternatively, I also suggested a 2dmg buff to the sentry, but that would possbily break PvZ early-game. PvT winrates have seen a steady rise since the WM buff in July. The situation appears to be getting better for Protoss without the need for any intervention. P.S. you're right that those other scenarios would be even worse for the MU than a DT buff. They'd be so obviously horrible, in fact, that I didn't even expect them to be brought up. I mean, what else would you buff that would have any significance that is going to be better than the suggested change? It's fine if PvT is okey balance wise. This would be more aimed toward creating diversity, and if Protoss started to win more, because of said diversity, would it necessarily mean imbalance? I don't think so. On paper it looks like something that Terran could deal with, Templar Archives would be more crucial, so proxy'ing it would be less desirable and therefore it would be easier to scout. It is possible that it would still not be a viable alternative to Colossus tech, due to Widow Mines. Cool. My question would be why we're creating more diversity for Protoss but not for Terran, when every single Protoss unit with the exception of Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, and Mothership regularly appears in TvP, while Hellions, Hellbats, Siege Tanks, Thors, Banshees, Ravens, and Battlecruisers are nowhere to be found. If anyone needs diversity, it's Terran, and if you're going to buff DTs to give Protoss other midgame options, I'd want to see a buff to the Banshee to make it a useful unit in the MU.
Well, I see a multiple of those listed units in PvT relatively often, personally, as options for harassing and eventual inclusion into 1-1-1's or mech play. So I would argue that you have diversity in harass opportunities. My suggestion would just make a second path for Protoss to head into the same core composition that it always have had. I mean, cloaked banshee's were used in WoL, while Cloak was 200/200, and even if MsC is good against banshee's, they are still good against protosses who are going detection-less.
I don't think Protoss is the blame for the lack of diversity in Terran harass. I think all possible harass combinations for Terran are relatively similar in potency, with the exception of Widow Mines. Widow Mines outcompete all other options for their price and investment. Because of Widow Mines, Protoss goes for observers almost all games, and that makes the Banshee obsolete, along with all other kinds of Terran harass, due to the necessity of more army in the early game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
