|
On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +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, with the exception of bio.
Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO.
That would be like Protoss complaining that DTs are not viable after the beginning of HOTS when everyone was going proxy Oracle. Well... turrets counter DTs too... so it's just your other harass crowding out that one.
|
On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO.
Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell...
|
On October 22 2014 06:59 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO. Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell...
Or cannons...
|
On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +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 have a feeling that you're not talking about professional SC2. I don't really care about ladder balance.
You're trying to give Protoss more options. It's a noble goal, I'm just not clear on why you wouldn't first try to give Terran more options, considering fewer of their units are usable in the Matchup.
The last time Protoss had more options in PvT, it was an unabated clusterfuck. I'm very concerned about making their gimmicky units (DTs) more useful.
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, with the exception of bio.
WM harassment wasn't a regular thing until the +shields buff in July. Protoss certainly weren't opening Observer first in most games. Where were all the Banshees throughout 2013/2014?
|
On October 22 2014 06:59 TheDwf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO. Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell...
Opportunity cost in terms of cost and progression toward crucial Colossus tech.
|
On October 22 2014 07:05 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:59 TheDwf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO. Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell... Opportunity cost in terms of cost and progression toward crucial Colossus tech.
And yet Stargate openings are still regularly used in PvT.
|
Banshees have been reasonable in WoL regardless of robo openings. But back in the days they forced stalkers and pinned them at home.
These days the moment you have 1-2obs you can leave with all units and pressure or just not make them to begin with because PO covers for all that.
Also Oracle openings are pretty good against banshee openings. Not only do they scout it and grant detection, they force a Terran to go for a lot of units besides the banshee tech+banshee while the Protoss can happily expand off oracle+MsC.
Also PO is much more powerful than stalker defense. Against stalker+obs you can leave, but PO+obs is a secure kill on the banshee most of the time, shutting down that threat for the rest of the game.
At least those are my impressions from extensively playing banshee-based in WoL TvP but being far from making it work in HotS.
|
On October 22 2014 06:59 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO. Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell...
Oracles are lousy as detection vs Widow Mines primarily because both the attack and detection spells require energy. Therefore if you attack with your Oracle and he mine drops you, you're fucked.
Also, if he's going mines your Oracle can easily fly into a mine and stright up die. it's very hard to see a Widow Mine buried in the mineral line with SCVs moving around over it.
Cannons won't be ready in time for widow mine drops unless you commit really early to the forge which sets you back economically.
|
I don't mind buffing Terran harass, I don't think it would matter much. I feel like there is very few ways to make mech desirable over bio in PvT, without breaking either of the two other match-ups. I think TvT is in a really good spot, which is why I'm reluctant to suggest buffs to T.
|
On October 22 2014 07:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 07:05 TokO wrote:On October 22 2014 06:59 TheDwf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO. Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell... Opportunity cost in terms of cost and progression toward crucial Colossus tech. And yet Stargate openings are still regularly used in PvT.
And yet Terran is winning everything. Seriously these one line answers are neither smart nor funny. Your bias is showing.
|
On October 22 2014 07:17 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 07:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 22 2014 07:05 TokO wrote:On October 22 2014 06:59 TheDwf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:43 TokO wrote: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, with the exception of bio. Right, Protoss needs to blindly go Robo every game because the possibility of widow mines force us to (note that a Terran going Widow Mines can't reliably be scouted doing so before the robo would have to be started to be ready in time). Any build that doesn't incorporate a Robo pretty much immediately after 2nd Nexus is a coinflip IMO. Yeah, it's not like Oracles have a detection spell... Opportunity cost in terms of cost and progression toward crucial Colossus tech. And yet Stargate openings are still regularly used in PvT. And yet Terran is winning everything. Seriously these one line answers are neither smart nor funny. Your bias is showing.
On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win.
Oh the irony...
|
What, he's a Protoss who defended Zerg against the claim of imbalance, how is that biased?
EDIT: Oh, good point.
|
On October 22 2014 07:23 TokO wrote:
What, he's a Protoss who defended Zerg against the claim of imbalance, how is that biased?
He wants to warn people who post exactly like him?
|
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
Dino is (and I'm not saying anything he'd disagree with here I don't think) pretty Protoss biased but I don't recall him posting quite like that.
|
On October 22 2014 07:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
Dino is (and I'm not saying anything he'd disagree with here I don't think) pretty Protoss biased but I don't recall him posting quite like that.
I think it's like this: DinoMight used to get on people's nerves because of his protoss bias due to the community's overwhelming hatred of the race, but now he seems reasonable because protoss is no longer on top of the world. And similarly TheDwf is receiving less support now due to his pro-terran message.
Out of this we have to conclude that there is an inverse relationship between forum-poster balance and race balance. :p
|
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
I've been a fan of Dwf's posts because he actually backs up his opinions and knows his shit.
That and it took literally a day of Terrans winning anything to bring out the backlash again, I tend to think a lot of people are idiots when it comes to knee jerk responses 
|
To be perfectly clear, all I'm saying is you cannot claim that Protoss is forced to open robo immediately after expand every game in PvT. Stargate forge and blink gate gate (= builds that delay the robo for 1-2 minute(s)) are currently commonly used at pro level.
|
You're totally right, but it doesn't mean that widow mines don't crowd out other forms of harass, which was my point. And those builds kind of put on enough pressure to reveal whether there are quick mines or not, and I think there are some educated chances being taken.
Anyway, the initial proposal when I brought it up today was more aimed at PvZ, with a partial effect going onto PvT. I don't think the proposal makes it unfair to Terran.
|
On October 22 2014 07:58 TokO wrote:
You're totally right, but it doesn't mean that widow mines don't crowd out other forms of harass, which was my point. And those builds kind of put on enough pressure to reveal whether there are quick mines or not, and I think there are some educated chances being taken.
Anyway, the initial proposal when I brought it up today was more aimed at PvZ, with a partial effect going onto PvT. I don't think the proposal makes it unfair to Terran.
If WMs are responsible for Terrans not using Banshees now, please link me to all the pro TvPs where the Terrans opened Banshees (never mind using them throughout the game like DTs can be) before the WM buff.
|
On October 22 2014 07:58 TokO wrote:
You're totally right, but it doesn't mean that widow mines don't crowd out other forms of harass, which was my point. And those builds kind of put on enough pressure to reveal whether there are quick mines or not, and I think there are some educated chances being taken.
Anyway, the initial proposal when I brought it up today was more aimed at PvZ, with a partial effect going onto PvT. I don't think the proposal makes it unfair to Terran.
People don't use banshees because WM are better, but because banshee's suck against PO, WM have the capacity to hit once and then leave doing the damage it needs before being shut down by PO, banshees are good in TvZ and TvT because they force responses in them, grant map control and can keep the enemy in their base, also marines have less range then banshees and queens are very slow, in TvP stalkers have the same range as banshees are faster and PO can keep an entire base safe, the only thing they force is detection but protoss are already forced to do that because WM.
But WM are not the strongest harras in TvP, drop play is stonger, by far, which is why WM are rarely used in TvP if the protoss opens robo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
