|
On April 23 2012 18:59 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 16:49 Big J wrote:On April 23 2012 16:18 YyapSsap wrote:On April 23 2012 15:44 gronnelg wrote:
I actually like the marauder. Now it is possible to go bio vs mech. Sometimes the pro who goes bio will win, and sometimes its the meching player will win. Without the marauder we would only see mech in tvt. That would be fun...
Apparently mech is also viable against protoss. Se the "How to mech protoss cry" thread.
And people keep comparing sc2 to bw. Sure bw was awesome. But this is a new game. Do you guys honestly only want a graphics updated bw? Posts like these makes me  What most people want isn't BW with updated graphics but using what made BW so successful in terms of strategy/units/gameplay (the underlying concepts and rules), and taking that by incorporating those very formulas to make SC2 more interesting. If they wanted a completely new game, why even call it "starcraft" in the first place? And what would that be? What made SC:BW "so" successful - meaning extremly popular as an esport in Korea and respected as one outside of Korea. Was it the crappy AI/pathing? Was it the limited unit selection? Was it unit design? Was it unit balancing? Was it the fact that it was the successor to (one of) the most selling PC game at that time - WC2? Was it because there was hardly any competition in the esports scene? Was it because one could "play/try it for free" (meaning you could pirate it and try it in LAN) Some people from BW come to these forums and tell people how BW was better due to unit design and demand drastic changes and claim that SC2 is only being played because it's "new and cool and hyped". But guess what, there is so much more to creating a successful and exciting game than whether an infantry unit may or may not have 120HP. Read Barrins thread "Breadth of gameplay", he makes some good points about how to enforce the strengthes of active play (small unit squads instead of deathballs) and positional play (use of defensive power units instead of mass low Tier). Pointing at the new units as source for the "new problems"(whether or not things like deathballs are such is probably even personal opinion. I'd prefer less deathballish play, yet I don't want to be forced in some C&C open base, each unit should be "out and about" scenario) is just pointing at the visually most different thing from BW. Because BW could be interesting in any form of metagame, it was interesting when people didnt even discover natural expand and it is interesting in Flash Era of greediness. Why? Well you listed the reasons for it. 1 "Crappy AI/pathing" Allowed for non linear unit movements and punished player who didnt pay attention. 2 "Limited united selection" Forced play we could call "appropriate" to your mechanics. Both this point 1 and point 2 and balance design made certain strategies weaker when performed by weaker mechanically player. Whenever you watch Idra stream you may notice he says "he should not be able to do it". Its refering to the fact that in BW a crappy player could not just think about something and do it , first he would need mechanics to back it off. Also whenever a weaker mechanically player forced or was forced to a longer game he was more and more at disadvantage because of lack of MBS and unlimited unit selection. Stronger player will always move his army 1-2 sec faster and multitask better, in the end getting better reward for being better. 3 Unit design Allowed to use your units throughout the whole game, upgraded zerglings in BW was the scariest dps in the game, it could take down the nexus in 10 secs. Compare it to zergling in SC2, when at some point you just have to sacriface some unit just to "free up the supply" for good units that can actually kill high tier stuff from protoss/terran. Hydra could be used as lurker, "useless" mutalisks could be transformed into guardians and devourers. Because SC2 macro mechanics allow you to max in 11-15 mins most units become useless after few minutes, also the upgrades dont necesserily give the units expected longevity, tunneling roaches are still bad, grooved hydras are still the same hydras (compare it to speed hydras from bw, adrenal lings, speed/armor ultras, dragoon range marine range etc). Units in BW are in 99% of cases used throughout whole game, because upgrades and unit design (micro ability included) and supportive casters make them useful always. 4 Unit balancing This is the most interesting because BW game dmg mechanics dictated certain compositions like Mech vs Protoss only or Muta-zergling based ZvZ*. Still it didnt really make it "boring". Why? Well look at how the competetive gameplay progressed, unlike in SC2 BW emerged from Micro based game into Macro based game. The notion to this was very simple, units felt much stronger when used in tactical manner, when Boxer figured out dropship play everyone's jaw dropped on the floor, it was imbalanced on first glance, but when players started to figure out counter measures it became balanced. Look *tactical* measures not unit 1 dmg to unit 2 dmg. I believe the core example of unit balance is reaver, infamously known for its "buging" scarabs is in fact one of the most fair units in starcraft. Reaver drops became extremely strong in early competetive BW, however people started to figure out you can actually prevent or minimize the damage with fast reaction times, reaver scarab mechanic and delay was actually inentional. And after 10 years can we say they did a fine job? I think yes. As there was still not a single notion that really proved reavers to be too bad or too good. But 1 thing stays true, it was interesting and always increased your heartbeat. To the rest of your points many stays true, but we cant say that it was a game fault that it never took of in western countries, even in SC2 forums that would be laughable to say because its the same reason why SC2 is declining. Why it never took off in western country was very simple, the game was played casualy by masses (comparable to today SC2 populace) but the self improvemnt factor the game needed to overcome Koreans who got better WAY to fast because of their dedication and sudden infrastructure was to big. BW was as globally played as SC2 nowadays, the people who you watch in SC2 matches are people who came from BW and WC3.
Yeah and that's exactly my point. It's not necessarily the unit design that makes SC2 different, but it's the whole package of changes. Do you believe changing/removing the marauder and playing around a little bit with the stats of units will make SC2 less deathballish and more skillrewarding?
I don't believe so, in fact I think the unit design and balancing is actually really good in low numbers, it's just that in bigger numbers (deathballs) the benefits of many, many micro tricks become too little rewarding for the amount of effort that has to be put in.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that some form of "more investment into economy needed for less production" would be the best solution, to get SC2:
from unit spam to unit preserve
from "attack and destroy as much as you can" to carefully choosing your engagements
from "unit X is worthless because it's stats suck" to "i need unit X as well, because it fullfills a unique role and I need each and every role covered in a macro game"
from phase 1: economy phase 2: infrastructure, phase 3: units phase 4: max out and get the perfect composition to phase 1-4: let's actively use what we end up with for as long as it is alive.
Whether or not FRB maps are the solution can be questioned, but the general idea of less unit spam, more unit movement/usage is what enforces skill.
|
On April 23 2012 14:52 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 14:29 neoghaleon55 wrote:On April 23 2012 14:21 YyapSsap wrote:
Yeah, a hitpoint nerf could work with a slight tweak in damage numbers but I would kill for a tank buff.
If tanks are able to deal full damage to shields, it would make them viable in TvP without having to jiggle around with its damage against light/massive units and messing its relationship with other matchups. Wouldn't tank buff destroy ZvT? I'm more in favor of a Raven buff... Terrans need late game AOE. Well, zerg units dont have shields do they?  hence my reasoning that tanks should do full damage to shields and everything else remains the same. (I think this is better than having a bonus to massive which i initially thought), And agreed with a raven buff. I mean instead of the HSM which seems so hard to buff (big problem being that its instant damage), i would love to have those flame turrets instead. would be so much more useful. It sort of gives the raven a mobile defense setup unit role where they fly around and bolster defenses for a given period of time til the reinforcements arrive etc.
I agree that raven should be some kind of base defense caster unit for terran. It really feels like a nice, new idea that could have a lot of potential for neat strategies for terran. Like making positions harder to break or perhaps even contain opposing player.
It already has a 2 defensive abilities (auto turret and PDD). HSM is pretty darn poor ability and it doesn't even fit the raven that well either due to it being slow, vulnerable and hard to mass to make any good of it.
What the ability would be? I really don't know. Maybe it could be defensive matrix or something else.
Maybe it could also then have an ability to take back something like the turret to convert it to back into energy. The energy gain from it would depend on how long the auto turret has time left before it disappears. Like if it would last 100 seconds, every time a second passes would be -1% energy that you would get back from the spell.
|
@Avilo: why is it a bad thing that Protoss should be able to, as you put it, "dice roll" with all-ins? Are not the all-ins of every race a sort of dice roll? Things like the 1-1-1, for instance, are highly susceptible to chance, since the Terran player banks on the Protoss player not getting the proper composition to deal with his chosen 1-1-1. Similarly, Roach/Ling all-ins rely almost exclusively on the ability to deny scouting, as do Baneling Busts. These, to some degree, punish players who forgo cannons or Bunkers. Similarly, Protoss all-ins depend on the opponent being caught playing greedy or out of position. Someone opening 3OC in TvP is probably going to lose to a well-executed 6gate or a Warp Prism 4gate, but this isn't a flaw with Warpgate; it's a weakness of the Terran player's strategy. 6 gates and Immortal busts in general work on players who either don't scout or don't react properly (building Bunkers and pulling SCVs before the attack happens to get a good surround). Warpgate simply makes the all-in last as long as the Protoss player can afford it, but this is offset by the higher costs of units and by the fact that some units (namely Robo/Stargate units) can't be warped in, even though they can form the core component of an all-in.
I categorically reject that there is any issue in lategame TvP, so I won't address that part of your argument.
|
I categorically reject that there is any issue in lategame TvP, so I won't address that part of your argument.
I loved that part...
|
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it
|
On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it
Nonetheless, blindly implementing his solution would make Protoss incapable of all-inning effectively, whether you choose to see it or not. If some sort of proximity nerf were chosen, there would have to be a corresponding buff to the Stalker Zealot, which should be fair considering they would no longer be able to reinforce quickly.
And yeah, TvP being balanced at the highest level is a fact. Go watch some pro games.
|
On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it
You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright).
Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun.
|
On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun.
Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time.
Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud.
|
On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun.
I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but why don't they make it so that the farther the warp in is from the warpgate, the longer it takes to warp in? Could be interesting. I don't think the cooldown would have to be changed, so that way in a certain window of time you would have the same amount of units, but you wouldn't get the crazy instant waves of death that is a proxy pylon nowadays.
|
On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud.
Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already
User was warned for this post
|
On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun.
On April 25 2012 06:43 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it Nonetheless, blindly implementing his solution would make Protoss incapable of all-inning effectively, whether you choose to see it or not. If some sort of proximity nerf were chosen, there would have to be a corresponding buff to the Stalker Zealot, which should be fair considering they would no longer be able to reinforce quickly. And yeah, TvP being balanced at the highest level is a fact. Go watch some pro games.
Yeah well, Avilo (a pro) said it, I am just agreeing, late game insta reinforcement chargelots is bullshit, anyone who disagrees is just biased, also makes your "all ins" so much stronger than any other races as once again, no travel distance is required, killing defenders advantage, do you have any solid point or are you just going to say "oh warpgate units suck lol" ?
|
On April 23 2012 16:14 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 14:29 BenAD wrote:On April 23 2012 12:42 Drowsy wrote:On April 23 2012 12:05 BenAD wrote:
Obviously removing or changing the way warp gates works now, would have impact on balance, however I think it would make games much more interesting tactically and to watch, if it was gone or severely changed.
It would help with defenders advantage etc.
Assuming associated changes were made to rebalance the game (which won't be a small feat) of course. One big problem though is that pvt early game is insanely terran favored and changing the way warpin works would allow more balance changes that could alleviate this while also balancing out lategame pvt being p favored. Sure changing the way warpgates would break the balance in every matchup, but I'd still love for blizzard to do it for HotS or LotV and then balance it through the matchups / game periods as much as possible. I just think it would make the game and the PvX matchups more interesting to play and watch. It would not break balance at all. All it would do is make it so protoss cannot do dice roll warpgate all-ins in every match-up. And if they are, they'll need a warp prism. It just makes them have to walk their units across the map meaning travel distance matters like in every good RTS game. SC2 warp-in is currently similar to having arbiter recall available to research on the cybernetics core and every pylon is an arbiter. Warp-in is one of the reasons even why PvP remains in it's current state where all-ins and 1 base play are basically more powerful than almost everything else. Can you imagine PvP with an actual defender's advantage and attackers being required to travel the distance of the map to the opponent's base? Suddenly you get more PvP macro games on 2+ bases because the game isn't ended by an all-in over 50% of the time. Just food for thought. Warpgate all-ins in all match-ups are pretty lame with proxy pylons, but PvP would dramatically become better with having warpgate changed.
I just don't get it. Pros and everything deal with warpgate all-ins all the damn time. We know how to deal with them. PvP is getting much further beyond 1base tactics now with the ramp changes and new builds.
Why are we still complaining about this? Why are people continuing to complain that it is broken? Move on.
Yeah well, Avilo (a pro) said it, I am just agreeing, late game insta reinforcement chargelots is bullshit, anyone who disagrees is just biased, also makes your "all ins" so much stronger than any other races as once again, no travel distance is required, killing defenders advantage, do you have any solid point or are you just going to say "oh warpgate units suck lol" ?
Why is it bullshit? Seems like a cool unique thing about the race that adds dynamism to the matchups.
|
Raven acceleration is too slow therefore can get sniped too easily for all the resources and trouble terrans go through to get one.
|
On April 25 2012 07:22 teamhozac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud. Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already
I was going to quote some of your dumber comments, untill it turned out to be every comment you've written over the last 5 pages. From if you die to a stim-timing then you should have scouted better and not chrono any probes (and would be perfectly fine without FFs), to gateway units are strong even without the sentries or other supporting units. You also mention that a straight up nerf to sentries and force fields (without a compensating buff) would be perfectly fine. And you mention how the sentry contain is so strong, while tank contains are horrible (because they "warp in an army of dragoons and just kill the terran's base". How ofte do you see a protoss player base trade against a 1/1/1? When is the last time you saw a pro sentry contain a terran player? I can easily find a bunch of games where tanks contain a protoss player.
Oh, and interestingly enough: most of your posts are calling people trolls!
|
On April 23 2012 06:20 coriamon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 03:01 avilo wrote:
If people want warpgate to ever become balanced and add back in the dynamic of defender's advantage to Protoss in all three match-ups there is a very simple solution that blizzard can implement to Heart of the Swarm that will make it impossible to do random warp-gate all-ins across the entire map.
And no, it's not really arguable that warp-in is balanced - it defies one of the principle concepts of wargames which is travel distance.
To keep warp-in in the game to allow Protoss their unique race advantage but not make it overwhelming in lategame or too good with all-ins like it currently is Blizzard can do the following things.
Blizzard can make it so Protoss is only allowed to warp-in units in proximity to their nexus's or the gateways themselves. They can add in a late-game research/upgrade that allows protoss players to build a pylon and pay a cost of minerals/small gas cost to turn that pylon into a "warp-in pylon." What this does, is it still allows protoss players to abuse warp-in defensively, but now in mid-game Protoss players cannot randomly 2 base warp-in all-in without walking reinforcements across the map like a GOOD RTS game.
Of course, warpgate all-ins are still possible with use of the warp prism, which was the entire point of the warp prism in the first place, which is perfectly fine because then there is the investment of the robo + a warp prism, which inherently also makes protoss mass gate all-ins easier to scout.
This also fixes PvP making it possible to play games that aren't mostly 1 base vs 1 base because now reinforcements have to cross the entire map to reach the opponent, giving that defender's advantage...back to the defender.
Blizzard can fix warp-gate in a way like this and they know it is broken, but whether they "fix" it and add defender's advantage back into the game is up to them. Building a 100 mineral building allowing instant reinforcements is the key reason why PvP is such a trash match-up, PvT has problems lategame as well simply because of warping in chargelots, along with mid-game problems in terms of dice rolling gateway all-ins that have instant reinforcements and are very forgiving for the protoss player. PvZ warp-gate all-ins are also very easy to execute. So making it necessary to build a warp prism to do these all-ins, along with forcing protoss to walk reinforcements to battles...it just fixes the entire issue with warp-in.
And then Blizzard can decide if they want to allow protoss to build a 100 mineral building to upgrade lategame to allow warp-ins across the map that defy every RTS principle. I completely disagree with your statement. Although Starcraft II was only my second RTS, I understand that games don't need to follow a "specific formula" and are otherwise not balanced. Also, I'd like to mention that I play random. The defenders advantage is an interesting thing that you bring up with Protoss. The ability to warp in units allows the Protoss player to circumvent the defenders advantage (as you stated before). Let us discuss what Protoss has to balance out this ability. First: Protoss units must be together to do a lot of damage, and early on this is even more important. Simply stated; I'll elaborate. Protoss units have high synergy with eachother, but they suck on their own; the stalkers must be supported by the zealots, or they die to low amount of units (their dps is low, and their survivability is low). Zealots must be supported by sentries or they cannot catch the marine marauder troops (even with charge, stimmed bio can run from zealots with no troubles. Pure sentries vs any unit is a bad exchange for the player with the sentries. Second: The proxy pylon must be well defended. If the proxy pylon is not well defended, your faster units will have to trouble stopping the warp-gate allin; they will merely pick off the pylon before it causes a problem. This also includes the warp prism; the very fragile flying warp prism. Third: Warpgate units can't deal with mass numbers. A chargelot Archon composition is the best composition that comes out of solely warp gates, and it is not good when fighting maxed, even when supplimented with high templars. While the AOE can be high, it is harder to control an ONLY warpgate unit army than pretty much any other army. Fourth: This is only because you mentioned PvZ gateway allins. Before HT and Archons, Protoss only has single target units in their army. Zerg can get these things called hydras or zerglings which have incredibly high dps and swarm in masses. They pretty much destroy any gateway allin. Just to rebuddle the obvious counter-arguement, getting a precautionary hydra den will not put you behind, and anyways it is easy to scout for these allins. Warpins are something that makes SCII different from other RTS games. It is something that makes this game unique and it shouldn't be taken away before considering all of the factors of the game. EDIT: getting rid of quote about protoss flamers.
I really enjoy how I get completely ignored by the people trying to prove that warpins aren't balanced. Please read this over. I'll continue here I guess.
5. Warpins allow for Protoss to have reinforcements wherever Protoss has power. However, this means they are limitted by their simcity. They are unable to warpin a lot of units in the same place unless there is sufficient surface area; an issue that happens a lot is that there isn't enough area.
6. Warping in leaves the unit vulnerable while the unit is warping in. This means that protoss units can die quite easily if they are warped in at the incorrect position at the incorrect time. Too often do I lose the 4 zealots that I was warping in to reinforce.
7. Protoss mobility comes from warpin. Take it away, and they will be unable to move out until they get 200/200. Let me explain:
As I explained in my last post, Protoss units have high synergy with eachother, yet are quite bad on their own. Protoss NEEDS certain units or their overall army will simply die. An example of this is when all your zealots die and you have to retreat.
Warpins allow Protoss to be able to reinforce with THE CORRECT UNITS. Otherwise terran could simply target all of the sentries early on (trading badly), but then destroy all of the zealots because they can't touch the terran's marine marauder force while all the sentries are rebuilding (trading beautifully). Protoss will not be able to move out because they will fear not having the correct units ON THE WAY.
Stalker mobility and colossus mobility pales in comparisson to the ability to move out with your entire army without fear of being completely decimated by inferior forces.
|
On April 25 2012 07:38 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:22 teamhozac wrote:On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud. Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already I was going to quote some of your dumber comments, untill it turned out to be every comment you've written over the last 5 pages. From if you die to a stim-timing then you should have scouted better and not chrono any probes (and would be perfectly fine without FFs), to gateway units are strong even without the sentries or other supporting units. You also mention that a straight up nerf to sentries and force fields (without a compensating buff) would be perfectly fine. And you mention how the sentry contain is so strong, while tank contains are horrible (because they "warp in an army of dragoons and just kill the terran's base". How ofte do you see a protoss player base trade against a 1/1/1? When is the last time you saw a pro sentry contain a terran player? I can easily find a bunch of games where tanks contain a protoss player. Oh, and interestingly enough: most of your posts are calling people trolls!
Look another one! yeah way to quote me on trolling, beacuse I havent done it, find one example where I trolled... oh no? guess that means youre just being an idiot as well. I offered suggestions for balance, I got flamed, and you are continuing the flame war, well done, brownie points to you.
|
On April 25 2012 07:38 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:22 teamhozac wrote:On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud. Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already I was going to quote some of your dumber comments, untill it turned out to be every comment you've written over the last 5 pages. From if you die to a stim-timing then you should have scouted better and not chrono any probes (and would be perfectly fine without FFs), to gateway units are strong even without the sentries or other supporting units. You also mention that a straight up nerf to sentries and force fields (without a compensating buff) would be perfectly fine. And you mention how the sentry contain is so strong, while tank contains are horrible (because they "warp in an army of dragoons and just kill the terran's base". How ofte do you see a protoss player base trade against a 1/1/1? When is the last time you saw a pro sentry contain a terran player? I can easily find a bunch of games where tanks contain a protoss player. Oh, and interestingly enough: most of your posts are calling people trolls!
Replays PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to see a pro game where a toss was contained by tanks, it would really make my day, go:
|
On April 25 2012 09:11 teamhozac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:38 convention wrote:On April 25 2012 07:22 teamhozac wrote:On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud. Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already I was going to quote some of your dumber comments, untill it turned out to be every comment you've written over the last 5 pages. From if you die to a stim-timing then you should have scouted better and not chrono any probes (and would be perfectly fine without FFs), to gateway units are strong even without the sentries or other supporting units. You also mention that a straight up nerf to sentries and force fields (without a compensating buff) would be perfectly fine. And you mention how the sentry contain is so strong, while tank contains are horrible (because they "warp in an army of dragoons and just kill the terran's base". How ofte do you see a protoss player base trade against a 1/1/1? When is the last time you saw a pro sentry contain a terran player? I can easily find a bunch of games where tanks contain a protoss player. Oh, and interestingly enough: most of your posts are calling people trolls! Replays PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to see a pro game where a toss was contained by tanks, it would really make my day, go:
I'd really like to see a replay of a Terran playing standard and getting contained at his ramp by a Sentry.
|
On April 25 2012 09:11 teamhozac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:38 convention wrote:On April 25 2012 07:22 teamhozac wrote:On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud. Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already I was going to quote some of your dumber comments, untill it turned out to be every comment you've written over the last 5 pages. From if you die to a stim-timing then you should have scouted better and not chrono any probes (and would be perfectly fine without FFs), to gateway units are strong even without the sentries or other supporting units. You also mention that a straight up nerf to sentries and force fields (without a compensating buff) would be perfectly fine. And you mention how the sentry contain is so strong, while tank contains are horrible (because they "warp in an army of dragoons and just kill the terran's base". How ofte do you see a protoss player base trade against a 1/1/1? When is the last time you saw a pro sentry contain a terran player? I can easily find a bunch of games where tanks contain a protoss player. Oh, and interestingly enough: most of your posts are calling people trolls! Replays PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to see a pro game where a toss was contained by tanks, it would really make my day, go:
Look at Thorzain v. Slayers in the EG master's cup, game 3. He contains the protoss inside his natural with tanks and just picks away at zealots, stalkers, probes and everything else with cloaked banshees.
Edit: Suppose to say game 1 vs Alicia.
Link to make it easier to find: http://mcsl.evilgeniuses.net/Results_and_VODs/Week1/?match=1/
|
On April 25 2012 09:40 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 09:11 teamhozac wrote:On April 25 2012 07:38 convention wrote:On April 25 2012 07:22 teamhozac wrote:On April 25 2012 06:50 Toastie wrote:On April 25 2012 06:45 Resistentialism wrote:On April 25 2012 06:24 teamhozac wrote:
Warp gate = not balanced, as explained by Avilo, because of instant reinforcements and defiance of defenders advantage, pretty much all there is to it You're... pretty much not getting it. Protoss is "balanced"... around, and in spite, of warpgates, by having what ought to be fairly obvious weaknesses in the gateway units themselves. Though I'm sure someone like you is going to try and tell us that warp gate units need nerfs even on top of losing warp gate tech (probably zealots in particular amiright). Whether or not it's balanced, which depends on a ton of factors like maps and metagame evolution, the problem is that it's bad design. It's making the game less interesting, and in the long run it's making the game less fun. Read the last couple of pages. If he could, TeamHozaterribad would make Marines do >9000 damage/shot with .01 attack speed and a cool ability to be invulnerable for 300 seconds after being hit for the first time. Warpgate, in the current stage of this game, IS, in fact, balanced. Because it is what was balanced aroud. Youre the biggest idiot on this forum, how you dont get warned for your consistent trolling and nonsense posts is beyond me, please, go away already I was going to quote some of your dumber comments, untill it turned out to be every comment you've written over the last 5 pages. From if you die to a stim-timing then you should have scouted better and not chrono any probes (and would be perfectly fine without FFs), to gateway units are strong even without the sentries or other supporting units. You also mention that a straight up nerf to sentries and force fields (without a compensating buff) would be perfectly fine. And you mention how the sentry contain is so strong, while tank contains are horrible (because they "warp in an army of dragoons and just kill the terran's base". How ofte do you see a protoss player base trade against a 1/1/1? When is the last time you saw a pro sentry contain a terran player? I can easily find a bunch of games where tanks contain a protoss player. Oh, and interestingly enough: most of your posts are calling people trolls! Replays PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to see a pro game where a toss was contained by tanks, it would really make my day, go: Look at Thorzain v. Slayers in the EG master's cup, game 3. He contains the protoss inside his natural with tanks and just picks away at zealots, stalkers, probes and everything else with cloaked banshees. Edit: Suppose to say game 1 vs Alicia. Link to make it easier to find: http://mcsl.evilgeniuses.net/Results_and_VODs/Week1/?match=1/
Alicia totally botched the contain break by not having his zealots in the front, yeah, he was contained but he still could have won if he would not have made such an amatuer mistake
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
