|
On April 28 2012 06:17 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:38 Xlancer wrote:On April 28 2012 05:13 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 04:15 Xlancer wrote:
giving zerg overseers at hatch tech would be way overpowered since it would make banshee and DT openings useless vs zerg. I think that should allow overlord speed to be researched at hatch tech, or just increase the base overlord speed. There are plenty of reasons why overseer at hatch tech wouldn't be a smart change. Cloaked banshee and DT opening being 'useless' is not one of them. Wow, what's with the arrogance? Please "enlighten" me as to the REAL reasons why overseers at hatch tech is a bad idea... Because you can contaminate warp-gate tech, for one thing. Cloaked banshees are almost never used at pro level these days (it puts the Terran player in a terrible position if scouted) and DT is not an opener that matters - zerg players frequently deal with DTs at lair tech using spores, and aggression happens after roach speed - so defensive DT play remains unchanged (and is never really used).
Oh man, forget zergling speed or roachs. Get four-five overseers and contaminate structure protoss or terran have. No production for you.
|
On April 28 2012 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 06:17 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 05:38 Xlancer wrote:On April 28 2012 05:13 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 04:15 Xlancer wrote:
giving zerg overseers at hatch tech would be way overpowered since it would make banshee and DT openings useless vs zerg. I think that should allow overlord speed to be researched at hatch tech, or just increase the base overlord speed. There are plenty of reasons why overseer at hatch tech wouldn't be a smart change. Cloaked banshee and DT opening being 'useless' is not one of them. Wow, what's with the arrogance? Please "enlighten" me as to the REAL reasons why overseers at hatch tech is a bad idea... Because you can contaminate warp-gate tech, for one thing. Cloaked banshees are almost never used at pro level these days (it puts the Terran player in a terrible position if scouted) and DT is not an opener that matters - zerg players frequently deal with DTs at lair tech using spores, and aggression happens after roach speed - so defensive DT play remains unchanged (and is never really used). Oh man, forget zergling speed or roachs. Get four-five overseers and contaminate structure protoss or terran have. No production for you.
Yup, pretty much. Imagine forge-fast expand vs zerg spamming overseers off one gas. :D
|
On April 28 2012 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:51 SupLilSon wrote:On April 28 2012 04:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2012 04:31 Chef0 wrote:
I think Psi Storm needs a little nerf, so the game could be more balanced. As of now, one psi storm can be devastating to marines, marauders, zerglings and pretty much that is biological. So, I think that the following change will be good : instead of 80 dmg to every type of units, make it 45 dmg vs bio and 45(+35) vs mechanical. Basically, while it will remain unchanged vs mechanical, it certainly wouldn't be that devastating to biological units. So.... essentially remove the function of psi storm from the game? That's like me kindly asking for EMP to only remove 25 energy and shields from all Protoss units and spellcasters, but as much energy and shields as you want from any other unit. See the problem? It's retarded. I can see how you have 16000 posts, putting so much effort into each of your responses.. How do you expect people to engage in balance "discussion" with you or take you at all seriously when your response to people's proposals is "It's retarded". Like really? Well bad ideas are bad ideas. Psi storms main feature is the amount of damage it does and it is an extream late game spell. The spell would be beyond useless against zerg, since it wouldn't even dent roaches. It is also one of the 3 AOEs protoss have. It would just be silly and not worth the price.
People keep throwing around ideas without fully thinking of the consequences these ideas would have on any part of the game besides a specific match up. The guy who said the idea didn't even really give it any justification.
This is indeed, a bad idea.
|
On April 28 2012 05:00 Resistentialism wrote:
If it takes you an average of 10-12 posts in a discussion to get to the point where you say "Ok, I'm out of here, I can't argue with these people.", maybe you should stop reading and responding to this thread? It doesn't seem to be doing you any good.
No. The ones who should get out are the ones who come in here to flame others, but refuse to accept any criticism. Not really the ones, more like the one person who's contributed 90% of the useless shit in the last few pages.
|
On April 28 2012 06:20 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 06:17 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 05:38 Xlancer wrote:On April 28 2012 05:13 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 04:15 Xlancer wrote:
giving zerg overseers at hatch tech would be way overpowered since it would make banshee and DT openings useless vs zerg. I think that should allow overlord speed to be researched at hatch tech, or just increase the base overlord speed. There are plenty of reasons why overseer at hatch tech wouldn't be a smart change. Cloaked banshee and DT opening being 'useless' is not one of them. Wow, what's with the arrogance? Please "enlighten" me as to the REAL reasons why overseers at hatch tech is a bad idea... Because you can contaminate warp-gate tech, for one thing. Cloaked banshees are almost never used at pro level these days (it puts the Terran player in a terrible position if scouted) and DT is not an opener that matters - zerg players frequently deal with DTs at lair tech using spores, and aggression happens after roach speed - so defensive DT play remains unchanged (and is never really used). Oh man, forget zergling speed or roachs. Get four-five overseers and contaminate structure protoss or terran have. No production for you. Yup, pretty much. Imagine forge-fast expand vs zerg spamming overseers off one gas. :D
you do realize that it takes 125 energy to contaminate, so that means you'll have to wait over 2min after you morph the overseer just to contaminate 1 building for 30sec. then wait another 3.5min to do it again. Doesn't seem very strong considering how much it will hurt zergs economy 2min before it can do anything to me.
Also, the main reason why I go banshees or DTs is to deny zerg's 3rd base since they won't be able to have detection up at their 3rd in time. making it 2 base vs 2 base till zerg techs to lair.
|
On April 28 2012 07:49 Xlancer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 06:20 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 06:17 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 05:38 Xlancer wrote:On April 28 2012 05:13 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 04:15 Xlancer wrote:
giving zerg overseers at hatch tech would be way overpowered since it would make banshee and DT openings useless vs zerg. I think that should allow overlord speed to be researched at hatch tech, or just increase the base overlord speed. There are plenty of reasons why overseer at hatch tech wouldn't be a smart change. Cloaked banshee and DT opening being 'useless' is not one of them. Wow, what's with the arrogance? Please "enlighten" me as to the REAL reasons why overseers at hatch tech is a bad idea... Because you can contaminate warp-gate tech, for one thing. Cloaked banshees are almost never used at pro level these days (it puts the Terran player in a terrible position if scouted) and DT is not an opener that matters - zerg players frequently deal with DTs at lair tech using spores, and aggression happens after roach speed - so defensive DT play remains unchanged (and is never really used). Oh man, forget zergling speed or roachs. Get four-five overseers and contaminate structure protoss or terran have. No production for you. Yup, pretty much. Imagine forge-fast expand vs zerg spamming overseers off one gas. :D you do realize that it takes 125 energy to contaminate, so that means you'll have to wait over 2min after you morph the overseer just to contaminate 1 building for 30sec. then wait another 3.5min to do it again. Doesn't seem very strong considering how much it will hurt zergs economy 2min before it can do anything to me. Also, the main reason why I go banshees or DTs is to deny zerg's 3rd base since they won't be able to have detection up at their 3rd in time. making it 2 base vs 2 base till zerg techs to lair.
That still sounds pretty good imo. In a PvZ, I would grab my first gas a bit earlier, then morph 2 overseers with the first 100 gas. Slowing down warp gate tech by 1 minute. Any +1 zealot timing would be so badly crippled that the threat of it becomes nonexistent. I'll take it =D
Cute tricks with contaminate aside, hatch tech overseers would make cloaked units too terrible, as there's no way that zergs will be caught with their pants down. Protoss requires robo while zerg requires lair. I think that's pretty fair. Terran has scans, but having no energy when cloaked units attack still sucks so bad.. so every race has inherent vulnerabilities to cloaked units.
|
I'd like to know from the Terrans around here if they tried using tanks instead of Vikings against a late game Colossus switch and what the results have been (not going for Biotank, but adding 1-2 Factories against Colossi instead of another Starport). Do they just get obliterated when you kite the Bioball back and have to leave the Tanks exposed? They just seem like a more versatile unit to have than a Viking.
|
On April 29 2012 08:40 CruelZeratul wrote:
I'd like to know from the Terrans around here if they tried using tanks instead of Vikings against a late game Colossus switch and what the results have been (not going for Biotank, but adding 1-2 Factories against Colossi instead of another Starport). Do they just get obliterated when you kite the Bioball back and have to leave the Tanks exposed? They just seem like a more versatile unit to have than a Viking.
Tanks are too immobile. They need time to siege up, and once sieged they can't run. Tanks also get mauled by chargelots, blink stalkers, immortals... well just about anything. They're only useful at specific timings when the toss player doesn't have many tools to combat tanks easily, except immortals which need to be microed well.
|
On April 28 2012 05:38 Xlancer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:13 Dragar wrote:On April 28 2012 04:15 Xlancer wrote:
giving zerg overseers at hatch tech would be way overpowered since it would make banshee and DT openings useless vs zerg. I think that should allow overlord speed to be researched at hatch tech, or just increase the base overlord speed. There are plenty of reasons why overseer at hatch tech wouldn't be a smart change. Cloaked banshee and DT opening being 'useless' is not one of them. Wow, what's with the arrogance? Please "enlighten" me as to the REAL reasons why overseers at hatch tech is a bad idea...
Well... actually, it IS that invisible units become useless. It means that Zerg, at any point in the game, with no warning beforehand, can instantly have a mobile detector available. It means that Zerg suddenly doesn't have to worry about getting tech versus playing greedy, which is a problem for the game. An unhindered Zerg has by FAR the best economy in the game. What keeps them playing fair is Terran and Protoss pressure and the threat thereof. It forces the Zerg to play suboptimally in order to ensure they don't just die. Removing these pressures on Zerg has the unintended side-effect of making Zerg much stronger economically. If you can prove that Zerg needs this eco buff, then sure, this is something that should be done. But it isn't as simple as preventing Zerg from dying to coin flips. It will inherently make every part of Zerg play much stronger, not just more reliable.
|
Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 03:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's not proof of anything. So you can stop with all the snide smileys. We're talking about protoss achieving GM consistently season after season using these 1-2 base builds. You point to 1 player who made it in GM season 1 or 2. Neither of those players were able to keep their ranking, not even remotely close. Get over it. You challenge us to point out even a single Zerg or Terran. We point out several without even needing to perform an in depth search. Even recent ones. You yell at us for not finding more? Do your own research. Stop wasting our time.  EDIT: I'm done with this discussion. Find your own GM players; I have no idea how many would convince you, and I don't have the time (nor the care) to find out. Good luck.
Well, it was depressing to watch recent PvP between Oz and Squirtle. I have no choice but to acknowledge that Protoss is indeed the cheesiest race. Double-gas stealing and inbase pylon on opponents main, followed by blink all-in, etc. It was fun watching the game but left a bad aftertaste, to be frank.
Protoss is indeed a bit more "sneaky" and "cheesy" than the othe races. It's also silly that a lone missed probe hidden somewhere on the map can be a game deciding factor, essentially Protoss players praying the probe not to be scouted.
Zerg cheeses are quite laughable compared to T/P cheeses. Their cheeses are also way more all-in than T/P cheeses. As for Protoss scouting difficulty against Terran, to be frank the only thing P has to worry about is cloaked banshees on close positions. In some games Terrans do pull off the good-old 2-rax marine/maraudor pressure, but that's kind of like 2 rax in TvZ. Many Protoss players have refined their builds to fend off 2 rax aggression and come out on top of it. (recent forge fast-expand in TvP is another innovation from Protoss, and we'll see how that works out)
So basically that leaves only cloaked banshees as the only thing that needs to be scouted/confirmed by P, (I mean, what else is there that Terran can pull out other than MMM?) and I think that much needs to be kept in the game to keep Protoss honest. Otherwise Protoss literally will have nothing to fear and proceed with greed, just as they do right now in PvZ.
|
I've got an idea that I'd like feedback on. Namely, the problem with TvP isn't the lategame, it's the early game. Protoss players have recently discovered a series of VERY fast Nexus build orders that allow them to take an economic lead with very little risk: Nexus Gate and Nexus Forge, to be precise. Terran is still using the old, perhaps outdated Gasless FE build order. These Nexus first build orders give Gasless FE a ton of trouble, because they beat it economically and have no risk of repercussions. This economic lead quickly makes itself known in the midgame and eventually the lategame, where it is interpreted as "PvT lategame imba", when in fact it's the early economic lead which makes all this happen. Perhaps if we see Terran players start to diversify their build order openings, we could see these fast Nexus builds either fall out of favor or stop being quite so dominating.
|
On May 01 2012 22:09 Acritter wrote:
I've got an idea that I'd like feedback on. Namely, the problem with TvP isn't the lategame, it's the early game. Protoss players have recently discovered a series of VERY fast Nexus build orders that allow them to take an economic lead with very little risk: Nexus Gate and Nexus Forge, to be precise. Terran is still using the old, perhaps outdated Gasless FE build order. These Nexus first build orders give Gasless FE a ton of trouble, because they beat it economically and have no risk of repercussions. This economic lead quickly makes itself known in the midgame and eventually the lategame, where it is interpreted as "PvT lategame imba", when in fact it's the early economic lead which makes all this happen. Perhaps if we see Terran players start to diversify their build order openings, we could see these fast Nexus builds either fall out of favor or stop being quite so dominating.
Not really, terran has a ridiculously economic opening too, it's the 3 OC build. 3 OCs worth of mules is somewhat like having 12 extra scvs, and you can keep up with probe production (3 OCs build workers at the same speed as 2 chronoboosted nexuses).
I feel that the lategame problem is partially caused by the refusal of terran players to build a ton of raxes, like how protoss players build upwards of 20 warp gates. If you're floating a ton of extra minerals, why not put down 5-10 extra raxes? I've tried building 16 raxes before.. holy shit your production is insane. You can keep trading armies like how protoss players throw away their zealots.
|
How about having Overseers at hatch, but they getting detector only when lair finishes?
|
On May 01 2012 22:09 Acritter wrote:
I've got an idea that I'd like feedback on. Namely, the problem with TvP isn't the lategame, it's the early game. Protoss players have recently discovered a series of VERY fast Nexus build orders that allow them to take an economic lead with very little risk: Nexus Gate and Nexus Forge, to be precise. Terran is still using the old, perhaps outdated Gasless FE build order. These Nexus first build orders give Gasless FE a ton of trouble, because they beat it economically and have no risk of repercussions. This economic lead quickly makes itself known in the midgame and eventually the lategame, where it is interpreted as "PvT lategame imba", when in fact it's the early economic lead which makes all this happen. Perhaps if we see Terran players start to diversify their build order openings, we could see these fast Nexus builds either fall out of favor or stop being quite so dominating.
proxy thor rushes still work, energy or not and this is guaranteed to kill any FE opening if you don't prepare specificly for it.
|
On May 02 2012 01:15 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 22:09 Acritter wrote:
I've got an idea that I'd like feedback on. Namely, the problem with TvP isn't the lategame, it's the early game. Protoss players have recently discovered a series of VERY fast Nexus build orders that allow them to take an economic lead with very little risk: Nexus Gate and Nexus Forge, to be precise. Terran is still using the old, perhaps outdated Gasless FE build order. These Nexus first build orders give Gasless FE a ton of trouble, because they beat it economically and have no risk of repercussions. This economic lead quickly makes itself known in the midgame and eventually the lategame, where it is interpreted as "PvT lategame imba", when in fact it's the early economic lead which makes all this happen. Perhaps if we see Terran players start to diversify their build order openings, we could see these fast Nexus builds either fall out of favor or stop being quite so dominating. Not really, terran has a ridiculously economic opening too, it's the 3 OC build. 3 OCs worth of mules is somewhat like having 12 extra scvs, and you can keep up with probe production (3 OCs build workers at the same speed as 2 chronoboosted nexuses). I feel that the lategame problem is partially caused by the refusal of terran players to build a ton of raxes, like how protoss players build upwards of 20 warp gates. If you're floating a ton of extra minerals, why not put down 5-10 extra raxes? I've tried building 16 raxes before.. holy shit your production is insane. You can keep trading armies like how protoss players throw away their zealots.
The issue is the way the investments end up panning out. The second Nexus from Protoss gets the economy underway MUCH faster, and even leaves enough time for some brutal 2base 3-4 Gateway timings. And if, on the other hand, neither player interferes with one another, the Protoss is left free to tech up. With Chrono, this ends up happening much faster than Terran can compete with. I'm imagining some kind of 1base pressure resurging, maybe a modified Select 2rax or some kind of tech not-all-in. Have to wait and see, I guess.
@above: I'd really, REALLY like the answer to not be cheese. It's depressing when the answer is cheese.
|
I guess you're talking about the tendency rather than the ability to punish nexus first, but terrans already have overpoweringly solid ways to crush it, like 11/11 proxy. Nexus first is already pretty much out of style, now you see 1 gate expo or that weird forge gate expand.
|
On May 02 2012 01:33 Acritter wrote:
@above: I'd really, REALLY like the answer to not be cheese. It's depressing when the answer is cheese.
i don't consider it cheese, when you do it reactively.
|
On May 02 2012 01:15 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 22:09 Acritter wrote:
I've got an idea that I'd like feedback on. Namely, the problem with TvP isn't the lategame, it's the early game. Protoss players have recently discovered a series of VERY fast Nexus build orders that allow them to take an economic lead with very little risk: Nexus Gate and Nexus Forge, to be precise. Terran is still using the old, perhaps outdated Gasless FE build order. These Nexus first build orders give Gasless FE a ton of trouble, because they beat it economically and have no risk of repercussions. This economic lead quickly makes itself known in the midgame and eventually the lategame, where it is interpreted as "PvT lategame imba", when in fact it's the early economic lead which makes all this happen. Perhaps if we see Terran players start to diversify their build order openings, we could see these fast Nexus builds either fall out of favor or stop being quite so dominating. Not really, terran has a ridiculously economic opening too, it's the 3 OC build. 3 OCs worth of mules is somewhat like having 12 extra scvs, and you can keep up with probe production (3 OCs build workers at the same speed as 2 chronoboosted nexuses). I feel that the lategame problem is partially caused by the refusal of terran players to build a ton of raxes, like how protoss players build upwards of 20 warp gates. If you're floating a ton of extra minerals, why not put down 5-10 extra raxes? I've tried building 16 raxes before.. holy shit your production is insane. You can keep trading armies like how protoss players throw away their zealots.
I think that is because terran wins a lot more in the early and mid game. Most protoss and zerg want to get to the late game and have a lot more experiance. Most terrans on I play on the ladder never get up to 20 raxes, while I rock out on 20 gateways and 3 robos. I fear when terrans start building 16 raxes and then throw reactors on all of them. 32 marines at a time is a scary number of marines every 45 seconds.
|
|
|
On May 02 2012 01:37 Resistentialism wrote:
I guess you're talking about the tendency rather than the ability to punish nexus first, but terrans already have overpoweringly solid ways to crush it, like 11/11 proxy. Nexus first is already pretty much out of style, now you see 1 gate expo or that weird forge gate expand.
Nexus Forge beats dual proxy, if you scout it.
On May 02 2012 01:39 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:33 Acritter wrote:
@above: I'd really, REALLY like the answer to not be cheese. It's depressing when the answer is cheese. i don't consider it cheese, when you do it reactively.
Cheese is just something that relies on not being scouted in order to win, and loses most of its strength once it is scouted. For example: 1-1-1 is NOT cheese, but Baneling bust is. Reactive play can be cheesy or standard, just like proactive play.
On May 02 2012 04:19 monkybone wrote:
14 CC is an option. I think day9 did a daily on it. You need good building placement and a quick bunker. A counter to this is to pull probes as seen several times in the GSL, but I doubt that's metagame yet. It transitions into a lot of rax, and if I remember correctly from these matches a quick colossus timing isn't too dangerous.
I BELIEVE that it's weak to 3gate pressure a la NaNiwa, which would make it very weak to 30 Nexus. Don't quote me on that, though. The economic lead might be enough at that point to hold on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
