EPTI hope in HotS they give protoss another skill for their nexus because at the moment every protoss i see has full energy on his nexus in the late game because there's really not that much you can do with it.
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 45
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HigoSeco
Chile232 Posts
I hope in HotS they give protoss another skill for their nexus because at the moment every protoss i see has full energy on his nexus in the late game because there's really not that much you can do with it. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote: I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem. Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs. Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes. Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced. Late game PvT wasnt balanced which is why they made the change. | ||
|
MeLo
Australia192 Posts
Maybe a HoTS idea but let us build an Observer from the Nexus instead of the Robo. If we didn't have to get a Robo incase of cloaked banshees I think it'd be easier to deal with. | ||
|
eloist
United States1017 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote: I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem. Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs. Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes. Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced. Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
| ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
Protoss just needs some help against 1-1-1. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote: Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. What exactly was the merit of the Warpgate nerf? I mean, even pros think it was pointless, and didn't achieve what it was supposed to do. | ||
|
IAttackYou
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote: Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. | ||
|
Korlinni
125 Posts
| ||
|
Veritassong
Canada393 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:58 IAttackYou wrote: The fact is if you see 1-1-1 with bunch of marines, it is generally smart to tech to colossus with few immortals to deal with it. If the Terran is going all in, you should respect it and tech vs it accordingly. You can only get 1 collo out without range. It's not enough. There's a reason none of the top Protoss players even bother trying collo: they've tried it in practice and it simply doesn't work. It works on ladder because the Terrans are bad and execute the push too late. | ||
|
eloist
United States1017 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote: Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. Builds like 3 gate pressure are still difficult for me to deal with when I play terran, it's not as clear cut as you present it. Protoss late game is very vulnerable to ghost now as it stands I agree. However, the way to go is not to un-fix all those other issues but open up another path such as making carrier play more viable. Would make chronoboost useful late game as well. As for the the 1-1-1, the Phoenix opening seems very promising. It delayed Puma until he had a second Raven out. MC didn't really capitalize on the fact that he sniped it with DTs though. The dark shrine was not a worthwhile investment like that. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote: Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. It was a much funnier joke when protoss was invulnerable to drops after a certain point in the game, and was able to whittle down a terran army to red and orange health (even with good storm dodging) by the time terran reached toss base. And sure, ghosts >>> templar, but blizzard never said that the spellcasters of each race were meant to be similarly powerful. | ||
|
Barkziee
United Kingdom138 Posts
On August 22 2011 03:01 eloist wrote: Builds like 3 gate pressure are still difficult for me to deal with when I play terran, it's not as clear cut as you present it. Protoss late game is very vulnerable to ghost now as it stands I agree. However, the way to go is not to un-fix all those other issues but open up another path such as making carrier play more viable. Would make chronoboost useful late game as well. Chrono is already useful late game, you chrono shit and it happens faster. You dont need a carrier buff to make it useful. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
|
Williammm
Australia908 Posts
Overall pdd is fine, since in BW zerg had dark swarm and that was doable. Main problem is PDD LASTS FOR 3 MINUTES! regens energy too... and denies stalker/phoenix attempts to take it down or the raven down. Making PDD last 30 seconds would have made 1/1/1 all in more managable | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On August 22 2011 03:01 TheAntZ wrote: And sure, ghosts >>> templar, but blizzard never said that the spellcasters of each race were meant to be similarly powerful. But in this case whoever wins the caster war invariably wins the game. So ghosts just being plain better is kind of a problem. If gateway armies were overall > bio and ghosts were evening it up, that would of course be just fine. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
Thats why protoss has the colossus option and can juggle between the two techpaths. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
On August 22 2011 03:01 TheAntZ wrote: And sure, ghosts >>> templar, but blizzard never said that the spellcasters of each race were meant to be similarly powerful. That's true, but the argument (as he presents it) has little to do with equivalent powers of spellcasters (though, frankly, when one caster completely invalidates the power of another...), but rather has to do with "what can protoss do to deal with a powerful terran army, the analysis of comparing spellcasters because more valid. On August 22 2011 03:04 Bagi wrote: Ghosts are like the ultimate anti-templar unit, saying that ghosts counter templars is like saying roaches counter zealots. Its intended. Thats why protoss has the colossus option and can juggle between the two techpaths. You make it seem as though "juggling between the two techpaths" is an easy to accomplish route - unfortunately the two different tech paths a: are in opposite teching directions, b: require different buildings to build said units c: are costly to tech to, particularly in reference to the time of teching. By the time you have spent back-teching (particularly to colossi), terran has had a significant amount of time / resources to have a strong army anyways. It's not quite the same as, say for zerg, going from a roach heavy army, to a ling muta army (since both only require larvae and getting a spire is pretty standard for most zerg players) | ||
| ||
