|
On May 27 2013 07:28 AstroPegnuin wrote:
Wasn't sure were to post this but I have an idea for the Widow Mine, what if whatever was being targeted by the Widow Mine turned red or another color like HSM currently does? It would make it so better players could attempt to split before the occurrence raising the skill cap, also like what we saw with Stephano versus ForGG you could even try and send the afflicted unit into friendly fire range to have it backfire on the Terran.
That would be interesting, they should at least do it for the observer so we could see terran switching targets, that kind of micro that might happens with some of the best terrans but we can't really see it.
What point that could be tweaked is the amount of time needed for the mine to attack, if you could make it smaller, it would be easier for the zerg to trigger the mine with zergling (but good terran would unburrow/burrow the mine), but harder for mutalisk to clean them, harder to react to avoid their shot... and so on. On the other hand, make it longer and you could clean and avoid them easier, you could snipe them before they shot, but it would be harder to trigger them and more easier for the terran to switch targets. Both tweaks could be interesting, I guess it all depends the purpose Blizzard want to gives to the Widow Mine.
About the creep, it would be a good ideaa if maybe widow mine on creep weren't totally invisible, I'm not saying doing like the creep could detect the Mine but just visually, you could see where the mine are burrow same as you can see invisible unit. But it's probably too strong as a buff.
|
I think an easy fix to the Widow Mine would be to remove it's anti-air attack, but make that ability a tech option from the tech lab.
Just a thought 
|
On May 27 2013 18:20 M.theory wrote:I think an easy fix to the Widow Mine would be to remove it's anti-air attack, but make that ability a tech option from the tech lab. Just a thought
I think there is no need to "fix" the widow mine.
|
On May 27 2013 18:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 18:20 M.theory wrote:I think an easy fix to the Widow Mine would be to remove it's anti-air attack, but make that ability a tech option from the tech lab. Just a thought I think there is no need to "fix" the widow mine.
To be honest, I really don't have a problem with the widow mine. I just wanted to contribute to the thread
|
On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill.
Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals.
So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer).
TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better..
|
On May 27 2013 18:32 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals. So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer). TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better..
You reply about MULES is so wrong at all stages of the game. Stop theory crafting and misinforming please
|
On May 27 2013 18:42 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 18:32 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals. So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer). TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better.. You reply about MULES is so wrong at all stages of the game. Stop theory crafting and misinforming please
Thank you for this very insightful post. If you are going to reply that someone is wrong, please explain how or why. I'm always up for reevaluating my position on anything, given new information, but your post was simply garbage.
|
On May 27 2013 18:51 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 18:42 Topdoller wrote:On May 27 2013 18:32 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals. So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer). TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better.. You reply about MULES is so wrong at all stages of the game. Stop theory crafting and misinforming please Thank you for this very insightful post. If you are going to reply that someone is wrong, please explain how or why. I'm always up for reevaluating my position on anything, given new information, but your post was simply garbage.
I wont explain it. Just watch the Pro play and you see it.
For example :-
MVP v Stephano yesterday . 180 supply Mech armies fueled by MULES.
You whole statement is based on a Calculator mathematics.Real people use a tool called imagination and flair you should try it. The uses of the MULE as has been seen in the last 3 years is amazing. Why do you think the top pros rush to 3 CC within 7 mins of the game.
|
On May 27 2013 19:11 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 18:51 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 18:42 Topdoller wrote:On May 27 2013 18:32 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals. So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer). TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better.. You reply about MULES is so wrong at all stages of the game. Stop theory crafting and misinforming please Thank you for this very insightful post. If you are going to reply that someone is wrong, please explain how or why. I'm always up for reevaluating my position on anything, given new information, but your post was simply garbage. I wont explain it. Just watch the Pro play and you see it. For example :- MVP v Stephano yesterday . 180 supply Mech armies fueled by MULES. You whole statement is based on a Calculator mathematics.Real people use a tool called imagination and flair you should try it. The uses of the MULE as has been seen in the last 3 years is amazing. Why do you think the top pros rush to 3 CC within 7 mins of the game.
Bold part: Because it allows the terran to keep up in workers with injects and chronos, and the flying command center can be put to mining use later.
I agree that mules are a very powerful tool in the late game, but zarahtra is talking about the early game. You are both right in your own ways.
I think chronoboost is an amazing tool, its so versatile. Its still waiting on being properly explored and exploited though.
|
On May 27 2013 19:25 kyllinghest wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 19:11 Topdoller wrote:On May 27 2013 18:51 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 18:42 Topdoller wrote:On May 27 2013 18:32 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals. So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer). TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better.. You reply about MULES is so wrong at all stages of the game. Stop theory crafting and misinforming please Thank you for this very insightful post. If you are going to reply that someone is wrong, please explain how or why. I'm always up for reevaluating my position on anything, given new information, but your post was simply garbage. I wont explain it. Just watch the Pro play and you see it. For example :- MVP v Stephano yesterday . 180 supply Mech armies fueled by MULES. You whole statement is based on a Calculator mathematics.Real people use a tool called imagination and flair you should try it. The uses of the MULE as has been seen in the last 3 years is amazing. Why do you think the top pros rush to 3 CC within 7 mins of the game. Bold part: Because it allows the terran to keep up in workers with injects and chronos, and the flying command center can be put to mining use later. I agree that mules are a very powerful tool in the late game, but zarahtra is talking about the early game. You are both right in your own ways. I think chronoboost is an amazing tool, its so versatile. Its still waiting on being properly explored and exploited though.
mules are amazing in all stages of the game, it let you catch up that mineral cost spent on the CC extremely quickly and it won't interrupt the SCV production.
|
On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill.
Protoss workers lose almost no mining time when making buildings, and buildings under construction can't be harassed (only destroyed). Terran sacrifice mining time when making buildings, and building scvs can be harassed. Zerg has to sacrifice a worker. Protoss also has nexus cannon, allowing them to play really greedy (upgrade wise, expansion timing wise, and in workers). It's more than fair.
|
On May 27 2013 19:25 kyllinghest wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 19:11 Topdoller wrote:On May 27 2013 18:51 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 18:42 Topdoller wrote:On May 27 2013 18:32 Zarahtra wrote:On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. Just to reply on this. Technically the terran's macro mechanic is worst, since it is a static +4.5 workers(note: that doesn't take into account oversaturation) while chrono allows for an average of 22.2% faster probe production. Also note that in the time it takes building the OC, you'd have made 2 SCVs, so in reality it is only +2.5 workers(and it has to be added, those 2.5 workers only cost 50 minerals and saved another ~56 minerals on depos). In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals. So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better. That being said, once you stop producing probes, the previous chronos stop producing "extra money"(you'd have just made probes a bit longer). TL:DR Don't sell chrono short, it is a strong macro mechanic. Mules have their uses however and in early attacks/allins are better. If I were to compare the two, I'd say mules are better econ boost while chrono is overall better.. You reply about MULES is so wrong at all stages of the game. Stop theory crafting and misinforming please Thank you for this very insightful post. If you are going to reply that someone is wrong, please explain how or why. I'm always up for reevaluating my position on anything, given new information, but your post was simply garbage. I wont explain it. Just watch the Pro play and you see it. For example :- MVP v Stephano yesterday . 180 supply Mech armies fueled by MULES. You whole statement is based on a Calculator mathematics.Real people use a tool called imagination and flair you should try it. The uses of the MULE as has been seen in the last 3 years is amazing. Why do you think the top pros rush to 3 CC within 7 mins of the game. Bold part: Because it allows the terran to keep up in workers with injects and chronos, and the flying command center can be put to mining use later. I agree that mules are a very powerful tool in the late game, but zarahtra is talking about the early game. You are both right in your own ways. I think chronoboost is an amazing tool, its so versatile. Its still waiting on being properly explored and exploited though.
I don't think there is a lot more to be explored and exploited with chronoboost. It's being heavily used to chrono upgrades and workers in macro games and heavily used to chrono certain units for early game and tech attacks. I don't think there is a lot more you can do with it. Maybe too speed up stargate transitions (upgrades/production) in the lategame, but I think this is already being done, though probably could be done more systematically.
And about mules. They are as good as 4workers and work unhindered even though if you have maximum SCV saturation. For straight up income purposes, mules beat the shit out of chronoboosts. It's astounding how Terrans keep on downplaying mules, when after 3base saturation Terran is often the race with the higher income in TvZ and TvP - often even from a nearly riskyfree situation with less and selfdefending bases. (though larva is really good as well and mules and "larva-drone-zerg static defense design" are the two tools that somewhat let's us break out of the "3base is enough"-syndrom. The mule one allowing for more eco investments to pay off, the larva-drone-static D one allowing zerg to sometimes saturate a 4th base by going 80-90workers instead of 70 for some time and then turning them into crawlers)
|
On May 27 2013 15:32 Morlock wrote:Once again, we have a tournament where Protoss is barely represented at the top, only having one player in the top 8. Whenever its players complain about the virtual neglect of one race in the game, the rationalization squad kicks in and we get told to shut up and wait another tournament. And realistically, this has been going on since late 2011 (save for one nice period which the other 2 races never shut up about, even though the current GSL count is 7 for Terran, 8 for Zerg, and 3 for Protoss).
This is because of the way that Protoss is designed. The more gimmicky a unit or an ability is, the harder it is to balance it, just look at fungal. Problem with Protoss is that the whole race is balanced around Force Fields and the ability to warp in units.
Let's just compare balancing EMP to balancing Force Fields. If Blizzard were to buff or nerf EMP they could change: Radius, missile speed, energy cost, cooldown or make it requrie upgrades. Now let's look at Force Fields: Radius can't be changed, because it is design to be able to block a ramp that is pretty much standard on next to every map in tournament pools. Obviously Force Fields could be turned into a projectile, but this would be a huge nerf, and almost defeat the purpose of the ability, which is to be able to block of ramps in an instant. Energy cost and/or added upgrade requirement is also something that is almost impossible to change, because the main purpose of the spell is (or was anyway) to fend of early rushes.
Personally i would not hope for any noteworthy changes for Protoss until LoV, because what Protoss needs is not a few tweaks, but rather a redesign that would be something for an expansion to deal with.
|
On May 27 2013 20:03 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 15:32 Morlock wrote:Once again, we have a tournament where Protoss is barely represented at the top, only having one player in the top 8. Whenever its players complain about the virtual neglect of one race in the game, the rationalization squad kicks in and we get told to shut up and wait another tournament. And realistically, this has been going on since late 2011 (save for one nice period which the other 2 races never shut up about, even though the current GSL count is 7 for Terran, 8 for Zerg, and 3 for Protoss). This is because of the way that Protoss is designed. The more gimmicky a unit or an ability is, the harder it is to balance it, just look at fungal. Problem with Protoss is that the whole race is balanced around Force Fields and the ability to warp in units. Let's just compare balancing EMP to balancing Force Fields. If Blizzard were to buff or nerf EMP they could change: Radius, missile speed, energy cost, cooldown or make it requrie upgrades. Now let's look at Force Fields: Radius can't be changed, because it is design to be able to block a ramp that is pretty much standard on next to every map in tournament pools. Obviously Force Fields could be turned into a projectile, but this would be a huge nerf, and almost defeat the purpose of the ability, which is to be able to block of ramps in an instant. Energy cost and/or added upgrade requirement is also something that is almost impossible to change, because the main purpose of the spell is (or was anyway) to fend of early rushes. Personally i would not hope for any noteworthy changes for Protoss until LoV, because what Protoss needs is not a few tweaks, but rather a redesign that would be something for an expansion to deal with.
Actually the easiest change for the force field is its range, which means a lot for the balance between defensive and offensive purposes.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Forcefield doesn't need to be changed. A protoss redesign is a different topic but as it is there's nothing wrong with FF.
Also I'm gonna predict that terran will have insanely high winrates against protoss very soon once players realize how to abuse medivacs properly. Not just the harrassment itself but also the map control medivacs bring and the freedom that comes with it.
|
On May 27 2013 20:28 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Forcefield doesn't need to be changed. A protoss redesign is a different topic but as it is there's nothing wrong with FF.
Also I'm gonna predict that terran will have insanely high winrates against protoss very soon once players realize how to abuse medivacs properly. Not just the harrassment itself but also the map control medivacs bring and the freedom that comes with it.
What's left to figure out? Terran already gains map control once they get medivacs out. That doesn't seem to be stopping protosses from having good winrates against them, especially in Korea.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 27 2013 20:32 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 20:28 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Forcefield doesn't need to be changed. A protoss redesign is a different topic but as it is there's nothing wrong with FF.
Also I'm gonna predict that terran will have insanely high winrates against protoss very soon once players realize how to abuse medivacs properly. Not just the harrassment itself but also the map control medivacs bring and the freedom that comes with it. What's left to figure out? Terran already gains map control once they get medivacs out. That doesn't seem to be stopping protosses from having good winrates against them, especially in Korea.
Because terrans are not greedy enough behind it yet imo. You can easily take a fast third and from there on you're already ahead economically. Which means you should be able to easily go 2 starports or get a very quick Ghost Academy + more barracks, whatever you need. You can do that sort of powering because you're ahead in economy. If you keep up the pressure or threaten it, protoss' third will be extremely delayed and that means their tech switches will be as well. So then just do a timing attack with good upgrades + whatever tech you need + great production and profit.
That's what most people haven't figured out yet for some reason but that's pretty much why some terrans have a ridiculous winrate vs protoss. Once it catches on, there'll be high winrates for terran.
Also, I've yet to see a terran boost a godamn medivac in and out a protoss base to scout. Which they should. Same way protosses use their MSC/phoenix/oracles to scout.
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
In short it takes 5 chronos(up until 4 minute mark on main nexus) on probes each nexus you get to make chrono boost better than mules, assuming you never oversaturate minerals.
So in a world where protoss can chrono probes a lot, chrono is better.
Because the third nexus is done before you reach 32 probes on minerals right =P
Even with 4 gas, that's saying you should start a third at something like 7 minutes. The reality is you often can't vs terran til 11 or later
|
They are different, but you really shouldn't say that one is better than the other. Late game mules will often be more useful. Although in both cases if you made an air switch and you need to replenish your army, I really wish I could chronoboost battlecruisers out.
Early game it is different. Until you are saturated on all bases, chronoboost will deliver you more income. And aditionally you can chronoboost upgrades: imagine a terran chronoboosting stim. At the same time during for example near-basetrade situations where on both sides the economy has been gutted, mules are great. Although if there is then no agression for a while chronoboosts will take over again.
|
Regarding the Widow Mine debate - I like the idea of widow mines targeting an enemy, the target is red (like the new seeker missile). Another thing is, I definitely think Widow Mines AoE should have a max target count of 10.
In most cases, this doesn't really change much but it does reduce the possibility of 1 Widow Mine impacting the game is a huge amount (unlucky or lucky widow mine hits that change the entire outcome of the game are reduced, and things that change the entire game due to 1 small thing is something I dislike since it makes things more random than it should be).
On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick.
Terran has mules
Zerg has inject
protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill.
You mean options from macro mechanics, how the mechanics work themselves, or balance?
In terms of options, it's not like the Queen or OC offer that much diversity since it's usually straight forward on what a player should do (With Queens, you usually have a set of queens that larva inject and another set that spread creep exclusively anyway). OCs, it just depends on when you want to scan and if not, drop MULEs (or if you're supply blocked, drop a supply).
In terms of how those mechanics work themselves (and whether the difficulty is balanced for all races), the difficulty of macro mechanics varies because not every race is easy or harder to play in all areas.
Zerg probably has the hardest with creep spread and larva injects but mastery of those abilities are more rewarding and make other areas of play (like macro and unit movement) much easier than the other 2 races.
Terran has the easiest macro mechanics (just dropping MULEs, and if they're suppy block, drop a supply) but their units require and rely more on mechanical play than the other 2.
Now in terms of balance (how these impact the overall balance and if they should change), you have to take into account things like Protoss ability to reinforce areas easily (which also means defender's advantage doesn't matter as much for the Protoss opponent which is a big deal) and other advantages like that. Rallying units and getting them to their group is harder for both Zerg and Terran than Protoss. So, each race has strengths and weakness and it's part of the point of having 3 races in the first place. I mean, if the debate is why Protoss doesn't have Reavers with shuttle micro or something like in BW then that's understandable, but the debates about races in terms of macro mechanics (chrono, mule, queen) isn't really a big deal IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
