EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 55
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
| ||
|
babjengi
United States30 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:52 SPQRGaius wrote: All the protoss seem to forget that early game ghosts can't actually defeat your army. Infinite EMPs will never actually kill your army. But it removes forcefields and potentially guardian shield from use, which are the only justifications for the pitiful mechanics and damage of the zealot and stalker respectively. It also takes 1/3 of the zealot's health, half the stalker's health, and half the sentry's health, effectively removing even toss's health advantage over MM. | ||
|
SPQRGaius
United States18 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:49 H0i wrote: EMP has 3 more range than feedback. 1 normal range and it's AoE has a radius of 2, giving it 3 more range effectively. Colossus or Ht should be a choice. It shouldn't be "get colossus and then get Ht". That would be like forcing zerg to get mutas before they can make infestors. Besides that colossus and ht are completely different tech paths. Right now you just can't really open ht because you need to storm and KA is gone, it's not even there in a slightly nerfed form but just totally gone. Sure but you could also attack those with lings or hit a fungal, etc. They also won't be able to take down every infestor, at this point it's just a micro battle and ht is not a hard counter to infestors, more like a contender, so there you proved my point. They don't have effectively "2 more" range, if you are dropping that poor of emps, there is no way you should win, as a toss player you don't throw down storms on the edge of armies because you want to stay farther away. I am not positive on the timing but can't you have storm in time to actually be used even if that is your only tech? The fact that if you choose that tech tree you can get archons and then have HTs with storm a little later is fine. I have seen many protoss players do just that, seeing as Archons can really tank damage. And does there have to be a hard counter for everything? If there were it would essentially become a tic tac toe game. | ||
|
babjengi
United States30 Posts
Some really good points that I noted were: 1) Toss lost khaydarin amulet without compensation, which killed the mobility of HT's gained by warpgate tech. You can warp them in at the front of someone's base, but you have to wait 45 seconds to use them, not to mention, place your warpgate(s) on a 40 second cooldown at the same time which limits other reinforcement/drop defense. I've debated this point before, and people like to mention the build times of their respective units (ghost/infestor). Tosses haven't really been asking for khaydarin to come back with a full 25 energy. And while I'm still not convinced instant storms were necessarily a totally game unbalancing, massive detriment, 45 seconds to wait after making such a massive investment on a unit, and leaving ourselves with a warpgate on cooldown for practically that same duration hurts quite a bit... especially when we use a unit too slow to ever retreat from a fight. 2) MC mentioned that toss requires AoE to deal with mass marine, which isn't available in time for the 1-1-1 push. Considering the dps efficiency of marines compared to the entire protoss army (with the exception of storms and colossi), even without stim, marines in packs very quickly make up for their lack of health by eliminating protoss units before they can deal damage. Personally, I've seen a big shift away from the mass/pure marauder plays towards higher marine counts with marauders mixed in. This makes complete sense since marines do more cost efficient damage to zealots than marauders, and once the zealot line is broken, nothing can really tank the damage. Basic stutterstep micro with either conc shell or stim, and the zealots usually die without doing significant damage. The majority of early game damage to the bioball comes from stim, or sentry and stalker damage, which is pretty weak. There are plenty more, but they keep getting tossed aside. Some really dumb comments I've heard are: 1) Making charge cheaper and a little faster WILL COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY BREAK THE GAME BEYOND REPAIR. Consider again the massive investment that charge is, and why it is in fact so valuable. The protoss army's dps suddenly increases because zealots get basically 1 attack every charge cooldown (10 seconds), and MM dps decreases because they have to wait longer between shots because of the increased zealot speed while kiting. The tradeoff of course is that it's hard to keep chargelots under guardian shields. However, twilight council openings are pretty rare because of the potential for a single cloaked banshee to win the whole game. So robo is generally the first choice because it allows both mobile detection and scouting. This being said, tosses generally don't decide to get charge until much later in the game, and very rarely against zerg (unless you're doing MC's super awesome, super APM intensive chargelot/phoenix build). Even then, charge at its earliest will come very late, and at the delay of a lot of tech. Changing it to 150/150 and maybe cutting 20 seconds off its time will not open any kind of new timings because if you rushed for charge, you'd delay a lot of your other tech (140 seconds down to 120 seconds? Not game breaking, but definitely a pleasant bonus). 2) stalkers are the most cost efficient units in the game I know protoss's jack of all trades (harass/anti-air/ranged dps/end game damage tank vs zerg) is versatile, but I've heard it argued that because it's been assigned so many roles, it's sub par at all of them. And its cost just doesn't feel justified at 125/50. The roach beats the stalker for 75/25 unless you get blink, and even then, if you get fungaled, you pretty much lose the fungaled units because of roach's armor penetrating, 2 damage per upgrade, burst damage. Every armor upgrade zerg gets fully negates every damage upgrade our gateway units get (minus the t3 units). This is why PvZ is so heavily based on protoss timings. We have to take advantage of chrono to get that small upgrade window to suddenly become more efficient until zerg's upgrade(s) kick in. End game is a different story, however, brood lord/infestor/roach is quite hard to beat because you have to blink into the roaches to kill the broodlords while taking damage from fungal. This is completely counterintuitive to regular, stalker-efficiency-raising blink micro, where you blink damaged units AWAY. Why do you think forcefields are so necessary against roaches? If we couldn't cut roach balls in half, or at least create space between our stalkers and the roaches, we'd lose. That's why zergs try to hug toss balls. Roaches, in close quarters are so much more cost efficient than stalkers. Not to mention, if you bring lings to tank stalker fire for you, the cost efficiency difference rises because stalker cost efficiency tanks when shooting at lings (4 shots to kill a ling, 16 shots to kill 100 resources worth of zergling, 15 shots to kill 100 resources worth of roach... 1.5 seconds per shot. Roaches? 11 shots to kill a stalker. 33% slower per shot, but in terms of cost per unit and also benefit from upgrades, roaches > stalkers). Also, I'd love to one day see zergs use roach burrow like toss uses blink... That'll be the day. Did you know that if you have all your roaches selected, and some are burrowed, you can TAB to the burrowed ones to unburrow them without burrowing your other roaches at the same time? | ||
|
SPQRGaius
United States18 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:57 babjengi wrote: But it removes forcefields and potentially guardian shield from use, which are the only justifications for the pitiful mechanics and damage of the zealot and stalker respectively. It also takes 1/3 of the zealot's health, half the stalker's health, and half the sentry's health, effectively removing even toss's health advantage over MM. But the sacrifice for early game ghosts will nullify any advantage having EMP may have gave them. The fact that you will be fighting a smaller army of units because of this already makes it balanced. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:56 H0i wrote: This argument keeps popping up but that's not what it's about. A few ghosts will effectively remove 50% of the protoss army's health (33% for zealots), and it will remove all energy, which protoss is very focused on, in the form of force field and storm. The bioball is very very strong against protoss and removing all shields and energy for a cheap price means an easy steamroll for the bioball. That's what the problem with emp is. You can't even dodge it, it's just instantly all shields gone and 100 energy, and it has enormous range and AoE radius. If you're a terran start using it more and you'll see how strong it really is. 1 or 2 EMPs midgame, which are impossible to dodge will win you the entire game, after landing them all you have to do is stim 1a. If you go ghost before vikings you will likely lose to colossus. I've never been able to get EMPs before colossus come out vs a fast robo player. You need vikings and then you need a third base and then you get ghosts.... and by that time I think Protoss know they are advantaged ;D | ||
|
babjengi
United States30 Posts
On August 23 2011 10:00 SPQRGaius wrote: But the sacrifice for early game ghosts will nullify any advantage having EMP may have gave them. The fact that you will be fighting a smaller army of units because of this already makes it balanced. That idea right there is why blizzard changed ghosts to 200/100. They believed getting ghosts was delaying terran tech too much, which discouraged their use. To be effective with ghosts, you need 1 or 2. To be effective with sentries, you need 5+, and even then, you're not guaranteed anything. The day terran has to get more than 2 gas to support 2 bases will be a very interesting day indeed. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
| ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:58 SPQRGaius wrote: They don't have effectively "2 more" range, if you are dropping that poor of emps, there is no way you should win, as a toss player you don't throw down storms on the edge of armies because you want to stay farther away. I am not positive on the timing but can't you have storm in time to actually be used even if that is your only tech? The fact that if you choose that tech tree you can get archons and then have HTs with storm a little later is fine. I have seen many protoss players do just that, seeing as Archons can really tank damage. And does there have to be a hard counter for everything? If there were it would essentially become a tic tac toe game. Yes they do... 3 more range in fact. HT are not in front of the army so if you use the radius of emp then you will not only hit an ht 3 range away from feedback range, you will also remove 50% of stalker/sentry health and 33% of zealot health. It's impossible to dodge it or do anything about it because it's just instant extreme damage done to the toss. Going ht first is not impossible but it's weak to some timings and these will be figured out more and more soon. HT and DT need to be the same building again like in bw, that would make it a real and much more viable option. HT also need some kind of amulet that will for example add 15 energy instead of 25 and make them a bit faster. Hard counters are bad and blizzard added so many of them in sc2. I would remove all of them and make more balance, this makes the game much more enjoyable. Just look at a match of bw and a match of sc2, you will see the difference. In the case of HT/infestor/ghost, I was explaining why the ht is NOT a hard counter, which someone else stated. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On August 23 2011 10:02 Techno wrote: If you go ghost before vikings you will likely lose to colossus. I've never been able to get EMPs before colossus come out vs a fast robo player. You need vikings and then you need a third base and then you get ghosts.... and by that time I think Protoss know they are advantaged ;D Scouting will reveal what the opponent is doing. Early ghosts against anything but fast robo play and you will do very well. If protoss goes for early colossus, which is less and less popular, then reactored vikings will destroy that with ease. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
On August 23 2011 10:03 Yaotzin wrote: In the current metagame Protoss is never advantaged in PvT...well maybe midgame before ghosts come out, the small timing with chargelots. That's about it though. http://drop.sc/28995 Watch this replay ;D On August 23 2011 10:07 H0i wrote: Scouting will reveal what the opponent is doing. Early ghosts against anything but fast robo play and you will do very well. If protoss goes for early colossus, which is less and less popular, then reactored vikings will destroy that with ease. If it was that easy I wouldnt lose to tQNebulous every game. DAMN YOU NEBULOOOOOUUUUS! | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:58 babjengi wrote: I know protoss's jack of all trades (harass/anti-air/ranged dps/end game damage tank vs zerg) is versatile, but I've heard it argued that because it's been assigned so many roles, it's sub par at all of them. And its cost just doesn't feel justified at 125/50. The roach beats the stalker for 75/25 unless you get blink, and even then, if you get fungaled, you pretty much lose the fungaled units because of roach's armor penetrating, 2 damage per upgrade, burst damage. Every armor upgrade zerg gets fully negates every damage upgrade our gateway units get (minus the t3 units). This is why PvZ is so heavily based on protoss timings. We have to take advantage of chrono to get that small upgrade window to suddenly become more efficient until zerg's upgrade(s) kick in. End game is a different story, however, brood lord/infestor/roach is quite hard to beat because you have to blink into the roaches to kill the broodlords while taking damage from fungal. This is completely counterintuitive to regular, stalker-efficiency-raising blink micro, where you blink damaged units AWAY. Why do you think forcefields are so necessary against roaches? If we couldn't cut roach balls in half, or at least create space between our stalkers and the roaches, we'd lose. That's why zergs try to hug toss balls. Roaches, in close quarters are so much more cost efficient than stalkers. Not to mention, if you bring lings to tank stalker fire for you, the cost efficiency difference rises because stalker cost efficiency tanks when shooting at lings (4 shots to kill a ling, 16 shots to kill 100 resources worth of zergling, 15 shots to kill 100 resources worth of roach... 1.5 seconds per shot. Roaches? 11 shots to kill a stalker. 33% slower per shot, but in terms of cost per unit and also benefit from upgrades, roaches > stalkers). Also, I'd love to one day see zergs use roach burrow like toss uses blink... That'll be the day. Did you know that if you have all your roaches selected, and some are burrowed, you can TAB to the burrowed ones to unburrow them without burrowing your other roaches at the same time? You seem to forget the key word. Roaches are more efficient in small numbers. Stalkers already get a natural boost against them as time passes because of their range. You can't expect them to also have the same kind of upgrades! They're already extremely good when massed. And I won't even mention blink, which unlike burrow movement has a (huge) impact on their efficiency in an actual fight. | ||
|
ins(out)side
220 Posts
Now I'm not the kind of person to cry IMBA and NERF NERF NERF all the time. I think that for the most part a lot of people have the wrong attitude and are simply unwilling to try and find the answers for themselves. However, I think its worth discussing the possible OP-ness of mules in light of the IEM finals. Theres no way in hell that Toss or Zerg could pull almost all their workers and lose them along with almost all their army and still go home, turtle up, and do the same all in again just a few minutes later. This, combined with the fact that to truly handle large groups of marines Toss needs tier 3 units and I start thinking about what could be nerfed that would rectify this? I mean, Protoss is supposed to have the strongest units in the game...thats why they're so damn expensive. And yet, Toss units melt away in the face of tier 1 units from Terran and can only handle them effectively with the highest tech possible? No sir, I don't like it. | ||
|
oZe
Sweden492 Posts
Are battlecruisers good against anything that can shoot air? So OK you can yamato a unit once every blue moon. Too me it's seems carriers are just way better for roughly the same cost, they cannot even be targeted without micro. As I remember it they were the effin bomb in broodwar. Although I was a noob rolling terran back then. I wouldn't even mind if they gave cattlebruisers a damage boost. Seems to me you even see motherships more often in actual games. And whatever happen to that time bubble effect it had when the first trailer of sc2 came out, it looked really really cool. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
On August 23 2011 11:59 ins(out)side wrote: I really, truly, honestly believe that the recent IEM finals between Puma and MC combined with my own personal experience of the same thing demonstrates that mules provide too much of an economic advantage while not cutting into Terran supply with workers. For example, Puma pulls almost all his SCV's for his first all in and then proceeds to lose them along with most of his army. In spite of having half the amount of workers, thanks to mules his income is nearly the same. This means that for Toss to even stay economically close to Terran they have to have almost double the workers. Sure, chrono boost makes reaching the desired number of workers possible...but workers cost supply, mules don't. As such, Terran has a better economy with more supply opened up for units. It just seems like too much. Now I'm not the kind of person to cry IMBA and NERF NERF NERF all the time. I think that for the most part a lot of people have the wrong attitude and are simply unwilling to try and find the answers for themselves. However, I think its worth discussing the possible OP-ness of mules in light of the IEM finals. Theres no way in hell that Toss or Zerg could pull almost all their workers and lose them along with almost all their army and still go home, turtle up, and do the same all in again just a few minutes later. This, combined with the fact that to truly handle large groups of marines Toss needs tier 3 units and I start thinking about what could be nerfed that would rectify this? I mean, Protoss is supposed to have the strongest units in the game...thats why they're so damn expensive. And yet, Toss units melt away in the face of tier 1 units from Terran and can only handle them effectively with the highest tech possible? No sir, I don't like it. Why does the tier matter? Like it or not, in broodwar protoss mass zealots and dragoon (both tier 1) against terran who had to mech and all that tech was tier 2+ how you think they felt? It doesnt matter what tech they are or what tier they are. You know how protoss deal with this? They just made more dragoon and more zealots just like how terran are now with marauder and marine. The role has reversed. It doesnt matter what kind of tech, sometime the answer is to just have more stuff. | ||
|
Sackings
Canada457 Posts
| ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On August 23 2011 15:26 SheaR619 wrote: Why does the tier matter? Like it or not, in broodwar protoss mass zealots and dragoon (both tier 1) against terran who had to mech and all that tech was tier 2+ how you think they felt? It doesnt matter what tech they are or what tier they are. You know how protoss deal with this? They just made more dragoon and more zealots just like how terran are now with marauder and marine. The role has reversed. It doesnt matter what kind of tech, sometime the answer is to just have more stuff. I don't see it like BW at all. Zealots/Dragoons lasted a short while, but then Reavers and Carriers had to be used instead. The response to mech from Protoss was not "herp derp make more units". In fact, one of the reasons why Terran went for Goliaths was because of Carriers. Those Goliaths (T2 units) were a response to Carriers (T3) units. Just one example of why it wasn't that simple in BW. Oh, also, the reason why the Tier matters is because there are certain timings which hit before AoE is out for Protoss, like the 1-1-1, which cannot be handled effectively. If Protoss had earlier AoE that wouldn't be a problem. Not saying that's the solution but it's a plausible one. | ||
|
serge
Russian Federation142 Posts
On August 23 2011 13:45 oZe wrote: OK so I main zerg but play random in team games, think terran is more OP than toss. BUT why are battlecruisers so pathetic when marine/marauder are so effin imba???? I mean it seems almost impossible to get 20 yamato kills without colluding/making a deal ;-) Are battlecruisers good against anything that can shoot air? So OK you can yamato a unit once every blue moon. Too me it's seems carriers are just way better for roughly the same cost, they cannot even be targeted without micro. As I remember it they were the effin bomb in broodwar. Although I was a noob rolling terran back then. I wouldn't even mind if they gave cattlebruisers a damage boost. Seems to me you even see motherships more often in actual games. And whatever happen to that time bubble effect it had when the first trailer of sc2 came out, it looked really really cool. Believe it or not BCs were the only terran macro option in the late game before they received their damage nerf. Blizzard saw this imbalance and rightly nerfed it. Terran doesn't deserve a fucking late game. Us protoss are the only ones who should be allowed to turtle 3base until limit and then 1a. DBRO I call on you to fucking nerf the shit out of zerg, how dare they not let me turtle 3base with their ridiculous infestors? | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
On August 23 2011 16:14 SeaSwift wrote: I don't see it like BW at all. Zealots/Dragoons lasted a short while, but then Reavers and Carriers had to be used instead. The response to mech from Protoss was not "herp derp make more units". In fact, one of the reasons why Terran went for Goliaths was because of Carriers. Those Goliaths (T2 units) were a response to Carriers (T3) units. Just one example of why it wasn't that simple in BW. Oh, also, the reason why the Tier matters is because there are certain timings which hit before AoE is out for Protoss, like the 1-1-1, which cannot be handled effectively. If Protoss had earlier AoE that wouldn't be a problem. Not saying that's the solution but it's a plausible one. Carrier was one of the possible tech path that you could of gone but it not mandatory. You can easily stick with dragoon and zealots but you got to add in arbiter and do recall to do damage/abuse mobility and statis tanks once the mech count get to high. Also going carrier depend on map too if you want best result you dont go them every game. Your response sounds like protoss MUST go carrier or reaver to deal with mech and that absolutely false. So in a way, it is exactly like how it is now. Medivac = Arbiter (drop/recall and similar tier). The main reason terran goes for gollaith was to stop shuttle zealots bomb on tanks not because of carriers. They only make a few and if they see carrier tech, they will make alot of golliath. Once golliath are out, reaver are not that great because shuttle become liability. Reaver and carrier were not necessary. Then late late game they can choose to get HT for storm which has a similar role to ghost. But the stable late game unit composition of a standard TvP would be zealot, dragoon, arbiter and HT generally. Looks very similar to marine marauder ghost medivac does it not? Large count of tier 1 unit combine with higher support units. Also protoss must abuse terran immobility and out expand him therefore he can out produce him (aka "make more stuff"). Iono about you, but the similarity of how the match has twisted is kinda funny. Terran uses to have the immobile unit composition, turtle, and do one big push while protoss has the mobile, can never engage once the mech ball get to big so they had to do drop and rely on tier 1 as back bone and have to out expand the terran. Now it swapped. Tier matter but people shouldnt be whining that just because they have tier 3 unit and it dies to a ton of tier 1 units that it imbalance. I am just trying to say that tier is hard to define and should not really be used to as a way to define balance. Like what is a thor? Tier 2? Tier 3? Tier 2.5? Viking tier 3? Expecially terran is where tier get hard to define. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:34 SPQRGaius wrote: Do you guys not understand how an early HT timing push against Zerg would be extremely hard to beat? The zerg unit that can be reliably expected to defeat this push (the infestor) Would come out far too late. SO in order to make a build easier for you, you would make an incredibly powerful build for yourselves against zerg. Also, the original stalker suggestion is ridiculous, the stalker would be far too good of a harass unit, as in 4-5 would absolutely destroy a mineral line with their improved kiting. Plus researching blink would allow them to easily get away from any engagement. Do you not understand that I mentioned that HT's would also have to be altered? I would be happy to have storm damage reduced if it meant I could have some aoe damage in a reasonable time. Also in my experience roaches do quite well against storms. You really think that an increase to stalker dps against light would make 4-5 destroy a mineral line? At their current state 5 Stalkers would do 35 dps to workers, thats not quite one worker a second, 8 marines on the other hand do 56 dps or 80 dps if they are stimmed that is two workers a second, and eight marines and a medivac is cheaper than 5 stalkers. Now I'm not saying that stalkers should be equal to or better than marines at harassing but just that your notion that a bit of a damage increase would make 4-5 destroy mineral lines is ridiculous. | ||
| ||
