|
On August 23 2011 11:39 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Again, with basic micro (with creep making this even easier), when you hug the stalker ball, roaches suddenly become more efficient than stalkers. If you're letting your roaches try and form a large concave at 4 range from the stalkers, you're doing it wrong. It comes down to positioning, but the pitiful damage stalkers do just isn't justified. Also, you don't have to burrow and move them away, you can just burrow. AI will then shift to unburrowed roaches because the burrowed roaches are not attacking. All the while, you just keep shifting your roach ball up into the stalkers. Isn't it silly that stalkers do 9.3 dps (8.72 if you factor in roach armor with no upgrades to either side) and roaches regenerate at 10 hps while burrowed with tunneling claws? Do you know how many forcefields I have to waste unless I have like 4 colossi to prevent being overrun by burrowed roaches?
|
On August 24 2011 08:28 babjengi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 11:39 MilesTeg wrote: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. Again, with basic micro (with creep making this even easier), when you hug the stalker ball, roaches suddenly become more efficient than stalkers. If you're letting your roaches try and form a large concave at 4 range from the stalkers, you're doing it wrong. It comes down to positioning, but the pitiful damage stalkers do just isn't justified. Also, you don't have to burrow and move them away, you can just burrow. AI will then shift to unburrowed roaches because the burrowed roaches are not attacking. All the while, you just keep shifting your roach ball up into the stalkers. Isn't it silly that stalkers do 9.3 dps (8.72 if you factor in roach armor with no upgrades to either side) and roaches regenerate at 10 hps while burrowed with tunneling claws? Do you know how many forcefields I have to waste unless I have like 4 colossi to prevent being overrun by burrowed roaches?
I play Terran. Blink Stalkers > Most Zergs.
|
On August 24 2011 08:57 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 08:28 babjengi wrote:On August 23 2011 11:39 MilesTeg wrote: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. Again, with basic micro (with creep making this even easier), when you hug the stalker ball, roaches suddenly become more efficient than stalkers. If you're letting your roaches try and form a large concave at 4 range from the stalkers, you're doing it wrong. It comes down to positioning, but the pitiful damage stalkers do just isn't justified. Also, you don't have to burrow and move them away, you can just burrow. AI will then shift to unburrowed roaches because the burrowed roaches are not attacking. All the while, you just keep shifting your roach ball up into the stalkers. Isn't it silly that stalkers do 9.3 dps (8.72 if you factor in roach armor with no upgrades to either side) and roaches regenerate at 10 hps while burrowed with tunneling claws? Do you know how many forcefields I have to waste unless I have like 4 colossi to prevent being overrun by burrowed roaches? I play Terran. Blink Stalkers > Most Zergs.
Most zergs are bad though... Blink stalkers suck in a straight up fight unless the zerg doesn't micro at all. That's the problem. So many zergs never learned to micro, and fungal growth doesn't help that either since it removes the protoss's ability to micro, thus removing the real need for zerg to micro. It's easier (and pretty damn effective) to spam lings or roaches, trade armies, and spam lings or roaches again.
Once you hug the stalker ball, unless there's forcefields (which means sentries are now limiting the mobility of your ball) or some kind of terrain advantage (i.e. simstarcraft), you can really only blink the whole ball back, and roaches can close that distance really easily once they have speed.
|
On August 24 2011 07:02 galivet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:49 QTIP. wrote:On August 24 2011 06:46 Ruyguy wrote:
This may or may not have been discussed but I feel they are good ideas that need mentioning.
1. Lower chronoboost on each nexus to 50. NOT INTENDED to nerf 4gate or stargate play or anything of that nature, but to make protoss players use chronoboost more effieciently. No more being lazy, forgetting about spending chronoboost and spamming it.
2. Lower orbital command energy from 200/200 tok 100/100. Pretty much nerfing mules/scans. Forcing the terran player to be more active with their mules and not being able to spam 15 mules after forgetting about them in the late game.
Same thing here.
3. Making Ultralisks a little smaller or improving the AI of them in a late game army. You don't have to reduce the energy for Chronoboost, just implement a cooldown so unused Chronoboosts cannot be spammed in succession to make up for bad management. Same for Mules. Also make larva despawn if still unused after 25 seconds, or alternatively cap the maximum number of larva that one hatchery can support at 8. A zerg shouldn't be able to spam up a bunch of units if they got lazy and forgot to use their larva, right?
fun fact: hatcheries are capped to a maximum of 19 larvae, which is only achievable if either 5 spawn larvae was used or 4 spawn larvae was used and there were 3 larvae there when the first spawn larvae popped without any units being morphed from previous larvae, if a hatchery ever gets 20 larvae, then the oldest larvae will die to make room for the new one. besides, sure, cap it at 8 instead, when I play well I never have any more than 7 anyway (3+1spawn larvae), it is easily achievable by simply spending your larvae every time you inject, when you pan over there you will see if there are larvae to be used.
however, the "despawn after 25 seconds" wouldn't make sense, the equivalent for that would be if nexi where capped to about 40 energy, and when 40 energy is reached, 25 is deducted and orbitals where capped to 65 energy and when 65 energy is reached, 25 is deducted, do the math, it's correct, you know what, I'll do it for you to make sure we are on the same picture:
if hatcheries larvae (specificly larvae made from spawn larvae) would despawn after 25 seconds, this means 1. the maximum amount of larvae one can have on 1 hatchery is 7, since the previous larvae will despawn 15 seconds before any new ones can possibly be produced and 2. the maximum potential can only be kept for a maximum amount of 25 seconds.
lets translate this to the other races:
1. the maximum potential is the ability to use the utility 1 time before recharging.
2. the maximum potential can only be kept for a maximum of 25 seconds, after this there is a wait time of 15 seconds before it can be used again.
the universal energy regeneration is slighly less than 25 energy per 40 seconds, so 25/40 energy/second, I know this because I play zerg and a queen will regenerate exactly the energy required (25) in the time for the larvae to go out of cooldown+the slight time for the larvae to land on the ground aka 40 + 0.5 seconds or so.
nexi:
maximum potential: usage of 1 chronoboost, 25 energy.
time the ability can be kept: 25 seconds
energy regenerated during 25 seconds: 25/40 * 25 = 15.625
maximum energy on nexus: 25 + 15.625 = 40.625
if energy becomes max, it should be set so it takes 15 seconds to be able to use again.
energy regenerated in 15 seconds = 25/40 * 15 = 9.375
energy level the nexus will be set to if it gets maxed = 25 - 9.375 = 15.625
deducted energy: 40.625 - 15.625 = 25
orbital:
some numbers are the same here as in the nexus example.
maximum potential: 1 spell, 50 energy
time the ability can be kept: 25 seconds.
energy regenerated during 25 seconds: 15.625
maximum energy on orbital: 50 + 15.625 = 65.625
if energy becomes max, it should be set so it takes 15 seconds to be able to use it again.
energy regenerated in 15 seconds: 9.375
energy level the orbital will be set to if it gets maxed = 50 - 9.375 = 40.625
deducted energy: 25
as you can see, to keep the game fair the "25 second rule" would hurt protoss and terran way more than it would zerg since zerg is already used to the thought of "having unused larvae is really bad" while there are even strategies for protoss and terran that revolve around saving up energy, such as 4gate and tank wars where scans are necessary.
|
On August 24 2011 09:16 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 07:02 galivet wrote:On August 24 2011 06:49 QTIP. wrote:On August 24 2011 06:46 Ruyguy wrote:
This may or may not have been discussed but I feel they are good ideas that need mentioning.
1. Lower chronoboost on each nexus to 50. NOT INTENDED to nerf 4gate or stargate play or anything of that nature, but to make protoss players use chronoboost more effieciently. No more being lazy, forgetting about spending chronoboost and spamming it.
2. Lower orbital command energy from 200/200 tok 100/100. Pretty much nerfing mules/scans. Forcing the terran player to be more active with their mules and not being able to spam 15 mules after forgetting about them in the late game.
Same thing here.
3. Making Ultralisks a little smaller or improving the AI of them in a late game army. You don't have to reduce the energy for Chronoboost, just implement a cooldown so unused Chronoboosts cannot be spammed in succession to make up for bad management. Same for Mules. Also make larva despawn if still unused after 25 seconds, or alternatively cap the maximum number of larva that one hatchery can support at 8. A zerg shouldn't be able to spam up a bunch of units if they got lazy and forgot to use their larva, right? fun fact: hatcheries are capped to a maximum of 19 larvae, which is only achievable if either 5 spawn larvae was used or 4 spawn larvae was used and there were 3 larvae there when the first spawn larvae popped without any units being morphed from previous larvae, if a hatchery ever gets 20 larvae, then the oldest larvae will die to make room for the new one. besides, sure, cap it at 8 instead, when I play well I never have any more than 7 anyway (3+1spawn larvae), it is easily achievable by simply spending your larvae every time you inject, when you pan over there you will see if there are larvae to be used. however, the "despawn after 25 seconds" wouldn't make sense, the equivalent for that would be if nexi where capped to about 40 energy, and when 40 energy is reached, 25 is deducted and orbitals where capped to 65 energy and when 65 energy is reached, 25 is deducted, do the math, it's correct, you know what, I'll do it for you to make sure we are on the same picture: if hatcheries larvae (specificly larvae made from spawn larvae) would despawn after 25 seconds, this means 1. the maximum amount of larvae one can have on 1 hatchery is 7, since the previous larvae will despawn 15 seconds before any new ones can possibly be produced and 2. the maximum potential can only be kept for a maximum amount of 25 seconds. lets translate this to the other races: 1. the maximum potential is the ability to use the utility 1 time before recharging. 2. the maximum potential can only be kept for a maximum of 25 seconds, after this there is a wait time of 15 seconds before it can be used again. the universal energy regeneration is slighly less than 25 energy per 40 seconds, so 25/40 energy/second, I know this because I play zerg and a queen will regenerate exactly the energy required (25) in the time for the larvae to go out of cooldown+the slight time for the larvae to land on the ground aka 40 + 0.5 seconds or so. nexi: maximum potential: usage of 1 chronoboost, 25 energy. time the ability can be kept: 25 seconds energy regenerated during 25 seconds: 25/40 * 25 = 15.625 maximum energy on nexus: 25 + 15.625 = 40.625 if energy becomes max, it should be set so it takes 15 seconds to be able to use again. energy regenerated in 15 seconds = 25/40 * 15 = 9.375 energy level the nexus will be set to if it gets maxed = 25 - 9.375 = 15.625 deducted energy: 40.625 - 15.625 = 25 orbital: some numbers are the same here as in the nexus example. maximum potential: 1 spell, 50 energy time the ability can be kept: 25 seconds. energy regenerated during 25 seconds: 15.625 maximum energy on orbital: 50 + 15.625 = 65.625 if energy becomes max, it should be set so it takes 15 seconds to be able to use it again. energy regenerated in 15 seconds: 9.375 energy level the orbital will be set to if it gets maxed = 50 - 9.375 = 40.625 deducted energy: 25 as you can see, to keep the game fair the "25 second rule" would hurt protoss and terran way more than it would zerg since zerg is already used to the thought of "having unused larvae is really bad" while there are even strategies for protoss and terran that revolve around saving up energy, such as 4gate and tank wars where scans are necessary.
Fair enough, care to explain how this will fix DT or burrow banelings? Considering that you can not save scan no more in order to push out if protoss open DT. You will be contained in your base forever. This will force terran to play 1-1-1 for the fear of DT and opening up raven if they want to push out. This will limit the terran option. Also raven a pretty bad unit to begin with anyways with minimal usage.
|
On August 24 2011 06:46 Ruyguy wrote:
This may or may not have been discussed but I feel they are good ideas that need mentioning.
1. Lower chronoboost on each nexus to 50. NOT INTENDED to nerf 4gate or stargate play or anything of that nature, but to make protoss players use chronoboost more effieciently. No more being lazy, forgetting about spending chronoboost and spamming it.
2. Lower orbital command energy from 200/200 tok 100/100. Pretty much nerfing mules/scans. Forcing the terran player to be more active with their mules and not being able to spam 15 mules after forgetting about them in the late game.
3. Making Ultralisks a little smaller or improving the AI of them in a late game army.
So basically...nerf chronoboost and orbital commands for no reason and buff zerg. Very unbiased viewpoint there.
|
On August 23 2011 16:03 Sackings wrote:
Restore the warpgate research time to what it was before, and reduce the build time and cost of the immortal. Would make 4gate extinct and actually give the immortal some purpose. I'm sure there would be some new immortal timing attacks, but other than that...seems good to me
So then an immortal timing push against zerg? Immortal sentry army to early is nearly impossible for zerg to stop. their only early unit that can shoot "over" forcefields is roach, and in case you didn't know immortals do work against roaches 24/7
|
I had an idea last night. Remove the light attribute from the Hydra. This would make them more effective vs Banelings, Hellions and Phoenixes.
I think it would be a perfect buff for the underused Hydra.
|
On August 24 2011 13:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I had an idea last night. Remove the light attribute from the Hydra. This would make them more effective vs Banelings, Hellions and Phoenixes.
I think it would be a perfect buff for the underused Hydra.
Last time I checked hyrdas were not used vs T because of siegetanks that just splat them and were risky to use against P because of colossus/storm splash that eats them.
None of those units would deal less dmg if you remove the light attribute.
|
Ok so this isn't a balance thing as much as a design thing but well it would mess with balance as well so I'll post it here anyway.
How would people feel about removing smart casting? Like you'd have to individually select one at a time to use their spells, i feel this would improve the game greatly, no more blanketing the entire screen with no skill required at all. It would also make spells more of a wow! thing, as it is casters are trying to sound impressed when someone storms the entire marine force but in reality a monkey could do it and it isn't impressive at all, it would increase the micro required and give the crowds something to cheer about when used well.
|
On August 24 2011 08:28 babjengi wrote:
Again, with basic micro (with creep making this even easier), when you hug the stalker ball, roaches suddenly become more efficient than stalkers. If you're letting your roaches try and form a large concave at 4 range from the stalkers, you're doing it wrong. It comes down to positioning, but the pitiful damage stalkers do just isn't justified. Also, you don't have to burrow and move them away, you can just burrow. AI will then shift to unburrowed roaches because the burrowed roaches are not attacking. All the while, you just keep shifting your roach ball up into the stalkers. Isn't it silly that stalkers do 9.3 dps (8.72 if you factor in roach armor with no upgrades to either side) and roaches regenerate at 10 hps while burrowed with tunneling claws? Do you know how many forcefields I have to waste unless I have like 4 colossi to prevent being overrun by burrowed roaches?
For someone who started with a rant against trolls, you seem to be very quick to assume things like "zergs are all bad at micro"...
Zergs already try to maximise the number of roaches firing as much as possible, which does increase their effectiveness a lot, you're right. Stalkers remain far more efficient as their numbers grow larger though. And even more efficient with blink. That's why it would be silly to give them better upgrades as well.
As it stands if Protoss has a vulerability it's in the early/mid game. Most of the pro losses I've seen recently are people dying to terran marine+whatever pushes, or to zerg roach/ling.
Against both zerg and terran Protoss has a hard time expanding without dying to all-ins. But in the end game, I think Protoss definitely has all the tools to deal with everything. That's why I'm surprised to see Protosses calling for upgrade improvements, or infestor nerfs. Their race is already strong enough in the late game.
I don't know, someone should show me replays of a Protoss undeservedly losing to late game roach balls or infestors because otherwise I don't know what they're talking about.
|
On August 24 2011 14:45 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 13:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
I had an idea last night. Remove the light attribute from the Hydra. This would make them more effective vs Banelings, Hellions and Phoenixes.
I think it would be a perfect buff for the underused Hydra. Last time I checked hyrdas were not used vs T because of siegetanks that just splat them and were risky to use against P because of colossus/storm splash that eats them. None of those units would deal less dmg if you remove the light attribute.
I just finished testing out a bunch of battles with an altered hydra and the results were interesting.
You can effectively buff/alter the hydra (It will be worse at certain things) by messing with some stats. (Speed stats are a bit random). IMHO the hydra has bad stats putting it into a bad role which makes it undesirable by default.
Cost: 75/25/1 (M/G/S)
Damage: 9
Speed: 2.25/2.925 Upgraded 3.5/4.55 (Off/On Creep)
Theoretical Hydra Speed Upgrade: 150/150/110s (M/G/T)
+ Show Spoiler +
This makes hydras a lot better because they aren't so vulnerable and expensive due to the cost change and speed upgrade. They should do a lot better late game due to their relative supply efficiency and ability to move around the map quicker.
ZvP: Basically they do a lot better against blink stalkers and they can be used more effectively to max out an army simply because they are supply efficient. Even though they are better in nearly every way storm and colossus still own them. They really only get worse against chargelot archon which is understandable because of the dps loss. They counter stargate play pretty hard as they won't slow your tech down as much, you can apply pressure more easily, and you can make more to spread around to defend.
Pros: Much better against stargate play, Can be used aggressively (Even perhaps as a timing), Better against blink stalkers
Cons: Now bad against chargelot/archon. Still bad against storms and colossi.
ZvT: Hydras are better against bio now and can deal with air units more effectively. They aren't terribly effective against bio despite the buff. They are better against mech and hellions due to their speed buff and cost decrease.
Pros: Situationally good against mech, basically works better than the roach if upgraded. Once upgraded can possibly deal with drops and hellions if the map allows for it.
Cons: Bio will still eat them alive, uses a lot of larvae, good tank positioning still reigns supreme.
ZvZ: They really don't do anything to roaches or ultras now. They can be used with infestors to shut down mutas even harder.
One problem want to get around with changes of this style is making it so that psi storm still dominates hydras, because there is a fine line in making hydras fast enough to usefully micro out of storms and making hydras fast to the point where storm no longer kills them effectively enough. A second problem is making it so that hydras aren't too good against air or drops. The problem with making hydras of this gas cost good against air is that you can make them with infestors and eliminate the weakness of infestor play to air and drop harass.
I'm a toss user btw and I was just trying to find ways of making the hydra useful again.
|
So basically you want the hydralisk to move with speedling speed? You probably would even keep the range upgrade to let them kite everything with range 4 or less for infinity..
This would end drop play vs Zerg - period.
I could get behind the new cost and dmg output. Half the gas and half the supply for 75% of the DPS is a great buff. But giving them nearly speedling movement... For comparison: Speelings move with 3.7/4.8
|
My speed stat was a random stat/approximation.
Speedling: 4.7
Speed Roach: 3.0
Old Hydra on creep: 3.375
Hellion: 4.25
Speedling on creep: 6.11
If the upgrade bumped the speed to say 3.375 then a hydra on creep would be a little faster than a hellion.
I also mentioned the problem with air harass and drops. I had no ideas on how to prevent hydras from stomping that. Maybe a slow AA attack, but that sounds pretty awful. The changes would need testing to see how drop play and air harass can exist with cheap fast hydras. Probably centered around the speed stat, creep speed bonus, and upgrade costs or even tech requirements.
|
Obligatory "bunker rushes against Zerg" post after today's NesTea vs IMMVP match 2.
While they are not particularly successful, as seen on the late spike in the usage of this strategy, the abilty to salvage bunkers might grant a reward too high for little risk and resource investment.
(Today's case was a bit unique, in that it exploited map configuration.)
|
Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable?
|
On August 24 2011 19:35 Bleak wrote:
Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable?
ZvT is unplayable already at this point. I've faced some players that copy builds from Koreans that don't let me get Hive early enough and when I do investing in Vikings and maybe even ghosts is not a big deal for Terran. Ghost / Mech has already been confirmed to be completely broken so saying Terran has a hard late game is a lie.
TvP especially, with those perfect EMPs Protoss doesn't have an answer.
|
On August 24 2011 19:09 WigglingSquid wrote:
Obligatory "bunker rushes against Zerg" post after today's NesTea vs IMMVP match 2.
While they are not particularly successful, as seen on the late spike in the usage of this strategy, the abilty to salvage bunkers might grant a reward too high for little risk and resource investment.
(Today's case was a bit unique, in that it exploited map configuration.)
You can point to this as bunkers being too powerful or look at the broader picture of Zerg just having huge fucking holes in their tech. Zerg at hatch tech essentially have one hand tied behind their back, with no anti air capable of putting pressure back on the opponent and very cumbersome AA defense, not being able to counter with anything but lings without it being an all in, scouting issues, lack of quickly accessible ranged units that make pylon wall ins and bunker wall ins viable etc.
I'd prefer to see an overhaul of Zerg in HotS that really addresses all the silly issues Zerg has in the early game that is accounting for the stupid losses that are depleting Zerg numbers in the higher brackets of tournaments. I could give a laundry list of changes that I'd like to see in HotS but if there is one change that I think is perfectly reasonable, balanced and viable to implement without risk of breaking the game it's to make Zerg either start with an active creep tumor or be able to spawn a active creep tumor from each hatchery one time.
With this you can remove the volatility of the variable distance from hatchery to ramp to the natural where it delays when you can have a spine crawler moved down or how long it takes to connect creep for queen movement.
It would give Zerg a headstart on creep spread which is not unreasonable given how it's been demonstrated for Terran and protoss to easily impede early creep spread.
It would stop silly cheeses like bunker and pylon cannon contains but not cannon rushing or bunker rushing. It would remove the volatility of ramp size, distance, and choke size on maps like Belshir Beach and Tal Darim Altar.
It would also help Zerg to push defences like spinecrawlers past chokes in the natural that work against the zerg player on some of the new maps where the creep of the natural does not spread far enough forward.
There is no huge economic advantage to be gained besides a more reliable defense and would only help aggression on maps with a short rush distance which already have been shown to be imbalanced against Zerg making it a non issue. It would basically mostly allow Zergs to build a more reliable all around defense to prevent silly losses to cheeses that frankly shouldn't be viable but could never be nerfed because they would have to be nerfs to core protoss and terran units that would ruin overall game balance.
On August 24 2011 19:35 Bleak wrote:
Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable?
You Terrans make me laugh. Terran late game does not suck, you simply can't win as much in the late game as you do in the early game if you already win most of your games before the 15 minute mark. A game won in the early game can't be won again in the late game. Terrans benefited from a really strong early game, they exploited it as much as possible and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass(sort of, they're still the most successful race by far by every measure) when they can't play a late game. The Terran meta game is honestly the least refined because Terrans haven't hard to work hard in terms of developing new strategies. You can see this in every Terran's play where they lose a marine or marauder during a drop around the ten minute mark and curse themselves and yet they can lose 6 ghosts not even getting off an emp per ghost and be proud of their late game micro.
Most Terrans still try to play a mineral heavy late game, basically an extension of their early and mid game that takes advantage of mules to outproduce their opponent and have no fucking clue how to transition to a gas heavy composition with ghosts battle cruisers or ravens in any meaningful numbers.
|
You can point to this as bunkers being too powerful or look at the broader picture of Zerg just having huge fucking holes in their tech. Zerg at hatch tech essentially have one hand tied behind their back, with no anti air capable of putting pressure back on the opponent and very cumbersome AA defense, not being able to counter with anything but lings without it being an all in, scouting issues, lack of quickly accessible ranged units that make pylon wall ins and bunker wall ins viable etc.
I'd prefer to see an overhaul of Zerg in HotS that really addresses all the silly issues Zerg has in the early game that is accounting for the stupid losses that are depleting Zerg numbers in the higher brackets of tournaments. I could give a laundry list of changes that I'd like to see in HotS but if there is one change that I think is perfectly reasonable, balanced and viable to implement without risk of breaking the game it's to make Zerg either start with an active creep tumor or be able to spawn a active creep tumor from each hatchery one time.
With this you can remove the volatility of the variable distance from hatchery to ramp to the natural where it delays when you can have a spine crawler moved down or how long it takes to connect creep for queen movement.
It would give Zerg a headstart on creep spread which is not unreasonable given how it's been demonstrated for Terran and protoss to easily impede early creep spread.
It would stop silly cheeses like bunker and pylon cannon contains but not cannon rushing or bunker rushing. It would remove the volatility of ramp size, distance, and choke size on maps like Belshir Beach and Tal Darim Altar.
It would also help Zerg to push defences like spinecrawlers past chokes in the natural that work against the zerg player on some of the new maps where the creep of the natural does not spread far enough forward.
There is no huge economic advantage to be gained besides a more reliable defense and would only help aggression on maps with a short rush distance which already have been shown to be imbalanced against Zerg making it a non issue. It would basically mostly allow Zergs to build a more reliable all around defense to prevent silly losses to cheeses that frankly shouldn't be viable but could never be nerfed because they would have to be nerfs to core protoss and terran units that would ruin overall game balance.
This is seriously the best suggestion I've seen in a long while. I would really like to see the volatility of the silly losses Zerg suffers every tournament to go away. That way Terrans would also need to develop their mid and lategame more too, and the game would be explored more too. I hope Blizzard has thought about this creep change.
|
Not sure if this has been posted but,Drexxari, community manager for bliz recently made a post about PvT win rates
Let's cover a situation that's started up quite recently that we're keeping an eye on:
While global numbers at all league levels are extremely good, (hovering at, or around, 50%) there's some fluctuation in the PvT match-up in the NA and KR Master's leagues. In those leagues terran are doing unusually well against protoss; they're sitting around that 60:40 ratio that was mentioned in the blog (note that this is not reflected in the EU Master's league, nor in the NA Master's league for PvZ or TvZ where all the numbers are also hovering around 50%).
In this case, the evidence suggests that this fluctuation may have its origin in the metagame because a new terran opener has become popular which has proven very effective against the most common protoss opener in those regions, and at that league level. Of course, many times in the past we've seen the metagame cause temporary fluctuations which swing in favor of one race or another to varying degrees.
Nevertheless, we take every event seriously, and we're paying very close attention to how the situation unfolds from here.
http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/156095619?page=2
Seems like they are thinking about the situation(maybe a patch), but I think they would prefer to wait it out, especially given that they attribute the percentage to a metagame shift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
