|
On August 25 2011 08:06 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 04:22 Joey Wheeler wrote:
All this shit about Protoss having no answer to Infestors doesn't make sense. What exactly is it about HT that make them unusable? 2 storms kill an Infestor while Feedback instantly kills an Infestor if it didn't just spawn. They're also 50 minerals cheaper so it's not like it's inefficient to use them.
And don't say "fungal insta kills HT". How hard is it to spread them out? I pointed out much earlier in this thread that the speed advantage of infestors vs. templars is a huge plus especially considering feedback is only single target. Very often zerg will shift spell and run away while killing the templars who are queued to feedback a infestor that ran off. I tried to flank with warp prism but it's very gimmicky. 2.25 speed templar would be quite nice, don't see them being too OP with a slight speed buff tbh. That said, I think it's better to see how toss metagame evolve in the next few months before patching.
agreed, my personal opinion is that toss is way weak in the mid-game, and needs a third base to keep up in the late game, but have no real way of getting it in the current metagame.
my take: infestor slightly OP, but is balanced by the rest of the units that are shitty. if the infestor gets a nerf then I wan't a buff to somehing else.
toss metagame will probably evolve to something that doesn't instantly yield the mid-game though.
|
Please make warp prisms viable. I think they need more life. After tech they are sufficiently fast, and if you can get them in place undetected they work very well, but they just die incredibly fast.
Terrans are going to make medivacs anyways. The dps of terran's medivacs is kind of ridiculous. As a toss i need 2-3 times the army value to take down stimmed marine maurader squads with medivac support. Not saying OP just wish i could play similarly as toss. I used to play terran but absolutely hated seige tanks.
With proper teching zerg has a ton of drop play potential (not to mention nydus networks)
BTW is there a reason zergs dont use nydus networks near opponent base more. I think creep generation + possible spine crawler support would make this an extremely effective attack route. Ive seen Idra use it a little, but i dont watch a lot of his games.
|
On August 25 2011 09:09 covote wrote:
Please make warp prisms viable. I think they need more life. After tech they are sufficiently fast, and if you can get them in place undetected they work very well, but they just die incredibly fast.
Terrans are going to make medivacs anyways. The dps of terran's medivacs is kind of ridiculous. As a toss i need 2-3 times the army value to take down stimmed marine maurader squads with medivac support. Not saying OP just wish i could play similarly as toss. I used to play terran but absolutely hated seige tanks.
With proper teching zerg has a ton of drop play potential (not to mention nydus networks)
BTW is there a reason zergs dont use nydus networks near opponent base more. I think creep generation + possible spine crawler support would make this an extremely effective attack route. Ive seen Idra use it a little, but i dont watch a lot of his games.
I second this. While the difference between the warp prism's and the medivac's health is only 10 hp for the medivac, the WP has only 40 energy compared to 100 health. Which obviously means that later on you can run around with a 41 hp dropship T__T. Actually the best place to put this is the bnet forums.
|
On August 25 2011 07:49 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Zerg counters to colossi: corruptors, roach/muta combo, infestors with neural parasite, broodlords, ultralisks.
So no, I don't think colossi are imbalanced, personally. Corruptors don't kill colossi fast enough. And despite the myth that 'just make them broodlords', Zerg will die attempting to get Hive tech against Protoss unless they have somehow managed to get a huge lead. Roaches are horrible against colossi, particularly with sentries. Roach/Muta isn't exactly affordable - like at all (that's why in ZvZ nestea goes ling/muta, and then transitions into roaches, he uses mutas to deny third and ling+mass spine to defend to get his own third up, then gets roaches). And Stalker/Colossi owns Ling/Muta (or roach/muta), especially with blink or storm added in. It's a bad unit composition, that's why no one uses it. NP doesn't work with HT feedbacking, and Colossi have same range as infestors, so unless your caught out of position (which, granted, happens a lot), NP isn't the best. And BL/Ultras are, as I said, unaffordable Hive tech. But BL doesn't kill Colossi fast enough, that's why Stalker/Colossi usually beats BL based compositions, as does Vr/Colossi. Ultralisks do well though, but are just prohibitively expensive and take over a minute to morph. It's pretty hard to somehow free up 60 supply for 10 ultras (and have the money to do so) somewhere in the game.
Corruptors are a litral hard counter to colossi, even Blizzard acknowledges it. Hell, it's in the damn liquipedia entry as a hard counter to collosus. If you think they don't kill them fast enough, then you are assuming the collosus should be some easy-die unit like a damn warp prism or something. Of course it won't die fast enough: it's the protoss T3 superweapon. What did you expect, another glass cannon?
Roach/muta gets misunderstood as a counter. The idea is that the roaches tank/distract any stalker support while mutas focus down the collosus. The only reason its muta/roach rather than muta/ling is that lings would get vaporized long before hitting those stalkers. Yes, it's gas heavy, but you know what else is gas heavy? The entire protoss army...
NP works on the premise that zerg has an accompanying army with their infestors. A lot of people forget that they can move while burrowed, which can make for some pretty sweet flanking NP snipes if the zerg player has the micro for it. Also, for HT to accompany collosus, you'd have to assume P is going for that tech path as well, which doesn't happen much in the midgame. It's expensive to fund both collosus and HT, which is why there's generally a preference in the midgame for one over the other.
BL/Ultra is no more of an expensive investment than Col/HT. It all comes down to the micro mechanics of your main army to protect that investment. And zerg generally has the market corned when it comes to throwing meatshields into the mix.
My 2 cents anyways
|
On August 26 2011 00:55 Rob28 wrote:
Corruptors are a litral hard counter to colossi, even Blizzard acknowledges it. Hell, it's in the damn liquipedia entry as a hard counter to collosus.
Liquipedia is community-maintained. The comment about "hard counter" was added by Jtype, a Liquipedia editor who has no ties to Blizzard.
Not debating your actual point, but citing Liquipedia as proof of Blizzard's opinion does not fly.
|
On August 25 2011 09:09 covote wrote:
Please make warp prisms viable. I think they need more life. After tech they are sufficiently fast, and if you can get them in place undetected they work very well, but they just die incredibly fast.
I Just played on the public test realm(and you all should too, just go to your starcraft 2 folder and launch the right file) and War prism is now 100life/100 shields and it is more robust if you forget it, assault a protected base or even use it as an aggressive warp-in point, and pros will be more than happy to micro these new ones.
Haven't check the mothership and real potential of immortals now though
|
On August 26 2011 12:12 .Aar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 00:55 Rob28 wrote:
Corruptors are a litral hard counter to colossi, even Blizzard acknowledges it. Hell, it's in the damn liquipedia entry as a hard counter to collosus. Liquipedia is community-maintained. The comment about "hard counter" was added by Jtype, a Liquipedia editor who has no ties to Blizzard. Not debating your actual point, but citing Liquipedia as proof of Blizzard's opinion does not fly.
I'm critiquing it based on the comments made by Dustin Bowder... specifically:
"There are some easy things we can do and there are some hard things. If we study the game, for example, you would say that the corruptor is lame. Don't get us wrong; they're useful. If there are a lot of colossi, you need corruptors. If there are dark templars, you need overseers. They have a battle function for a situation, but what new battle strategies and tactics do they add in the game? Compare the two to the mutalisks; a player can raid, harass. They can get board control; they can decimate opponents without antiair. Party, right? Having those guys around changes the match. Corruptors? Meh. You build colossi, I build corruptors; end of story"
So kindly don't assume I don't know how a wiki works, or that I don't know what Bliz thinks when they publish their opinions all the time.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
On August 26 2011 23:20 Rob28 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 12:12 .Aar wrote:On August 26 2011 00:55 Rob28 wrote:
Corruptors are a litral hard counter to colossi, even Blizzard acknowledges it. Hell, it's in the damn liquipedia entry as a hard counter to collosus. Liquipedia is community-maintained. The comment about "hard counter" was added by Jtype, a Liquipedia editor who has no ties to Blizzard. Not debating your actual point, but citing Liquipedia as proof of Blizzard's opinion does not fly. I'm critiquing it based on the comments made by Dustin Bowder... specifically: "There are some easy things we can do and there are some hard things. If we study the game, for example, you would say that the corruptor is lame. Don't get us wrong; they're useful. If there are a lot of colossi, you need corruptors. If there are dark templars, you need overseers. They have a battle function for a situation, but what new battle strategies and tactics do they add in the game? Compare the two to the mutalisks; a player can raid, harass. They can get board control; they can decimate opponents without antiair. Party, right? Having those guys around changes the match. Corruptors? Meh. You build colossi, I build corruptors; end of story"So kindly don't assume I don't know how a wiki works, or that I don't know what Bliz thinks when they publish their opinions all the time.
I don't think you should be so quick to jump to conclusions. For the large part, most people are trying to do the right thing. Also, the corruptor has the least air-to-ground presence of any air superiority unit (phoenix, viking).
|
I would like to add a question to this balance thread to see what people think.
The Hydralisk Range Upgrade
Why is it necessary?
It seems to me that it is a reminiscent of BW where all the core ranged units had a range upgrade, to keep them from being too strong early in the game where there werent that many units around.
Marines, Dragoons and Hydras had range upgrades.
But if we look at the current design, Marines and Stalkers already start with their range already to max and any upgrades they might have only make them even better.
However hydralisks, slow as they are, they also start with a lower range and need this expensive upgrade to be midly decent.
Given that Void Ray / Pheonix combo is out before hydralisks usually and that pheonixes are not so bad against hydras, I am wondering why it is necessary to spend that 150/150 to use this unit.
Any thoughts? Any other implication this upgrade might bring? What am I missing?
|
Protoss has no counter to EMP which has a range of 13, 1 short of Siege tank.
NA terrans are underskilled in utilizing EMP's power so they can't deal with massive colossi and archons. ON the other hand, protoss does not really need skills to a-move his deathball so it looks like the balance is favoring protoss in NA.
However, in fact EMP is way op for top tier players.
After 1.3.6 patch, protoss's offcial record in Korea is 39% overal, 28% vs zerg and 42% vs terran.
|
Terran and Zerg should not complain about the balance. Top tier player's plays are passed onto those in the middle skill level, and it is eventually passed onto low level leagues. Korea is definitely the top tier and it represents rest of the world's coming balance in near future.
Protoss is having 39% winrate with 1.3.6 patch in Korea. PvZ is so imbalanced(28%) that it is impossible to see protoss on team leagues but few top protoss players.
This trend is already starting to show in NA server as well as EU server with terrans dominating top ladder. I don't even know why Blizzard has to wait months until NA and EU server catch up with Korean trend, showing exactly the same balance states. I would rather have them patch balances in accordance to Korean scene.
|
On August 29 2011 06:27 highsis wrote:
Terran and Zerg should not complain about the balance. Top tier player's plays are passed onto those in the middle skill level, and it is eventually passed onto low level leagues. Korea is definitely the top tier and it represents rest of the world's coming balance in near future.
Protoss is having 39% winrate with 1.3.6 patch in Korea. PvZ is so imbalanced(28%) that it is impossible to see protoss on team leagues but few top protoss players.
This trend is already starting to show in NA server as well as EU server with terrans dominating top ladder. I don't even know why Blizzard has to wait months until NA and EU server catch up with Korean trend, showing exactly the same balance states. I would rather have them patch balances in accordance to Korean scene.
Win rates are indicative of balance? That's news to most people.
|
On August 29 2011 06:33 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:27 highsis wrote:
Terran and Zerg should not complain about the balance. Top tier player's plays are passed onto those in the middle skill level, and it is eventually passed onto low level leagues. Korea is definitely the top tier and it represents rest of the world's coming balance in near future.
Protoss is having 39% winrate with 1.3.6 patch in Korea. PvZ is so imbalanced(28%) that it is impossible to see protoss on team leagues but few top protoss players.
This trend is already starting to show in NA server as well as EU server with terrans dominating top ladder. I don't even know why Blizzard has to wait months until NA and EU server catch up with Korean trend, showing exactly the same balance states. I would rather have them patch balances in accordance to Korean scene. Win rates are indicative of balance? That's news to most people.
if win rates aren't indicative of balance, nothing is indicative of balance.
|
|
|
On August 29 2011 06:40 isleyofthenorth wrote:Terran cheese is pretty good + Show Spoiler +
that 2 port banshee thrown in randomly is almost 100% win if you do it decently
|
On August 29 2011 06:41 isleyofthenorth wrote:that 2 port banshee thrown in randomly is almost 100% win if you do it decently
And then there's game 2 with the double proxy barracks, which are getting nerfed with the 1.4 patch.
|
On August 27 2011 13:35 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 23:20 Rob28 wrote:On August 26 2011 12:12 .Aar wrote:On August 26 2011 00:55 Rob28 wrote:
Corruptors are a litral hard counter to colossi, even Blizzard acknowledges it. Hell, it's in the damn liquipedia entry as a hard counter to collosus. Liquipedia is community-maintained. The comment about "hard counter" was added by Jtype, a Liquipedia editor who has no ties to Blizzard. Not debating your actual point, but citing Liquipedia as proof of Blizzard's opinion does not fly. I'm critiquing it based on the comments made by Dustin Bowder... specifically: "There are some easy things we can do and there are some hard things. If we study the game, for example, you would say that the corruptor is lame. Don't get us wrong; they're useful. If there are a lot of colossi, you need corruptors. If there are dark templars, you need overseers. They have a battle function for a situation, but what new battle strategies and tactics do they add in the game? Compare the two to the mutalisks; a player can raid, harass. They can get board control; they can decimate opponents without antiair. Party, right? Having those guys around changes the match. Corruptors? Meh. You build colossi, I build corruptors; end of story"So kindly don't assume I don't know how a wiki works, or that I don't know what Bliz thinks when they publish their opinions all the time. I don't think you should be so quick to jump to conclusions. For the large part, most people are trying to do the right thing. Also, the corruptor has the least air-to-ground presence of any air superiority unit (phoenix, viking).
The corrupter is a hardcore Air to Air unit... It gets air dominance for the zerg and does a pretty decent job of it most of the time. VIking's have a gimmicy method of being involved in ground fights and pheonixes have an alright presence for being a decent air to air option.
edit: On winrates, I think you have to be obstinate about PvT to well for it to be up to debate. PvZ, I wonder if anyone would buy the argument that it is and will always be a volatile matchup based on the way zerg functions. There should always be a strong pressure option to both races, but it seems reasonable that there would be extreme metagame changes as zergs have a tough time being precise with timings but once the timings are figured out being much much stronger because their macro mechanics are much much stronger (Also... when have you seen a zerg outcontrol a toss lately?).
|
On August 29 2011 06:33 Zeke50100 wrote:
Win rates are indicative of balance? That's news to most people.
While it is one of many indicatives of balance, it is the strongest indicative of balance.
|
After watching MLG this weekend, what do you guys think is the main thing preventing Protoss players from doing better, or your top 3 things? I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about this.
Personally I think economy is what hurts Toss the most, especially early game. Terran can mule at 15 supply, and Zerg can drone hard with larva inject, but Toss has to continue to produce 1 probe at a time, has a hard time securing expansions early (even 3 gate expand isn't working how it once did), and can't afford to produce enough units to defend early pressure.
Think about how many times we saw Toss players getting absolutely crushed shortly after taking their second expansion (i.e. the HuK / Nada games from today).
Top 10 at the Anaheim MLG had two Protoss (7.HuK 8.Naniwa) and top 4 were terran. Top 10 at Columbus had two (3.MC 6.Naniwa), Toss did well in Dallas (1st, 2nd, and 4th), and the Raleigh MLG will end with only two Toss in the top 8 (6.HerO 7.HuK).
What do you guys think?
|
Bunkers should only salvage 50% of their cost, whilst increasing the speed with which they are salvaged.
The economic hit a Zerg gets for a Terran throwing down a random bunker is disproportionate. A Terran can bunker in the natural of a Zerg, with no intention of filling the bunker up with marines, the Zerg has to pull drones to defend, which means the Zerg loses more minerals through lost mining time than Terran does from the 75% salvaged minerals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
