|
On November 19 2013 23:26 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 23:08 Slydie wrote:
Siege units outrange static defense, that is a pretty common definition, collos is a siegeunit. Watch a PvZ with mass spines/spores and you see I am right.
And please fix that mommacore! I win vs every defensive protoss at my level going collos with the viking scv pull, that is perfectly fine for me. Double forge with tech and no units, using the op-nexus to defend anything is not! Remember when 2rax preasurebuilds were an actual threat? Those were the days.... 2 rax pressure builds were inherently broken and a consequence of poor game design. They are a lot like some of the allins Terran whine about so much- you could never really be behind from it if you did it right. As a Protoss you had to go 3 gate before any tech, warp in an obscene number of units for that point in the game AND have good force fields. If they pulled SCVs with it, forget defending it you had to pretty much run up to your ramp. But then stim+medivac timings weren't delayed at all because you could start stim after conc shells and be ready for the 10 minute timing all the same. But Protoss tech would be delayed because I needed a bunch of units to defend which ate up my gas to get to my tech needed to hold that push.
Certainly not at the end of WoL. In 2012 they were not a problem at all.
|
On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol
Is this supposed to justify their abysmal design, lol?
|
The biggest problem with 2 Rax Pressure builds was the Stim Timing they shut that down with making stim 3 minutes to research to nerf that play if I remember right.....
|
On November 19 2013 23:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 23:14 Chaggi wrote:On November 19 2013 23:02 Big J wrote:On November 19 2013 23:00 Chaggi wrote:On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol a 6 to 9 range unit does massive damage is not supposed to be in direct engagementsHM SOUNDS LIKE A SIEGE UNIT TO ME ? I should've been more clear. It basically means you don't want enemy units to be near cause it's a glass cannon essentially. ok. That makes kindof sense.  Though I'd define a siege unit in an RTS game much simpler as a unit that outranges static D and therby be able to "siege". (which in return allows static D to be more efficient than anything else, since there is a mechanism in the game that counters them).
I like that definition more but it's annoying when ffadicted says pointless stupid crap just to say pointless stupid crap so I decided to be cute with my answer.
|
On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 10:43 Courthead wrote:FYI after a week of play with the latest patch, there are now TWICE as many Protoss players in GM leagues across each server as there are Terrans: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceI really think TvP is a completely broken match-up nowadays. Protoss has always been quite strong in the late game, but they now have innumerable all-ins in the early game that are extremely strong, even when scouted, and quite easy to execute. In addition, the mothership core provides such an extreme defensive advantage that there aren't many openings for Terrans early-game. Given the state of the game, I will never, ever, ever understand why Blizzard thought that oracle play needed a buff. The solution, in my opinion, would be to retract the unnecessary oracle buff, and possibly nerf the starting energy of the mothership core. Admittedly, I'm not sure how this would affect other match-ups, but the Protoss defensive advantage in TvP is quite ridiculous. The fact that the new HOTS units for Terrans (mines and hellbats) have been nerfed into near-uselessness in the match-up doesn't help much either, because some of our only anti-economy early game options revolved around dropping those units in mineral lines. Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. Also, how does the effectiveness of the oracles harass make Protoss somehow safer?
This is first time you recall someone using ladder race distribution in balance discussion?
|
|
|
On November 19 2013 23:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 23:26 Wingblade wrote:On November 19 2013 23:08 Slydie wrote:
Siege units outrange static defense, that is a pretty common definition, collos is a siegeunit. Watch a PvZ with mass spines/spores and you see I am right.
And please fix that mommacore! I win vs every defensive protoss at my level going collos with the viking scv pull, that is perfectly fine for me. Double forge with tech and no units, using the op-nexus to defend anything is not! Remember when 2rax preasurebuilds were an actual threat? Those were the days.... 2 rax pressure builds were inherently broken and a consequence of poor game design. They are a lot like some of the allins Terran whine about so much- you could never really be behind from it if you did it right. As a Protoss you had to go 3 gate before any tech, warp in an obscene number of units for that point in the game AND have good force fields. If they pulled SCVs with it, forget defending it you had to pretty much run up to your ramp. But then stim+medivac timings weren't delayed at all because you could start stim after conc shells and be ready for the 10 minute timing all the same. But Protoss tech would be delayed because I needed a bunch of units to defend which ate up my gas to get to my tech needed to hold that push. Certainly not at the end of WoL. In 2012 they were not a problem at all. Yeah, not sure what's going on there, and I'm a Protoss. Gate-Robo-Gate into chronoing one immortal held it one-sidedly and on some of the maps in later 2012 and earlier this year you could hold it with 1gate expo if you played it correctly. At the start of WoL it was more powerful but that was because the maps were tiny and terrible.
|
On November 19 2013 23:00 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol a 6 to 9 range unit does massive damage is not supposed to be in direct engagements HM SOUNDS LIKE A SIEGE UNIT TO ME
Perfect example of shortsighted ppl who only look at numbers instead of seeing how things actually play out in-game, no wonder you were being so whiny in the patch thread lol
On November 19 2013 23:41 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol Is this supposed to justify their abysmal design, lol?
No, quite the opposite in fact. They are supposed to be a siege unit, but fail massively at it, are not at all siege units, and are used as completely different tools. That pretty much helps point out its abysmal design.
On November 19 2013 23:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 23:14 Chaggi wrote:On November 19 2013 23:02 Big J wrote:On November 19 2013 23:00 Chaggi wrote:On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol a 6 to 9 range unit does massive damage is not supposed to be in direct engagementsHM SOUNDS LIKE A SIEGE UNIT TO ME ? I should've been more clear. It basically means you don't want enemy units to be near cause it's a glass cannon essentially. ok. That makes kindof sense. Though I'd define a siege unit in an RTS game much simpler as a unit that outranges static D and therby be able to "siege". (which in return allows static D to be more efficient than anything else, since there is a mechanism in the game that counters them).
Ok, sure, if you're defining siege units as units that have longer range than cannons, than ya, it's a siege unit.
Sadly, that is not what defines a siege unit lol (although yes, that is an important aspect of a siege unit, but solely outranging static D does not inherently make you a siege unit)
|
Then what does? Also which units currently in the game qualify as such?
|
On November 20 2013 03:37 Bagi wrote:
Then what does? Also which units currently in the game qualify as such?
A siege unit is a unit you can park outside a base, or place in a key important part of the map to control space for long periods of time, and pick away at things in the outer edge of the siege line, slowly moving that line up... and it's very cost inneficient to rush within that line directly.
Colossi essentially fail all of these requirements. Simply outranging static D does not make you a siege unit.
Let me know next time you guys see a pro player slowly siege outside an enemy base and leapfrog colossi to take out a planetary, or use them to control a key open space in the map for long periods of time without just getting bum rushed to death. I'd love to see the hilarity of that play lol
|
On November 20 2013 03:27 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 23:00 Chaggi wrote:On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol a 6 to 9 range unit does massive damage is not supposed to be in direct engagements HM SOUNDS LIKE A SIEGE UNIT TO ME Perfect example of shortsighted ppl who only look at numbers instead of seeing how things actually play out in-game, no wonder you were being so whiny in the patch thread lol Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 23:41 Bagi wrote:On November 19 2013 22:47 ffadicted wrote:
Why is it almost 2014 and people are STILL trying to compare colossi to siege units when they're not and have never been? lol Is this supposed to justify their abysmal design, lol? No, quite the opposite in fact. They are supposed to be a siege unit, but fail massively at it, are not at all siege units, and are used as completely different tools. That pretty much helps point out its abysmal design.
How things play out in-game?
I see Collosi outranging static defences like bunkers, planetaries, spines, etc. I see Collosi being fragile (for their cost) and needing buffering gateway units.
Maybe you should explain exactly what he's missing rather than just personal attacks.
On November 20 2013 03:39 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 03:37 Bagi wrote:
Then what does? Also which units currently in the game qualify as such? A siege unit is a unit you can park outside a base, or place in a key important part of the map to control space for long periods of time, and pick away at things in the outer edge of the siege line, slowly moving that line up... and it's very cost inneficient to rush within that line directly. Colossi essentially fail all of these requirements.
Collosi can be parked outside a base. The rest are just silly "requirements" that you deemed necessary. Any unit can control space given proper positioning and does not get countered.
|
On November 20 2013 03:39 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 03:37 Bagi wrote:
Then what does? Also which units currently in the game qualify as such? A siege unit is a unit you can park outside a base, or place in a key important part of the map to control space for long periods of time, and pick away at things in the outer edge of the siege line, slowly moving that line up... and it's very cost inneficient to rush within that line directly. Colossi essentially fail all of these requirements.
But this is exactly much how a colossus timing works against terran, park your army outside their base and chip away at the bunkers. The presence of vikings makes this harder later on but it can still be done.
I dont know how extra mobility makes colossi less of a siege unit.
Let me know next time you guys see a pro player slowly siege outside an enemy base and leapfrog colossi to take out a planetary, or use them to control a key open space in the map for long periods of time without just getting bum rushed to death. I'd love to see the hilarity of that play lol
Translation: only the siege tank is a siege unit.
Okay bro, thats great, thanks for your contribution.
|
Because his definition of Siege is based off of the BW Siege tank and not actually what the definition is..... LOL
|
On November 20 2013 03:45 Bagi wrote:
Translation: only the siege tank is a siege unit.
Okay bro, thats great, thanks for your contribution.
Don't be salty
Brood Lords, Tanks, Tempests and Swarm Hosts are the only good used siege units in the game. Storm is great space control, but it lacks true siege ability due to the fact it can't attack buildings.
You guys are making up your own RTS definition of siege instead of the classic warfare definition of siege. If you want to do that, that's fine, just make sure before you post you state that you're making up your own definition tbh so ppl don't get confused.
How you guys think that colossi are actually good large space control units in the game make me laugh. You acknowledge colossi encourage A-moving deathball, yet claim colossi are siege units. The level of self-contradiction in this page is too damn high.
|
Siege = slow and bulky units, vulnerable to being closed in on by infantry or being attacked from the sky, and are able to deal massive damage at range.
Colossi just fail in being slow and bulky. Having the ability to ball up and easily retreat from infantry is enough for me to agree that they are NOT a siege unit. They qualify in all other aspects. Terran Tanks are a siege unit (obviously) as are Swarm Hosts and Brood Lords.
|
On November 20 2013 03:56 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 03:45 Bagi wrote:
Translation: only the siege tank is a siege unit.
Okay bro, thats great, thanks for your contribution. Don't be salty Brood Lords, Tanks, Tempests and Swarm Hosts are the only good used siege units in the game. Storm is great space control, but it lacks true siege ability due to the fact it can't attack buildings. You guys are making up your own RTS definition of siege instead of the classic warfare definition of siege. If you want to do that, that's fine, just make sure before you post you state that you're making up your own definition tbh so ppl don't get confused. How you guys think that colossi are actually good large space control units in the game make me laugh. You acknowledge colossi encourage A-moving deathball, yet claim colossi are siege units. The level of self-contradiction in this page is too damn high.
When are you leap frogging your tempests and brood lords? When is bumrushing them not a viable counter?
|
On November 20 2013 04:03 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 03:56 ffadicted wrote:On November 20 2013 03:45 Bagi wrote:
Translation: only the siege tank is a siege unit.
Okay bro, thats great, thanks for your contribution. Don't be salty Brood Lords, Tanks, Tempests and Swarm Hosts are the only good used siege units in the game. Storm is great space control, but it lacks true siege ability due to the fact it can't attack buildings. You guys are making up your own RTS definition of siege instead of the classic warfare definition of siege. If you want to do that, that's fine, just make sure before you post you state that you're making up your own definition tbh so ppl don't get confused. How you guys think that colossi are actually good large space control units in the game make me laugh. You acknowledge colossi encourage A-moving deathball, yet claim colossi are siege units. The level of self-contradiction in this page is too damn high. When are you leap frogging your tempests and brood lords? When is bumrushing them not a viable counter?
I should have stated leap-frogging is just one example of slow moving siege I gave. Being air units, brood lords and tempests tend to avoid having to do that, but as normal for siege units, they still need to slowly push their lines further and further carefully. Colossi are not very good at all at doing this. They are much much better at quick tactical strike units along with a fast army of stalkers/zealots and recall. They do not complement siege play. They do not compliment slow pushes. (edit: I'm obviously not saying go suicide your colossi and don't even make any with tempests... just a comparison to prove a point)
You'll see this by the fact that once tempests are into play and protoss is trying to siege and slowly move up terran defenses, colossi become less and less valuable by the minute, and storm (if given a choice) should always be chosen instead, due to it's synergy with siege style play and space control.
|
On November 19 2013 20:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 17:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 19 2013 17:00 Bagi wrote:On November 19 2013 16:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
How long have Thor's attacks prioritized ground over air? Annoying as shit, I've used Thors for a while vs ling/bling/muta and now they are wasting their time attacking zerglings instead of attacking the mutas with splash. Arghh. Always I think, they fixed them targeting medivacs at one point but other than that they seem to randomly target ground and air. At least I am hotwired to grab my thors and shift-click through the mutas in any engagement right after I've done the same with my tanks against any banes. No, it's never been random. It's always targeted air as a priority, although they did patch it to not auto-target nonaggressive air units, such as overlords, medivacs, etc. Throughout all of WoL and part of HOTS I believe it always targeted aggressive air, until recently. I don't think it prioritized Air in general. I think they just happen to attack mutalisks more often, since they are close to the Thors when magicboxing (and proximity plays a role when autochoosing targets) and Thors have more weaponrange on air than on ground, so they lock on an airtarget first in case mutas and zerglings are equally close to the Thor. But I think when you lead with the ling/bling, they will always prioritize the ling/bling, unless they kill one and the next closest target is a mutalisk.
Sorry, you're wrong, not really sure how else to say it lol. As mentioned, I used Thors in every TvZ, I definitely knew the prioritization. Even if the lings came in first, the Thor would auto switch from targeting ground to air as soon as the mutas flew in.
On November 20 2013 04:07 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 04:03 Bagi wrote:On November 20 2013 03:56 ffadicted wrote:On November 20 2013 03:45 Bagi wrote:
Translation: only the siege tank is a siege unit.
Okay bro, thats great, thanks for your contribution. Don't be salty Brood Lords, Tanks, Tempests and Swarm Hosts are the only good used siege units in the game. Storm is great space control, but it lacks true siege ability due to the fact it can't attack buildings. You guys are making up your own RTS definition of siege instead of the classic warfare definition of siege. If you want to do that, that's fine, just make sure before you post you state that you're making up your own definition tbh so ppl don't get confused. How you guys think that colossi are actually good large space control units in the game make me laugh. You acknowledge colossi encourage A-moving deathball, yet claim colossi are siege units. The level of self-contradiction in this page is too damn high. When are you leap frogging your tempests and brood lords? When is bumrushing them not a viable counter? I should have stated leap-frogging is just one example of slow moving siege I gave. Being air units, brood lords and tempests tend to avoid having to do that, but as normal for siege units, they still need to slowly push their lines further and further carefully. Colossi are not very good at all at doing this. They are much much better at quick tactical strike units along with a fast army of stalkers/zealots and recall. They do not complement siege play. They do not compliment slow pushes. (edit: I'm obviously not saying go suicide your colossi and don't even make any with tempests... just a comparison to prove a point) You'll see this by the fact that once tempests are into play and protoss is trying to siege and slowly move up terran defenses, colossi become less and less valuable by the minute, and storm (if given a choice) should always be chosen instead, due to it's synergy with siege style play and space control.
Siege units have always first and foremost been anti-static defense, slow moving, types of units. This includes slow moving battering rams vs walls in games like AoE. Colossi might not be a "traditional" style siege unit, but the fact that they are a unit you would consider massing vs a large amount of static defense, they have long range, and AoE, I'd consider them to have siege unit characteristics. I don't know why you don't have exceptions to your definition, it's a little silly to me. If it fits 85% of the criteria but not 15% and you have to lump it SOMEWHERE, it could easily be argued it's there.
Heck, I remember the Ringwraiths from Battle for Middle Earth and Battle for Middle Earth 2 were siege units (in addition to catapults). They were fast as heck, were flying, and did melee damage and were great in engagements. But they were definitely considered siege units as well, and dealt "SIEGE" type damage at that.
|
On November 20 2013 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
Siege units have always first and foremost been anti-static defense, slow moving, types of units. This includes slow moving battering rams vs walls in games like AoE. Colossi might not be a "traditional" style siege unit, but the fact that they are a unit you would consider massing vs a large amount of static defense, they have long range, and AoE, I'd consider them to have siege unit characteristics. I don't know why you don't have exceptions to your definition, it's a little silly to me. If it fits 85% of the criteria but not 15% and you have to lump it SOMEWHERE, it could easily be argued it's there.
Heck, I remember the Ringwraiths from Battle for Middle Earth and Battle for Middle Earth 2 were siege units (in addition to catapults). They were fast as heck, were flying, and did melee damage and were great in engagements. But they were definitely considered siege units as well, and dealt "SIEGE" type damage at that.
Colossi def do fare well against static D, I'm not trying to argue that... But they are very slow @ killing buildings though (though same could be said of tempests and swarm hosts, so I won't use that as an argument), and like I've said before, they're rarely ever used during siege situations, they're almost always used as a drilling unit to end the game, or as a quick attack unit.. you just never see colossus used in the regular siege situations, it's not like they're just siege tanks that can zip around while sieged... they may have some of the regular attributes you see from siege units (long range for example), but in general, they're just not very successful at that task, and much more successful at others.
If we're going to label siege units as things that outrange/help take down static defense, then sure, it's a siege unit. But I just think that's a very silly definition of siege. That's my two cents, not much else to say on the topic, if I haven't convinced ppl by now I never will 
|
On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 10:43 Courthead wrote:FYI after a week of play with the latest patch, there are now TWICE as many Protoss players in GM leagues across each server as there are Terrans: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceI really think TvP is a completely broken match-up nowadays. Protoss has always been quite strong in the late game, but they now have innumerable all-ins in the early game that are extremely strong, even when scouted, and quite easy to execute. In addition, the mothership core provides such an extreme defensive advantage that there aren't many openings for Terrans early-game. Given the state of the game, I will never, ever, ever understand why Blizzard thought that oracle play needed a buff. The solution, in my opinion, would be to retract the unnecessary oracle buff, and possibly nerf the starting energy of the mothership core. Admittedly, I'm not sure how this would affect other match-ups, but the Protoss defensive advantage in TvP is quite ridiculous. The fact that the new HOTS units for Terrans (mines and hellbats) have been nerfed into near-uselessness in the match-up doesn't help much either, because some of our only anti-economy early game options revolved around dropping those units in mineral lines. Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics.
99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What?
What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time.
The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
