|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about  To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that.
Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right?
|
On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right?
Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles.
Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On September 10 2011 08:46 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right? Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles. Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map.
I always thought the main purpose of the mothership was blink-stalker harass? It seems a little too fragile/immobile to be good for those frontline battles that are so important.
|
On September 10 2011 08:47 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:46 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right? Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles. Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map. I always thought the main purpose of the mothership was blink-stalker harass? It seems a little too fragile/immobile to be good for those frontline battles that are so important.
The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On September 10 2011 08:53 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:47 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:46 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right? Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles. Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map. I always thought the main purpose of the mothership was blink-stalker harass? It seems a little too fragile/immobile to be good for those frontline battles that are so important. The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth.
You could call it the spiritual heir of the Scout then, in that respect. I see. Well, I guess it's not wroth spending too much time discussing, but it would be nice if all units had SOME role in competitive gaming.
|
So I was just getting excited about GSL October, but when I checked to see who qualified is see FIVE Protoss out of 32. How on Earth can GSL let this happen? This is NOT a blizzard problem because the ladder is not nearly so imbalanced. GSL has a pattern of "fixing" blizzard maps by giving other races severe advantages (such as neutral supply depots) and now we have seen where this leads. The most balanced maps seem to be Blizzard created and the best Protoss map (XNC) is basically carbon coppied from Blizzard. Meanwhile GSL keeps adding crap like Dual Sight and Bel Shir Beach which are disasters for Protoss and the result is GSL is not even remotely balanced. I have watched ever single GSL in the past, but I am not sure it is worth it this time. Five Protoss's? Really? If every Protoss would quit their team and create a Protoss all star team they would still not be able to compete with half the teams in GSTL.
This is NOT a blizzard issue. This is a GOM issue.
|
On September 10 2011 09:29 meadbert wrote:
So I was just getting excited about GSL October, but when I checked to see who qualified is see FIVE Protoss out of 32. How on Earth can GSL let this happen? This is NOT a blizzard problem because the ladder is not nearly so imbalanced. GSL has a pattern of "fixing" blizzard maps by giving other races severe advantages (such as neutral supply depots) and now we have seen where this leads. The most balanced maps seem to be Blizzard created and the best Protoss map (XNC) is basically carbon coppied from Blizzard. Meanwhile GSL keeps adding crap like Dual Sight and Bel Shir Beach which are disasters for Protoss and the result is GSL is not even remotely balanced. I have watched ever single GSL in the past, but I am not sure it is worth it this time. Five Protoss's? Really? If every Protoss would quit their team and create a Protoss all star team they would still not be able to compete with half the teams in GSTL.
This is NOT a blizzard issue. This is a GOM issue.
Gom made macro maps. If protoss can not perform on macro maps, it's obvious that it is a problem with the race, which makes it a blizzard issue.
|
On September 10 2011 09:53 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 09:29 meadbert wrote:
So I was just getting excited about GSL October, but when I checked to see who qualified is see FIVE Protoss out of 32. How on Earth can GSL let this happen? This is NOT a blizzard problem because the ladder is not nearly so imbalanced. GSL has a pattern of "fixing" blizzard maps by giving other races severe advantages (such as neutral supply depots) and now we have seen where this leads. The most balanced maps seem to be Blizzard created and the best Protoss map (XNC) is basically carbon coppied from Blizzard. Meanwhile GSL keeps adding crap like Dual Sight and Bel Shir Beach which are disasters for Protoss and the result is GSL is not even remotely balanced. I have watched ever single GSL in the past, but I am not sure it is worth it this time. Five Protoss's? Really? If every Protoss would quit their team and create a Protoss all star team they would still not be able to compete with half the teams in GSTL.
This is NOT a blizzard issue. This is a GOM issue. Gom made macro maps. If protoss can not perform on macro maps, it's obvious that it is a problem with the race, which makes it a blizzard issue.
Yeah, the point of Gom making the larger macro maps is that everyone thought Terrans were too strong on the old blizzard maps. Now that Gom is full of macro maps and Terrans learned macro builds, they're doing better than ever! And besides, the Korean ladder is dominated by Terrans anyways.
|
On September 10 2011 08:53 Toadvine wrote:The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth.
The funny part about that is, the mothership is actually a decent unit, its a viable strategy to construct it in very lategame scenarios for P. Carriers on the other hand...
|
On September 10 2011 13:19 Morphling_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:53 Toadvine wrote:The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth. ...Carriers on the other hand...
If I had a nickel for every time I've seen that...
Yeah, Fleet Beacon tech is entirely never worth it. Protoss air is too expensive, too slow to produce, and in general just not USEFUL in too many situations.
|
IN GSL each race has won first place in a span of 10 seasons, it all comes down to your micro, there isnt really that much imbalance in my opinion
|
What if neural parasite allows you to completely infest and control a unit at the expense of losing your infestor? That is, the newly captured unit moves slower and stuff like the Infested Terran?
|
Mothership can still be pretty baller in lategame PvZ if Neurals no longer affect massive. When units get sucked in they don't spread out very effectively and storms + archons will still wreck face.
|
United States946 Posts
i really hate the neural change and i think it could be handled a lot better. i think if feedback instantly killed any infestor using neural parasite it would be balanced, since ghosts can already snipe them. the people who don't want to get on board with the casters countering casters thing can go cry about it and lose games while they don't add the tech after scouting imo, because i feel like that's how blizzard designed the game since every caster has an ability that lets them deal with other casters somehow.
it's mainly protoss that has trouble dealing with the infestors, and sometimes it comes down to them having terrible scouting or not respecting infestors and just dying, but other times they do get the high templars and feedback just doesn't kill an infestor using NP since the damage isn't enough. terran really has no such excuse imo.
i can understand the frustration of having your own units seem like a vulnerability but virtually removing something from the game is not a very good way to handle it ever. it's really hard as zerg to handle massed T3 from the other races without neural and to deal with it is both incredibly difficult, doesn't take much skill, and it's not very interesting. i feel like making the other races better at dealing with neural is a significant improvement to making neural suck holy shit balls.
also, carriers are good, but SC2 macro moves along at a rapid pace compared to BW, and carriers are way too slowly made. they are actually completely beastly, you just have to pray for a miracle to get the amount you need in time. even out of 3 stargates it can take something like 4 in game minutes to get a reasonable amount which is just retarded.
|
On September 10 2011 13:51 Herculix wrote:
also, carriers are good, but SC2 macro moves along at a rapid pace compared to BW, and carriers are way too slowly made. they are actually completely beastly, you just have to pray for a miracle to get the amount you need in time. even out of 3 stargates it can take something like 4 in game minutes to get a reasonable amount which is just retarded.
I posted this in another thread:
Can someone enlighten me? Is that spreadsheet wrong? Or is there a factor that I'm missing? The way things look right now, the Carrier is never worth its cost as far as I can tell. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
|
Carrier is only good if Terran goes mass siege tank like in BW. You don't see Terran make mass siege tank, so that's why you don't see carriers.
|
even then, you do better with voidray/phoenix.
|
My main problem with protoss is cost effectiveness. The way the units are designed, gateway units are mostly cost inefficient. Almost any pure gateway play you see involves a timing attack. There are obviously exceptions to this but for the most part it is true.
This is supposed to be remedied by the fact that the tier 3 units (collosus + storm) are ridiculously cost efficient. Unfortunately though as the game grows and people get better and better these units only become less and less cost efficient. Spreading units, fighting in multiple places at once, and improving ghost/infestor control all contribute to this.
I also think this is why at the highest levels (AKA Korea) you see Protoss having the most trouble while in foreigner tournaments you still see decent results. Yes, those three things I mentioned definitely serve to make banelings/infestors/siege tanks less effective as well but I don't feel other races are quite as dependent on them because units like the Roach and Marauder/Marine are already cost efficient without them.
|
On September 10 2011 14:54 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 13:51 Herculix wrote:
also, carriers are good, but SC2 macro moves along at a rapid pace compared to BW, and carriers are way too slowly made. they are actually completely beastly, you just have to pray for a miracle to get the amount you need in time. even out of 3 stargates it can take something like 4 in game minutes to get a reasonable amount which is just retarded. I posted this in another thread: Can someone enlighten me? Is that spreadsheet wrong? Or is there a factor that I'm missing? The way things look right now, the Carrier is never worth its cost as far as I can tell. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
What Dustin Browder hasnt told you is that Carriers are just as casual-player oriented as the Mothershit.
(Even more I might add, as Vortex can be useful in some situations)
|
I experimented with TvP mass thors quite a bit when they energy was removed, and carriers counter thors hardcore. Much better than VR since they don't bunch up.
Too bad mass thors get hardcountered by feedback now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
