|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
I have to say I havent played actively in quite a while, but the best succes I've had against this build was basically zeal-sentry-phoenix, with early armor upgrades and possibly a cannon or 2.
It's still incredibly tricky ofcourse, if only due to the fact that you kind of have to squeeze a robo out for observers aswell in case Banshee-Cloack is researched, and that you have to have a good spread and fast tank-pickups or you clumped up groundforce will die very very quickly.
I'm interested to see what P Pro's will come up with to deal with this. I don't think 1-1-1 is unbeatable, but as it stands it seems like it takes blind-guessed greedy builds and even then very good management to beat a push that is (at least at master lvl+ ) pretty easy to pull off, which always seems wrong.
|
I don't think the PDD is as big an issue as it is made seem. It prevents 20 stalker shots, which are equal to 200 damage on banshees or marines or more if you'd hit tanks. The raven costs 300 resources though and getting 6 more marines instead would "absorb" 30 stalker hits. Plus, those deal damage and can move.
Maybe the problem is that getting a raven (as detector) is possible without sacrificing combat strength (since the PDD will compensate somewhat for having less army units). But i'm not convinced that getting a raven for PDD versus more army units is better from a pure fighting power perspective.
|
On August 25 2011 00:16 Lurk wrote:
I don't think the PDD is as big an issue as it is made seem. It prevents 20 stalker shots, which are equal to 200 damage on banshees or marines or more if you'd hit tanks. The raven costs 300 resources though and getting 6 more marines instead would "absorb" 30 stalker hits. Plus, those deal damage and can move.
Maybe the problem is that getting a raven (as detector) is possible without sacrificing combat strength (since the PDD will compensate somewhat for having less army units). But i'm not convinced that getting a raven for PDD versus more army units is better from a pure fighting power perspective.
it's not the damage absorbed, it's that stalkers aren't shooting fast and usually there are 6-7 of them, so it takes a lot of time (about 4.5 seconds), and that time is crucial when your army get pounded by marines and tanks and banshees.
|
On August 25 2011 00:39 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:16 Lurk wrote:
I don't think the PDD is as big an issue as it is made seem. It prevents 20 stalker shots, which are equal to 200 damage on banshees or marines or more if you'd hit tanks. The raven costs 300 resources though and getting 6 more marines instead would "absorb" 30 stalker hits. Plus, those deal damage and can move.
Maybe the problem is that getting a raven (as detector) is possible without sacrificing combat strength (since the PDD will compensate somewhat for having less army units). But i'm not convinced that getting a raven for PDD versus more army units is better from a pure fighting power perspective. it's not the damage absorbed, it's that stalkers aren't shooting fast and usually there are 6-7 of them, so it takes a lot of time (about 4.5 seconds), and that time is crucial when your army get pounded by marines and tanks and banshees.
Not to mention its "only" energy. The raven detects, can place auto turrets and isn't generally sacrificed once it puts down a pdd/auto turret. It can regain its energy for push #2 or #3 or #4 and so on
|
wow everyone is doing this build right now... even your dog, thats so freaking easy to do. first we had to learn to deal with 3 rax, then with 3 rax scv supply shit and now this + many variations like 3rax/1/1 with raven banshee tank 3rax/siege tanks with stim and so on, fuck you terrans... wish i had build which would crush everything BUT 1 thing. Ridicilous, hope we ( protoss ) will get some freaking harass unit like terran, because terran has so many offensive openings.. like cloaked banshees hellions...
User was warned for this post
|
Having the stalker attack be two attacks instead of one attack would help against this. As it is, even though the stalker animation has two laser beams, it only counts as one attack, so the PDD loses energy at half the speed. With the stalkers attack counting as two, the PDD would drain of energy twice as fast and stalkers wouldn't be useless for as long.
Just an idea that would help, not necessarily fix the problem.
|
On August 25 2011 00:56 Westy wrote:
Having the stalker attack be two attacks instead of one attack would help against this. As it is, even though the stalker animation has two laser beams, it only counts as one attack, so the PDD loses energy at half the speed. With the stalkers attack counting as two, the PDD would drain of energy twice as fast and stalkers wouldn't be useless for as long.
Just an idea that would help, not necessarily fix the problem.
And then Stalkers would be even worse against anything with more than 0 armor, making them even more pathetic compared to Marauders in late-game scenarios.
|
The thing about PDD is that typically, Immortals and Stalkers will be the units focus firing tanks. PDD being up means you cannot hit the tanks for a long time, and that tends to sort of kill everything you have. PDD protects the high priority targets for 'free'.
Sure, more marines might absorb the same amount of damage, but they don't do splash or are as good at containing as tanks.
|
On August 25 2011 01:04 DarQraven wrote:
The thing about PDD is that typically, Immortals and Stalkers will be the units focus firing tanks. PDD being up means you cannot hit the tanks for a long time, and that tends to sort of kill everything you have. PDD protects the high priority targets for 'free'.
Sure, more marines might absorb the same amount of damage, but they don't do splash or are as good at containing as tanks.
Immortals aren't affected by PDD.
|
On August 25 2011 01:03 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:56 Westy wrote:
Having the stalker attack be two attacks instead of one attack would help against this. As it is, even though the stalker animation has two laser beams, it only counts as one attack, so the PDD loses energy at half the speed. With the stalkers attack counting as two, the PDD would drain of energy twice as fast and stalkers wouldn't be useless for as long.
Just an idea that would help, not necessarily fix the problem. And then Stalkers would be even worse against anything with more than 0 armor, making them even more pathetic compared to Marauders in late-game scenarios.
If they did have two shots per attack, however, their damage would scale well with upgrades, which is one of the complaints about stalkers at the moment, so this would not be as detrimental to a late game scenario as it may seem.
|
The utility of 1/1/1 isn't the issue (apart from some obvious unit nerfs), it's the win/loss design of protoss' detection and cloak. Permanent, invisible, difficult to get mobile detection vs. permanent, fragile, deadly cloaked unit. Now look at TvT and compare it to PvP. What do you like more, build order wins or good utility?
|
On August 25 2011 01:13 Jackbo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 01:03 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:On August 25 2011 00:56 Westy wrote:
Having the stalker attack be two attacks instead of one attack would help against this. As it is, even though the stalker animation has two laser beams, it only counts as one attack, so the PDD loses energy at half the speed. With the stalkers attack counting as two, the PDD would drain of energy twice as fast and stalkers wouldn't be useless for as long.
Just an idea that would help, not necessarily fix the problem. And then Stalkers would be even worse against anything with more than 0 armor, making them even more pathetic compared to Marauders in late-game scenarios. If they did have two shots per attack, however, their damage would scale well with upgrades, which is one of the complaints about stalkers at the moment, so this would not be as detrimental to a late game scenario as it may seem.
It wouldn't affect their late game since if their damage was halved but split into two attacks they'd have the same scaling issues that Marine, Zerglings, Zealots and Carriers have against armour. Although I guess it doesn't really matter since they already only get +1 per attack upgrade. Though do keep in mind that Stalkers would actually do less damage against anything with base armour than they currently do.
It might work in the early game since you can Chrono Boost out attack upgrades but I think something along the lines of a Zealot/Templar/Archon army in the early/mid game would work much better than trying to force Stalkers to be useful since the Twilight Council you need for +2 goes hand in hand with Charge/Templar.
|
Turning the Stalker attack in to 2x 5(+3 vs armored) might work.
That would give you 10 damage vs light units (which typically have 0 armor) and 14 damage vs armored, up from 13.
My biggest concern there is that Stalkers would be even better vs Roaches than they currently are. +1 or +2 blink stalkers are already borderline OP in PvZ and turning their upgrade into +2 damage instead of +1 would make them twice as deadly.
Not complaining about the current game, but a change like that would probably tip the scale too far over.
|
On August 25 2011 01:42 Jermstuddog wrote:
Turning the Stalker attack in to 2x 5(+3 vs armored) might work.
That would give you 10 damage vs light units (which typically have 0 armor) and 14 damage vs armored, up from 13.
Actually 2(5+3) = 16, not 14. That would be a pretty big boost vs Armoured.
TBH it isn't the armoured part of the 1-1-1 that is the problem. It's the Marines. The Tanks are just for zoning and the Banshees are to force anti-air (stalkers/Phoenix) which can't deal with the Marines.
|
On August 25 2011 01:42 Jermstuddog wrote:
Turning the Stalker attack in to 2x 5(+3 vs armored) might work.
That would give you 10 damage vs light units (which typically have 0 armor) and 14 damage vs armored, up from 13.
This is simply not a solution. Not only is it going to make armor upgrades very strong against stalkers, which will mean if you're 1 attack upgrade behind you have a significant disadvantage, but also the raven variation of the 1-1-1 is just one of many, and there are a lot of variations of the build that don't use a raven.
On August 25 2011 01:42 Jermstuddog wrote:
My biggest concern there is that Stalkers would be even better vs Roaches than they currently are. +1 or +2 blink stalkers are already borderline OP in PvZ and turning their upgrade into +2 damage instead of +1 would make them twice as deadly.
Let's not start this... but if anything, roaches > stalkers for cost. Stalkers are not "borderline OP". Believe me, I've played enough protoss and zerg to talk about this. I recommend you switch to random, and after maybe 300 games you'll understand what I'm talking about.
|
How did I get sucked back into this thread?! Bah ...
The title should be changed to, "Can we all agree that Terran is OP versus Protoss?" I mean, why not? Or maybe, "Suggest your unreasonable Protoss Buffs/Terran Nerfs here!"
It would be difficult, and maybe the OP should do it since he started this mess, but there has been some constructive, non nerf/buff, game-play related discussion in this monstrosity of a thread, so why not update the OP with some consensus on the best ways to deal with this powerful unit combination?
|
The OP has contained the best way of dealing with it from the start...
|
On August 25 2011 02:09 TimeSpiral wrote:
How did I get sucked back into this thread?! Bah ...
The title should be changed to, "Can we all agree that Terran is OP versus Protoss?" I mean, why not? Or maybe, "Suggest your unreasonable Protoss Buffs/Terran Nerfs here!"
It would be difficult, and maybe the OP should do it since he started this mess, but there has been some constructive, non nerf/buff, game-play related discussion in this monstrosity of a thread, so why not update the OP with some consensus on the best ways to deal with this powerful unit combination?
LOL you must not have been around during beta. This thread is pretty damn tame for a balance discussion compared to the way things used to be.
As for the OP? I doubt he will do that since the whole point of the post is that there is no non-nerf oriented way of stopping this.
|
On August 25 2011 02:17 Chronald wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 02:09 TimeSpiral wrote:
How did I get sucked back into this thread?! Bah ...
The title should be changed to, "Can we all agree that Terran is OP versus Protoss?" I mean, why not? Or maybe, "Suggest your unreasonable Protoss Buffs/Terran Nerfs here!"
It would be difficult, and maybe the OP should do it since he started this mess, but there has been some constructive, non nerf/buff, game-play related discussion in this monstrosity of a thread, so why not update the OP with some consensus on the best ways to deal with this powerful unit combination? LOL you must not have been around during beta. This thread is pretty damn tame for a balance discussion compared to the way things used to be. As for the OP? I doubt he will do that since the whole point of the post is that there is no non-nerf oriented way of stopping this.
This guy actually whined a huge amount about KA and infestors but of course when it's protoss rather than terran who are struggling it's the old 'l2p noobs' argument. I guess buffs/nerfs are only unreasonable when it's non-terran players making the suggestions.
|
On August 24 2011 21:58 medic_ro wrote:
Thank you ! I only have 75-80% win rate vs toss in masters with the 1/1/1 and i need to improve to 100%.
this quote explains everything you need to about 1/1/1 =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
