Situation Report: Patch 1.4 by David Kim Sep 22, 2011 6:00 PM PDT
It’s that time again to roll up our sleeves and get creep deep into the latest Situation Report for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. In this edition, we’ll be discussing some of the most notable changes in the recently released patch 1.4 and illuminating a bit more about our design philosophy and thinking behind this update.
Balance Changes
* General * Unit vision up ramps has been reduced by 1. This change is specifically to address the protoss vs. protoss 4-gate all-in problem. With this change, it will be possible to block the middle of your ramp using one force field, thus preventing your opponent from warping up your cliff.
* Protoss * Immortal attack range increased from 5 to 6. We wanted to help protoss fight against the terran 1/1/1 strategy without impacting or changing other parts of the game too much. The units protoss have at their disposal are very limited at the early portion of the game, and most units (other than the Immortal) were used too heavily in more generic unit compositions. Immortals were a good choice due to the current meta-game moving away from heavy Immortal usage.
We decided to go with the range increase so that they have an easier/better capability of taking out siege tanks as well as to have them be more easily usable when in combination with other ranged units.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
We decided to go with the Mothership for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being that we felt its maneuverability required tweaking. As for the acceleration increase itself, we found that the biggest problem was that the unit felt very unresponsive to use. For a unit whose positioning is so important, we felt that making it easier to maneuver made the most sense.
* Stalker Blink research time increased from 110 to 140. We felt Blink all-in timing was a bit too much on certain maps/positions. We wanted to implement a change that only affects this tactic without reducing the general usage of Blink itself. We decided to go with adjusting the timing of the upgrade and not touch the ability itself or the cost of the research.
* Warp Prism shields increased from 40 to 100. The Warp Prism is a unit where we could see a lot of potential with it. However, when they’re used in games, it’s very easy to defend vs. them using only a few units. We’re hoping to see more Warp Prism based strategies with this buff.
* Terran * Barracks build time increased from 60 to 65. We first started looking at this change due to the 11 11 rush vs. zerg and also evaluated how easy it is to just put down a bunker on the offensive to do some minor damage early on in terran vs. zerg match-ups without much sacrifice from the terran player.
We also started to notice not just the all-in rushes terran players do, but also that the various early game push options available (before scouting even comes into play) were slightly problematic as well.
Due to both of those reasons, we feel this change is very solid. As always, however, we will continue to evaluate the ongoing effects of this change on gameplay.
* Hellion infernal Pre-Igniter damage upgrade decreased from 10 to 5. This is an issue we’ve had a lot of pro-player and community feedback on ever since previous terran vs. terran changes were implemented and the meta-game changed. Feedback we’ve been hearing has reflected upon how Hellions with this upgrade seem to ultimately cause for really boring games to watch. One split second mistake makes 1 player lose 20+ workers and the game is pretty much over before anything else really happens.
In a perfect world of terran vs. terran, we’d like to see both bio and mech based strategies viable. We don’t know for certain that this is possible, but this change makes the Hellion relationship vs. Marines and Workers only 1 shot different (assuming marines use Stimpacks in combat). Meaning, this is the smallest change we could make in order to attempt to meet that goal.
We also heard feedback on how some worker relationships aren’t changed even when you purchase the upgrade with this change. We feel not every upgrade in the game has to change every single relationship in the game. For example: choosing to go without upgraded Hellions for a strategy involving killing Drones with the Hellions vs. choosing to upgrade to mostly fight against Zerglings we feel is a perfectly reasonable choice for players to make.
* Raven Seeker Missile movement speed increased from 2.5 to 2.953. We feel this ability can create cool moments whether it’s separating out the unit that’s marked by the Seeker or if it’s running away from the whole stack to avoid splash damage.
It’s starting to see more play in terran vs. terran matches, but we wanted to increase the movement speed of the Seeker Missile so that dodging it becomes slightly more difficult.
* Zerg * Infestor * Fungal Growth damage changed from 36 (47 vs armored) to 30 (40 vs Armored). * Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 7. Infestors were all around too general. Neural Parasite takes care of the more expensive medium size units as well as massive units, Fungal Growth is good vs. small to lower cost medium units, and Infested Terrans were just good for cost vs. anything that doesn’t move out of position. We like the positional-based gameplay Infested Terrans cause, so we decided to look at the other spells instead.
Fungal Growth is a solid spell that is a core part of the zerg meta-game, so we went with as minimal of a change as possible. We didn’t want to change the current game too much since according to our stats all zerg matchups are very close to even at the highest levels. When testing with the highest level players, we noticed this change is very minor yet still very slightly noticeable.
We decided on the Neural Parasite change in order to create more decision making in terms of the positioning of the Infestor as well as what units are needed at which locations in order to better protect the Infestor casting this spell. Previously, it felt too easy to cast and too difficult to counter without having siege range units.
* Overseer Morph cost decreased from 50/100 to 50/50. * Contaminate energy cost increased from 75 to 125. We felt zerg are very vulnerable to various early game openers. Also, the cost between creating one Overseer for scouting purposes vs. purchasing the Overlord speed upgrade for all Overlords didn’t seem to differ enough.
This cost change would hopefully encourage slightly earlier scouting using not only the Overseer but also Changelings as well.
For Contaminate, we felt the zerg vs. zerg strategy of locking down the hatchery could easily be problematic, so we put in that change to compensate for the cost decrease of the unit.
* Ultralisk build time decreased from 70 to 55. Ultralisks are usually ready to join the game at or around 200 pop. Zerg players usually need to free up some supply in order to start building these guys. Because Ultralisks take two to three times longer to build compared to other units, we felt the time right before Ultralisks are created is the weakest possible moment for using this unit.
Therefore, we made the build time slightly faster in the hope of more accurately gauging the current strength of Ultralisks before making bigger decisions.
************
As always, we will continue to monitor how players are approaching new strategies as brought about by these changes and will keep a close eye on players' discussions. And of course, we welcome your constructive feedback. As with any balance-related change, we haven’t entered into these changes lightly and have taken various avenues of constructive feedback into consideration to continue to evolve the game experience for players of all skill levels.
* David Kim is a game designer for StarCraft II and owns a Baneling pet in real life.
Edit: Noooo! They had a choice between changing the Mothership and the Carrier yet they chose the mothership. T_T I've been craving some carrier usage in the GSL for a long time.
I have to agree with this for the most part. And to those who demand Blizzard release how they determine a players "skill" - well, as much as I'd like to know that it probably won't help community understanding at all. If anything community will pick and choose certain part of the big, giant formular/process to their partisan interest.
I am assuming there will be a situation report following sooner or later. The data released is likely from patch 1.35~1.36 period. There are many interesting intricacies if you try to read the sub-tables, which can be explained right/wrong many ways. And Blizzard tries to track as much data as possible to get a more accurate picture.
I for one do not believe Blizzard released this data to "quell" any outrage because if you look at the data the game doesn't exactly look balanced, especially those are the "adjusted" numbers.
Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
In a perfect world of terran vs. terran, we’d like to see both bio and mech based strategies viable. We don’t know for certain that this is possible, but this change makes the Hellion relationship vs. Marines and Workers only 1 shot different (assuming marines use Stimpacks in combat). Meaning, this is the smallest change we could make in order to attempt to meet that goal.
GAH! Why did they choose to buff the mothership when they could have picked carriers?!?!?! I thought they said the mothership was a joke unit! And the buff just makes it a more maneuverable joke unit!
Seriously though, mothership deserved a buff, but carriers deserve one too. Atm carriers are inferior to BCs in every way except for range.
choosing to buff mothership over carriers when they were debating it in order to get a unit that you never see into the limelight more is almost as sad as someone pointlessly bragging about calling something that was obviously going to happen given it always happens with patches ._>
David Kim wrote: We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
I swear they're required to put in 1 troll per situation report, that is just absurd.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
You mean the problem with Ghosts that Protoss have been having? Ghosts are by far more terrifying in PvT. But maybe the warp prism buff could double for a stronger bus to shuttle the HTs around in. Except that EMPing the warp prism will leave it just as weak as if it was EMPed before the buff. So I guess it doesn't help.
Edit: Noooo! They had a choice between changing the Mothership and the Carrier yet they chose the mothership. T_T I've been craving some carrier usage in the GSL for a long time.
Seriously, don't buff that fat arbiter. I don't even know why they would decide to rework the only unit that has a limit on how many can be built. They really should have looked at the carrier instead since it could be way more viable. The Mothership is just a silly unit idea and I don't know why it made it into the final release. Motherships and carriers come out at the same time, if you know carriers need to be reworked, why not just fucking do it? Insanity.
Yeah I still feel that Blizzard really cherry picks what they want to do. At times I start to wonder if they have a vision of how they want the game to be. The reality seems that they simply are reactionary in their changes, they gave the community some tools and now they want to change them only when things are too strong.
I understand that this is an approach to balance, but look how far we've come since beta as how the game has changed. A lot of things that were common have really come off the table.
Immortal range change was because of 1-1-1? really? It seemed rather unanimous in many circles that immortals problem was their positioning in every matchup and the babysitting they required.
Lastly, I really wish they'd just make all the capital ships viable. We've watched them change all facets of this game except those two units (we see broodlords much more commonly than the others). BCs had a very welcome movement speed change, but it doesn't really change the other issues with them. Carriers are a whole other beast but suffer equally the same issues of being so easily counterable. If anything they seem more related to the Ultra situation in that Protoss never has the food for them and they take too long to build.
I enjoy reading these things, but sometimes I really just wonder Blizzards angle!
it felt too easy to cast and too difficult to counter without having siege range units.
This makes no sense. In terms of colossus and tanks, which are two of the most popularly NPed units, you aren't using the spell unless they already have siege range units, so why the heck would you need to counter NP without using Siege units, if he won't be using the damn spell unless you do.
It makes sense as far as Archon's go and I guess kind of Thors to a lesser extent, but in that case your getting tanks to go with your Thors in almost every situation so it doesn't matter. I just do not understand that reasoning at all.
David Kim wrote: We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
I swear they're required to put in 1 troll per situation report, that is just absurd.
David Kim Trolling us hard T_T. Blizz why!!!.
Also when Kim said they wanted Bio and Mech in TvT he really meant, "We would like MM to be the staple of each match up". Yeah hellions kill workers really fast, but Marauders kill buildings even faster.
On September 23 2011 10:59 Probe1 wrote: It was informative to read their thoughts. Hopefully they will start releasing them before the patch is released for more community feedback.
haha, everyone is on about the mothership vs. carrier change. At least we know that they are looking at the carrier and thinking about buffing it in a future patch or HoTS. Always great reading these situation reports, give a lot of insight into what they have/had in mind and nice to see that they are in touch with the community
On September 23 2011 10:56 Sv1 wrote: Yeah I still feel that Blizzard really cherry picks what they want to do. At times I start to wonder if they have a vision of how they want the game to be. The reality seems that they simply are reactionary in their changes, they gave the community some tools and now they want to change them only when things are too strong.
I understand that this is an approach to balance, but look how far we've come since beta as how the game has changed. A lot of things that were common have really come off the table.
Immortal range change was because of 1-1-1? really? It seemed rather unanimous in many circles that immortals problem was their positioning in every matchup and the babysitting they required.
Lastly, I really wish they'd just make all the capital ships viable. We've watched them change all facets of this game except those two units (we see broodlords much more commonly than the others). BCs had a very welcome movement speed change, but it doesn't really change the other issues with them. Carriers are a whole other beast but suffer equally the same issues of being so easily counterable. If anything they seem more related to the Ultra situation in that Protoss never has the food for them and they take too long to build.
I enjoy reading these things, but sometimes I really just wonder Blizzards angle!
The issue with the BC is why build them when Banshee's have twice the number of DPS an can cloak. Banshees are also cheaper, and built twice as fast.And the only race that can effectively deal with banshees is Terran with Thors. Not to mention that every races counter to mass banshee is countered by the Thor except for HT.
Personally I would welcome a banshee redesign. A faster unit with less DPS and maybe a weak short range Air to Air attack. Basically a reversal of what the wraith was. It would make it a mcro orientated unit specifically for harass rather then a major dmg dealer. Plus it would help weaken the 1-1-1 Timing.
Carriers just suck. They really need their BW armor that was removed. In BW they had 4 armor to start, now they only have 2. Also its pretty stupid what FG does to interceptors. But, personally I think the carrier is just dead for ever as long as Vikings exist. The Carriers strength really came from its high ground abuse, which is now negated by Flying Goliaths.
On September 23 2011 10:34 juicyjames wrote: * Protoss * Immortal attack range increased from 5 to 6. We wanted to help protoss fight against the terran 1/1/1 strategy without impacting or changing other parts of the game too much. The units protoss have at their disposal are very limited at the early portion of the game, and most units (other than the Immortal) were used too heavily in more generic unit compositions. Immortals were a good choice due to the current meta-game moving away from heavy Immortal usage.
We decided to go with the range increase so that they have an easier/better capability of taking out siege tanks as well as to have them be more easily usable when in combination with other ranged units.
/// We figured Protoss had issues fighting off rhinoceroses so we gave them sharper toothpicks.
What?! This push is so disgustinglyy strong and the biggest issue is that its unscoutable. Look at Thorzain, the pure existence of this push makes pvt a joke. And they expect this change to do something about that >.<? ///
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
///
So pointless >.< And Air will never be good as long as there are vikings ///
On September 23 2011 10:56 Sv1 wrote: Yeah I still feel that Blizzard really cherry picks what they want to do. At times I start to wonder if they have a vision of how they want the game to be. The reality seems that they simply are reactionary in their changes, they gave the community some tools and now they want to change them only when things are too strong.
They only want to make small adjustments right now not to break anything, but to make the races as competitive as possible in the current metagame. HOTS is not too distant in the future, and that will be the perfect opportunity to make bigger changes into the game.
Of course they have a vision, and the way they approach the situation is the most sensible one imo.
Oh God I cannot believe they felt the mothership AKA a poor man's arbiter more worthy of being useful than the iconic protoss unit, the carrier. Can't wait for HoTS to remove this unit completely.
Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Why are they changing the game based on what they want to see? Can't they just make the game balanced even if some units aren't used? I feel like they are trying to hard to make every unit available in every matchup.
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
On September 23 2011 11:11 GenesisX wrote: Why are they changing the game based on what they want to see? Can't they just make the game balanced even if some units aren't used? I feel like they are trying to hard to make every unit available in every matchup.
Every unit except for Mech TvP T_T. Every patch seems to push the game to more MM use.
in other words people, they balance around what they like not what should be balanced. infested terran f.e. is insanely strong but they like them beach balls, so decided to change something else like neural parasite instead (which was highly unnecessary ofc)
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
They are good for different maps types. The skill difference to pull each one off isn't that big, its just that TvP is locked into bio and TvZ might as well be called bio that you just have more experiencing running around with your stim blob than setting up tanks in not stupid places. :\
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
I disagree - I think the game would be better if bio and mech are both equally viable. I wouldn't say one takes more skill than the other.
So happy about the blue flame nerf and hopefully tvt meta game goes back to bio because that is 100x more exciting to watch than mech tvt. Mect tvt gives you games like ryung/bomber, where they spend 40 mins making a tank line that neither can break, then transition to sky terran for 1 huge engagement, then gg. That isn't exciting to watch and the reason why most people don't like watching tvt.
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
Not really. They clearly stated it's because Mech TvT is BORING. Precisely why I haven't watched pro TvTs since the GSL super tournament. I wish they find a way to nerf marines and buff marauders a bit without making them too strong v. buildings.
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
It offends you personally if someone tries to play Bio "with skill"?
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I'm a protoss player first of all, and if you watched July v MVP you would understand from what I am saying. In addition, I do believe even if they do not nerf it, there should be a statement made from Blizzard why they left the ghost untouched.
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
Not sure what reality you live in, but I always found bio/mech much harder to play than hellion/tank.
I've been waiting for this Mothership buff ever since I started playing Protoss. This change will completely dictate my play style in all of my matches and forever be a landmark in Starcraft history. Thank you Blizzard for granting us such a useful and potent gift.
On September 23 2011 10:56 Sv1 wrote: Yeah I still feel that Blizzard really cherry picks what they want to do. At times I start to wonder if they have a vision of how they want the game to be. The reality seems that they simply are reactionary in their changes, they gave the community some tools and now they want to change them only when things are too strong.
Wait Blizzard balances based on a reactionary view of the game? THIS IS TERRIBLE! They should look into the future and balance based on that! Or even better, they should severely limit peoples options so they can direct the game based on what they want the current balance to be! /sarcasm
How do you recommend they balance the game if not by reacting?
Oh and I STILL laugh at all the sad brood war kiddies begging for the mothership to be replaced by the Arbiter. Do you have any idea how worthless the Arbiter would be in SC2? You complain about vikings enough for shutting down carriers, motherships AND Colossi. Do you think they would be any kinder to Arbiters? Motherships are already brutal against Zerg, and Arbiters would still never be reached in PvP. What matchup exactly would benefit from Arbiters as opposed to the Mothership?
You guys look back with horrible reminiscence on Brood War, but you have NO idea how to look at it objectively and understand the effect that simply transplanting a unit would have.
i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
Yeah I dont really get why they can not buff both the mothership and the carrier to make both better instead of choosing between them? All units will never be perfectly balanced and people will always pick the better ones but why not at least try to make crappier units a little more useful?
On September 23 2011 10:42 KimJongChill wrote: +5 rax build time is so insignificant, I honestly don't notice any difference on ladder lol.
it's very big for 2 rax openers, especially 11/11, because those 5 seconds are extremely critical in stopping the push effectively. people rarely use 11/11 on big maps just because of the travel time difference of 5~10 seconds, and this 5 second nerf shifts the entire time line so that 11/11 on medium sized maps is similar to 11/11 on a larger map in 1.3.6.
On September 23 2011 11:34 Shiori wrote: i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
every version of the 1-1-1, be it shield marines or naked, raven or no, cloak banshees or uncloaked... they all have siege tanks. This is the data that bliz is looking at, and it was also mentioned on sotg. Siege tanks are a crucial aspect of the push and immortal range buff could help.
edit: WHYYY not just remove the mothership and buff carriers (honestly, just decrease the build time and increase acceleration a little bit)
Therefore, we made the build time slightly faster in the hope of more accurately gauging the current strength of Ultralisks before making bigger decisions.
0.o, "bigger decisions". I wonder what this means, maybe a big ultralisk buff incoming if this update doesn't change their usefulness?
* Overseer Morph cost decreased from 50/100 to 50/50. We felt zerg are very vulnerable to various early game openers. [...] This cost change would hopefully encourage slightly earlier scouting using not only the Overseer but also Changelings as well.
Uh... are they retarded? Overseers require Lair tech, i.e. they are mid-game units. Changing its cost changes nothing to the early game.
I really like how they explained their reasoning for the ultralisk time. When anyone goes to complain about the ultralisk, they all complain about how weak it is etc, but forget to complain about how they die before the ultras pop all the time.
Situation Report: Patch 1.4 by David Kim Sep 22, 2011 6:00 PM PDT
It’s that time again to roll up our sleeves and get creep deep
I like the pun david kim. I like the pun. but seriously. why not just change the carrier and the mothership? would that have been that problematic. i mean its not like either is used that frequently anways.
Therefore, we made the build time slightly faster in the hope of more accurately gauging the current strength of Ultralisks before making bigger decisions.
0.o, "bigger decisions". I wonder what this means, maybe a big ultralisk buff incoming if this update doesn't change their usefulness?
It means a ton of people will go ultra after the patch, so they will be able to gather more data. If the ultra still is underpowered, they will buff it accordingly.
Imo, it still will be pretty underpowered. The ultra can be good, but only if it has perfect surface area and either a surround or fungal. If a terran, toss or zerg knows how to avoid these situations by dropping more, putting down a wall of infested terrans, or spreading their units, then ultras will not kill them easily.
On September 23 2011 11:34 Shiori wrote: i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
every version of the 1-1-1, be it shield marines or naked, raven or no, cloak banshees or uncloaked... they all have siege tanks. This is the data that bliz is looking at, and it was also mentioned on sotg. Siege tanks are a crucial aspect of the push and immortal range buff could help.
edit: WHYYY not just remove the mothership and buff carriers (honestly, just decrease the build time and increase acceleration a little bit)
that doesn't mean that the siege tank is the issue. if anything, the more obvious candidate is the marine.
between carriers and motherships, then they chose motherships? that almost made me cry...seriously... other than that, most of the changes make sense i guess.
I have to agree with this for the most part. And to those who demand Blizzard release how they determine a players "skill" - well, as much as I'd like to know that it probably won't help community understanding at all. If anything community will pick and choose certain part of the big, giant formular/process to their partisan interest.
I am assuming there will be a situation report following sooner or later. The data released is likely from patch 1.35~1.36 period. There are many interesting intricacies if you try to read the sub-tables, which can be explained right/wrong many ways. And Blizzard tries to track as much data as possible to get a more accurate picture.
I for one do not believe Blizzard released this data to "quell" any outrage because if you look at the data the game doesn't exactly look balanced, especially those are the "adjusted" numbers.
Why are you taking credit for calling this? They have released a situation report after all major patches lately, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see this coming.
Anyway sucks to hear they were thinking about the carrier but decided against it
I love the immortal range buff. However, I'm confused by this:
"Immortals were a good choice due to the current meta-game moving away from heavy Immortal usage."
When did the current meta-game revolve around "heavy Immortal usage"? Kim's wording--"moving away"--suggests that "heavy immortal usage" was once the norm.
I hate that they tweaked the Mothership instead of Carriers. Carriers could be a cool unit if they changed it around a bit, but the mothership just seems like a hero unit which SC II shouldn't be about.
David Kim wrote: We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
I swear they're required to put in 1 troll per situation report, that is just absurd.
David Kim Trolling us hard T_T. Blizz why!!!.
Also when Kim said they wanted Bio and Mech in TvT he really meant, "We would like MM to be the staple of each match up". Yeah hellions kill workers really fast, but Marauders kill buildings even faster.
On September 23 2011 10:59 Probe1 wrote: It was informative to read their thoughts. Hopefully they will start releasing them before the patch is released for more community feedback.
I wish.
I don't particularily see the problem with M or MM being the staple or backbone of each matchup, especially given that every other race's T1 is the backbone of the their 3 respective matchups. Terran is just fortunate enough to be able to choose in 2 (all on some maps) matchups whether they want a mostly t1 base or a mostly t2 base.
On September 23 2011 10:42 HypernovA wrote: I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
Battlecruisers are actually a legit option, mostly because if you neural a bunch of BCs they actually can't kill each other.
I don't see why the still have not decreased the build time of Carriers. It's the core reason why protoss players do not get this unit. We see people cry for a long time that Ultralisks took too long to come out. Thats' finally happened(totally justified). Maybe it's time for Carriers build time to be decreased?
Carriers have a 120 second build time. Ultralisk pre 1.4 had 75, now 55. Wtf blizzard, Why do you not want carriers to be used at all?
Situation Report: Patch 1.4 by David Kim Sep 22, 2011 6:00 PM PDT
It’s that time again to roll up our sleeves and get creep deep
I like the pun david kim. I like the pun. but seriously. why not just change the carrier and the mothership? would that have been that problematic. i mean its not like either is used that frequently anways.
They probably didn't want to make too many big changes at once. Balance is a fickle mistress, remember how a few months ago P was "impossible to beat". They probably want to see if this change helps and if not they will continue patching
On September 23 2011 11:52 skatbone wrote: I love the immortal range buff. However, I'm confused by this:
"Immortals were a good choice due to the current meta-game moving away from heavy Immortal usage."
When did the current meta-game revolve around "heavy Immortal usage"? Kim's wording--"moving away"--suggests that "heavy immortal usage" was once the norm.
Well, PvP was moving more towards Blink based builds, and Immortals were nto used much in the other 2 MUs. Its just a more political workind on "not used much anymore"
I can't believe they buffed the Mothership over Carriers. That was possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, short of my little sister complaining that Twilight was too long.
Not bad. I like their explanations for the most part, and also like that they are starting to do changes based on spectating excitement and not just balance.
However, I can't believe they changed the mothership over carriers. Really? Just axe the motherhsip already and replace it and add real carrier micro back.
Singular units suck. Please replace the mothership in LotV at least so SC2 isn't permanently gimped.
Marauders and roaches are more boring than hellions killing everything David.
I don't wan't bio vs mech to be viable in TvT if it means TvZ and TvP are more boring (read - pure bio) as well. Marauders are too good. Get rid of them.
I wouldve liked seeing the PDD research introduced and the cost of raven reduced. this by itself wouldve eliminated the biggest problem with the TvP 1-1-1 push.
On September 23 2011 11:52 skatbone wrote: I love the immortal range buff. However, I'm confused by this:
"Immortals were a good choice due to the current meta-game moving away from heavy Immortal usage."
When did the current meta-game revolve around "heavy Immortal usage"? Kim's wording--"moving away"--suggests that "heavy immortal usage" was once the norm.
Heavy Immortal usage was very strong in beta, believe it or not. It was quite common and very powerful.
* Overseer Morph cost decreased from 50/100 to 50/50. We felt zerg are very vulnerable to various early game openers. [...] This cost change would hopefully encourage slightly earlier scouting using not only the Overseer but also Changelings as well.
Uh... are they retarded? Overseers require Lair tech, i.e. they are mid-game units. Changing its cost changes nothing to the early game.
Uhh are you retarded? You realize there is no defined set point in which the game switches from early-mid-late, right? It is extremely arbitrary. It is not split into "Hatch -> Early" "Lair -> Mid" "Hive -> Late". Getting a lair can still occur in the early game.
Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
On September 23 2011 10:42 HypernovA wrote: I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
Battlecruisers are actually a legit option, mostly because if you neural a bunch of BCs they actually can't kill each other.
Or zerg can just make a bunch of corruptors and rape bcs...
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
Then again the majority is as always clueless and would be fine with pretty much anything.
On September 23 2011 12:12 Thrasymachus725 wrote:Uhh are you retarded? You realize there is no defined set point in which the game switches from early-mid-late, right? It is extremely arbitrary. It is not split into "Hatch -> Early" "Lair -> Mid" "Hive -> Late". Getting a lair can still occur in the early game.
Are you seriously arguing that there is such thing as "early game overseers", that they may help you against what is generally understood by "early game pushes zerg are vulnerable to", and calling me retarded at the same time? I'd try to prove you wrong but I think L-O-L is more appropriate.
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
Then again the majority is as always clueless and would be fine with pretty much anything.
Thank god there are people like you who know better than Blizzard and the majority then.
...Ok. "We felt that it was too hard to counter neural-parasite without siege units." You kidding me? Lolossi have a range of 9, and seeing as how NP'ing infestors have as high a target priority as an actual colossus, and a brotoss will usually have 3 in the first push, then 6 in the second, along with templar, it's just impossible to keep an infestor NPing for more than 3-4 seconds. And that's before the patch. After it, it's been retarded. My two cents.
On September 23 2011 12:12 Thrasymachus725 wrote:Uhh are you retarded? You realize there is no defined set point in which the game switches from early-mid-late, right? It is extremely arbitrary. It is not split into "Hatch -> Early" "Lair -> Mid" "Hive -> Late". Getting a lair can still occur in the early game.
Are you seriously arguing that there is such thing as "early game overseers", that they may help you against what is generally understood by "early game pushes zerg are vulnerable to", and calling me retarded at the same time? I'd try to prove you wrong but I think L-O-L is more appropriate.
Did you ever think that maybe... just maybe, they want you to be able to scout in the early game for something coming in the mid game? Where did you get the idea that I think there are "early game overseers that can scout early game pushes?" Those are your words not mine. Early game scouting does not equate to scouting early game pushes. Zerg actually has the BEST scouting options for those early game all-ins and pushes via overlords (not that that is saying much). Terrans cannot scan, or they get so far behind on MULES, and Protoss have nothing until Hallucinate, Observers or Stargate, at which point is is basically too late to stop them. Did you want Blizz to give you the Overseer to scout the 4 gate? How about a 2 rax? Do you think that would be balanced?
The Overseer CAN and OFTEN DOES come out in the part of the game known as the early game. But no one gets an Overseer to scout all-ins and early game pushes. Never have. Never will. They get Overseers in the early game to scout what the opponent is preparing for the mid game.
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
Then again the majority is as always clueless and would be fine with pretty much anything.
And the whining minority know best? Based on what data? Being loud doesn't make one smart.
In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
We decided to go with the Mothership for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being that we felt its maneuverability required tweaking. As for the acceleration increase itself, we found that the biggest problem was that the unit felt very unresponsive to use. For a unit whose positioning is so important, we felt that making it easier to maneuver made the most sense.
What?!?! I don't understand how they could choose the mothership over the carrier, and I really can't understand how they felt the biggest problem with the mothership was it's maneuverability!
Its depressing to think that in a slightly different world, Carriers would have been a viable unit in Protoss play. Carriers have the potential to be a really awesome unit and its really saddening to realize that it the mothership, a unit which is inherently less interesting and gimicky compared to a unit you can only make one of.
I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope
On September 23 2011 12:41 Mohdoo wrote: Its depressing to think that in a slightly different world, Carriers would have been a viable unit in Protoss play. Carriers have the potential to be a really awesome unit and its really saddening to realize that it the mothership, a unit which is inherently less interesting and gimicky compared to a unit you can only make one of.
I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope
Carriers are not even bad, they just are not useful in the current metagame.(And even then I have seen some interesting Carrier play by Mana)
The one thing that really made me happy was the part where he says that they're adjusting ultralisk build time to gauge its strength 'before making any more significant changes'. Means they ARE looking at the ultra. Since I love them and really want them to be more viable its good to know the blizzard acknowledges there are some issues with ultras.
How can people possibly think hellions lead to boring games after watching MVP vs TOP on Daybreak? They made that missile better, but are people even going to make ravens anymore if the meta goes back to marines?
I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope
I think at the moment, Blizz realizes that there is virtually nothing they can do to carriers that will fix them, thanks to 3 units: The Viking, the Marine and the Corruptor. They all destroy Carriers so brutally due to their range (vikings) their armor (corruptors) and their DPS (marine). How do you expect them to be buffed in a significant way? Increased armor would be just about all they could do, and in reality that won't solve the problem that is how easily they are countered.
But if you believe that Blizz doesn't WANT carriers to be good... you are insane. Why wouldn't Blizzard want a unit that they know is fun and interesting to watch and play with to be good? It makes no logical sense. Blizzard realizes that the carrier is broken in relation to other races. The mothership is a single unit (not a whole build), is already used effectively in many cases and requires a small tweak or two to be powerful. It is an easy change. They understand that the carrier requires a fundamental design change to be viable as a build, and it will be a large change. I expect that they are waiting until HOTS to make a change that will be both fun and powerful. It is only at an expansion that they can they add content to make carriers powerful, or alter the units (such as aforementioned Vikings, Marines and Corruptors) that counter carriers so seriously.
I think carrier play will never be useful against terran. Too many cheap and efficient anti-air options.
On the other hand, undervalued as late game compositional supplement against zerg.
What are they going to respond with against maxed colossi/carrier/archon/ht, hydras? Corruptors? 7-range neural? On-demand marines that melt faster than they hatch?
Which is exactly how Mana killed Dimaga during a map-split macro game, by slowly mixing ~10 carriers into an already great composition.
I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope
I think at the moment, Blizz realizes that there is virtually nothing they can do to carriers that will fix them, thanks to 3 units: The Viking, the Marine and the Corruptor. They all destroy Carriers so brutally due to their range (vikings) their armor (corruptors) and their DPS (marine). How do you expect them to be buffed in a significant way? Increased armor would be just about all they could do, and in reality that won't solve the problem that is how easily they are countered.
But if you believe that Blizz doesn't WANT carriers to be good... you are insane. Why wouldn't Blizzard want a unit that they know is fun and interesting to watch and play with to be good? It makes no logical sense. Blizzard realizes that the carrier is broken in relation to other races. The mothership is a single unit (not a whole build), is already used effectively in many cases and requires a small tweak or two to be powerful. It is an easy change. They understand that the carrier requires a fundamental design change to be viable as a build, and it will be a large change. I expect that they are waiting until HOTS to make a change that will be both fun and powerful. It is only at an expansion that they can they add content to make carriers powerful, or alter the units (such as aforementioned Vikings, Marines and Corruptors) that counter carriers so seriously.
I think the carrier is in the same place as the hydralisk. It's such an iconic unit that they felt like they had to include it, but it doesn't really fit into the game they've made.
I can't help but wonder why Blizzard doesn't want Carriers to become a useable unit when compared to other huge air units. BCs and Brood Lords both have well established proper times of use. Carriers, nope
I think at the moment, Blizz realizes that there is virtually nothing they can do to carriers that will fix them, thanks to 3 units: The Viking, the Marine and the Corruptor. They all destroy Carriers so brutally due to their range (vikings) their armor (corruptors) and their DPS (marine). How do you expect them to be buffed in a significant way? Increased armor would be just about all they could do, and in reality that won't solve the problem that is how easily they are countered.
But if you believe that Blizz doesn't WANT carriers to be good... you are insane. Why wouldn't Blizzard want a unit that they know is fun and interesting to watch and play with to be good? It makes no logical sense. Blizzard realizes that the carrier is broken in relation to other races. The mothership is a single unit (not a whole build), is already used effectively in many cases and requires a small tweak or two to be powerful. It is an easy change. They understand that the carrier requires a fundamental design change to be viable as a build, and it will be a large change. I expect that they are waiting until HOTS to make a change that will be both fun and powerful. It is only at an expansion that they can they add content to make carriers powerful, or alter the units (such as aforementioned Vikings, Marines and Corruptors) that counter carriers so seriously.
great points. Still sad that toss has a terribly inefficient endgame unit that will hinder their options till the expansion. Reminds me of a bunch of other problems with toss Waiting until HotS to fix these problems might be too late, as we can see from the recent GSL results.
We decided on the Neural Parasite change in order to create more decision making in terms of the positioning of the Infestor as well as what units are needed at which locations in order to better protect the Infestor casting this spell. Previously, it felt too easy to cast and too difficult to counter without having siege range units.
Colo and siege tanks are two big infestor targets... Makes no sense.
I could see protoss with no colo but archons. Do not see many non tank armies with thors.
it feels Blizzard is going wrong way, or thinking too shallow when balancing the game. I always wondered why they made protoss easy a-move race (colossi death ball) and made terrans very hard but more rewarding (MM micro, ghost usage). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protoss doesn't involve any micro, its my general perception. So, basically, protoss is a race for "noobs" and terrans are for "masters". And Blizz trying to reach balance in this situation. Which obviously not working well. Thats why I'd rather them concentrating on difficulty of race (pulling of certain strategies), not only units/building stats.
On September 23 2011 12:59 kedinik wrote: I think carrier play will never be useful against terran. Too many cheap and efficient anti-air options.
On the other hand, undervalued as late game compositional supplement against zerg.
What are they going to respond with against maxed colossi/carrier/archon/ht, hydras? Corruptors? 7-range neural? On-demand marines that melt faster than they hatch?
Which is exactly how Mana killed Dimaga during a map-split macro game, by slowly mixing ~10 carriers into an already great composition.
Since corruptors hard counter both colossi and carrier, then yeah they seem like a decent option.
They will probably lose the ground battle, but then since they are obviously on like 6 base at this stage of the game they could just remax with roach. You can't exactly remax with colossus/carrier/archon/HT after you lose it all, lol that is some serious gas consumption.
On September 23 2011 13:09 bokeevboke wrote: it feels Blizzard is going wrong way, or thinking too shallow when balancing the game. I always wondered why they made protoss easy a-move race (colossi death ball) and made terrans very hard but more rewarding (MM micro, ghost usage). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protoss doesn't involve any micro, its my general perception. So, basically, protoss is a race for "noobs" and terrans are for "masters". And Blizz trying to reach balance in this situation. Which obviously not working well. Thats why I'd rather them concentrating on difficulty of race (pulling of certain strategies), not only units/building stats.
i think toss micro is generally much harder than zerg except in maybe early zvz. i think toss is too heavily dependent on gateway units
On September 23 2011 13:09 bokeevboke wrote: it feels Blizzard is going wrong way, or thinking too shallow when balancing the game. I always wondered why they made protoss easy a-move race (colossi death ball) and made terrans very hard but more rewarding (MM micro, ghost usage). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protoss doesn't involve any micro, its my general perception. So, basically, protoss is a race for "noobs" and terrans are for "masters". And Blizz trying to reach balance in this situation. Which obviously not working well. Thats why I'd rather them concentrating on difficulty of race (pulling of certain strategies), not only units/building stats.
i think toss micro is generally much harder than zerg except in maybe early zvz. i think toss is too heavily dependent on gateway units
i think toss is too heavily dependent on gateway units sentries.
The mothership is a pretty gimmicky unit imo and shouldn't have been included in sc2 at all. Vortex is really only the neat spell while recall just can't be used with how the unit is designed. It's just too big and too slow.
Also, carriers aren't exactly an interesting unit. Late game protoss would require very little micro or positioning.
We first started looking at this change due to the 11 11 rush vs. zerg and also evaluated how easy it is to just put down a bunker on the offensive to do some minor damage early on in terran vs. zerg match-ups without much sacrifice from the terran player.
I knew this was a subtle bunker change! They can't leave it alone! ^^
I hope people take some time to remember that there are two expansions to go. Content isn't a huge part of patches, but it is an enormous part of expansions. Large sweeping changes to the game are made from the expansions, and invariably they are made based on what they learned since release. Lets go over, shall we? SC1: Air units dominate and are too difficult to counter (among other problems) SCBW: Corsairs, Valks, Devourers are added to shift the game in other directions.
WC3:RoC: Casters are very powerful and are being massed, due to the lack of counters. Some rock paper scissor style counters aren't working very well and races are a little too predictable and the hero is little more than a very powerful unit. WC3:TFT: New armor and damage types make casters both easy to counter, and stronger support. Ranged non-casters are now effective. New tavern heroes open up many options and the new shops provide new effective uses for heroes.
WoW: Every expansion has fixed many issues in the game from story telling, to characterization, to customization, graphics. All of these issue were changed based on feedback both internal and external.
With the occasional exception in WoW, there have been no patches that have been able to fix the problems that existed in the game at that point. If in SC1, they had added armor on marines, or increased the range on goliaths, or increased their damage, or gave dragoons increased attack speed, or archons increased range... ALL of these changes would have helped the races against Mutalisks (the major problem of vanilla SC1), but would have been bandaids and would have thrown the game off. There were FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN PROBLEMS with the game that needed to be fixed with an expansion, because they required sweeping fixes. They can't simply be patched, because they can't POSSIBLY understand all the effects of the massive changes without large scale testing and counterbalances.
There are fundamental design problems with the balance of Starcraft 2, that prevent it from moving forward in certain directions, as there are with EVERY game. These design problems were not anticipated. They were not expected, or desired by blizzard. But they showed up. They are recognized. They are not ignored. Every expansion Blizzard has ever done has proved this.
Expect the expansion to allow Protoss to deal with the Vikings and marines that limit protoss so much. Expect the expansion to allow Zerg to get some kind of way to punish turtlers and death balls. Expect the expansion to allow Reapers to be used into the late game. Expect the expansion to make Colossi more than just an a-move unit, and one that takes skill to use. Expect an ability or an overhaul for Hydralisks that gives them a place in the game. Expect heavier air builds to be viable for every race by the end of LotV. Expect Protoss and Zerg to have building upgrades and the flexibility and/or options that the Terran enjoys. Expect Protoss as a whole to not be so 1a oriented. Expect Zerg as a whole to be able to direct the game and not be so reactionary. Expect Terran to be able to play as a reactionary race if they need to be.
All of these are problems that exist in the game that cannot be fixed with a simple patch. They will take expansions. Don't fool yourself... Wings of Liberty is a beta test for HotS and HotS is a beta test for LotV.
I got it! Instead of adding reavers, just make it so colossi have to squat (no longer can be hit by air, but also can't move) and poop out scarabs! Or they could just have a stronger, slower laser than they have now.
Ok ideas are just coming to me now, so I'm gonna stream of consciousness, the following (and previous) may be stupid.
Or just make colossus laser a toggle on and off thing, that is strong, does splash in a line like hellions, and builds up from low range to 9 when it goes on, and has friendly fire splash.
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
This, and seriously, given that choice, why would any one go with the mothership? It's a hero and doesn't belong in standard protoss play. I'm glad some people have managed to make it work, but it should be a rare thing; a unit mostly used for casual games, single player, and humiliation.
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
This, and seriously, given that choice, why would any one go with the mothership? It's a hero and doesn't belong in standard protoss play. I'm glad some people have managed to make it work, but it should be a rare thing; a unit mostly used for casual games, single player, and humiliation.
Read earlier in the thread. Good explanation of why they chose the mothership and not the carrier. Don't think for a second Blizz flipped a coin and it came up mothership. They had very good reason to buff mothership rather than carrier.
Too bad for the carrier to be overlooked, but I think it got a good future. Blizz mentionned that in the expansion they may or not add new units, but tweak or change unused units. Maybe a big overhaul for the carrier in HotS ?
I don't understand why Blizzard decided to buff one but not both the mothership and carrier.
They could have buffed simple things like the mothership's armor by 2 or something and increasing it's damage by 1 or 2 so it can actually last longer and MAYBE do some damage. The main buff the mothership needs right now is more spells, making the mothership a more multi-purpose unit (maybe this is something they can do in HoTS).
About the carrier, at least give it an armor buff to 3 and another 1 or 2 damage bonus to interceptors.
On September 23 2011 13:46 Thrasymachus725 wrote: I hope people take some time to remember that there are two expansions to go. Content isn't a huge part of patches, but it is an enormous part of expansions. Large sweeping changes to the game are made from the expansions, and invariably they are made based on what they learned since release. Lets go over, shall we? SC1: Air units dominate and are too difficult to counter (among other problems) SCBW: Corsairs, Valks, Devourers are added to shift the game in other directions.
WC3:RoC: Casters are very powerful and are being massed, due to the lack of counters. Some rock paper scissor style counters aren't working very well and races are a little too predictable and the hero is little more than a very powerful unit. WC3:TFT: New armor and damage types make casters both easy to counter, and stronger support. Ranged non-casters are now effective. New tavern heroes open up many options and the new shops provide new effective uses for heroes.
WoW: Every expansion has fixed many issues in the game from story telling, to characterization, to customization, graphics. All of these issue were changed based on feedback both internal and external.
With the occasional exception in WoW, there have been no patches that have been able to fix the problems that existed in the game at that point. If in SC1, they had added armor on marines, or increased the range on goliaths, or increased their damage, or gave dragoons increased attack speed, or archons increased range... ALL of these changes would have helped the races against Mutalisks (the major problem of vanilla SC1), but would have been bandaids and would have thrown the game off. There were FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN PROBLEMS with the game that needed to be fixed with an expansion, because they required sweeping fixes. They can't simply be patched, because they can't POSSIBLY understand all the effects of the massive changes without large scale testing and counterbalances.
There are fundamental design problems with the balance of Starcraft 2, that prevent it from moving forward in certain directions, as there are with EVERY game. These design problems were not anticipated. They were not expected, or desired by blizzard. But they showed up. They are recognized. They are not ignored. Every expansion Blizzard has ever done has proved this.
Expect the expansion to allow Protoss to deal with the Vikings and marines that limit protoss so much. Expect the expansion to allow Zerg to get some kind of way to punish turtlers and death balls. Expect the expansion to allow Reapers to be used into the late game. Expect the expansion to make Colossi more than just an a-move unit, and one that takes skill to use. Expect an ability or an overhaul for Hydralisks that gives them a place in the game. Expect heavier air builds to be viable for every race by the end of LotV. Expect Protoss and Zerg to have building upgrades and the flexibility and/or options that the Terran enjoys. Expect Protoss as a whole to not be so 1a oriented. Expect Zerg as a whole to be able to direct the game and not be so reactionary. Expect Terran to be able to play as a reactionary race if they need to be.
All of these are problems that exist in the game that cannot be fixed with a simple patch. They will take expansions. Don't fool yourself... Wings of Liberty is a beta test for HotS and HotS is a beta test for LotV.
I really don't understand where your confidence is coming from. A lot of those issues should have been apparent before the game even went into beta testing. Take the colossus for example. The entire point of the unit was that it was a "cool robot" that was easier to use than the reaver. What about the mothership? It's obvious that the unit isn't going to work in a competitive game, yet they let the game release with it instead of replacing it with something else. What can they possibly do with the hydralisk that won't take away from the roach?
Besides when is Legacy of the Void even supposed to come out? Will we be having these discussions until 2014?
"In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership." I have no words to explain that. I feel so fucking tricked atm, Blizzard CHOSE the mothership, so now we should expect it to be used, lets see......
On September 23 2011 13:46 Thrasymachus725 wrote: I hope people take some time to remember that there are two expansions to go. Content isn't a huge part of patches, but it is an enormous part of expansions. Large sweeping changes to the game are made from the expansions, and invariably they are made based on what they learned since release. Lets go over, shall we? SC1: Air units dominate and are too difficult to counter (among other problems) SCBW: Corsairs, Valks, Devourers are added to shift the game in other directions.
WC3:RoC: Casters are very powerful and are being massed, due to the lack of counters. Some rock paper scissor style counters aren't working very well and races are a little too predictable and the hero is little more than a very powerful unit. WC3:TFT: New armor and damage types make casters both easy to counter, and stronger support. Ranged non-casters are now effective. New tavern heroes open up many options and the new shops provide new effective uses for heroes.
WoW: Every expansion has fixed many issues in the game from story telling, to characterization, to customization, graphics. All of these issue were changed based on feedback both internal and external.
With the occasional exception in WoW, there have been no patches that have been able to fix the problems that existed in the game at that point. If in SC1, they had added armor on marines, or increased the range on goliaths, or increased their damage, or gave dragoons increased attack speed, or archons increased range... ALL of these changes would have helped the races against Mutalisks (the major problem of vanilla SC1), but would have been bandaids and would have thrown the game off. There were FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN PROBLEMS with the game that needed to be fixed with an expansion, because they required sweeping fixes. They can't simply be patched, because they can't POSSIBLY understand all the effects of the massive changes without large scale testing and counterbalances.
There are fundamental design problems with the balance of Starcraft 2, that prevent it from moving forward in certain directions, as there are with EVERY game. These design problems were not anticipated. They were not expected, or desired by blizzard. But they showed up. They are recognized. They are not ignored. Every expansion Blizzard has ever done has proved this.
Expect the expansion to allow Protoss to deal with the Vikings and marines that limit protoss so much. Expect the expansion to allow Zerg to get some kind of way to punish turtlers and death balls. Expect the expansion to allow Reapers to be used into the late game. Expect the expansion to make Colossi more than just an a-move unit, and one that takes skill to use. Expect an ability or an overhaul for Hydralisks that gives them a place in the game. Expect heavier air builds to be viable for every race by the end of LotV. Expect Protoss and Zerg to have building upgrades and the flexibility and/or options that the Terran enjoys. Expect Protoss as a whole to not be so 1a oriented. Expect Zerg as a whole to be able to direct the game and not be so reactionary. Expect Terran to be able to play as a reactionary race if they need to be.
All of these are problems that exist in the game that cannot be fixed with a simple patch. They will take expansions. Don't fool yourself... Wings of Liberty is a beta test for HotS and HotS is a beta test for LotV.
I really don't understand where your confidence is coming from. A lot of those issues should have been apparent before the game even went into beta testing. Take the colossus for example. The entire point of the unit was that it was a "cool robot" that was easier to use than the reaver. What about the mothership? It's obvious that the unit isn't going to work in a competitive game, yet they let the game release with it instead of replacing it with something else. What can they possibly do with the hydralisk that won't take away from the roach?
Besides when is Legacy of the Void even supposed to come out? Will we be having these discussions until 2014?
That confidence comes from what happened in BW and W3. Those expansions patches the holes that the races had, TFT and BW are much more refined to the poing of feeling completely different.
As for testing, well there are some things that will emerge through public testing. No amount of internal testing is going to be able to predict the million outcomes and situations that may arise
On September 23 2011 12:59 kedinik wrote: I think carrier play will never be useful against terran. Too many cheap and efficient anti-air options.
On the other hand, undervalued as late game compositional supplement against zerg.
What are they going to respond with against maxed colossi/carrier/archon/ht, hydras? Corruptors? 7-range neural? On-demand marines that melt faster than they hatch?
Which is exactly how Mana killed Dimaga during a map-split macro game, by slowly mixing ~10 carriers into an already great composition.
Since corruptors hard counter both colossi and carrier, then yeah they seem like a decent option.
They will probably lose the ground battle, but then since they are obviously on like 6 base at this stage of the game they could just remax with roach. You can't exactly remax with colossus/carrier/archon/HT after you lose it all, lol that is some serious gas consumption.
Uh yeah, corruptors are good-but-not-great against carriers without 2-3 archons standing under the carriers to deal 44 points of splash damage per shot.
Which is obviously not feasible early game but pretty easy and awesome in maxed-vs-maxed late game situations.
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
Calm down dude, its just a game. I think Blizzard has been reluctant to nerf this because the build has been around since launch, and back then it was not OP at all.
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
Calm down dude, its just a game. I think Blizzard has been reluctant to nerf this because the build has been around since launch, and back then it was not OP at all.
I don't think you understand. SC2 isn't just a game. People are payed to play it, their livelihoods depend on it to some extent. Saying that it is just a game is incredibly ignorant.
Edit: Noooo! They had a choice between changing the Mothership and the Carrier yet they chose the mothership. T_T I've been craving some carrier usage in the GSL for a long time.
Maybe it's a hint at things to come? Carrier buffs please.
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
Calm down dude, its just a game. I think Blizzard has been reluctant to nerf this because the build has been around since launch, and back then it was not OP at all.
I dont think you understand. SC2 isnt just a game. People are payed to play it, thier livelyhoods depend on it to some extent. Saying that it is just a game is incredibly ignorant.
Are you getting paid to play it? And even then I think there are a whole lot more things to get angry about than a videogame, but yeah call me ignorant. I am not the one getting upset over racial balance in a videogame.
I trust that stuff will get sorted out eventually, Blizz devs are not blind, they may be slow, but definitively they don't want the game to be imbalanced.
On September 23 2011 14:38 Joseph123 wrote: "In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership." I have no words to explain that. I feel so fucking tricked atm, Blizzard CHOSE the mothership, so now we should expect it to be used, lets see......
The worse part is tht the "mothership buff" barely makes a difference in play. While a carrier buff could've been so much better for the game design in general, completely disregarding balance.
I was really sad when they mentioned they think Hellions made TvT boring. Mech play vs Mech play, or Mech vs Bio is infinitely better than watching Terrans just throw bio at each other.
In fact Terran's throwing bio at the other 2 races in general, like it is now, is fucking stupid to watch compared to the Mech plays of Starcraft 1
I'm glad to hear that they are finally starting to realize how weak ultralisks are. That they are using the time decrease in order to gauge how effective they actually are means that they are watching games like Julyzerg vs MVP and realizing how ineffective ultralisks can be. I hope this patch will show them that the main problem with the ultralisk isn't its build time, rather it is extremely cost inefficient against its counters, and too easy to fight against.
On September 23 2011 15:07 GhostFall wrote: I was really sad when they mentioned they think Hellions made TvT boring. Mech play vs Mech play, or Mech vs Bio is infinitely better than watching Terrans just throw bio at each other.
In fact Terran's throwing bio at the other 2 races in general, like it is now, is fucking stupid to watch compared to the Mech plays of Starcraft 1
many players(including pro players) have stated that they don't like Mech that much in TvT. And Mech is still widely used in TvZ, nada used it last night. And its not like TvZ in BW was always mech too.
Only MU that is really Bio dominant is vP which is perfectly fine IMO. And Mech can work VP too. Look at the Byun game 1 on GSL Code A.And really i don't think I have seen Bio vs Bio that much in any pro games ...
I don't get why so many people are complaining about apparently Blizzard wanting all MUs being MMM when the only MU with dominant bio play is vP. Hahaha just my 2 cents on this
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
Calm down dude, its just a game. I think Blizzard has been reluctant to nerf this because the build has been around since launch, and back then it was not OP at all.
Hey, I'm pretty calm! I'm just a bit bitter over the entire balance thing. I don't literally get angry over games.
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
Calm down dude, its just a game. I think Blizzard has been reluctant to nerf this because the build has been around since launch, and back then it was not OP at all.
I dont think you understand. SC2 isnt just a game. People are payed to play it, thier livelyhoods depend on it to some extent. Saying that it is just a game is incredibly ignorant.
Are you getting paid to play it? And even then I think there are a whole lot more things to get angry about than a videogame, but yeah call me ignorant. I am not the one getting upset over racial balance in a videogame.
I trust that stuff will get sorted out eventually, Blizz devs are not blind, they may be slow, but definitively they don't want the game to be imbalanced.
Why does it matter if I am being payed to play it? I can still be mad that animals get abused even though I don't have a pet. I am allowed to feel annoyed about something that rubs me the wrong way. I realize that there are alot of things wrong with this world that should make you mad but the reason that I am on a video game forum is to discuss video games, not world hunger and the fact that people are slaughtered for no other reason than their eye color. This is a video game forum where we can express our opinions to a certain degree. Passionate people will feel strongly about certain things and im going to assume that you are passionate about starcraft since you are on TL. I find it hard to believe that you have never been angry about a video game.
I am not the one getting upset over racial balance in a videogame.
Oh yea, is that supposed to be an insult?
Whatever, it's fine that you aren't upset over racial balance but you really shouldn't overlook the people that are upset. Don't be a condescending asshat.
ASSUMING that there is an imbalance in the game. If you cant be upset about that, then what are you allowed to be upset about? Losing a game...oh wait I would be the one getting upset over losing in a VIDEOGAME. Wait what does that make sense?
I wouldnt really say that most of the people that post including me are ANGRY >:-| but more so bitter toward shit like the MOTHERSHIP>CARRIER
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
Yep. Now it shifts back slightly to games where bad players can beat a player better than themselves with 1A marine marauder since hellions are not as good.
*carefully and skillfully like in brood war positions tanks only to see some noobie with 30 apm get lucky and 1A into a tank line and come out ahead*
oh well, mech will still be viable, just have to play very, very good.
I think they could make like a short 15 minute film where they have David Kim (in HD™) with a white smile on his face, reading the situation report and sounding as enthusiastic and somewhat eccentric as possible.
And play some symphony shit in the background too, it makes everything better.
I'm really appreciative of Blizzard explaining their decisions to patch the game in the way they did. While I would not agree with all of their decisions, I'm just a Gold league player and I appreciate that Blizzard at least explained their changes this time.
Pity they didn't realize that the problem with the Mothership is that both of its spells are absolute trash, compared to what the Arbiter could do. Recall is worthless without an ounce of speed, and Stasis Field was ten times better than Vortex will ever be. I would rather have one Arbiter than ten Motherships.
Otherwise, I think the changes are mostly good, although they haven't quite done enough to address 1-1-1 at a professional level. Still, nice to see there's rhyme and reason behind all this.
On September 23 2011 14:23 Brotocol wrote: I don't get how blink nerf, justified as "we felt blink all-in was a little too much," can coexist with 1-1-1 not getting straight up nerfed.
How is blink rush is too much when 1-1-1's mere existence is almost an auto-win in TvP.
Priorities.
I personally never thought blink timings were all that great (maybe in lower leagues?) and the same line of thought you had about the 1-1-1 is what went through my head........
Well, it's apparently really really urgent for Blizzard to nerf it.
But for 1-1-1... "try using immortals kthx."
edit: Yea, I'm becoming a little bit bitter. My faith in Blizz is just shot. I wish they had more than 1 person making balance changes.
Calm down dude, its just a game. I think Blizzard has been reluctant to nerf this because the build has been around since launch, and back then it was not OP at all.
I dont think you understand. SC2 isnt just a game. People are payed to play it, thier livelyhoods depend on it to some extent. Saying that it is just a game is incredibly ignorant.
Are you getting paid to play it? And even then I think there are a whole lot more things to get angry about than a videogame, but yeah call me ignorant. I am not the one getting upset over racial balance in a videogame.
I trust that stuff will get sorted out eventually, Blizz devs are not blind, they may be slow, but definitively they don't want the game to be imbalanced.
Why does it matter if I am being payed to play it? I can still be mad that animals get abused even though I don't have a pet. I am allowed to feel annoyed about something that rubs me the wrong way. I realize that there are alot of things wrong with this world that should make you mad but the reason that I am on a video game forum is to discuss video games, not world hunger and the fact that people are slaughtered for no other reason than their eye color. This is a video game forum where we can express our opinions to a certain degree. Passionate people will feel strongly about certain things and im going to assume that you are passionate about starcraft since you are on TL. I find it hard to believe that you have never been angry about a video game.
I am not the one getting upset over racial balance in a videogame.
Oh yea, is that supposed to be an insult?
Whatever, it's fine that you aren't upset over racial balance but you really shouldn't overlook the people that are upset. Don't be a condescending asshat.
ASSUMING that there is an imbalance in the game. If you cant be upset about that, then what are you allowed to be upset about? Losing a game...oh wait I would be the one getting upset over losing in a VIDEOGAME. Wait what does that make sense?
I wouldnt really say that most of the people that post including me are ANGRY >:-| but more so bitter toward shit like the MOTHERSHIP>CARRIER
Its ok to be disappointed, but really I don't see a point in flipping out over these changes when Blizzard probably doesn't even read those posts. Many pros voice their complaints to Blizzard anyways.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this as I won't really find any of this rage worthy
On September 23 2011 15:30 Acritter wrote: Pity they didn't realize that the problem with the Mothership is that both of its spells are absolute trash.
You want my overseer? i'll gladly give that flying turd for a mother ship with crappy spells :p
I wonder how long Blizz will wait before they have a look at the hydra...
Ultra change won't do much; ultras will suck faster that's it.NP is now officially gone at pro level infestors will get sniped in a blink of an eye(pun intended).
On September 23 2011 15:07 GhostFall wrote: I was really sad when they mentioned they think Hellions made TvT boring. Mech play vs Mech play, or Mech vs Bio is infinitely better than watching Terrans just throw bio at each other.
In fact Terran's throwing bio at the other 2 races in general, like it is now, is fucking stupid to watch compared to the Mech plays of Starcraft 1
many players(including pro players) have stated that they don't like Mech that much in TvT. And Mech is still widely used in TvZ, nada used it last night. And its not like TvZ in BW was always mech too.
Only MU that is really Bio dominant is vP which is perfectly fine IMO. And Mech can work VP too. Look at the Byun game 1 on GSL Code A.And really i don't think I have seen Bio vs Bio that much in any pro games ...
I don't get why so many people are complaining about apparently Blizzard wanting all MUs being MMM when the only MU with dominant bio play is vP. Hahaha just my 2 cents on this
We see Mech against zerg 1 game every 10. we see bio or bio mech the rest. Its stupid.
On September 23 2011 15:25 common_cider wrote: What is zerg supposed to do against a protoss who goes stargate into collosus detahballs? just leave the game?
"In a perfect world of terran vs. terran, we’d like to see both bio and mech based strategies viable. We don’t know for certain that this is possible, but this change makes the Hellion relationship vs. Marines and Workers only 1 shot different (assuming marines use Stimpacks in combat). Meaning, this is the smallest change we could make in order to attempt to meet that goal."
We've seen bio (marauders) own mech time and again in GSL. Every time mech starts to come out at the top level something gets heavily nerfed (tanks, thor energy, now hellions)
Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
That's a shame, the freaking mothership shouldn't even be in the game, it's a ridiculous unit, too expensive, too big, too powerful. Why did they had to play on the bling and give us that sh*t instead of nice arbiters ? And why choose mothership over carrier ? Carrier should be a viable end game choice for Protoss and they are so much cooler, especially for bw fans.
I wish they had considered caster balance, ghost are ridiculously overpowered versus protoss. Still can't understand why emp is on such a cheap unit oO And snipe is way too strong in all match up.
On September 23 2011 15:41 Skytalker wrote: Bah picking mothership over carrier is just sad
They would just have reduced the build time slightly just as they did with the ultralisk. It wouldn't make much difference. It would be even lesser of an impact with the carriers as they can't tech switch as fast as zerg.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
Probably using the same method as how do we guys expect Zerg to win vs mass ghosts now.
good thing to know that Blizz intentionally keeps the carrier being crappy - I mean, wtf "choice between mothership and carrier" my shiny metal ass, if both units require a buff in the eyes of Blizz to be useful, why not buff just both?
On September 23 2011 16:15 sleepingdog wrote: good thing to know that Blizz intentionally keeps the carrier being crappy - I mean, wtf "choice between mothership and carrier" my shiny metal ass, if both units require a buff in the eyes of Blizz to be useful, why not buff just both?
The last thing Blizzard wants is to change things too fast. Just look at the reaction to the infestor buff...
What I understand from the report, is that they want to buff both Carriers and Ultras but don't want to do it too fast.
Buffing the Mothership instead of the Carrier. Nerfing Blink for no reason. Buffing the Immortal to hold 1-1-1? I forgot that Siege Tanks do not have 13 range and that marines don't counter immortals. OHWAIT! Leaving EMP as it is, because Protoss is not supposed to win against Terran.
LOL, so they made the 5 second change for 11/11... That's such a HUGE difference!!! 5 in game seconds sure is going to help with those bunker rushes...
Blizz should really fix the carriers... Although fixing them would proly require a nerf to void rays.... Maybe go back in time with void rays.....when they were doing more dmg after channeling and less in actual battle....That way they can keep being used as gimicky aggressive builds vs Z/T and Carriers in late game scenarios instead.
That way, protoss has Pheonix = harass Void Ray = aggressive/all ins..... Carrier = late game air
Also, i feel like Blink research increase is just stupid. Blink is probably the most broken thing in game (although it can't be flat out removed without some other buffs since P already has so much problems). It should be fixed in some different way...maybe so it doesn't skip the missle already fired to the stalker, or cd on it, or range ... dunno what would help, but blink timings aren't really a problem anymore.
i didnt mind the reasonings and explanations he gave for most of the changes. but then this:
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
Protoss Shield Upgrade should have a correlation with EMP Shield damage. i.e. : Shield Upgrade 1 : You take 75 Shield damage Shield Upgrade 2 : You take 50 Shield damage Shield upgrade 3 : You take 25 Shield damage
may be that way the most unused upgrade would be used.
On September 23 2011 16:33 Elean wrote: The problem with carriers is that they are almost invincible once you reach a critical mass, but they also don't justify their cost in small numbers.
That's not what protoss need. Protoss need a units that works great in small numbers but suck in large numbers.
Invincible? have you ever used carriers vs vikings+emp or corrupters + infestors? I think not because you wouldn't even say they are hard to counter. Go watch Hasu vs Goody , where hasu maxed out with carriers and goody raped him with vikings.
I love Immortal buff and Fungal nerf and Ultra decrease of build time... But really, Blizzard, decrease DPS for all units. You cant make a game slower by adding 5 seconds to Barracks build time. It's nice with Hellion decrease of DPS but what's with other deadly-DPSers like Vikings, Marines, Marauders, Immortals, Banelings. Most of units look like glass cannons...
On September 23 2011 16:21 Avan wrote: Buffing the Mothership instead of the Carrier. Nerfing Blink for no reason. Buffing the Immortal to hold 1-1-1? I forgot that Siege Tanks do not have 13 range and that marines don't counter immortals. OHWAIT! Leaving EMP as it is, because Protoss is not supposed to win against Terran.
They decided to just pick mothership. As everyone's saying, carriers are SUPER strong en masse already, so buff the unit that isn't already REALLY strong when you get 6 of them out...
They gave the explanation for the blink nerf??? not sure why you think it's no reason
Buffin immo to help vs 1-1-1, they said it was to help against siege tanks, not make them an auto-defend 1-1-1 without trying unit....
and ghosts are just really good units. it only took almost a year for everyone to realize that
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
Probably something that isnt one tier 2 unit in mass? Just a thought
We didn’t want to change the current game too much since according to our stats all zerg matchups are very close to even at the highest levels. When testing with the highest level players, we noticed this change is very minor yet still very slightly noticeable
so i guess the felt the infestor was too good. even those both protoss and terran have hard counters to it.
and as for picking the mothership over the carrier?!? you gotta be kidding me the mothership is a joke unit and probably shouldn't even be in the game. while the carrier is iconic BW unit that never gets built anymore.
This quote has me hopeful for the future of the Ultralisk:
Therefore, we made the build time slightly faster in the hope of more accurately gauging the current strength of Ultralisks before making bigger decisions.
I had serious doubts that the build time decrease on it's own was going to make them better. Let's hope this change on it's own is enough to make'm more used.
EDIT: 4 times the word "Ultralisk" in a post of 3 lines. Good job by me...
Nothing too crazy in here for once. I dont play protoss but imho both the carrier and mothership are interesting units if players only could get some good use out of them with the investment needed. This might be a move in the right direction. Otherwise I still am not convinced with their take on NP but we'll just have to see.
On September 23 2011 16:37 Kroml. wrote: Protoss Shield Upgrade should have a correlation with EMP Shield damage. i.e. : Shield Upgrade 1 : You take 75 Shield damage Shield Upgrade 2 : You take 50 Shield damage Shield upgrade 3 : You take 25 Shield damage
may be that way the most unused upgrade would be used.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
Probably something that isnt one tier 2 unit in mass? Just a thought
We tried Vikings, it doesn't work because they die to fungals and are useless once the zerg transitions out of BL into mass ground, we tried mass thors, they get owned by mass broodlord unless they are 3/3 and the zerg is on 0/0 upgrades, mass marines get completely destroyed aswell.
So yeah, the only unit that gives terran a chance to win lategame tvz is indeed the ghost and they are extremely expensive and fragile, but yeah you are right, let's nerf ghosts so that broodlord/infestor is autowin for zerg.
On September 23 2011 16:37 Kroml. wrote: Protoss Shield Upgrade should have a correlation with EMP Shield damage. i.e. : Shield Upgrade 1 : You take 75 Shield damage Shield Upgrade 2 : You take 50 Shield damage Shield upgrade 3 : You take 25 Shield damage
may be that way the most unused upgrade would be used.
I actually really like that idea.
Yeah that would also make the ghost lose alot of its power lategame except for disabling high templar. Now having never played a serious game of PvT my opinion is less than nothing, but I think that would be an intresting way of changing the way the ghost works in the machup.
Blizzard, y u no buff carriers? (ノ・_・)ノ Seriously, that makes me sad. They have to know that we won't really see more motherships now, while we never see carriers.
I also cringed when I heard they actually chose mothership instead of carrier to buff, but I think with the way the current gameplay of SC2 goes around, you can find very few scenarios that Carriers would be useful, if any at all to be honest. The real reason is not the Carrier micro, interceptor healing or some other feature inherent to the unit, but rather that it's about gameplay itself. I think Blizz pretty much did the right thing because Carriers will always be useless with the way currently the strategies revolve around.
Now I'm not the greatest BW spectator ever since pretty much I've started following it very recently, for about a year now, but from what I can see, you get carriers mainly because of siege tanks. A huge siege tank army supported by vultures with spider mines basically melts the Protoss army unless you have sick storm/arbiter control (What Jangbi did to Flash), or you have the Carriers when Terran does not have the goliath numbers to threaten them, which means you can kill the Terran army since they cannot shoot back.
Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless. And lastly, Protoss literally doesn't need them for the most of the time. Bio is the dominant strategy, and Marines eat anything for breakfast except storms and Colossus, so it wouldn't be hard for them to stim ahead and start focus firing the Carriers and bam, all that investment gone and you're dead. Add that the availability of Vikings since Terran already needs reactor SP for medivac production and can switch whenever he wants to Vikings, the high cost, lengthy teching period and that Terran already gets Vikings for the Colossus, it is not hard to see that Carriers will most likely never see the light of the day in SC2.
problem with the overseer change being cheaper is more overseers making DT's even less viable, other then that some great changes espceailly for Protoss!! Look forward to seeing how this game pans out in the next few months!!!
On September 23 2011 17:15 Bleak wrote: Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless.
This is why directly comparing broodwar & SC2 doesn't work. Because there are a lot of factors we forget to take into account. The tanks in BW had higher damage but its splash was less. Also consider the fact that the pathfinding in SC2 leads to much more splash damage taken due to tightly packed units. That's why 75dmg tanks or 2 supply tank won't work in SC2.
Also the units in SC2 are smarter. In broodwar if u run a single zergling in a tank line, all of them would shoot it allowing you to charge in with the rest of your forces. Even then, zerg needed the dark swarm from defilers to alleviate the damage from tanks and marines.
Regarding zealots with charge I think there needs to be some meat-shield between the terran and toss forces. I don't know much about the match-up (I'm a zerg player) but shouldn't thors be viable as damage tankers for the tanks?
I do think there reasons are pretty well thoughtout looking at the hole thing. What I don't understand is why they would go with the mothership over the carrier (probably because the carrier will see a huge change in one of the expansions anyways given that it's pretty damn broken in it's current state anyways) and I don't like the fact that they want to make bio more viable. I do see their reasoning, I mean if you make a game wouldn't it be great if bio and mech would be viable and to be honest from a pure spectator standpoint bio vs mech sounds pretty epic to me. Personally I just prefer mech over bio and I kinda have to agree with artosis on marauders. Mech will be really, really hard against bio early game with this change. But it just came out let's just see and wait how the tvt metagame will evolve in the upcoming weeks.
I really do like the fact that they explain their thought process, especially the changes to the infestor adress exactly what I felt was wrong with it, I just wish they would have done some tweaking to the ghost, that damn thing counters every protoss unit, kinda sounds wrong to me.
On September 23 2011 16:40 jjhchsc2 wrote: i hope Bio does really become viable in tvt
TvZ = bio Tvp = bio Tvt = bio
Yea sounds like fun
TvZ bio? I havent seen that win since beta, and for good reason. Most of the time you can just neglect muta's and go mass ling/bane with infestors, destroys bio.
Honestly, when they were talking about protoss I heard: "We tried to take useless overpriced units, and make them slightly less useless, hoping it would fix the race by chance"
Overall I did like the patch. But sometimes the thinking and the things they choose to focus on just seems silly.
The biggest problem for protoss is that GAS is such a limiting factor on it's flexibility. The necessity of sentries, and the weakness of protoss mineral heavy units vs Terran in the early game is where I see the problem. Protoss tech and upgrades are very expensive on gas, and the when you look at mineral heavy units like Zealots,Stalkers,Immortals, and Void rays (basically everything they can make before the natural fully kicks in) marines are a good choice vs all of them. This is a big part of the reason the 1/1/1 is so tough to deal with. (the other being scouting vs a wall in, because they HAVE to know pretty early what build Terran chose to do in order to respond correctly)
Aside from that, choosing to change the mothership vs the Carrier was a facepalm moment. Carriers have been begging for a fix since beta. They need a build time change or more armor on the interceptors or something. Maybe a behavior fix on the interceptors, so like the BW carriers you can deploy your interceptors and micro the carriers back without the interceptors returning. OSL Finals were sexy, and game 5 drove home the value of the carrier micro existing.
Zerg changes, I would have preferred that the changes to fungal would have been to allow blink, or no longer affect air units (so terran could pick up fungaled units) I agree that infestors needed to loose some utility. They were too good vs everything, and there should be some control options for the player whose army is getting fungaled to minimize the damage and not just concede their whole army once the first wave of fungal lands.
As for Terran, instead of 5 seconds on the barracks, they should have added 5 seconds to marines. They seem too cost effective and easy to mass in every matchup (even tvt now with the blue flame nerf) Another unit I think has to much utility when others have so little.
Don't mean to be overly critical, probably one of the best patches so far. As always they seem like they identify the problems in matchups very well, but then make really odd decisions on how to fix them.
I really dont understand why T can't have atleast one matchup that is mech.. Im so sick of these bio-builds in every matchup:-/
Mech can work in all three matchups. Mech is still really viable in TvT, it's just you don't instant kill every single marine with your hellions. I've played mech terran for a while in TvT and even I'll admit that was ridiculous.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
With ghosts and vikings, instead of just ghosts.
Since ghosts counter every tier 3 of zerg (and mutas) in mass, there's very little reason to get anything else late game.
I would've liked to see a buff in carriers but motherships are acting like arbiters, very awful arbiters but arbiters none the less. So what does blizzard do? they buff it without making it OP. Probably a smart move actually because carriers are so underused that blizzard doesn't actually know if carriers are strong or weak and changing them now when everything is so fragile with the new patch wouldn't be ideal. I'm sure we may see a carrier buff sometime in the future but we first need to see it utilized before anything happens.
On September 23 2011 17:15 Bleak wrote: I also cringed when I heard they actually chose mothership instead of carrier to buff, but I think with the way the current gameplay of SC2 goes around, you can find very few scenarios that Carriers would be useful, if any at all to be honest. The real reason is not the Carrier micro, interceptor healing or some other feature inherent to the unit, but rather that it's about gameplay itself. I think Blizz pretty much did the right thing because Carriers will always be useless with the way currently the strategies revolve around.
Now I'm not the greatest BW spectator ever since pretty much I've started following it very recently, for about a year now, but from what I can see, you get carriers mainly because of siege tanks. A huge siege tank army supported by vultures with spider mines basically melts the Protoss army unless you have sick storm/arbiter control (What Jangbi did to Flash), or you have the Carriers when Terran does not have the goliath numbers to threaten them, which means you can kill the Terran army since they cannot shoot back.
Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless. And lastly, Protoss literally doesn't need them for the most of the time. Bio is the dominant strategy, and Marines eat anything for breakfast except storms and Colossus, so it wouldn't be hard for them to stim ahead and start focus firing the Carriers and bam, all that investment gone and you're dead. Add that the availability of Vikings since Terran already needs reactor SP for medivac production and can switch whenever he wants to Vikings, the high cost, lengthy teching period and that Terran already gets Vikings for the Colossus, it is not hard to see that Carriers will most likely never see the light of the day in SC2.
Yeah it's sad how SC2 has these over the top hard counters where immortals versus tanks is probably one of the more extreme ones, it's just bad design. Another reason i don't see carrier getting used is that colossus is just better and you can't transition to carriers from colossus either since they're countered by the same units, now if the colossus was replaced by reaver the carrier would once again have a role - you could transition to it from reaver.
On September 23 2011 17:15 Bleak wrote: Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless.
This is why directly comparing broodwar & SC2 doesn't work. Because there are a lot of factors we forget to take into account. The tanks in BW had higher damage but its splash was less. Also consider the fact that the pathfinding in SC2 leads to much more splash damage taken due to tightly packed units. That's why 75dmg tanks or 2 supply tank won't work in SC2.
Also the units in SC2 are smarter. In broodwar if u run a single zergling in a tank line, all of them would shoot it allowing you to charge in with the rest of your forces. Even then, zerg needed the dark swarm from defilers to alleviate the damage from tanks and marines.
Regarding zealots with charge I think there needs to be some meat-shield between the terran and toss forces. I don't know much about the match-up (I'm a zerg player) but shouldn't thors be viable as damage tankers for the tanks?
He isn't saying tanks are bad or need to be changed. He's saying that the way tank/vulture played out in BW made carriers a viable tech route unlike SC2, because tanks function differently in TvP in SC2 and there are better ways to counter them. The comparison makes sense.
Personally, the carrier has been the most disappointing unit in SC2. Everyone knew the mothership would be gimmicky and difficult to balance. But carriers ... so sad to see them in their current state
On September 23 2011 17:15 Bleak wrote: I also cringed when I heard they actually chose mothership instead of carrier to buff, but I think with the way the current gameplay of SC2 goes around, you can find very few scenarios that Carriers would be useful, if any at all to be honest. The real reason is not the Carrier micro, interceptor healing or some other feature inherent to the unit, but rather that it's about gameplay itself. I think Blizz pretty much did the right thing because Carriers will always be useless with the way currently the strategies revolve around.
Now I'm not the greatest BW spectator ever since pretty much I've started following it very recently, for about a year now, but from what I can see, you get carriers mainly because of siege tanks. A huge siege tank army supported by vultures with spider mines basically melts the Protoss army unless you have sick storm/arbiter control (What Jangbi did to Flash), or you have the Carriers when Terran does not have the goliath numbers to threaten them, which means you can kill the Terran army since they cannot shoot back.
Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless. And lastly, Protoss literally doesn't need them for the most of the time. Bio is the dominant strategy, and Marines eat anything for breakfast except storms and Colossus, so it wouldn't be hard for them to stim ahead and start focus firing the Carriers and bam, all that investment gone and you're dead. Add that the availability of Vikings since Terran already needs reactor SP for medivac production and can switch whenever he wants to Vikings, the high cost, lengthy teching period and that Terran already gets Vikings for the Colossus, it is not hard to see that Carriers will most likely never see the light of the day in SC2.
Yeah it's sad how SC2 has these over the top hard counters where immortals versus tanks is probably one of the more extreme ones, it's just bad design. Another reason i don't see carrier getting used is that colossus is just better and you can't transition to carriers from colossus either since they're countered by the same units, now if the colossus was replaced by reaver the carrier would once again have a role - you could transition to it from reaver.
Something to add to this is protoss doesn't need carriers vs tanks as much because of charge, blink, immortals, colossus and warp ins. The mobility and units are there to deal with mech, also vikings/marines are better vs carriers than goliaths were in BW. Reactored starports and barracks are also more useful to have vs protoss ground armies over factories. I think Mech still can be utilized vs protoss on maps like metalopolis, perhaps even Xel Naga because of the narrowness of the map and the amount of chokes combined with the Xel Naga tower locations. Tanks on those cliffs and on the towers can still cut the map in half. But the vulture and spider mines are probably the biggest setback to mech. Vultures and mines were so good for harass, map control and stopping a protoss bust on the mech line. Terran's need to look at things like emp, sensor towers, and bunkers mixed into their mech line to fill the gap left by mines if they want to use mech vs protoss. However, bio is much easier to use and more flexible.
On September 23 2011 16:40 jjhchsc2 wrote: i hope Bio does really become viable in tvt
TvZ = bio Tvp = bio Tvt = bio
Yea sounds like fun
TvZ bio? I havent seen that win since beta, and for good reason. Most of the time you can just neglect muta's and go mass ling/bane with infestors, destroys bio.
Yeah no one can really say bio is the standard for TvZ.
On September 23 2011 18:23 hugman wrote: "Our data indicates that the winrates for Zerg are very close to 50/50 but we feel like nerfing the Infestor anyway"
Thanks Kim
Makes no sense
Well they did say that the data was not their final point of reference for balance. Besides, zerg could be perfectly balanced but the infestor could still be too versatile, and thus be nerfed.
On September 23 2011 18:23 hugman wrote: "Our data indicates that the winrates for Zerg are very close to 50/50 but we feel like nerfing the Infestor anyway"
I agree with the guys saying that protoss in its current states doesn't need the carrier - carriers are "somewhat" decent in maxed battles vs zerg, but zerg can just decide to "not" morph the next bunch of corruptors into broodlords and have the perfect counter
And carriers are a terrible choice against MMMG, even if carriers built way faster I'm not sure why I would want to have them. EMP + stimmed marines own carriers even faster than gateway units.
On September 23 2011 18:23 hugman wrote: "Our data indicates that the winrates for Zerg are very close to 50/50 but we feel like nerfing the Infestor anyway"
Thanks Kim
Makes no sense
win-rate in GSL is no where close to 50/50
Those win rates are stastistically insignificant and not adjusted for skill the way the other ones are
On September 23 2011 18:23 hugman wrote: "Our data indicates that the winrates for Zerg are very close to 50/50 but we feel like nerfing the Infestor anyway"
Thanks Kim
Makes no sense
win-rate in GSL is no where close to 50/50
Those win rates are stastistically insignificant and not adjusted for skill the way the other ones are
Win rates at the highest lvl is much more significant than anything else.
I like to get a carrier lategame against mech, its as annoying as a 13 range banshee in tvt with regeneration. And the stuff they need to conter it, costs probably 3 times more, except thors wo can fight of the rest of the toss army as well, though with 50% of health missing. Have the stargate around anyway . But the lower the league the more effectiv are carriers, either they overextend in vikings, or they just melt their marines in one psy storm.
On September 23 2011 18:23 hugman wrote: "Our data indicates that the winrates for Zerg are very close to 50/50 but we feel like nerfing the Infestor anyway"
Thanks Kim
Makes no sense
win-rate in GSL is no where close to 50/50
Those win rates are stastistically insignificant and not adjusted for skill the way the other ones are
Win rates at the highest lvl is much more significant than anything else.
On September 23 2011 10:42 KimJongChill wrote: +5 rax build time is so insignificant, I honestly don't notice any difference on ladder lol.
actually it is pretty good, everything comes quite a bit slower, and it is much safer to go hatch first now
I think this really shows that protoss isn't doing so bad against zerg at all, in comparison to how they do against terran. Terran is just much better overall, I don't even recall a time when terran is considered a down race at all
The only thing that happend with the 5 sec barracks change is that scv production hickup because you ave to wait these 5 ingame seconds now to build your orbital.
On September 23 2011 19:42 graNite wrote: The only thing that happend with the 5 sec barracks change is that scv production hickup because you ave to wait these 5 ingame seconds now to build your orbital.
From Terrans pov yes thats what changed (btw both protoss and zerg have a shit lot of points early game where you have to wait a couple seconds to do the next thing, terran was pretty much the only race where everything lined up that perfectly). But especially from the zergs pov it gives just a little bit more time to react to a lot of the really strong terran openings. From a protoss perspective it also gives 5 more seconds to keep your probe a life and possibly scout 1/1/1 or some other terran shenanigans. To me this is just a slight nerf to all the aggressive openings terran has early game.
1. They had to choose between carrier and mothership (and couldn't just slightly buff both) 2. They thought that the barracks nerf was actually going to be significant 3. Infestors are too good but ghosts aren't
Well could be they afraid of buffing carriers becouse protoss late game with templar + colo and 3/3 gw units is already tough to deal with, now imagine if you can add carriers to this mix from 1/2 stargate
On September 23 2011 20:09 Darksoldierr wrote: Well could be they afraid of buffing carriers becouse protoss late game with templar + colo and 3/3 gw units is already tough to deal with, now imagine if you can add carriers to this mix from 1/2 stargate
now that is the true definition of a deathball, adding a mothership in also. There is actually no way anyone can lose to that
On September 23 2011 10:46 Fig wrote: GAH! Why did they choose to buff the mothership when they could have picked carriers?!?!?! I thought they said the mothership was a joke unit! And the buff just makes it a more maneuverable joke unit!
Seriously though, mothership deserved a buff, but carriers deserve one too. Atm carriers are inferior to BCs in every way except for range.
BC's are supposed to counter carriers, that's why they have yamato.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
With the neural nerf and the movement buff I'd say its already viable in lategame PvZ.
How do you make carrier viable though? They're such a huge investment as you will need to make multiple to make a difference, yet they have some of the hardest counters in the game. How do you balance that?
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
ghosts should be countering infestors, not broodlords as well. It should be vikings that are the one killing them.
It's a bit like infestors but it is just better as the opponent's units are better.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
ghosts should be countering infestors, not broodlords as well. It should be vikings that are the one killing them.
It's a bit like infestors but it is just better as the opponent's units are better.
Thats like saying tanks shouldn't counter both lings and roaches. Why not?
Snipe isn't even a very hard counter, you still need a ton of ghosts to kill broodlords with them. Its often easier to just EMP the infestors and send in marines/vikings to snipe broodlords. Also heavy ghost numbers can be countered with ultras, especially now that they don't take forever to build.
Nooooes, they didn't make the fungal growth can't lock massive units down, change. Also i'm really scared for Overseer change, some mass contamination. Well better go test the patch first hand.
I wish blizzard would just remove the Mothership from the game and add Arbiters in HOTS. Mothership is such a stupid concept of a unit. Starcraft is not supposed to have hero units.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
I could see them have some utility with increased speed and more armour. They would only be useful in the very late game though when you have time to create them and have stalkers to protect against them against vikings and corruptors. At that time you would also have HT or Colossus to deal with marines and hydra's so that leaves vikings and corruptors and with a armour boost they will deal a lot less damage and a little speed increase will let them flee faster.
But yeh that would only be with a map split or something otherwise you'll never have the time nor the gas to support all that..
I don't really think there is a problem with the ghost in TvZ. People are often complaining of how there's this whole X unit beats Y unit mentality in SC2 but the ghost is one unit that completely breaks that mold. You don't get it to 'hard counter' anything in the matchup. Obviously its design leans towards an anti-infestor + hive tech but it doesn't necessarily straight up counter that in an engagement.
In fact the ghost inspires the kind of micro battles that people seem to desire in SC2 with positioning and micro being of the utmost importance. I'm not saying the unit isn't ridiculously strong - because it is - but on the other hand, I think terran needs such a strong and versatile unit both to survive against extremely strong late game zerg tech AND to just make the game more interesting.
I'm pretty much ok with everything in the patch except the hellion nerf. I didn't really see any significant problem with the hellion and mech TvT is one of my favourite matchups to play and watch, (though I can understand why others may not feel the same). I saw a post someone made in another thead talking about hellions becoming a staple of the TvZ matchup and I can certainly agree with that. It just feels odd now everytime I use them because they've been nerfed. There's not the whole 'oh crap blue flame hellions' feeling prior to 1.4.
On the carrier/mothership thing. I don't really see what the big deal is. Even if carriers had been buffed, Protoss regularly say they don't use them because their counter is the same as Colossi and that Colossi are just better at killing stuff. I don't know what they could do to the carrier to give it the same viability as colossi given the current compositions used on the terran end/frequency of corrupters.
As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
On September 23 2011 21:52 Absentia wrote: I don't really think there is a problem with the ghost in TvZ. People are often complaining of how there's this whole X unit beats Y unit mentality in SC2 but the ghost is one unit that completely breaks that mold. You don't get it to 'hard counter' anything in the matchup. Obviously its design leans towards an anti-infestor + hive tech but it doesn't necessarily straight up counter that in an engagement.
In fact the ghost inspires the kind of micro battles that people seem to desire in SC2 with positioning and micro being of the utmost importance. I'm not saying the unit isn't ridiculously strong - because it is - but on the other hand, I think terran needs such a strong and versatile unit both to survive against extremely strong late game zerg tech AND to just make the game more interesting.
I'm pretty much ok with everything in the patch except the hellion nerf. I didn't really see any significant problem with the hellion and mech TvT is one of my favourite matchups to play and watch, (though I can understand why others may not feel the same). I saw a post someone made in another thead talking about hellions becoming a staple of the TvZ matchup and I can certainly agree with that. It just feels odd now everytime I use them because they've been nerfed. There's not the whole 'oh crap blue flame hellions' feeling prior to 1.4.
On the carrier/mothership thing. I don't really see what the big deal is. Even if carriers had been buffed, Protoss regularly say they don't use them because their counter is the same as Colossi and that Colossi are just better at killing stuff. I don't know what they could do to the carrier to give it the same viability as colossi given the current compositions used on the terran end/frequency of corrupters.
Zerg and protoss late game strong? Apparently sir you haven't used ghosts correctly. EMP takes away 50% of the protoss health and snipe kills every single hive unit.
I think the power of the 1/1/1 build has more to do with the marines then the siege tanks, so buffing the immortal to deal with it seems somewhat counter-intuitive.
And I'm not sure what they mean when they say they want both Bio and Mech to be viable in TvT. Bio is viable, it just has to be played in a different way, hit and run tactics while taking bases and building a more powerful army later on. If they think Bio should be able to take Mech on head-on then that's somewhat retarded.
How can he say, that they change the mothership instead of the carrier. Everyone want to see some carrier action and nobody cares about the mothership. So Blizzard, please buff the Carrier in the next patch! But I really like the fact, that the want to see bio and mech based strategies.
I'd like to personally thank Dayvie for fixing the mothership's acceleration. I like to think I brought this to his attention when I beat him with my mothership rush in 2v2 a few months ago and he stole my build.
Mothership is going to be very strong now. They were already strong, I dont know why everyone comlpains about them so much. The only thing is teching to them, being safe long enough to get them, and blocking up supply and resources for so long into them. But once they are on the field they are powerful as hell. From a ZvP point of view, you have to know its coming (if you don't scout it it is your fault) otherwise you will be almost helpless. The only efficient way to counter it was to nerual parasite it, which frankly, is no longer and option.
But the report seems surprisingly logical and sensible, I like how they also put a lot of consideration into game design and how that makes the game more fun/spectacular rather than just flat out balance.
i just dont understand why zergs should worry about positioning their TIER 2 unit and protoss shouldn't be worried about positioning their TIER 3 units. i mean, they're more valuable, right? theyre a tier higher than ours and more expensive (HTs not so much) so shouldnt their use and positioning require a bit more finesse and care?
for instance, the range gap from a stalker to a colossus is 3. why cant they learn to position their HTs in this range to pick off any infestors moving in for a neural parasite? if i can neural or cast fungal (which did get a reasonable nerf IMO), your HTs should be in range for a storm (infestors dont like storms all that much) but more importantly a FEEDBACK.
NP and colossus with thermal lance have the same range. so if i position my templar behind my stalkers/immortals, its totally possible to snipe that infestor before it grabs the colossus.
FURTHERMORE, a infestor with enough energy to cast a neural parasite WILL be killed by a feedback. killed. one click and the infestor is dead.
if they're gonna nerf the range, i would have at least appreciated a health boost for the risk i'm putting my infestors in
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
A lot of it was interesting, but I have to say... they chose mothership over carriers? did... did anyone want to use that more than you wanted to use carriers?
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
i agree with storm not feeling as strong, but collosus in P v T feels absolutely game-changing for both races.
i've played a lot of carrier games in sc2, and believe it or not, carriers do great against vikings. actually i'm pretty sure one carrier can nearly 1-shot a viking with upgrades. against a good amount of corruptors, i can't say the same as they start with a good amount of armor.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
I honestly don't see what the harm of simply buffing Carriers would be.
For example, increase the HP by 50, reduce build time by 10 seconds, and increase cost by 25/25.
I not sure that even such a large buff would imbalance Carriers.
I'm extremely happy with this patch and all these explanations. First patch where I actually felt like blizzard had a good idea of what they were trying to do.
On September 23 2011 22:45 Plexa wrote: People bitching about motherships have no idea just how useful they are in pvz - even during this infestor crazy time.
Yeah...
Pretty sure the people who are complaining about Motherships being bad haven't really played this game for that long or don't play it at all
Way back when Voidray/Colossus was the "in" thing to do, most Protoss would routinely go for Motherships--including me, the unit is fucking amazing.
Personally I think it might even be a tab bit overpowered without the 9range Neural 0o
On September 23 2011 17:15 Bleak wrote: I also cringed when I heard they actually chose mothership instead of carrier to buff, but I think with the way the current gameplay of SC2 goes around, you can find very few scenarios that Carriers would be useful, if any at all to be honest. The real reason is not the Carrier micro, interceptor healing or some other feature inherent to the unit, but rather that it's about gameplay itself. I think Blizz pretty much did the right thing because Carriers will always be useless with the way currently the strategies revolve around.
Now I'm not the greatest BW spectator ever since pretty much I've started following it very recently, for about a year now, but from what I can see, you get carriers mainly because of siege tanks. A huge siege tank army supported by vultures with spider mines basically melts the Protoss army unless you have sick storm/arbiter control (What Jangbi did to Flash), or you have the Carriers when Terran does not have the goliath numbers to threaten them, which means you can kill the Terran army since they cannot shoot back.
Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless. And lastly, Protoss literally doesn't need them for the most of the time. Bio is the dominant strategy, and Marines eat anything for breakfast except storms and Colossus, so it wouldn't be hard for them to stim ahead and start focus firing the Carriers and bam, all that investment gone and you're dead. Add that the availability of Vikings since Terran already needs reactor SP for medivac production and can switch whenever he wants to Vikings, the high cost, lengthy teching period and that Terran already gets Vikings for the Colossus, it is not hard to see that Carriers will most likely never see the light of the day in SC2.
Yeah it's sad how SC2 has these over the top hard counters where immortals versus tanks is probably one of the more extreme ones, it's just bad design. Another reason i don't see carrier getting used is that colossus is just better and you can't transition to carriers from colossus either since they're countered by the same units, now if the colossus was replaced by reaver the carrier would once again have a role - you could transition to it from reaver.
Indeed the units in the game do feel kinda too hard-counter-y sorta like in c&c. some units just plain out make others absolutely unviable. That is why I don't like the marauders, hellions and immortals. But then, I'm biased cuz banelings are my favorite units.
+1 or +2 armor on the interceptors would be a very welcome change for carriers. But i do understand why blizzard decided to opt for the mothership.... there's less chance of breaking stuff in lower leagues.
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
On September 23 2011 17:56 anmolsinghmzn2009 wrote:
On September 23 2011 17:15 Bleak wrote: Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 suck compared to the BW tanks. For one, they are 3 supply, which means you cannot get huge numbers of tanks that would threaten any ground army. Second, their damage is really lacking. I think it was 70 or 75 a shot unupgraded when sieged against Ground units. I don't know the exact damage formulae in BW, but I think some units were hit less but in general, when you had enough numbers of Tanks, that line would be almost impenetrable. It's not the same in Starcraft 2. They still pack a punch, but not enough. Thirdly, there is no spider mines to protect Tanks from insta-gibbed by speed(now charge) zealots. So most of the time Protoss can 1-a his army into the tanks with some Immortals in front and he would come out on top. Immortals counter Tanks to the point that they become useless.
This is why directly comparing broodwar & SC2 doesn't work. Because there are a lot of factors we forget to take into account. The tanks in BW had higher damage but its splash was less. Also consider the fact that the pathfinding in SC2 leads to much more splash damage taken due to tightly packed units. That's why 75dmg tanks or 2 supply tank won't work in SC2.
Also the units in SC2 are smarter. In broodwar if u run a single zergling in a tank line, all of them would shoot it allowing you to charge in with the rest of your forces. Even then, zerg needed the dark swarm from defilers to alleviate the damage from tanks and marines.
Regarding zealots with charge I think there needs to be some meat-shield between the terran and toss forces. I don't know much about the match-up (I'm a zerg player) but shouldn't thors be viable as damage tankers for the tanks?
He isn't saying tanks are bad or need to be changed. He's saying that the way tank/vulture played out in BW made carriers a viable tech route unlike SC2, because tanks function differently in TvP in SC2 and there are better ways to counter them. The comparison makes sense.
Personally, the carrier has been the most disappointing unit in SC2. Everyone knew the mothership would be gimmicky and difficult to balance. But carriers ... so sad to see them in their current state
Yes I understand your and Bleak's point and even mostly agree with you guys , I just wanted to say why the tank-vulture thing wouldn't work in SC2 (even though I would prefer that style - I like the strategic positional aspects tanks bring). The splash is just too huge in SC2. If we think of it that way, most of the units that are considered too powerful/tough to deal with have splash - Collossi/infestor/ghost emp etc. The units in starcraft 2 just bunch up too tightly.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
i agree with storm not feeling as strong, but collosus in P v T feels absolutely game-changing for both races.
i've played a lot of carrier games in sc2, and believe it or not, carriers do great against vikings. actually i'm pretty sure one carrier can nearly 1-shot a viking with upgrades. against a good amount of corruptors, i can't say the same as they start with a good amount of armor.
While Carriers have the highest dps, they are hugely depreciated (right word?) by armor, where as Vikings has 0 armor corruptor start with 2, Carriers can easily go hand to hand with vikings due to their almost similar range as well as lack of viking armor, but corruptors will negate a large amount of their damage just by having their natural armor
On September 23 2011 22:45 Plexa wrote: People bitching about motherships have no idea just how useful they are in pvz - even during this infestor crazy time.
Yeah...
Pretty sure the people who are complaining about Motherships being bad haven't really played this game for that long or don't play it at all
Way back when Voidray/Colossus was the "in" thing to do, most Protoss would routinely go for Motherships--including me, the unit is fucking amazing.
Personally I think it might even be a tab bit overpowered without the 9range Neural 0o
We know it's good and maybe even OP. Our beef is that it's a singular unit taking up what could be another unit's spot in the Protoss arsenal.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
i agree with storm not feeling as strong, but collosus in P v T feels absolutely game-changing for both races.
You're missing the point. It's that you can still go bio against colossi. Even once they hit 4+, it just becomes a matter of how well people control their army, upgrades, etc. which is EXACTLY what you want. In BW, you CANNOT go bio except a few specific early all-ins, which means you rarely have to deal with marines, and marines do well against carriers in both games. You can mix marines into your goliaths, but not at the level that you can in SC2.
i've played a lot of carrier games in sc2, and believe it or not, carriers do great against vikings. actually i'm pretty sure one carrier can nearly 1-shot a viking with upgrades.
A +3 carrier still 2 shots a 0 armor viking, with wasted interceptor time. They absorb a lot of damage, but they are not going to do well against a bio/viking army. Colossi have the same problem, but they kill bio faster with AoE and they're 300/200 vs. 450/250, which is a substantial difference.
Plus again, the transition to carrier is nearly impossible, even if bio/viking wasn't good against them. You're basically telegraphing the switch (colossus is 75s, carrier is 120,) which makes it easy to catch and counter, and terran armies are extremely fast and mobile in SC2, compared to a slow mech army in BW that can't completely punish you in that time.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
i agree with storm not feeling as strong, but collosus in P v T feels absolutely game-changing for both races.
i've played a lot of carrier games in sc2, and believe it or not, carriers do great against vikings. actually i'm pretty sure one carrier can nearly 1-shot a viking with upgrades. against a good amount of corruptors, i can't say the same as they start with a good amount of armor.
While Carriers have the highest dps, they are hugely depreciated (right word?) by armor, where as Vikings has 0 armor corruptor start with 2, Carriers can easily go hand to hand with vikings due to their almost similar range as well as lack of viking armor, but corruptors will negate a large amount of their damage just by having their natural armor
Its not even funny how badly Corruptors demolish carriers. I mean yeah its their job but its really sad even then. When I had just started playing SC2 I was doing a fun ZvP with my friend. after we traded our armed for the 2nd time I though it would be fun to make like 20 broodlords. When those broods reached his base he had 11 carriers waiting. In panic I suicided my broods and made as many Corruptors as I could. I had some 30 by the time he reached my outer expansion and all those carriers died in like 10 seconds.
The fact remains that mass carriers or nasl BCs are just plain unviable in most cases and will remain to be. The units themselves open you to huge windows where ur vulnerable and don't really do anything by themselves and their counters are pretty easy to get.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
I honestly don't see what the harm of simply buffing Carriers would be.
For example, increase the HP by 50, reduce build time by 10 seconds, and increase cost by 25/25.
I not sure that even such a large buff would imbalance Carriers.
The problem comes down to the way carriers move/attack and vikings, and the usability of bio. I know Jinro has commented on it a few times, but having the top air fighter be an air unit is problematic.
I have a hard time seeing any way the carrier can become relevant in PvT and in lieu of that, adjusting the mothership instead seems better.
Edit: Noooo! They had a choice between changing the Mothership and the Carrier yet they chose the mothership. T_T I've been craving some carrier usage in the GSL for a long time.
Its a silly comparison anyway. The reason carriers aren't being used is because of lack of Terran Mech vs Protoss, and how much better Void Rays are in terms of cost and tech.
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
i agree with storm not feeling as strong, but collosus in P v T feels absolutely game-changing for both races.
You're missing the point. It's that you can still go bio against colossi. Even once they hit 4+, it just becomes a matter of how well people control their army, upgrades, etc. which is EXACTLY what you want. In BW, you CANNOT go bio except a few specific early all-ins, which means you rarely have to deal with marines, and marines do well against carriers in both games. You can mix marines into your goliaths, but not at the level that you can in SC2.
i've played a lot of carrier games in sc2, and believe it or not, carriers do great against vikings. actually i'm pretty sure one carrier can nearly 1-shot a viking with upgrades.
A +3 carrier still 2 shots a 0 armor viking, with wasted interceptor time. They absorb a lot of damage, but they are not going to do well against a bio/viking army. Colossi have the same problem, but they kill bio faster with AoE and they're 300/200 vs. 450/250, which is a substantial difference.
Plus again, the transition to carrier is nearly impossible, even if bio/viking wasn't good against them. You're basically telegraphing the switch (colossus is 75s, carrier is 120,) which makes it easy to catch and counter, and terran armies are extremely fast and mobile in SC2, compared to a slow mech army in BW that can't completely punish you in that time.
Even if it is a matter of how people control their army, I still don't believe its very interesting.
Viking vs Colossi creates some of the lamest cat & mouse TvP encounters, very much akin to ZvZ Muta Scourge. Sure it is a matchup where at that point skill ultimately wins the game, but its still a really boring battle to watch.
Compare this to TvZ, you see Bechanic almost every game, but its still amazing to watch.
Of course if they just got rid of immortals/VoidRays & Marauders/Vikings TvP would be a lot more interesting, and you would see carriers a lot more. At the moment, its like every Protoss unit was designed to counter siege tanks T_T.
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
The one with the Fantasy Wraiths? Where carriers were the gold =P
On September 23 2011 23:19 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 23 2011 21:43 Jibba wrote:
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
I honestly don't see what the harm of simply buffing Carriers would be.
For example, increase the HP by 50, reduce build time by 10 seconds, and increase cost by 25/25.
I not sure that even such a large buff would imbalance Carriers.
The problem comes down to the way carriers move/attack and vikings, and the usability of bio. I know Jinro has commented on it a few times, but having the top air fighter be an air unit is problematic.
I have a hard time seeing any way the carrier can become relevant in PvT and in lieu of that, adjusting the mothership instead seems better.
yeah carriers piss me off so much in sc2. interceptor AI is so shitty i just wanna scream KEEP SHOOTING KEEP SHOOTING
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
The one with the Fantasy Wraiths? Where carriers were the gold =P
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
The one with the Fantasy Wraiths? Where carriers were the gold =P
the thing is carriers just cannot be viable in pvt. not when bio is pretty much the staple of a terran vs protoss. what are interceptors gonna do vs marines? absolutely nothing. in order for them to be effective ud have to change the way tvp is played as a whole, and thats just silly. i understand and agree that the mothership made more sense.
also, theres so many ppl talking bs in this thread that apparently dont know crap and thank god blizzard does things the way it does. ghosts too much for ur observers? lol then get more micro, be more aware, get more observers theyre cheap as shit, be a better player. dont ask for a fucking ghost nerf, theyre hard enough to use yknow? ghosts require micro too. i like the direction the game is taking, im always in favor of more micro.
i think 1-1-1 is still problem vs toss... i think reason is wery strong banshy ... or marines need nerf insted of having 45hp to have 40.... but i think banshy need some nerf...
also i whatch vs zerg early banshy can win the game.... u cant do that with void rays or mutas...
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
The one with the Fantasy Wraiths? Where carriers were the gold =P
On September 23 2011 22:45 Plexa wrote: People bitching about motherships have no idea just how useful they are in pvz - even during this infestor crazy time.
Yeah...
Pretty sure the people who are complaining about Motherships being bad haven't really played this game for that long or don't play it at all
Way back when Voidray/Colossus was the "in" thing to do, most Protoss would routinely go for Motherships--including me, the unit is fucking amazing.
Personally I think it might even be a tab bit overpowered without the 9range Neural 0o
No...just no. Mothership was occassionaly used months ago when players tried to be cute, kiwi used it more..but he stopped. Everyone did. The last time we saw mothership in GSL/MLG/DH was when...yea, noone remembers, because mothership is terrible and useless unit and as the level of play rose, it's just not possible for players to fuck around and build MS for the lulz. And it won't change with better acceleration.
Give us BLACK HOLE back and we can talk.
Now I don't want to jump on the hating bandwagon and say blizzard has no idea what they're doing. Their arguments on balance changes pretty much all made sense. But the carrier X mothership dilema? WTF? To be honest I don't think carrier would be used more had they done such a minor buff as in case of MS, but still..
On September 24 2011 00:08 thebole1 wrote: i think 1-1-1 is still problem vs toss... i think reason is wery strong banshy ... or marines need nerf insted of having 45hp to have 40.... but i think banshy need some nerf...
also i whatch vs zerg early banshy can win the game.... u cant do that with void rays or mutas...
really? u cant do that with mutas or void rays? good muta control is one of the most dangerous things in the game lol.....mutas are so incredibly mobile it makes them one of the best units in the game. do u think banshees just micro themselves? cloak costs money u know that right? this is what i mean. NERF MARINE PLS NERF THIS NERF THAT why dont we just nerf the whole game where both players just have to 1a move. yea thats a good idea!
I really, really appreciate Blizzard putting this out. Nothing is more frustrating than not understanding the logic behind a change you don't agree with. Good read
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
i agree with storm not feeling as strong, but collosus in P v T feels absolutely game-changing for both races.
You're missing the point. It's that you can still go bio against colossi. Even once they hit 4+, it just becomes a matter of how well people control their army, upgrades, etc. which is EXACTLY what you want. In BW, you CANNOT go bio except a few specific early all-ins, which means you rarely have to deal with marines, and marines do well against carriers in both games. You can mix marines into your goliaths, but not at the level that you can in SC2.
i've played a lot of carrier games in sc2, and believe it or not, carriers do great against vikings. actually i'm pretty sure one carrier can nearly 1-shot a viking with upgrades.
A +3 carrier still 2 shots a 0 armor viking, with wasted interceptor time. They absorb a lot of damage, but they are not going to do well against a bio/viking army. Colossi have the same problem, but they kill bio faster with AoE and they're 300/200 vs. 450/250, which is a substantial difference.
Plus again, the transition to carrier is nearly impossible, even if bio/viking wasn't good against them. You're basically telegraphing the switch (colossus is 75s, carrier is 120,) which makes it easy to catch and counter, and terran armies are extremely fast and mobile in SC2, compared to a slow mech army in BW that can't completely punish you in that time.
with vikings it becomes more than just bio, and i'd argue that the viking portion of the army is atleast equal in importance to the terran player compared to their bio---a very similar feeling for the protoss player on the other end also. my point really is that it never becomes strictly bio unless the terran is just that much better of a player. mech is just so much better than many of the other options in sc1, but it's not the same deal in sc2 because bio essentially has a second tier of units which are good in all matchups
in a level of play below the pros, if you manage to get to a stage where you're able to have a strong switch into carriers... well... i'm just going to save it, and simply say, the supposed hard counter of -strictly vikings- for an army of -strictly carriers- is not as one sided as normally perceived. there is a lot of time to discover if a small amount of change to the carrier would be enough to make it more of an option at the highest levels of play. who knows, something might sprout eventually to make a carrier build part of the toolbox of builds which a protoss will want to practice, even without a tweak.
You don't go pure vikings. It'll be the exact same thing as TvP vs colossus. That's what I'm trying to say. We're talking about two vastly different types of Protoss armies, one being more expensive and slower to attain, and the Terran's composition response is the same in both cases, and it's more effective against the non-AoE army.
I'm not saying it needs to be changed, because I know it won't. This is just the game we have. I'm saying that's why it was better to buff the mothership, instead of trying to fit the carrier into lategame compositions.
With the barracks build time, I now build my 16th SCV before orbital since it fits in a little bit better with builds overall. Something about having an idlc CC for those few extra seconds seems wrong to me.
On September 24 2011 00:14 Chill wrote: I really, really appreciate Blizzard putting this out. Nothing is more frustrating than not understanding the logic behind a change you don't agree with. Good read
so you're content with the logic provided?
I mean..
"In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership."
In the end, it came down to which unit was going to continue to be terrible and which one might be used in 1/10 games now.
On September 24 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote: You don't go pure vikings. It'll be the exact same thing as TvP vs colossus. That's what I'm trying to say. We're talking about two vastly different types of Protoss armies, one being more expensive and slower to attain, and the Terran's composition response is the same in both cases, and it's more effective against the non-AoE army.
I'm not saying it needs to be changed, because I know it won't. This is just the game we have. I'm saying that's why it was better to buff the mothership, instead of trying to fit the carrier into lategame compositions.
They're really going to have to redesign huge parts of the game to make carriers viable, I agree. The biggest reason they're terrible is the presence of vikings. Another is that they are countered by most of the same units that counter colossi. They're pretty redundant in that sense, and the carrier transition is a non-starter since their counter is already out in the field.
The mothership still brings its own set of problems. A unit that is limited to one doesn't really work in a series like the Starcraft series.
On September 24 2011 00:08 thebole1 wrote: i think 1-1-1 is still problem vs toss... i think reason is wery strong banshy ... or marines need nerf insted of having 45hp to have 40.... but i think banshy need some nerf...
also i whatch vs zerg early banshy can win the game.... u cant do that with void rays or mutas...
not to say 1 game is of any indicator. But that protoss (can't remember his name) convincingly hold off MVP's 1-1-1 earlier today.
It wasn't even a close match. It was one sided slaughter, on one of the best map to execute 1-1-1 on. (crossfire)
without even much zealot assistance (he screwed up, zealots were in the back doing nothing).
immortal buff definitely helped a ton. they were picking off siege tanks left and right
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
Nerf dosn't mean 'remove the ghost' it means nerf. Increase the cost of EMP/snipe, for example.
* Infestor * Fungal Growth damage changed from 36 (47 vs armored) to 30 (40 vs Armored). * Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 7. Infestors were all around too general. Neural Parasite takes care of the more expensive medium size units as well as massive units, Fungal Growth is good vs. small to lower cost medium units, and Infested Terrans were just good for cost vs. anything that doesn’t move out of position. We like the positional-based gameplay Infested Terrans cause, so we decided to look at the other spells instead.
This one was not well thought out. They like the positional-based gameplay of Infested Terrans? What about the fact that most buildings do not move? It's like their balancing team thinks like this: "We like X, so X must be balanced let's move on." Just because the ability has one use does not mean that the other uses should be ignored -_-;;.
They should buff the carrier, too. And it should just be the build time, most players complain they are not viable because of this. So change build time from 120 to 100 (or 90 like battlecruiser).
certainly it's easier to stick to your guns than to continually experiment with a carrier unit mix, but i also think that thought keeps a good deal of players away from even trying. it's not viable now, but i'd like a lot of players to realize that it doesn't mean it won't be viable sometime later. it's obvious i'm trying to be more positive on a broad scale.
i have a strong opinion that the viking isn't [already] the be-all end-all for the carrier...if all that wasnt apparent already either haha. in the first place, it's the interaction of the many different protoss units that makes it bearable in the P v T matchup when terran units can be so cost efficient on the white board. the first thing i hear when the beta kicks off is this marine unit being imba, and it's something i hear when i wake up to a bunch of raging these days too. there are so many friends to whom i try to teach the basics to, for many of them it's much easier to remain grim than to look forward to getting better at how they're playing.
On September 23 2011 10:42 KimJongChill wrote: +5 rax build time is so insignificant, I honestly don't notice any difference on ladder lol.
I feel a big difference. When i play against Terran, as Protoss, i can now get out my probe after doing a gas steal if i build a core-> probe -> assimilator, where i before had to build the gas in his base before the probe.
On September 24 2011 01:03 nanaoei wrote: certainly it's easier to stick to your guns than to continually experiment with a carrier unit mix, but i also think that thought keeps a good deal of players away from even trying. it's not viable now, but i'd like a lot of players to realize that it doesn't mean it won't be viable sometime later. it's obvious i'm trying to be more positive on a broad scale.
i have a strong opinion that the viking isn't [already] the be-all end-all for the carrier...if all that wasnt apparent already either haha. in the first place, it's the interaction of the many different protoss units that makes it bearable in the P v T matchup when terran units can be so cost efficient on the white board. the first thing i hear when the beta kicks off is this marine unit being imba, and it's something i hear when i wake up to a bunch of raging these days too. there are so many friends to whom i try to teach the basics to, for many of them it's much easier to remain grim than to look forward to getting better at how they're playing.
Viking vs Carrier is really similar to Golaith vs Carrier, as Vikings are extremely fragile. And carrier has a very long range, Although Marines rip thru Carriers
On September 24 2011 01:03 nanaoei wrote: certainly it's easier to stick to your guns than to continually experiment with a carrier unit mix, but i also think that thought keeps a good deal of players away from even trying. it's not viable now, but i'd like a lot of players to realize that it doesn't mean it won't be viable sometime later. it's obvious i'm trying to be more positive on a broad scale.
i have a strong opinion that the viking isn't [already] the be-all end-all for the carrier...if all that wasnt apparent already either haha. in the first place, it's the interaction of the many different protoss units that makes it bearable in the P v T matchup when terran units can be so cost efficient on the white board. the first thing i hear when the beta kicks off is this marine unit being imba, and it's something i hear when i wake up to a bunch of raging these days too. there are so many friends to whom i try to teach the basics to, for many of them it's much easier to remain grim than to look forward to getting better at how they're playing.
Viking vs Carrier is really similar to Golaith vs Carrier, as Vikings are extremely fragile. And carrier has a very long range
But Vikings can fly, so Carriers can't, you know, abuse cliffs. Plus air units can stack so its much easier to get a whole volley from a control group of vikings than a similar group of Goliaths.
Not to mention BW Terrans hated having to build Goliaths while SC2 Terrans have to build Vikings to not be raped by Robo tech.
I'm just saying Carriers are a lot less viable in SC2 even though the stats got a buff from BW.
He won't really have Vikings if you have Phoenix from earlier in the game though. And Phoenix openers in PvT are starting to look really good lately.
Sure you can still tech to Colossi+HT after a Stargate opener and taking air superiority, but at that point Carriers are actually more mobile and less vulnerable than ground units, less susceptible to Ghosts, and a more natural transition.
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
The one with the Fantasy Wraiths? Where carriers were the gold =P
On September 24 2011 00:14 Chill wrote: I really, really appreciate Blizzard putting this out. Nothing is more frustrating than not understanding the logic behind a change you don't agree with. Good read
so you're content with the logic provided?
I mean..
"In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership."
In the end, it came down to which unit was going to continue to be terrible and which one might be used in 1/10 games now.
/gamebalanced
I'm content with their logic.
I don't even know against what compositions i should make Carriers. It's the same with BCs. Against what composition would you think "hmm shit i need to tech to BCs / Carriers". They aren't an useful addition to your main army.
A Mothership adds more possibilities to the Protoss in the later game IF they can afford it. With the new acceleration boost it actually becomes more microable, so you'll need Hydras / Corrupters to take it down. A Mothership can potentially add more to the game if it gets buffed than a Carrier. That's the reason the MS got buffed instead of the Carrier.
On September 24 2011 01:37 Talin wrote: He won't really have Vikings if you have Phoenix from earlier in the game though. And Phoenix openers in PvT are starting to look really good lately.
Sure you can still tech to Colossi+HT after a Stargate opener and taking air superiority, but at that point Carriers are actually more mobile and less vulnerable than ground units, less susceptible to Ghosts, and a more natural transition.
Could you elaborate as to how phoenix openers are more attractive now? The only time I've seen good phoenix use was TLO about 4 months ago on his stream, most Stargate openers get Voids for an attempted bust.
On September 23 2011 22:11 Jibba wrote: As for ghosts, I think snipe is more problematic than EMP. For EMP, you could maybe add some mitigation to P shield upgrades, so +3 shields provides 30% mitigation (EMP then does 70 damage.) Snipe though... that ghosts are the appropriate response to Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras seems silly. A full energy ghost does 360 unmitigated damage, and personally, I don't think they should have that much utility against ultralisks and broodlords.
Perhaps that's a bias/misconception from ghosts being bad in BW.
I would rather see EMP turned into more of a standard AOE, with reduced "damage" to shields and mana the farther away from the center. Right now, 100 shields and mana even if the unit is 'nicked" with the AOE seems like to much. Also, crazy range on both snipe and EMP sort of bothers me. It's farther than most of the long range units in the game, with the exception of seige tanks.
I would also like them to be revealed when using their spells while cloaked, even if it as for a few moments. It would remove the "snipe the detector and now I destory our army" aspect of the unit.
Uh... like I said, start with small changes.
And "snipe the detector and then destroy army" is one of the best and tension filled moments in the game. If you're having problems with it, make more detector.
I have tried, but protoss has a very fragil detector, with a limited ability to escape once a scan in dropped. With zerg, snipe deals with the detectors in short order. You can build more, but I would rather be able to save my dector with fast micro than just stockpile them.
The best part about the other cloaked units is they cannot attack the opponents detectors. I don't like that the ghost can.
Watch the latest OSL final g5 to see how beautiful the detector game can be. Removing that for the sake of ease would be shameful.
The one with the Fantasy Wraiths? Where carriers were the gold =P
On September 24 2011 01:37 Talin wrote: He won't really have Vikings if you have Phoenix from earlier in the game though. And Phoenix openers in PvT are starting to look really good lately.
Sure you can still tech to Colossi+HT after a Stargate opener and taking air superiority, but at that point Carriers are actually more mobile and less vulnerable than ground units, less susceptible to Ghosts, and a more natural transition.
Could you elaborate as to how phoenix openers are more attractive now? The only time I've seen good phoenix use was TLO about 4 months ago on his stream, most Stargate openers get Voids for an attempted bust.
Watch HerO vs MKP from the gview finals. Two of the games that panned out to be long macro games HerO 1G expanded and went for Phoenix, while MKP went for standard bio composition with Ghosts (one game he went more aggressive, other game less so).
You can play defensive while getting perfect scouting, denying drops and regularly sniping Medivacs that are with the main army as well, keeping Medivac count low at all times.
You can also shut down cloak Banshees with well timed build by catching Banshees in production or as they pop out, either killing them, delaying them and/or forcing them to cloak prematurely (I saw this on Tyler's stream).
I do have a feeling it's very spawn position / map dependant though. I always open Phoenix on maps with ramp to the natural now.
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
because as long as viking has 9 range n flies, carriers will continue to fail at its current build time and cost. they probably decided it was easier to buff mothership into something potentially useful super late game as oppose to be useless buff on the carrier just for the hell of it
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
Yeah, this. I think Neural was fine it just shouldn't get the Mothership. In all honesty, this patch looks fucking awesome.
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
That sounds extremely odd. Why not make both units viable? What's the point of having units that arent viable to begin with?
Well, that aside, it's probably the most well-reasoned patch in a long time. I don't especially like the changes from a gameplay perspective, but balance-wise they're not extremely bad.
Although the Immortal change, I feel, does alter other parts of the game more than the 1/1/1 defense. You don't actually want Immortals to defend the all-in, you just make them because you already needed to build the Robo for observers. If anything, the buff makes Immortal/Stalker/Sentry aggression from a 2 gate Robo against Terran fast expansions better, which is a good thing, but not exactly when they wanted to achieve apparently.
And it's not like there are any Ghost changes, or anything that helps scouting Terran early, so TvP will continue to be Terran favored at the highest level.
On September 24 2011 01:37 Talin wrote: He won't really have Vikings if you have Phoenix from earlier in the game though. And Phoenix openers in PvT are starting to look really good lately.
Sure you can still tech to Colossi+HT after a Stargate opener and taking air superiority, but at that point Carriers are actually more mobile and less vulnerable than ground units, less susceptible to Ghosts, and a more natural transition.
Could you elaborate as to how phoenix openers are more attractive now? The only time I've seen good phoenix use was TLO about 4 months ago on his stream, most Stargate openers get Voids for an attempted bust.
Watch HerO vs MKP from the gview finals. Two of the games that panned out to be long macro games HerO 1G expanded and went for Phoenix, while MKP went for standard bio composition with Ghosts (one game he went more aggressive, other game less so).
You can play defensive while getting perfect scouting, denying drops and regularly sniping Medivacs that are with the main army as well, keeping Medivac count low at all times.
You can also shut down cloak Banshees with well timed build by catching Banshees in production or as they pop out, either killing them, delaying them and/or forcing them to cloak prematurely (I saw this on Tyler's stream).
I do have a feeling it's very spawn position / map dependant though. I always open Phoenix on maps with ramp to the natural now.
Don't you just die to something like 1 rax FE into Ghost rush, with a Phoenix opening? Even on a map like Shakuras?
On September 23 2011 22:45 Plexa wrote: People bitching about motherships have no idea just how useful they are in pvz - even during this infestor crazy time.
Yeah...
Pretty sure the people who are complaining about Motherships being bad haven't really played this game for that long or don't play it at all
Way back when Voidray/Colossus was the "in" thing to do, most Protoss would routinely go for Motherships--including me, the unit is fucking amazing.
Personally I think it might even be a tab bit overpowered without the 9range Neural 0o
No...just no. Mothership was occassionaly used months ago when players tried to be cute, kiwi used it more..but he stopped. Everyone did. The last time we saw mothership in GSL/MLG/DH was when...yea, noone remembers, because mothership is terrible and useless unit and as the level of play rose, it's just not possible for players to fuck around and build MS for the lulz. And it won't change with better acceleration.
Give us BLACK HOLE back and we can talk.
Now I don't want to jump on the hating bandwagon and say blizzard has no idea what they're doing. Their arguments on balance changes pretty much all made sense. But the carrier X mothership dilema? WTF? To be honest I don't think carrier would be used more had they done such a minor buff as in case of MS, but still..
Giving Mothership Black Hole would be ridiculous. The unit is so gosh darn strong.
People stopped using them because it is ridiculously expensive and difficult to get them out.
When PvZ was roach/hydra/Corruptor Protoss had a lot more breathing room, so I could get the odd Mothership out from time to time, but these days with Infestors, Banes and High eco Ultra's you feel so constricted and starved for resources--it is kinda hard to work it into your play.
But from my own personal experiences with the unit, it is FAR from gimmicky and an army with a Mothership is soo much Stronger than an army without one, at least in PvZ.
There is a lot about the unit that is unexplored. Right now may not be the best time to use it considering PvZ can be quite hard but sooner or later when Protos find their rhythm, people will start to work them into their play again...
I refuse to believe there is a single competent Protoss player who has used Mothership more than a few times in PvZ that thinks it is uesless/garbage
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
because as long as viking has 9 range n flies, carriers will continue to fail at its current build time and cost. they probably decided it was easier to buff mothership into something potentially useful super late game as oppose to be useless buff on the carrier just for the hell of it
Actually carriers trade very cost efficiently with Vikings, but yeah buff or no buff on the current metagame Carriers will still be useless. Although I think they could use a build time decrease though I don´t know if 2 base carrier like Mana did in some games against Zerg would break the MU XD
On September 23 2011 20:31 amazingxkcd wrote: Carriers vs Mothership? What? What? What? Seriously, they are just balancing towards bronze league, because mothership will never be viable
As difficult as it is to reach the Mothership, it's still got good utility and is more practical than carriers.
It's sad, but SC2 is just not made for carriers. There's no way to really micro/protect them, and they're too vulnerable as an armored flying unit at that cost. Colossi have the same problems, but the investment towards colossi is a lot less and they're more effective. Even though carriers have the highest DPS, their killing power is actually less because they don't have AoE and they don't do instant damage, so they're not as effective at killing small units.
In BW, reavers and storm are such a hard counter to MM, so T is forced into mech. In SC2, colossi and storm aren't that strong (which is why bio still thrives against them) and marines do great against carriers. So do vikings and corruptors and hydras.
They can be marginal in vZ (although again, they're still weaker at killing large numbers of small units which is basically = zerg) and T would just eat them up.
Like I said, SC2 is not for carriers.
Also, David Kim doesn't know what 'metagame' is. >.>
In their current form yeah. They're nothing like they are in SC1. Weaker attack (~half the DPS). No interceptor heal. No lingering interceptors when you move the carriers (or at least it's harder to keep them out). -2 armor. I'll let having to research graviton catapult as being the same as researching interceptor capacity.
I remember when Blizzard was asked why the carrier had 4 armor... they responded by saying they didn't pull the 4 out of their ass. I just think David Kim played too much terran in BW and has nightmares. 4 armor could help mitigate marine and viking attacks more.
I think carriers would need so much work for just a patch. We might see larger sweeping changes in the expansions. It's not impossible to make them work. They DO sort of work now.
Them saying they would like to see more strategies out of the mothership after having said it's just a garbage casual unit is a pretty good sign of things to come.
Remember, ultralisks in SC1 were terrible. Until in BW they got their upgrades that made them good. Maybe we might see that for the carrier. I can hope anyway.
On September 23 2011 22:45 Plexa wrote: People bitching about motherships have no idea just how useful they are in pvz - even during this infestor crazy time.
Yeah...
Pretty sure the people who are complaining about Motherships being bad haven't really played this game for that long or don't play it at all
Way back when Voidray/Colossus was the "in" thing to do, most Protoss would routinely go for Motherships--including me, the unit is fucking amazing.
Personally I think it might even be a tab bit overpowered without the 9range Neural 0o
No...just no. Mothership was occassionaly used months ago when players tried to be cute, kiwi used it more..but he stopped. Everyone did. The last time we saw mothership in GSL/MLG/DH was when...yea, noone remembers, because mothership is terrible and useless unit and as the level of play rose, it's just not possible for players to fuck around and build MS for the lulz. And it won't change with better acceleration.
Give us BLACK HOLE back and we can talk.
Now I don't want to jump on the hating bandwagon and say blizzard has no idea what they're doing. Their arguments on balance changes pretty much all made sense. But the carrier X mothership dilema? WTF? To be honest I don't think carrier would be used more had they done such a minor buff as in case of MS, but still..
Giving Mothership Black Hole would be ridiculous. The unit is so gosh darn strong.
People stopped using them because it is ridiculously expensive and difficult to get them out.
When PvZ was roach/hydra/Corruptor Protoss had a lot more breathing room, so I could get the odd Mothership out from time to time, but these days with Infestors, Banes and High eco Ultra's you feel so constricted and starved for resources--it is kinda hard to work it into your play.
But from my own personal experiences with the unit, it is FAR from gimmicky and an army with a Mothership is soo much Stronger than an army without one, at least in PvZ.
There is a lot about the unit that is unexplored. Right now may not be the best time to use it considering PvZ can be quite hard but sooner or later when Protos find their rhythm, people will start to work them into their play again...
I refuse to believe there is a single competent Protoss player who has used Mothership more than a few times in PvZ that thinks it is uesless/garbage
Agreed - the Mothership is extremely powerful in PvZ (in most situations). I used to get it quite often to vortex Broods, but then the Infestor came along and shit all over my Mothership-oriented late game strategies. I look forward to using it with the NP nerf.
On September 23 2011 12:49 BrosephBrostar wrote: How can people possibly think hellions lead to boring games after watching MVP vs TOP on Daybreak? They made that missile better, but are people even going to make ravens anymore if the meta goes back to marines?
Sorry, couldn't tell you because I haven't watched that game. ^^
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
because as long as viking has 9 range n flies, carriers will continue to fail at its current build time and cost. they probably decided it was easier to buff mothership into something potentially useful super late game as oppose to be useless buff on the carrier just for the hell of it
Actually carriers trade very cost efficiently with Vikings, but yeah buff or no buff on the current metagame Carriers will still be useless. Although I think they could use a build time decrease though I don´t know if 2 base carrier like Mana did in some games against Zerg would break the MU XD
ya they do but problem is is that terran can mass vikings much quicker then carriers. Its not that carriers cant handle vikings cost for cost, its that with every carrier produced potentially 6 vikings can be built out of a reactor starport
Kinda annoyed with the choice of mothership over carriers buff....thought this was appropriate
The Immortal change is excellent and very well thought out. As others have said, the 1-1-1 does not work without siege tanks, and if Immortals can get in range of Tanks they bring them down incredible quickly. When combined with the buff to guardian shield (it now works on splash damage like tank shots, and also stacks with the Immortal's hardened shields to reduce max damage to 8), any of the several 1-1-1 defense builds which relies on Immortals will be significantly buffed. And yet, because Immortals are countered in all cases by the most basic units in the game (Zealots, Marines, Lings), no player will ever start simply massing Immortals. And lastly, the Immortal buff also gives Immortals the same range as unupgraded Colossi, which means racing to Colossi and then trying to mass them on one base will no longer make sense as a PvP endgame--goodbye, war of the worlds, ye shall not be missed.
The Warp Prism buff is similarly appropriate, since it was indeed a unit made near-useless primarily by extreme fragility.
The Mothership buff is pretty minor I feel. Motherships aren't 100% useless--they aren't something you build to as a primary gameplan, but in the extreme lategame when supply can be important than resources, they can be crazily supply efficient. And they're cool in a way, because they make every game they appear in more exciting, like spotting a rare endangered species that just happens to warp spacetime. But...acceleration never struck me as much of an issue for using them for that purpose, and I don't see how this expands their purpose in any way. Stargate tech remains, if not a dead end, then a highway undergoing extreme roadwork--it starts smooth, then you hit a loong stretch where you can very easily die as you try to negotiate your way to the other side (the other side, in this case is having fully upgraded fleet beacon units actually out on the field). That reason Blizzard gave for why they buffed Ultralisks, it seems like Zerg die a lot before they pop? Well, that reason would exist for Protoss players and Fleet Beacon tech...except their cost is so prohibitive that we don't build them at all in 99% of games. Fleet Beacon tech wishes it was as easy to incorporate into builds as Ultralisks.
On September 23 2011 22:45 Plexa wrote: People bitching about motherships have no idea just how useful they are in pvz - even during this infestor crazy time.
Yeah...
Pretty sure the people who are complaining about Motherships being bad haven't really played this game for that long or don't play it at all
Way back when Voidray/Colossus was the "in" thing to do, most Protoss would routinely go for Motherships--including me, the unit is fucking amazing.
Personally I think it might even be a tab bit overpowered without the 9range Neural 0o
No...just no. Mothership was occassionaly used months ago when players tried to be cute, kiwi used it more..but he stopped. Everyone did. The last time we saw mothership in GSL/MLG/DH was when...yea, noone remembers, because mothership is terrible and useless unit and as the level of play rose, it's just not possible for players to fuck around and build MS for the lulz. And it won't change with better acceleration.
Give us BLACK HOLE back and we can talk.
Now I don't want to jump on the hating bandwagon and say blizzard has no idea what they're doing. Their arguments on balance changes pretty much all made sense. But the carrier X mothership dilema? WTF? To be honest I don't think carrier would be used more had they done such a minor buff as in case of MS, but still..
Giving Mothership Black Hole would be ridiculous. The unit is so gosh darn strong.
People stopped using them because it is ridiculously expensive and difficult to get them out.
When PvZ was roach/hydra/Corruptor Protoss had a lot more breathing room, so I could get the odd Mothership out from time to time, but these days with Infestors, Banes and High eco Ultra's you feel so constricted and starved for resources--it is kinda hard to work it into your play.
But from my own personal experiences with the unit, it is FAR from gimmicky and an army with a Mothership is soo much Stronger than an army without one, at least in PvZ.
There is a lot about the unit that is unexplored. Right now may not be the best time to use it considering PvZ can be quite hard but sooner or later when Protos find their rhythm, people will start to work them into their play again...
I refuse to believe there is a single competent Protoss player who has used Mothership more than a few times in PvZ that thinks it is uesless/garbage
Maybe protoss players thought that.
But probably has more to do with Blizzard coming right out and saying it sucks and it's supposed to be that way-"deal with it". Why would you want to try to make something that was designed to not work work?
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
Not sure what reality you live in, but I always found bio/mech much harder to play than hellion/tank.
On September 24 2011 01:03 nanaoei wrote: certainly it's easier to stick to your guns than to continually experiment with a carrier unit mix, but i also think that thought keeps a good deal of players away from even trying. it's not viable now, but i'd like a lot of players to realize that it doesn't mean it won't be viable sometime later. it's obvious i'm trying to be more positive on a broad scale.
i have a strong opinion that the viking isn't [already] the be-all end-all for the carrier...if all that wasnt apparent already either haha. in the first place, it's the interaction of the many different protoss units that makes it bearable in the P v T matchup when terran units can be so cost efficient on the white board. the first thing i hear when the beta kicks off is this marine unit being imba, and it's something i hear when i wake up to a bunch of raging these days too. there are so many friends to whom i try to teach the basics to, for many of them it's much easier to remain grim than to look forward to getting better at how they're playing.
Viking vs Carrier is really similar to Golaith vs Carrier, as Vikings are extremely fragile. And carrier has a very long range
But Vikings can fly, so Carriers can't, you know, abuse cliffs. Plus air units can stack so its much easier to get a whole volley from a control group of vikings than a similar group of Goliaths.
Not to mention BW Terrans hated having to build Goliaths while SC2 Terrans have to build Vikings to not be raped by Robo tech.
I'm just saying Carriers are a lot less viable in SC2 even though the stats got a buff from BW.
Exactly. Part of the power of the carrier in BW was the ability for toss to abuse cliffs with good carrier positioning. And to also abuse the horrible pathing of the goliath. :D
I think blizz just wants Protoss to go colossus death ball every game. They don't care about carriers, blink time is increased, neural parasite is now pretty much useless vs colossus, and ghosts still haven't been nerfed.
There's no reason I should ever go anything other than colossus. Such a dynamic game....
On September 24 2011 03:58 happyness wrote: I think blizz just wants Protoss to go colossus death ball every game. They don't care about carriers, blink time is increased, neural parasite is now pretty much useless vs colossus, and ghosts still haven't been nerfed.
There's no reason I should ever go anything other than colossus. Such a dynamic game....
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
because as long as viking has 9 range n flies, carriers will continue to fail at its current build time and cost. they probably decided it was easier to buff mothership into something potentially useful super late game as oppose to be useless buff on the carrier just for the hell of it
Actually carriers trade very cost efficiently with Vikings, but yeah buff or no buff on the current metagame Carriers will still be useless. Although I think they could use a build time decrease though I don´t know if 2 base carrier like Mana did in some games against Zerg would break the MU XD
Yea, well, I think we have to take build time into account when we conceptualize trading efficiently.
Waiting on carriers to build makes toss vulnerable (if you've got two carriers cued up in two stargazes, thats 12 supply that isn't in your main army for two minutes.
tl'dr Building carriers ties up a lot of supply for a long period of time, making toss vulnerable, not only until they pop, but also until they've had time to build up their interceptors.
On September 24 2011 03:58 happyness wrote: I think blizz just wants Protoss to go colossus death ball every game. They don't care about carriers, blink time is increased, neural parasite is now pretty much useless vs colossus, and ghosts still haven't been nerfed.
There's no reason I should ever go anything other than colossus. Such a dynamic game....
So you were okay with high templar every PvZ?
Before the patch coloosus were still good in PvZ, even if in the meta game they weren't being used much. And I do like HT's much better than colossus, they are a more fun unit to use and much more fun to watch, and I'd rather have the game be good from a spectator perspective than from my playing.
What I would like to see is the option for protoss air other than the early game, but obviously blizz doesnt give a shit about the carrier, they'd rather have the cheesy mothership have a slight buff.
I kinda do like the mothership change because motherships are ridiculously good in PvZ and surprisingly enough, PvP in the 1/1000 chance it actually makes it there.
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
because as long as viking has 9 range n flies, carriers will continue to fail at its current build time and cost. they probably decided it was easier to buff mothership into something potentially useful super late game as oppose to be useless buff on the carrier just for the hell of it
Actually carriers trade very cost efficiently with Vikings, but yeah buff or no buff on the current metagame Carriers will still be useless. Although I think they could use a build time decrease though I don´t know if 2 base carrier like Mana did in some games against Zerg would break the MU XD
Yea, well, I think we have to take build time into account when we conceptualize trading efficiently.
Waiting on carriers to build makes toss vulnerable (if you've got two carriers cued up in two stargazes, thats 12 supply that isn't in your main army for two minutes.
tl'dr Building carriers ties up a lot of supply for a long period of time, making toss vulnerable, not only until they pop, but also until they've had time to build up their interceptors.
Well in BW they took 140s to complete and no chrono boost too. So I don't think it's entirely that they take too long.
I think people are overestimating the influence of vikings. Colossus also get countered by vikings. But we still make colossus. Because colossus are good.
In BW they took long to make. Difference being that, in a vacuum, they are good. And even considering the environment they were in, they still are good.
Well first of all I really like the patch but the Neural Parasite change.
The explanation of the Neural change is pretty odd in my eyes. It looks pretty artificial to call it "an increase in decision making" ...
On the one hand I like that Blizzard is thinking about Motherships and Carriers, on the other hand I wonder why they dont buff them both to get both into the game... Carriers are pretty much impossible to micro (compared to BW) and do cost sooooo much due to the consistent cost of the interceptors...
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: I feel like Blizzard just keeps thinking "O hey, we haven't seen unit x in games enough, let's BUFF THEM so people could use them more!"
I don't think this is a good approach to game balance. It also caters a lot more to casuals than people playing the game at a competitive level.
On the other hand it leads to more diversity in play, giving players more options to experiment and gives opposing players more things to think about and prepare against.
On September 24 2011 00:14 Chill wrote: I really, really appreciate Blizzard putting this out. Nothing is more frustrating than not understanding the logic behind a change you don't agree with. Good read
so you're content with the logic provided?
I mean..
"In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership."
In the end, it came down to which unit was going to continue to be terrible and which one might be used in 1/10 games now.
/gamebalanced
I'm content with their logic.
I don't even know against what compositions i should make Carriers. It's the same with BCs. Against what composition would you think "hmm shit i need to tech to BCs / Carriers". They aren't an useful addition to your main army.
A Mothership adds more possibilities to the Protoss in the later game IF they can afford it. With the new acceleration boost it actually becomes more microable, so you'll need Hydras / Corrupters to take it down. A Mothership can potentially add more to the game if it gets buffed than a Carrier. That's the reason the MS got buffed instead of the Carrier.
I agree with this guy, the Mothership buff is all around more flexible than buffing Carriers, besides making the Mothership more viable is also an indirect buff to Carriers.
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: I feel like Blizzard just keeps thinking "O hey, we haven't seen unit x in games enough, let's BUFF THEM so people could use them more!"
I don't think this is a good approach to game balance. It also caters a lot more to casuals than people playing the game at a competitive level.
It's actually a great approach, if BW has taught us anything. Instead of limiting options, so the game plays out according to the designers' preconceived notions, it's better to give the players more tools, so that they can look for a solution themselves. It actually made me rage when their rationale for the Thor nerf was "we don't like seeing Thors being massed"; that's just such a retarded reason to make the game less interesting.
Look at Protoss and Zerg, with their "this is unit X, and you should get it in situation Y" philosophy, and then look at Terran, with "this is unit X, look at how much cool stuff you can do with it!". Which seems better to you? Which do you prefer, PvP, or TvT(let's put Code S aside for the purpose of this comparison)? Clearly, a design that focuses on options, rather than purposes, makes for more interesting gameplay, and a more fun game in general.
So yeah, it's awesome that they're buffing the Immortal and the Warp Prism. Not so awesome they're nerfing the Infestor, why not buff HTs instead?
but in TvT there is a clear cut to tech to Viking Battlecruiser.
The Meta for TvT is that Mech => Air Ghost composition that relies heavily on Cruisers as a central unit, so unlike carriers Cruisers do have that metagame role in at least one of the match ups
I've played more than 75 games on the PTR ladder, participated heavily in the PTR discussion and I feel right now that it was a complete and utter waste of time. I have honestly never been more disappointed with Blizzard then I am now after reading that post.
They couldn't buff both the Carrier and the Mothership? They don't understand how strong/weak Ultralisks are because no one uses them? They want Mech to be balanced vs Bio, but they don't realize how powerful Marines are, and that they are the center piece of Terran? I mean, you build Tanks to protect your Marines (from Banes), not the otherway around, build Vikings to protect your Marines (from Colossus), build Ghosts to protect your Marines from casters...
Blizzard really feels this game needs only very slight tweaks to make it perfect, and I think most people disagree. A slight tweak like increased Mothership acceleration will do almost nothing to effect the balance of the game.
I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me just say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
On September 24 2011 05:31 BronzeKnee wrote: I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
I need to stop now.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Ultralisks do have their uses. In some cases, an Ultralisk is far better than a Brood Lord.
- An Ultralisk can be used with a Nydus. A Brood Lord cannot. - An Ultralisk builds far faster than a Brood Lord and requires fewer resources in tech. - An Ultralisk allows your entire force to be much more mobile. You don't have to wait for your Brood Lords to attack. - An Ultralisk can be part of a doom drop. A Brood Lord cannot. - If you have the luxury of Brood Lord and Ultralisk tech, switching between both Ultralisks and Brood Lords gives you an enormous advantage on the battlefield and champions Zerg's strength of very rapid tech switching. - An Ultralisk cannot be stunned or mind controlled. A Brood Lord can. - An Ultralisk benefits from creep spread. A Brood Lord does not.
On September 24 2011 05:31 BronzeKnee wrote: I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
I need to stop now.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Ultralisks do have their uses. In some cases, an Ultralisk is far better than a Brood Lord.
- An Ultralisk can be used with a Nydus. A Brood Lord cannot. - An Ultralisk builds far faster than a Brood Lord and requires fewer resources in tech. - An Ultralisk allows your entire force to be much more mobile. You don't have to wait for your Brood Lords to attack. - An Ultralisk can be part of a doom drop. A Brood Lord cannot. - If you have the luxury of Brood Lord and Ultralisk tech, switching between both Ultralisks and Brood Lords gives you an enormous advantage on the battlefield and champions Zerg's strength of very rapid tech switching. - An Ultralisk cannot be stunned or mind controlled. A Brood Lord can. - An Ultralisk benefits from creep spread. A Brood Lord does not.
The list of benefits you generated is misleading. I could generate a similar list to propose making Carriers over Colossus, naming all the advantages, but it wouldn't make Carriers more viable.
The fact is, Ultralisks are easy to counter. Immortals smash them and Archons also go toe to toe with Ultralisks effectively. Void Rays are also decent against them Chances are incredibly high the Protoss has access to at least one of these units late game (not to mention that Zealots trade cost effectively against Ultralisks). Same thing with Ultralisk vs Terran due to the accessibility of Tanks, Marauders, and even Thors.
Broods obviously have counters too, but because they don't have to get close to their opponent (ie they aren't melee) they aren't quite as easy to stop, and are much easier to protect. Also they will have much better retention in engagements since they aren't a front line tanking units like Ultras.
That said, tech switching between the two can be incredibly powerful as you stated. But often times in the professional games I watch, Zerg players just stick with the Brood Lords, and it works just fine for them. Ultralisks seem to work best when they completely surprise an opponent, rather than being an intergral part of the late game Zerg army. And this make sense, since they can be hard countered so easily and can't rely on micro tactics to help them do more damage or keep them alive (as Brood Lords can when being protected by Infestors/Mutas/Corrupters/Hydras) since they are melee units. Ultralisks are in fact the defintion of an A-move unit.
So while building Ultralisks can cause a Zerg player to lose the game outright if their opponent is prepared, Broods allow Zerg to build a force that is tricky to deal with even the Protoss or Terran build the supposed "counter" because they just aren't an A-move unit that has no potential for micro.
Yayay from david kim himself! It seems like the syntax and diction is different from previous reports.
Also, the cost between creating one Overseer for scouting purposes vs. purchasing the Overlord speed upgrade for all Overlords didn’t seem to differ enough.
Ah, good point. Didn't realize that. I wonder why so many got overseers over speed. Perhaps cus it was just faster and + contaminate.
Carrier or Mothership? That's sad. Why not help them both out a little xD
Oh yeah, David Kim didn't address Air in TvT perhaps he is undecided about it, or not sure if it should be a priority right now for balance. Or he feels it is good enough, and that bio vs mech was the only thing that needed to be adjusted.
About the hellions killing 20 workers. Well tbh in TvT it didn't matter that much, you see pro games and lots of scvs die, but it doesn't seem to do that much damage, since TvT is slow and you can just rebuild your workers as long as you hold the line. But I guess it can't hurt, they were used too much.
Thanks situation report :D
Though the 5 sec on the rax to me is still lulz xD
Edit:
WHOA just noticed.
* David Kim is a game designer for StarCraft II and owns a Baneling pet in real life.
He just revealed that he is a game designer, not just a balancer. Or perhaps he is just saying design in a general sense T_T
On September 24 2011 05:31 BronzeKnee wrote: I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
I need to stop now.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Ultralisks do have their uses. In some cases, an Ultralisk is far better than a Brood Lord.
- An Ultralisk can be used with a Nydus. A Brood Lord cannot. - An Ultralisk builds far faster than a Brood Lord and requires fewer resources in tech. - An Ultralisk allows your entire force to be much more mobile. You don't have to wait for your Brood Lords to attack. - An Ultralisk can be part of a doom drop. A Brood Lord cannot. - If you have the luxury of Brood Lord and Ultralisk tech, switching between both Ultralisks and Brood Lords gives you an enormous advantage on the battlefield and champions Zerg's strength of very rapid tech switching. - An Ultralisk cannot be stunned or mind controlled. A Brood Lord can. - An Ultralisk benefits from creep spread. A Brood Lord does not.
Vs Terran, Ultras can be very good since you'll usually have a ton of melee upgrades so ultras usually come out at least with 2/2 which cannot be said of Brood Lords (I've never see a Zerg with 2 spires upgrading).
On September 24 2011 05:31 BronzeKnee wrote: I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
I need to stop now.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Ultralisks do have their uses. In some cases, an Ultralisk is far better than a Brood Lord.
- An Ultralisk can be used with a Nydus. A Brood Lord cannot. - An Ultralisk builds far faster than a Brood Lord and requires fewer resources in tech. - An Ultralisk allows your entire force to be much more mobile. You don't have to wait for your Brood Lords to attack. - An Ultralisk can be part of a doom drop. A Brood Lord cannot. - If you have the luxury of Brood Lord and Ultralisk tech, switching between both Ultralisks and Brood Lords gives you an enormous advantage on the battlefield and champions Zerg's strength of very rapid tech switching. - An Ultralisk cannot be stunned or mind controlled. A Brood Lord can. - An Ultralisk benefits from creep spread. A Brood Lord does not.
Vs Terran, Ultras can be very good since you'll usually have a ton of melee upgrades so ultras usually come out at least with 2/2 which cannot be said of Brood Lords (I've never see a Zerg with 2 spires upgrading).
You do realize that broodlings use melee upgrades right? And that broodlords aren't affected by air upgrades (as far as I know)
On September 24 2011 05:31 BronzeKnee wrote: I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
I need to stop now.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Ultralisks do have their uses. In some cases, an Ultralisk is far better than a Brood Lord.
- An Ultralisk can be used with a Nydus. A Brood Lord cannot. - An Ultralisk builds far faster than a Brood Lord and requires fewer resources in tech. - An Ultralisk allows your entire force to be much more mobile. You don't have to wait for your Brood Lords to attack. - An Ultralisk can be part of a doom drop. A Brood Lord cannot. - If you have the luxury of Brood Lord and Ultralisk tech, switching between both Ultralisks and Brood Lords gives you an enormous advantage on the battlefield and champions Zerg's strength of very rapid tech switching. - An Ultralisk cannot be stunned or mind controlled. A Brood Lord can. - An Ultralisk benefits from creep spread. A Brood Lord does not.
Vs Terran, Ultras can be very good since you'll usually have a ton of melee upgrades so ultras usually come out at least with 2/2 which cannot be said of Brood Lords (I've never see a Zerg with 2 spires upgrading).
You do realize that broodlings use melee upgrades right? And that broodlords aren't affected by air upgrades (as far as I know)
they are affected by both air (the actual missile) and land (broodlings).
I agree completely with Bronzeknee btw. Ultras are just a surprise unit really.
On September 24 2011 05:31 BronzeKnee wrote: I could write a huge post, but I won't. Let me say one more thing, if they spent some time thinking about it, they would realize that Ultralisks aren't being used because they aren't good (or at least, not viable due to their tech tree positioning, poor pathing, and also being so easy to counter via Marauders and Immortals), not that they are good just not used. People play this game for a living, I'd say they would take the time to figure out what units are good and viable, and which aren't. Ultralisks are easier to get now, but they still aren't as good as Brood Lords late game, and the choice between the two is still easy. In fact, you'll note all the unused expensive massive units simply are too easy to counter to make them viable, which is why they are unused.
I need to stop now.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Ultralisks do have their uses. In some cases, an Ultralisk is far better than a Brood Lord.
- An Ultralisk can be used with a Nydus. A Brood Lord cannot. - An Ultralisk builds far faster than a Brood Lord and requires fewer resources in tech. - An Ultralisk allows your entire force to be much more mobile. You don't have to wait for your Brood Lords to attack. - An Ultralisk can be part of a doom drop. A Brood Lord cannot. - If you have the luxury of Brood Lord and Ultralisk tech, switching between both Ultralisks and Brood Lords gives you an enormous advantage on the battlefield and champions Zerg's strength of very rapid tech switching. - An Ultralisk cannot be stunned or mind controlled. A Brood Lord can. - An Ultralisk benefits from creep spread. A Brood Lord does not.
Vs Terran, Ultras can be very good since you'll usually have a ton of melee upgrades so ultras usually come out at least with 2/2 which cannot be said of Brood Lords (I've never see a Zerg with 2 spires upgrading).
You do realize that broodlings use melee upgrades right? And that broodlords aren't affected by air upgrades (as far as I know)
The initial broodling attack is affected by air attack, rest is melee, still melee upgrades are much better to have for broodlords
I love carriers, want to play it and tried a lot in my ladder game vs Zerg. But still so sad that they die so quickly against corruptors And every damn zerg vs that strat always pm me after the game and bm me just b/c I tried a new strat that involve Mothership and carriers... This's sad as hell.
On September 23 2011 10:49 askTeivospy wrote: choosing to buff mothership over carriers when they were debating it in order to get a unit that you never see into the limelight more is almost as sad as someone pointlessly bragging about calling something that was obviously going to happen given it always happens with patches ._>
Periods, young padawan. Official blizzard opinions? Nonsense!!
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: I feel like Blizzard just keeps thinking "O hey, we haven't seen unit x in games enough, let's BUFF THEM so people could use them more!"
I don't think this is a good approach to game balance. It also caters a lot more to casuals than people playing the game at a competitive level.
It's actually a great approach, if BW has taught us anything. Instead of limiting options, so the game plays out according to the designers' preconceived notions, it's better to give the players more tools, so that they can look for a solution themselves. It actually made me rage when their rationale for the Thor nerf was "we don't like seeing Thors being massed"; that's just such a retarded reason to make the game less interesting.
Look at Protoss and Zerg, with their "this is unit X, and you should get it in situation Y" philosophy, and then look at Terran, with "this is unit X, look at how much cool stuff you can do with it!". Which seems better to you? Which do you prefer, PvP, or TvT(let's put Code S aside for the purpose of this comparison)? Clearly, a design that focuses on options, rather than purposes, makes for more interesting gameplay, and a more fun game in general.
So yeah, it's awesome that they're buffing the Immortal and the Warp Prism. Not so awesome they're nerfing the Infestor, why not buff HTs instead?
It comes out as a balance of both.
For example Science Vessels Irradiate was to take out key units.
Then you had Scourge to take out key air units like the Science Vessel.
Then you had generalist units like the Marine to defend the Science Vessel against Scourge.
People then found out you could irradiate your own Science Vessels and use it as an "eraser" to AoE lots of small units like drones.
These are all units with a purpose, but also with a ton of options.
Compare this to let's say the Immortal, where they are designed to counter 1 unit and HARD, the Siege Tank. You can't micro the Immortal against Tanks because of clumped pathing, but then again who cares they absorb all the damage anyways and do 50 damage.
You also have the Mothership, Void Ray, 9 Range Colossus, Chargelots, Pheonix, which are already all good at killing or nullifying Siege Tanks and you have one messed up race.
Terran is better than the other races because of what you said, but then they somehow completely missed the "purpose" part. So now you have creative combinations of units that because they have a lot of options, can almost fill any role. Which is great but, in the certain stages of the game it makes things very difficult or very weird.
For example we use Ghosts to take out Infestors. Ghosts were never designed that way, its just that they had so many options, however Science Vessel Irradiate would make much more sense (or HSM could one shot 1 unit at 9 range for 75 energy). Ghosts don't really fill the role of anti-specialist unit, they just ended up that way, and that's why it doesn't do the job quite that well, and it feels really weird.
Other examples like Reapers and Hellions fill the exact same role, there is nothing like Valkyries or Irradiate to counter mass-mass muta, etc.
Of course this means the other races should also have units that will give them options against these stronger compositions (such as scourge), but then on the strategy part of the game it will be a lot more deep while improving the more dice-roll nature of SC2, and also making the game a lot more dynamic.
Instead its nerf this nerf that, rather than providing the races with better options. Instead of nerfing the infestor, Blizzard could have buffed HSM much more in order to deal with mass infestor.
In summary you need units with a purpose and with options, but it seems SC2 just went for one or the other.
On September 23 2011 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Didn't Blizzard say that they intended the Mothership to be a unit for Bronze players to mess around with? And yet they buffed it instead of the Carrier? Incredible.
Same reason they nerfed the hellion. They want the game to be easy. Thats why they want bio to be viable in TvT, because Mech TvT takes skill.
What the fuck? I think consistent bio tvt takes skill.
I can mech way better than I can bio. Mech is the smart players option, bio is MMA's option.
[QUOTE]On September 24 2011 09:58 sluggaslamoo wrote: [QUOTE]On September 24 2011 05:15 Toadvine wrote: [QUOTE]On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: Ghosts don't really fill the role of anti-specialist unit, they just ended up that way, and that's why it doesn't do the job quite that well, and it feels really weird.[/QUOTE] I dont even know what to say. Every ghost ability screams anti specialist.
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: Ghosts don't really fill the role of anti-specialist unit, they just ended up that way, and that's why it doesn't do the job quite that well, and it feels really weird.
I dont even know what to say. Every ghost ability screams anti specialist.
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: I feel like Blizzard just keeps thinking "O hey, we haven't seen unit x in games enough, let's BUFF THEM so people could use them more!"
I don't think this is a good approach to game balance. It also caters a lot more to casuals than people playing the game at a competitive level.
It's actually a great approach, if BW has taught us anything. Instead of limiting options, so the game plays out according to the designers' preconceived notions, it's better to give the players more tools, so that they can look for a solution themselves. It actually made me rage when their rationale for the Thor nerf was "we don't like seeing Thors being massed"; that's just such a retarded reason to make the game less interesting.
Look at Protoss and Zerg, with their "this is unit X, and you should get it in situation Y" philosophy, and then look at Terran, with "this is unit X, look at how much cool stuff you can do with it!". Which seems better to you? Which do you prefer, PvP, or TvT(let's put Code S aside for the purpose of this comparison)? Clearly, a design that focuses on options, rather than purposes, makes for more interesting gameplay, and a more fun game in general.
So yeah, it's awesome that they're buffing the Immortal and the Warp Prism. Not so awesome they're nerfing the Infestor, why not buff HTs instead?
It comes out as a balance of both.
For example Science Vessels Irradiate was to take out key units.
Then you had Scourge to take out key air units like the Science Vessel.
Then you had generalist units like the Marine to defend the Science Vessel against Scourge.
People then found out you could irradiate your own Science Vessels and use it as an "eraser" to AoE lots of small units like drones.
These are all units with a purpose, but also with a ton of options.
Compare this to let's say the Immortal, where they are designed to counter 1 unit and HARD, the Siege Tank. You can't micro the Immortal against Tanks because of clumped pathing, but then again who cares they absorb all the damage anyways and do 50 damage.
You also have the Mothership, Void Ray, 9 Range Colossus, Chargelots, Pheonix, which are already all good at killing or nullifying Siege Tanks and you have one messed up race.
Terran is better than the other races because of what you said, but then they somehow completely missed the "purpose" part. So now you have creative combinations of units that because they have a lot of options, can almost fill any role. Which is great but, in the certain stages of the game it makes things very difficult or very weird.
For example we use Ghosts to take out Infestors. Ghosts were never designed that way, its just that they had so many options, however Science Vessel Irradiate would make much more sense (or HSM could one shot 1 unit at 9 range for 75 energy). Ghosts don't really fill the role of anti-specialist unit, they just ended up that way, and that's why it doesn't do the job quite that well, and it feels really weird.
Other examples like Reapers and Hellions fill the exact same role, there is nothing like Valkyries or Irradiate to counter mass-mass muta, etc.
Of course this means the other races should also have units that will give them options against these stronger compositions (such as scourge), but then on the strategy part of the game it will be a lot more deep while improving the more dice-roll nature of SC2, and also making the game a lot more dynamic.
Instead its nerf this nerf that, rather than providing the races with better options. Instead of nerfing the infestor, Blizzard could have buffed HSM much more in order to deal with mass infestor.
In summary you need units with a purpose and with options, but it seems SC2 just went for one or the other.
I agree with most of that, with a few caveats. For example, I don't think they made the Immortal to counter Tanks specifically, but as a general purpose tanking unit - kind of like the Ultra was in BW, expensive and beefy, with decent damage and huge survivability. One can argue that Protoss doesn't need such a unit, since Zealots fill the purpose quite well, but the idea isn't bad altogether. They just ended up making it too specialized, and therefore not useful in most practical situations. That's why they're trying to embrace the "huge damage to armored" part, because the tank part ended up failing.
Reapers were just something they put in the game because they wanted to show off cliff-walking, and because it was the Terran expansion, they ended up being a Terran unit. But they never fit in with the race especially well, and overlap a lot with other units. Would have made way more sense as a Protoss unit imo.
The mass Muta part, is, I think, intentional for some strange reason, because AtA splash damage was removed from the game altogether.
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: Ghosts don't really fill the role of anti-specialist unit, they just ended up that way, and that's why it doesn't do the job quite that well, and it feels really weird.
I dont even know what to say. Every ghost ability screams anti specialist.
EDIT:
Sorry for triple post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, the Terran challenge uses a Ghost to kill an Ultralisk with Snipe, so you never know...
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
It's hard to say, Ultras are a lategame transition where generally a toss army will consist of mostly Colossi instead of immortals.
Colossus are very fragile to ultralisks so is it really fair to make them cheaper?
On September 23 2011 12:17 MilesTeg wrote: Every change makes sense, and once again Blizzard is doing a good job with their patches.
Even without looking the comments I'm sure there are people saying "Blizzard is clueless!" or "David Kim is trolling us!" because they always do, but I think the silent majority agrees with what they're doing.
I love the overseer change, and that they're looking to possibly buff ultras further in the future (you might want to underline that part too, btw, I think it's important).
The silent majority is actually saying "Yeah, this patch is pretty good, but why in God's name did they change Neural Parasite and the Mothership, and not the carrier?"
because as long as viking has 9 range n flies, carriers will continue to fail at its current build time and cost. they probably decided it was easier to buff mothership into something potentially useful super late game as oppose to be useless buff on the carrier just for the hell of it
Actually carriers trade very cost efficiently with Vikings, but yeah buff or no buff on the current metagame Carriers will still be useless. Although I think they could use a build time decrease though I don´t know if 2 base carrier like Mana did in some games against Zerg would break the MU XD
Yea, well, I think we have to take build time into account when we conceptualize trading efficiently.
Waiting on carriers to build makes toss vulnerable (if you've got two carriers cued up in two stargazes, thats 12 supply that isn't in your main army for two minutes.
tl'dr Building carriers ties up a lot of supply for a long period of time, making toss vulnerable, not only until they pop, but also until they've had time to build up their interceptors.
Well in BW they took 140s to complete and no chrono boost too. So I don't think it's entirely that they take too long.
I think people are overestimating the influence of vikings. Colossus also get countered by vikings. But we still make colossus. Because colossus are good.
In BW they took long to make. Difference being that, in a vacuum, they are good. And even considering the environment they were in, they still are good.
Terran went mech in BW and had to slowly creep across the map with tanks and spider mines with their entire army together, or else the more mobile Protoss army would stomp all over them. There are no spidermines in SC2 and terran armies are the extremely mobile ones, while protoss armies stay together. Terran can punish a lot more easily in SC2 than BW. On top of that, carriers were more mobile in BW, being able to kite while still attacking, and could cliff goliaths.
And like I said, colossus have more killing power against terran bio armies and are a cheaper and faster investment. Without a complete revamp, you're just not going to make carriers more viable than the alternatives, unless you break them.
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
Yes, they need to shrink a bit and cost less given their current strength.
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
The issue with Ultras is that their armored and Marauders crap on everything armored. Not buff is gonna change that. And even if you buffed their attack and lowered their cost Maruaders would kite them to death.+ Show Spoiler +
God I hate Marauders. And I'm Terran. I really wish the marauder was nerfed but that's just me.Except Blizzard will never do that because it would make TvP Mech and they repeatedly stated that they didn't want that because that is what made Terran difficult for casuals in BW. I play Terran And I haven't made a marauder since Beta unless I was 3 raxing.
I definitely don't see it as a coincidence that the only things hardened shields have a significant effect on are terran mech units.
Hey, I never said they were successful.
The problem with Immortals is that the idea of a unit that is supposed to tank damage, but only from specific sources, like Tanks or Ultras, is just too narrow. The unit ends up being too specialized, and not versatile enough, in an engagement between actual armies. That's why the Immortal ended up being used for it's huge damage against armored first and foremost, and the designers are embracing this fact by buffing the range.
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
The issue with Ultras is that their armored and Marauders crap on everything armored. Not buff is gonna change that. And even if you buffed their attack and lowered their cost Maruaders would kite them to death.+ Show Spoiler +
God I hate Marauders. And I'm Terran. I really wish the marauder was nerfed but that's just me.Except Blizzard will never do that because it would make TvP Mech and they repeatedly stated that they didn't want that because that is what made Terran difficult for casuals in BW. I play Terran And I haven't made a marauder since Beta unless I was 3 raxing.
You know, I really don't get that train of thought. They say that, but they ended up making SC2 Zerg the BW Terran, in the sense that the entry barrier is a lot higher than for the other races, and it's very easy to lose to players much worse than yourself.
Also, Mech being hard in BW doesn't mean it would be hard in SC2. Somehow, TvT being mech didn't produce a mass exodus of Terran players, terrified at the prospect of having to position their Tanks well and simcity bases against Hellions.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
he's constantly shitting on them (and colossus) for being "skill-less attack move units" and has said that he doesn't play terran in sc2 because he doesn't want to use them.
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
The issue with Ultras is that their armored and Marauders crap on everything armored. Not buff is gonna change that. And even if you buffed their attack and lowered their cost Maruaders would kite them to death.+ Show Spoiler +
God I hate Marauders. And I'm Terran. I really wish the marauder was nerfed but that's just me.Except Blizzard will never do that because it would make TvP Mech and they repeatedly stated that they didn't want that because that is what made Terran difficult for casuals in BW. I play Terran And I haven't made a marauder since Beta unless I was 3 raxing.
When did blizzard say that bit about mech and bw with the casuals? I'm very curious.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
he's constantly shitting on them (and colossus) for being "skill-less attack move units" and has said that he doesn't play terran in sc2 because he doesn't want to use them.
Yeah, he is very right on that too, just speaking objectively about the marauder... you can kite but beyond this clicking and a moving across the screen (fucking absolutely boring micro) there is very little to the unit.
On September 24 2011 12:33 GinDo wrote: God I hate Marauders. And I'm Terran. I really wish the marauder was nerfed but that's just me.Except Blizzard will never do that because it would make TvP Mech and they repeatedly stated that they didn't want that because that is what made Terran difficult for casuals in BW. I play Terran And I haven't made a marauder since Beta unless I was 3 raxing.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
He hates them In a lot of is casts for gom he makes his "love" for Marauder known
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
he's constantly shitting on them (and colossus) for being "skill-less attack move units" and has said that he doesn't play terran in sc2 because he doesn't want to use them.
Yeah, he is very right on that too, just speaking objectively about the marauder... you can kite but beyond this clicking and a moving across the screen (fucking absolutely boring micro) there is very little to the unit.
On September 24 2011 04:21 TUski wrote: Ghosts don't really fill the role of anti-specialist unit, they just ended up that way, and that's why it doesn't do the job quite that well, and it feels really weird.
I dont even know what to say. Every ghost ability screams anti specialist.
EDIT:
Sorry for triple post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kind of ...
The reason I say its not is because its a ground unit and can be countered by the same specialist units and its anti-specialist spells are AoE.
Here is my criteria for an anti-specialist unit.
Flying, it must be mobile so it can fly around the map and control Ultralisk/Infestor/Muta numbers
Should have an ability which kills a single unit effectively - In the case of Vessels, its Irradiate (250 damage for 75 energy) - In the case of Scourge, its suiciding for 110 damage - Protoss doesn't really have one (the closest is Dark Archon), which is why dealing with EMP's is so difficult
Should not be able to be countered by the unit its supposed to counter - eg Fungal can take out ghosts easily & Storm can take out ghosts easily (even while cloaked) - Ghosts require a certain element of surprise, Vessels are always in your face yet they can't really get killed unless against many scourge (often requires distracting the Terran in battle while cloning scourge on each vessel) -- Exception: Plague, this happens sometimes, but getting your vessels plagued only means they die to 1 scourge instead of 2, because Zerg doesn't really have any other unit to take them out
You need to snipe many times to kill ultras or infestors. You often use EMP's against Templar and Infestor, which is fine, but its quite easy to get counter fungaled against good players. Vessel was often simply go right up to the Zerg army, Irradiate as much crap as possible, then gtfo before the scourge get you. Or when you have the chance send 2 vessels to a zerg base and erase as many drones before they die to scourge.
If they made Seeker Missile 250dmg non-AoE 75 energy, I'm sure the infestor would not have been a problem and also resulted in a more dynamic game, but I guess that would expose how bad the corruptor really is as an AA unit.
This is the reason why many Terrans complained about the Infestor, and I see many other problems with Terran as a race given certain circumstances, such as its late-game compositions which are quite weak or unwieldy. Although its certainly better than the other races which have an even bigger gap in answers to certain compositions in early stages of the game.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
he's constantly shitting on them (and colossus) for being "skill-less attack move units" and has said that he doesn't play terran in sc2 because he doesn't want to use them.
Yeah, he is very right on that too, just speaking objectively about the marauder... you can kite but beyond this clicking and a moving across the screen (fucking absolutely boring micro) there is very little to the unit.
I've been marauder clean for several months now.
Im surprised that im not the only one >_>
I haven't been making marauders since beta either, because it would make me bored of SC2.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
On September 24 2011 07:10 CeriseCherries wrote: -.- I don't care about build time, just give me cliffwalk or something... sick of my ultras unable to step over zerglings
build time decreased to 50 was actually a very good choice in buffing. but its not gonna make ultras that much more useful. the main problem with ultras is that they are a resource hog. they drain minerals/gass in a instant and on top of that they get killed at by insanely cost effecient units like immortals or siege tanks. even ghosts are pretty good against ultras because of snipes.
what ultras really need is a decrease in cost. maybe 200 minerals 200 gas or something.
The issue with Ultras is that their armored and Marauders crap on everything armored. Not buff is gonna change that. And even if you buffed their attack and lowered their cost Maruaders would kite them to death.+ Show Spoiler +
God I hate Marauders. And I'm Terran. I really wish the marauder was nerfed but that's just me.Except Blizzard will never do that because it would make TvP Mech and they repeatedly stated that they didn't want that because that is what made Terran difficult for casuals in BW. I play Terran And I haven't made a marauder since Beta unless I was 3 raxing.
I don't agree (and I'm zerg). Ultras are pretty good in ZvT. Marauders are manageable (and aren't really a unit you would normally want to make against a zerg), and there are compositions like Ultra/Baneling or Ultra/Infestor that are very solid.
The real problem I have as someone who loves to use Ultras is in ZvP, where Zealots and Immortals just make the Ultralisk a huge waste of money...
I feel the damage against non-armored is laughable, and paying so much for a unit that just gets blocked by a couple zealots or some infested terrans is really frustrating to watch.
Ultra needs a "charge" ability that allows them to push all that zealot/marine crap that's on it's way :p
hardened shield have a significant effect on everything that triggers the hardened shield (notice that the smallest change possible of 11>10 is a ~9% decrease in dps, which is already a lot, a damage decrease of 80% is ridicolous, remember the immortal only have 100 shield, so when fighting tanks that 100 shield is equivalent to 500 shield, which means an immortal have almost as much eficient hp vs sieged tanks as an ultralisk. ridicolous)
for the record, saying such things as damage reduction and damage decreases in pure numbers give very little information to the reader, see what I did? i changed it from a pure number to a percentage, and suddenly it is 50 times easier to see the actual effect of the damage reduction.
for example: Tank: 50>10 (40 less) Thor: 60>20 (40 less) given this information, you can easily argue that the immortal "removes" an equal amount of dps from the respective units. Tank: 50>10 (80% less) Thor: 60>20 (~66% less) given this, you cannot argue the same, the hardened shield is very clearly much more efficient vs tanks than vs thors, which can be seen in real games.
suddenly when you remove the numbers from it you can see how huge of an impact the hardened shields actually have.
I never got why people complain about the marauder and not the roach, they're the same unit? Both of them are extremely strong but boring units, and thanks to roaches the hydralisk is barely seen in sc2.
The colossus is supposed to be the reaver of sc2 but it does a very bad job of it, it's an a-move unit, it can't harass at all and it's countered by the same things as the carrier making the transition from colossus to stargate tech worthless.
Dark templar requires its own building, why? Right now it's just a cheese unit and a really bad one at that. It's an expensive building that takes a long time to build for a unit that brings absolutely nothing to your army strength, so if it's countered you'll lose unless you're in lategame.
Mothership... I think people have already given enough reasons for this abomination to be removed, time to bring back the arbiter?
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
Truth. Terran is the ultimate casual race and I'm sure they have taken this into account. The inherent flexibility of Terran unit compositions is far too forgiving.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
I actually did mean distance range - which means the army is exceptionally difficult to engage in an effective way and scales extremely well into high supply numbers. The longest ranges on stuff is something terrans have always had since BW (well, air to air not so much in BW, but goliath vs air was badass range.) and part of their race design.
Now that we start complaing about marauders (yay easily the most unterran unit in the game) why don't we complain about the zerg dragoon aswell? The fucking roach, hard to kill and the reason why we don't see any hydralisk (though based upon broodwar thats the zergiest unit beside the ling). Colossi are a joke compared to reavers, they don't requiere much micro, can't be used for harras and, to make it even better, are the main reason why noone even tries to build carriers. One thing that not enough people talk about (imo) is the fact that dts requier their own building. WTF went wrong there at blizzard? You know if I could actually make HTs and DTs with the same building going dts in the first place wouldn't be the huge investement it is, yes you'd still pay 375 gas for 3 dts, but you wouldn't pay 250 for a almost useless tech path if it doesn't work. Plus wtf happened to dark archons?
The fact that the mothership is just a raped version of the arbiter doesn't need to be discussed, I'm still amazed whenever I see arbiters in bw, and thinking about the mothership as the sc2 equivelent makes me really sad
Talking about shit that makes me sad, why the fuck can terran suddenly swap around addons as they please? I think thats part of the reason why terran is that versatile and can transition that well into different stuff. I really hope we get to see individual addons for each production facility again like in bw.
Agree. If they don't want to reduce the versatility of basically every Terran unit, they could simply make specialized add-ons so you can't just keep switching them around whenever it suits you.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
Truth. Terran is the ultimate casual race and I'm sure they have taken this into account. The inherent flexibility of Terran unit compositions is far too forgiving.
Have the longest range units -> ultimate casual race. Just wow.
What about unit health, damage, micro requirements?
obsession with details is a fool's errand - minus being a pro. Two more expansions incoming. New units, new mechanics. Dark Archon, Leviathan, Terratron... Dark Swarm, plague, Starfall, heroes, mobs, equip-able BFG for your specters. Starting bonuses for being in higher leagues (start with 10 workers for GM, 8 for M ... etc)
Not to mention 1 new race per expansion. Xel Naga and then .. UED?
On September 24 2011 19:09 theBizness wrote: Agree. If they don't want to reduce the versatility of basically every Terran unit, they could simply make specialized add-ons so you can't just keep switching them around whenever it suits you.
Or make the other races have that same versatility, which is (hopefully) to come in the upcoming expansions, unfortunately.
Zerg lacks diversity, Protoss is rather predictable (which is part of their current downfall)
On September 23 2011 10:46 Fig wrote: GAH! Why did they choose to buff the mothership when they could have picked carriers?!?!?! I thought they said the mothership was a joke unit! And the buff just makes it a more maneuverable joke unit!
Seriously though, mothership deserved a buff, but carriers deserve one too. Atm carriers are inferior to BCs in every way except for range.
On September 24 2011 19:09 theBizness wrote: Agree. If they don't want to reduce the versatility of basically every Terran unit, they could simply make specialized add-ons so you can't just keep switching them around whenever it suits you.
Or make the other races have that same versatility, which is (hopefully) to come in the upcoming expansions, unfortunately.
Zerg lacks diversity, Protoss is rather predictable (which is part of their current downfall)
I have to completely disagree. Terran already has the hardest time in dealing with Zerg lategame tech switches and there is nothing more frustrating than having to deal with mass warp ins.
Yes you are right, terran can swap add ons, but what most people forget is that 1 tech building(cyber core- dark shrine - archives) gives you access to an almost infinite amount of dark templars, stalkers and high templars, only limited by the amount of ressources and warp gates.
If terran wants to go for mass banshees they are limited because they can only produce them off starports, which are expensive and high tech, same goes for factory units, the only similar unit that works like protoss units in production is the ghost (1 ghost academy - only limited by amount of barracks with add on), that's why it's so hard for terran to deal with lategame tech switches.
It's even a bigger problem against zerg, 1 tech building gives you access to an almost infinite amount of every unit, only limited by larva and ressources.
Zerg can tech switch from mass air, into mass tier 1 into mass tier 3 in less than a minute, it's already next to impossible for terran lategame to adjust to these tech switches, if you take away the ability to swap add ons to for example quickly produce mass vikings or mass marauders, etc... it's going to be absolutely impossible. If for example the zerg goes for mass broodlord and you have to get vikings, and you then need to build the reactors instead of swapping them with your barracks it would be pretty much game over.
Terran lategame tech switches are by far the slowest in the game, even with add on swapping, take that away from terran and there is no way on earth they will ever beat zerg lategame ever again and it will be very very problematic against protoss, if not impossible aswell.
What most people forget is that terran add-ons actually are really expensive, larva (which is the same thing essentially) is for free though and like I said, protoss can build units only limited by the amount of warpgates.
So you see, both other races use similar mechanics, for zerg it is even easier. Even Protoss robotics units use similar mechanics, immortals dont need an add-on, collossus need 1 robo bay and are then only limited by the amount of robos, same goes for carriers for example.
I think it's funny that Z and P players complain about add-on swaping when their races don't even require add-ons and can use the same game mechanic for essentially free. Larva even might be overpowered for all we know, there are no zerg who really perfectioned larva usage and tech switches, in years they might have to nerf larva because it might be too hard for terran and maybe protoss to keep up with zerg lategame tech switches.
The Mothership is just a silly unit idea and I don't know why it made it into the final release. Motherships and carriers come out at the same time, if you know carriers need to be reworked, why not just fucking do it? Insanity.
I agree sooo much.
Mothership was the dumbest idea ever its the kind of thing that works with C&C, but for SC2 its just stupid.
Stronger carriers or even just faster building carriers would be so much better.
The problem with 111, like said a million times here, isnt the build itself, its the protoss not knowing what will came from behind the rax/suplly depos. I dont think Immortal range will help at all. Im not even going to talk about marine/tanks all in.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
Truth. Terran is the ultimate casual race and I'm sure they have taken this into account. The inherent flexibility of Terran unit compositions is far too forgiving.
Have the longest range units -> ultimate casual race. Just wow.
What about unit health, damage, micro requirements?
Longest range units + most forgiving race regarding composition = ideal for casuals, who are most likely to pick Terran to begin with.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
Truth. Terran is the ultimate casual race and I'm sure they have taken this into account. The inherent flexibility of Terran unit compositions is far too forgiving. Have the longest range units -> ultimate casual race. Just wow.
What about unit health, damage, micro requirements?
Longest range units + most forgiving race regarding composition = ideal for casuals, who are most likely to pick Terran to begin with.
Actually the race i play when i want to chill is Protoss.
And all my newbie buddies choose the race because it was the easiest race for them to play around with. Not that it matters really, but just saying that a-moving zealot is way ''more chill'' then kiting with the marine
On September 24 2011 18:57 Lorch wrote: Now that we start complaing about marauders (yay easily the most unterran unit in the game) why don't we complain about the zerg dragoon aswell? The fucking roach, hard to kill and the reason why we don't see any hydralisk (though based upon broodwar thats the zergiest unit beside the ling). Colossi are a joke compared to reavers, they don't requiere much micro, can't be used for harras and, to make it even better, are the main reason why noone even tries to build carriers. One thing that not enough people talk about (imo) is the fact that dts requier their own building. WTF went wrong there at blizzard? You know if I could actually make HTs and DTs with the same building going dts in the first place wouldn't be the huge investement it is, yes you'd still pay 375 gas for 3 dts, but you wouldn't pay 250 for a almost useless tech path if it doesn't work. Plus wtf happened to dark archons?
The fact that the mothership is just a raped version of the arbiter doesn't need to be discussed, I'm still amazed whenever I see arbiters in bw, and thinking about the mothership as the sc2 equivelent makes me really sad
Talking about shit that makes me sad, why the fuck can terran suddenly swap around addons as they please? I think thats part of the reason why terran is that versatile and can transition that well into different stuff. I really hope we get to see individual addons for each production facility again like in bw.
I agree with alot, but wtf is this about complaining about the addon swaps?! Their brilliant and make for really refined and cool build! I'd say they are one of the things Blizzard did good.
It's better adding something to the other races then taking away what's already good just because you think it's to versatile.
hardened shield have a significant effect on everything that triggers the hardened shield (notice that the smallest change possible of 11>10 is a ~9% decrease in dps, which is already a lot, a damage decrease of 80% is ridicolous, remember the immortal only have 100 shield, so when fighting tanks that 100 shield is equivalent to 500 shield, which means an immortal have almost as much eficient hp vs sieged tanks as an ultralisk. ridicolous)
for the record, saying such things as damage reduction and damage decreases in pure numbers give very little information to the reader, see what I did? i changed it from a pure number to a percentage, and suddenly it is 50 times easier to see the actual effect of the damage reduction.
for example: Tank: 50>10 (40 less) Thor: 60>20 (40 less) given this information, you can easily argue that the immortal "removes" an equal amount of dps from the respective units. Tank: 50>10 (80% less) Thor: 60>20 (~66% less) given this, you cannot argue the same, the hardened shield is very clearly much more efficient vs tanks than vs thors, which can be seen in real games.
suddenly when you remove the numbers from it you can see how huge of an impact the hardened shields actually have.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. It takes a siege tank 30 seconds to deplete 100 hardened shields or a 400% increase compared to normal shields. On the other hand a stimmed marauder takes 10 seconds which is only a 100% increase. Plus marauders are cheaper and produce faster so you're likely to have more marauders than you would tanks. It's obvious to me that Blizzard created hardened shields specifically to counter siege tanks.
Thanks for the reminder, I really miss the times where killing a mineral line required SKILL. That micro you see there, there is nothing similar in starcraft 2, blue flame hellions are easy to use at all skill levels, that is the consecuence of the game being newbie friendly.
Blue flame hellions should require huge skill to pull off great rewards...
If you dont think terran's range advantage isn't a big deal, how about in the next patch they nerf Ghost EMP range like what they did to NP. See how big a deal that would be eventhough ghosts can cloak to gain superior positioning.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
I don't understand why do Zerg players want Ghosts to be nerfed. How else do you expect Terran to win versus Broodlord/infestors?
I don't expect you to win, Mr. Terran, I expect you to die!
</bond villain>
In more serious note... with the infestor damage and range on its spells respectively nerfed, and ghost techniques improving immensely, it's even more difficult to respond effectively to ghost usage. We have no exceptional unit for just dealing with the ghost (this is fine, it's just a thing we as zerg have to be aware of) and terran late-game armies with siege tanks, ghosts, vikings all providing backup to whatever backbone the terran feels is appropriate... Terran just has ALL the range.
I know you meant range as in flexibility.. but, consider:
Viking, longest air range. Check. Tank, sieged longest ground range. Check. Tank unsieged/Thor, longest range to not get stuck like stupid dancing Immortals (with 6 range they still get stuck behind stalkers requiring micro like b4 the patch) behind the bioball. Check. Thors AA, longest range vs air units. Check. BCs, yamato destroys any anti-air since its the longest range. Check. BCs are used often, Carriers blow since beta. WTF bliz! MS is still a PoS that never leaves dock. Ghost snipe, longest range to easy counter a lot of stuff. Check. Ghost EMP, longest spell range to counter protoss and casters. Check. Ghost Nuke, long range to help its ease of use, unlike NP which got nerfed to 7. WTF. Check.
Truth. Terran is the ultimate casual race and I'm sure they have taken this into account. The inherent flexibility of Terran unit compositions is far too forgiving. Have the longest range units -> ultimate casual race. Just wow.
What about unit health, damage, micro requirements?
Longest range units + most forgiving race regarding composition = ideal for casuals, who are most likely to pick Terran to begin with.
Actually the race i play when i want to chill is Protoss.
And all my newbie buddies choose the race because it was the easiest race for them to play around with. Not that it matters really, but just saying that a-moving zealot is way ''more chill'' then kiting with the marine
On September 24 2011 18:57 Lorch wrote: Now that we start complaing about marauders (yay easily the most unterran unit in the game) why don't we complain about the zerg dragoon aswell? The fucking roach, hard to kill and the reason why we don't see any hydralisk (though based upon broodwar thats the zergiest unit beside the ling). Colossi are a joke compared to reavers, they don't requiere much micro, can't be used for harras and, to make it even better, are the main reason why noone even tries to build carriers. One thing that not enough people talk about (imo) is the fact that dts requier their own building. WTF went wrong there at blizzard? You know if I could actually make HTs and DTs with the same building going dts in the first place wouldn't be the huge investement it is, yes you'd still pay 375 gas for 3 dts, but you wouldn't pay 250 for a almost useless tech path if it doesn't work. Plus wtf happened to dark archons?
The fact that the mothership is just a raped version of the arbiter doesn't need to be discussed, I'm still amazed whenever I see arbiters in bw, and thinking about the mothership as the sc2 equivelent makes me really sad
Talking about shit that makes me sad, why the fuck can terran suddenly swap around addons as they please? I think thats part of the reason why terran is that versatile and can transition that well into different stuff. I really hope we get to see individual addons for each production facility again like in bw.
I agree with alot, but wtf is this about complaining about the addon swaps?! Their brilliant and make for really refined and cool build! I'd say they are one of the things Blizzard did good.
It's better adding something to the other races then taking away what's already good just because you think it's to versatile.
I agree with bringing the other races up to par with building versatility. Maybe in HotS you will be able to burrow zerg buildings and warp toss buildings to other places on the map within pylon power when they are being chronoboosted! (this would cancel the upgrade/unit though) Or maybe just hardened shields for buildings!
On September 24 2011 18:57 Lorch wrote: Now that we start complaing about marauders (yay easily the most unterran unit in the game) why don't we complain about the zerg dragoon aswell? The fucking roach, hard to kill and the reason why we don't see any hydralisk (though based upon broodwar thats the zergiest unit beside the ling). Colossi are a joke compared to reavers, they don't requiere much micro, can't be used for harras and, to make it even better, are the main reason why noone even tries to build carriers. One thing that not enough people talk about (imo) is the fact that dts requier their own building. WTF went wrong there at blizzard? You know if I could actually make HTs and DTs with the same building going dts in the first place wouldn't be the huge investement it is, yes you'd still pay 375 gas for 3 dts, but you wouldn't pay 250 for a almost useless tech path if it doesn't work. Plus wtf happened to dark archons?
The fact that the mothership is just a raped version of the arbiter doesn't need to be discussed, I'm still amazed whenever I see arbiters in bw, and thinking about the mothership as the sc2 equivelent makes me really sad
Talking about shit that makes me sad, why the fuck can terran suddenly swap around addons as they please? I think thats part of the reason why terran is that versatile and can transition that well into different stuff. I really hope we get to see individual addons for each production facility again like in bw.
DT's are the most ridiculous unit, you moron. Why would Bliz give you a unit that everytime that one is made, it automatically pays for itself? u re bitching about a unit that gives All Terrans headaches and you want it to be easier to get DT's? R U an A-hole?
A scan cost 240. A DT is cheaper than 240. So, everytime you make one and move it around and a terran has to scan, he is wasting 240. And you don't even had to kill anything. Just by virtual that one is made, you have already paid for the cost of the DT because it costs the terran a scan.
On September 24 2011 18:57 Lorch wrote: Now that we start complaing about marauders (yay easily the most unterran unit in the game) why don't we complain about the zerg dragoon aswell? The fucking roach, hard to kill and the reason why we don't see any hydralisk (though based upon broodwar thats the zergiest unit beside the ling). Colossi are a joke compared to reavers, they don't requiere much micro, can't be used for harras and, to make it even better, are the main reason why noone even tries to build carriers. One thing that not enough people talk about (imo) is the fact that dts requier their own building. WTF went wrong there at blizzard? You know if I could actually make HTs and DTs with the same building going dts in the first place wouldn't be the huge investement it is, yes you'd still pay 375 gas for 3 dts, but you wouldn't pay 250 for a almost useless tech path if it doesn't work. Plus wtf happened to dark archons?
The fact that the mothership is just a raped version of the arbiter doesn't need to be discussed, I'm still amazed whenever I see arbiters in bw, and thinking about the mothership as the sc2 equivelent makes me really sad
Talking about shit that makes me sad, why the fuck can terran suddenly swap around addons as they please? I think thats part of the reason why terran is that versatile and can transition that well into different stuff. I really hope we get to see individual addons for each production facility again like in bw.
DT's are the most ridiculous unit, you moron. Why would Bliz give you a unit that everytime that one is made, it automatically pays for itself? u re bitching about a unit that gives All Terrans headaches and you want it to be easier to get DT's? R U an A-hole?
A scan cost 240. A DT is cheaper than 240. So, everytime you make one and move it around and a terran has to scan, he is wasting 240. And you don't even had to kill anything. Just by virtual that one is made, you have already paid for the cost of the DT because it costs the terran a scan.
Moron.
User was temp banned for this post.
It stuff like this that is misstated all the time their is a difference between Cost and Opportunity Cost.
The scan does NOT cost 240 minerals (or 300 or 270 or whatever other number you wish to say). Blizzard was nice enough to give us a counter at the top of our screen that shows us how many minerals you have. When you scan that counter does not suddenly display 240 less minerals. That is because the scan does not cost 240minerals it costs 50 energy and you can opt to either summon a scan, a supply drop, mule, or nothing and let it build depending on the situation. If a dt gets into your base and you did not scout the tech out or forgot a turret at an expo. You are scanning not the opportunity cost is either a unit that mines 240 minerals or permanently lost mining time at a base until you can finish a turret or get a raven there.
Also on top of that with the exception of dt rush when dts start to make their appearance it seems to be at a point where terrans would rather save energy for 1-2 scans to allow for better positioning on the battlefield or a more effective drop or what have you.
The stuff mentioned in this report dont really seem like a surprise. For the most part Im sure even the average player could of deduced some of this. The only thing I don't understand is the mothership change as even blizzard seemed to say that the mothership was not intended for competitive play. Not saying the carrier did or did not need a change but... it seems odd that the the mothership was changed.
The best patch ever will be the patch where the Marauder is removed and then we can finally see the true magic of what SMART Terran players can actually come up with in TvP.
Will be beautiful to see some interesting Mech builds come out of players like MMA, MVP and Bomber.
Although Mech will never be useful in TvP without a spider-mine LIKE mechanic that isn't the spider mine itself because of Chargelots (simply a mechanic to help keep Zealots away that isn't just throwing hellions in front of them because hellions evaporate at the start of a fight too easily ATM because of the Collosus)
TvT is similar to BW and awesome, TvZ is similar to BW and awesome, TvP is actually just really stupid to watch and always has been but I always watch every TvP hoping a Terran will use Mech but every time they do they just get 1a'd through (with the exception of Jinro vs MC where MC played the worst Protoss I've ever seen before >.>)
People site GoOdy as a good source of Mech play vs Protoss but everyone knows it's not the same as watching Flash in BW straight up dominate a Protoss with a 2:1 upgrade timing attack where it seemed there was nothing the Protoss could do. GoOdy doesn't defeat the Protoss, he bores them out of the game. Which is pretty much what Mech does to Toss if Mech is able to win without the Protoss playing stupidly (ie: Byun vs Oz where Oz for some dumb reason tries to base race instead of just killing the attack on his Nat with a good flank...>.>)
On September 25 2011 14:10 Raiznhell wrote: The best patch ever will be the patch where the Marauder is removed and then we can finally see the true magic of what SMART Terran players can actually come up with in TvP.
Will be beautiful to see some interesting Mech builds come out of players like MMA, MVP and Bomber.
Although Mech will never be useful in TvP without a spider-mine LIKE mechanic that isn't the spider mine itself because of Chargelots (simply a mechanic to help keep Zealots away that isn't just throwing hellions in front of them because hellions evaporate at the start of a fight too easily ATM because of the Collosus)
TvT is similar to BW and awesome, TvZ is similar to BW and awesome, TvP is actually just really stupid to watch and always has been but I always watch every TvP hoping a Terran will use Mech but every time they do they just get 1a'd through (with the exception of Jinro vs MC where MC played the worst Protoss I've ever seen before >.>)
People site GoOdy as a good source of Mech play vs Protoss but everyone knows it's not the same as watching Flash in BW straight up dominate a Protoss with a 2:1 upgrade timing attack where it seemed there was nothing the Protoss could do. GoOdy doesn't defeat the Protoss, he bores them out of the game. Which is pretty much what Mech does to Toss if Mech is able to win without the Protoss playing stupidly (ie: Byun vs Oz where Oz for some dumb reason tries to base race instead of just killing the attack on his Nat with a good flank...>.>)
Removing marauders would be too huge of a change and would wreck Terran (and I main as Protoss, mind you). But yeah, when I think if Marauders, I think of the Ubersoldaten from Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or a fast-running version of the Tanks from Quake 2 (despite the name, they're actually heavy infantry, not vehicles). Marauders are pretty beastly O_O.
On September 25 2011 14:10 Raiznhell wrote: The best patch ever will be the patch where the Marauder is removed and then we can finally see the true magic of what SMART Terran players can actually come up with in TvP.
Will be beautiful to see some interesting Mech builds come out of players like MMA, MVP and Bomber.
Although Mech will never be useful in TvP without a spider-mine LIKE mechanic that isn't the spider mine itself because of Chargelots (simply a mechanic to help keep Zealots away that isn't just throwing hellions in front of them because hellions evaporate at the start of a fight too easily ATM because of the Collosus)
TvT is similar to BW and awesome, TvZ is similar to BW and awesome, TvP is actually just really stupid to watch and always has been but I always watch every TvP hoping a Terran will use Mech but every time they do they just get 1a'd through (with the exception of Jinro vs MC where MC played the worst Protoss I've ever seen before >.>)
People site GoOdy as a good source of Mech play vs Protoss but everyone knows it's not the same as watching Flash in BW straight up dominate a Protoss with a 2:1 upgrade timing attack where it seemed there was nothing the Protoss could do. GoOdy doesn't defeat the Protoss, he bores them out of the game. Which is pretty much what Mech does to Toss if Mech is able to win without the Protoss playing stupidly (ie: Byun vs Oz where Oz for some dumb reason tries to base race instead of just killing the attack on his Nat with a good flank...>.>)
Removing marauders would be too huge of a change and would wreck Terran (and I main as Protoss, mind you). But yeah, when I think if Marauders, I think of the Ubersoldaten from Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or a fast-running version of the Tanks from Quake 2 (despite the name, they're actually heavy infantry, not vehicles). Marauders are pretty beastly O_O.
Well marauders are the reason we don't see tanks in TvP outside of the 1-1-1. At the moment, no one uses mech simply because mmm is better. I don't think anyone can say for sure that mech does not work vs toss. And I'm not saying only make hellion/tank/thor because obviously that loses to voidrays. You would definitely have to have either marine support or probably the best choice is just vikings. It would be an interesting experiment if they changed marauders into a unit that focused on tanking and slowing units, but did not do nearly as much damage.
Terran is supposed to be about hick humans using scrappy units with tacky design to make aliens dance like varmints. This is done while chugging down a beer.
I think Blizzard completely missed that design element when it came to the units, even though they kept the hick part for the campaign mode. Space prisoners shouldn't have combat shields. The entire point of these guys is you're sending them out to clean up, hick style. They're not like, highly trained precision operatives. Terran is supposed to look like an amateur hour operation compared to Zerg and Protoss, which somehow works out because of human ingenuity.
There are too many immaculate, state of the art units in the Terran arsenal. Stuff like Marauders and Thor are too high tech. Humans are not supposed to rival Protoss in 1 on 1. Terran solutions are supposed to be tricky stuff like spider mines or sci vessel. There's nothing like a good old radiation blast to clear out some alien workers.
This total disregard for the concept behind each race has resulted in balance issues like Terran and Zerg having more "Protoss-y" units than Protoss. I hope that in HotS Marauders and Roaches get relegated to higher tech paths, and that Hydralisks become a staple unit again.
On September 25 2011 15:03 Brotocol wrote: Terran is supposed to be about hick humans using scrappy units with tacky design to make aliens dance like varmints. This is done while chugging down a beer.
I think Blizzard completely missed that design element when it came to the units, even though they kept the hick part for the campaign mode. Space prisoners shouldn't have combat shields. The entire point of these guys is you're sending them out to clean up, hick style. They're not like, highly trained precision operatives. Terran is supposed to look like an amateur hour operation compared to Zerg and Protoss, which somehow works out because of human ingenuity.
There are too many immaculate, state of the art units in the Terran arsenal. Stuff like Marauders and Thor are too high tech. Humans are not supposed to rival Protoss in 1 on 1. Terran solutions are supposed to be tricky stuff like spider mines or sci vessel. There's nothing like a good old radiation blast to clear out some alien workers.
This total disregard for the concept behind each race has resulted in balance issues like Terran and Zerg having more "Protoss-y" units than Protoss. I hope that in HotS Marauders and Roaches get relegated to higher tech paths, and that Hydralisks become a staple unit again.
This were exactly my thoughts when i first saw sc2 in action. Hihi to roach, marauder and collosi =_=
I played a few games on the new patch and holy shit the immortal change is HUGE. Enemy Marauders are PUNISHED for getting in range of the immortal and the immortal can shoot at marines without getting fired back at. I mean, it helps with the intended purpose of stopping the 1/1/1 but it just makes immortals awesome now.
On September 25 2011 14:23 Fig wrote: Well marauders are the reason we don't see tanks in TvP outside of the 1-1-1. At the moment, no one uses mech simply because mmm is better. I don't think anyone can say for sure that mech does not work vs toss. And I'm not saying only make hellion/tank/thor because obviously that loses to voidrays. You would definitely have to have either marine support or probably the best choice is just vikings. It would be an interesting experiment if they changed marauders into a unit that focused on tanking and slowing units, but did not do nearly as much damage.
Well I use Vikings as support to my tanks when I Mech in TvP the problem is when is there too many vikings? With tanks being 3 supply and costing more gas whilst doing less damage per shot and having less defense for them it seems like if you skimp at all with ground forces when Meching (or even when you don't skimp at all) you simply get rolled half the time by either too much air for your vikings or having not enough ground power at all.
On September 25 2011 14:23 Fig wrote: Well marauders are the reason we don't see tanks in TvP outside of the 1-1-1. At the moment, no one uses mech simply because mmm is better. I don't think anyone can say for sure that mech does not work vs toss. And I'm not saying only make hellion/tank/thor because obviously that loses to voidrays. You would definitely have to have either marine support or probably the best choice is just vikings. It would be an interesting experiment if they changed marauders into a unit that focused on tanking and slowing units, but did not do nearly as much damage.
Well I use Vikings as support to my tanks when I Mech in TvP the problem is when is there too many vikings? With tanks being 3 supply and costing more gas whilst doing less damage per shot and having less defense for them it seems like if you skimp at all with ground forces when Meching (or even when you don't skimp at all) you simply get rolled half the time by either too much air for your vikings or having not enough ground power at all.
That's a good point. It's good for the game if terran needs to constantly scout to make the right amount of vikings for the engagement. They already do need to when fighting colossi though, so it shouldn't be any different in that respect. At the moment the bulk of a TvP army is marines and marauders, which cost 0 and 25 gas respectively. That allows for them to have more gas for other things than a protoss does, or just allows them to survive off of fewer bases since they don't need as much gas. I think it would be more interesting if the race was taxed more on gas than they are at the moment. Because right now terrans seem to just mass ghosts with their left over gas and blanket EMP the toss army, which is just mean.
Thanks for the reminder, I really miss the times where killing a mineral line required SKILL. That micro you see there, there is nothing similar in starcraft 2, blue flame hellions are easy to use at all skill levels, that is the consecuence of the game being newbie friendly.
Blue flame hellions should require huge skill to pull off great rewards...
lol the point was complete opposite, in sc1 vultures could clean up full mineral lines too (thou you needed some skill), how often you saw flashes vultures going to base and cleaning all probes, alot. but still, people adjusted temselves. (vultures are way faster then helions)
yea remove marauders, but mech would be nothing without vultures so then they'd need to remove hellions for vultures because you can't have two fast mech units. So then what, bring back firebats? K, then lets just go back to broodwar because that's what everyone seems to want.
I said this a long time ago when the game came out, but the simple fact that marauders can STIM is just broken design. (I remind you that even in the single player, where the most overpowered design failures remain, marauders still cannot stim!!)
Give marauders an upgrade for +50 health or something, they should not stim. They already beat stalkers and roaches without stim as is.
EDIT: I think conc. shell is necessary to stay alive vs. early zealot pressure without having to build bunkers. Removing it isn't a very good idea imo.
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Remove the marauder and Bio becomes very fragile. Marine/Ghost or even Marine/Reaper die to Colossi or Chargelots rapidly. Marauders are needed to soak the damage and not be 'Light' units as well as focus down any Colossi if possible and slow the Zealots.
Tanks in TvP are not used a lot for a good reason and it isn't the Marauder. The splash damage against Zealots would murder your own Bio and the 150/125/3 for each tank cuts down on the medivac, viking and/or ghost count by a lot.
Furthermore, Tanks (and Thors) are highly inefficient for cost against Zealots and Immortals, as well as the fact that Colossi outrange Thors by a range of 2.
Not saying Mech is totally useless and I think viable Mech vs Protoss still needs to be discovered (perhaps with EMP) but as it is, Mech cannot substitute for Marauder-less Bio.
Sky Terran...maybe, but without Marauders you'd have a hard time against Phoenix/Stalker/Zealot compositions.
I wonder what Terran could do against early mass Blink Stalker pushes without Marauders (other than mass turtle with tanks).
It would be similar to removing the Stalker from Protoss or the Roach from Zerg, it is too critical of a component (especially early game) to just remove.
As for the patch and 1.4:
The Immortal change isn't that huge in PvT, although it now has equal range to the Marauder, Marines still have no trouble closing in and EMP still works just fine.
The Barracks build time is annoying as it doesn't line up with the Orbital but I'm now just making one more SCV and the change isn't that big.
Blue Flame Hellion nerf actually saved me in TvT when I was doing a tank push. I managed to get my tanks shelling the opponent's natural when 4 BFH dropped in. In total I lost 12 SCVs before they all died but about 8-9 of them were in deep red and probably would have died without the nerf. As I don't use BFH myself, I am rather happily amused about it.
On September 25 2011 14:14 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 25 2011 14:10 Raiznhell wrote: The best patch ever will be the patch where the Marauder is removed and then we can finally see the true magic of what SMART Terran players can actually come up with in TvP.
Will be beautiful to see some interesting Mech builds come out of players like MMA, MVP and Bomber.
Although Mech will never be useful in TvP without a spider-mine LIKE mechanic that isn't the spider mine itself because of Chargelots (simply a mechanic to help keep Zealots away that isn't just throwing hellions in front of them because hellions evaporate at the start of a fight too easily ATM because of the Collosus)
TvT is similar to BW and awesome, TvZ is similar to BW and awesome, TvP is actually just really stupid to watch and always has been but I always watch every TvP hoping a Terran will use Mech but every time they do they just get 1a'd through (with the exception of Jinro vs MC where MC played the worst Protoss I've ever seen before >.>)
People site GoOdy as a good source of Mech play vs Protoss but everyone knows it's not the same as watching Flash in BW straight up dominate a Protoss with a 2:1 upgrade timing attack where it seemed there was nothing the Protoss could do. GoOdy doesn't defeat the Protoss, he bores them out of the game. Which is pretty much what Mech does to Toss if Mech is able to win without the Protoss playing stupidly (ie: Byun vs Oz where Oz for some dumb reason tries to base race instead of just killing the attack on his Nat with a good flank...>.>)
Removing marauders would be too huge of a change and would wreck Terran (and I main as Protoss, mind you). But yeah, when I think if Marauders, I think of the Ubersoldaten from Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or a fast-running version of the Tanks from Quake 2 (despite the name, they're actually heavy infantry, not vehicles). Marauders are pretty beastly O_O.
On September 26 2011 03:18 thebole1 wrote: this patch change few thing... moust PvP ... imortall change isnt that good vs 1-1-1 ... still its too hard to conter... on lower lvls and higer....
i whont to know whay isnt ther eny new info about HOTS ? its almoust end of year and still no info ...
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
You mean the problem with Ghosts that Protoss have been having? Ghosts are by far more terrifying in PvT. But maybe the warp prism buff could double for a stronger bus to shuttle the HTs around in. Except that EMPing the warp prism will leave it just as weak as if it was EMPed before the buff. So I guess it doesn't help.
That's one more EMP on a unit that didn't need to be EMP'd to begin with tho.
On September 23 2011 10:40 AxelTVx wrote: Hmmm this does seem to cover almost everything except the problem with Ghosts that the Zerg have been having. Hopefully he explains why the ghost remained untouched.
You mean the problem with Ghosts that Protoss have been having? Ghosts are by far more terrifying in PvT. But maybe the warp prism buff could double for a stronger bus to shuttle the HTs around in. Except that EMPing the warp prism will leave it just as weak as if it was EMPed before the buff. So I guess it doesn't help.
That's one more EMP on a unit that didn't need to be EMP'd to begin with tho.
EMP is AOE. it's not like you get immortals plus what you already had. you have to cut stuff to get more immortals. finite supply, finite resources, etc.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
What a fucking joke. And the rest of them. Their reasoning just seems plain retarded to me.
I can't believe people are talking about maraduers needing to be removed. Can't tell if thats a troll but if not I highly doubt any of you have touched Terran above team games. If the maraduer was removed TVP would have easily and 85% win rate for P and everyone would ditch terran pretty quick. I don't care if you have 20 vikings 1 swipe of 3 collosus will insta gg every marine on the field.
That being said I think most of the changes are fine, helions possibly needed a nerf just for the fact that they could destroy a mineral line very quickly. However vs zerg anything past early game this isnt really an issue as you can create 10-15 drones in one round and replenish very quickly. The immortal change was a good one, the rax nerf was a little bit silly.
2 rax 11/11 comes down to the zergs crisis management and his ability to micro, however on close positions it is slightly op. Fungal didn't even get close to the nerf it needs and hope they fix this in the future. There is still a lack of proper infestor usage at the higher levels of play. It sickens me to see a zerg a move his army lose 10 infestors and then have people cry about zerg UP. And this happens in the GSL all the time.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
What a fucking joke. And the rest of them. Their reasoning just seems plain retarded to me.
Retarded? These people are responsible for one of the greatest games ever created. Believe me, they are anything but retarded. Behind each of their patches there are hours of hard work and a good number of tests. The resources Blizzard has available to make each of their decisions surpasses by a large margin everything that is at your disposal. If you think they are being retarded, it is very likely that there is something you are not understanding. I'm not saying that Blizzard is perfect, but it is obviously amazing.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
What a fucking joke. And the rest of them. Their reasoning just seems plain retarded to me.
Retarded? These people are responsible for one of the greatest games ever created. Believe me, they are anything but retarded. Behind each of their patches there are hours of hard work and a good number of tests. The resources Blizzard has available to make each of their decisions surpasses by a large margin everything that is at your disposal. If you think they are being retarded, it is very likely that there is something you are not understanding. I'm not saying that Blizzard is perfect, but it is obviously amazing.
Actually there are only what, 2 people on the balance team? I'm sure they have some input from the pros that we are not privy to, however much of the data they use I'm sure we have full access too (win rates for each race all the tourneys). Sure it is a great game but if they were so amazing at balancing the game they obviously would not have to make major changes every patch they put in.This game is still a long way from being balanced.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
What a fucking joke. And the rest of them. Their reasoning just seems plain retarded to me.
Retarded? These people are responsible for one of the greatest games ever created. Believe me, they are anything but retarded. Behind each of their patches there are hours of hard work and a good number of tests. The resources Blizzard has available to make each of their decisions surpasses by a large margin everything that is at your disposal. If you think they are being retarded, it is very likely that there is something you are not understanding. I'm not saying that Blizzard is perfect, but it is obviously amazing.
Well, saying that they want both bio and mech to be viable in TvT (which is literally impossible) then in the same breath effectively saying it's impossible to make both the Carrier and Mothership viable is something I just can't swallow.
On September 23 2011 11:34 Shiori wrote: i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
The siege tank is actually the problem with the 1-1-1 as it prevents the protoss from running circles around the marines picking them off with stalkers, but you'd have no clue about anything gameplay wise based on your posts. Is there any thread you're not whining about protoss balance in?
Trying doing a 1-1-1 without siege tanks and tell me how it went.
On September 23 2011 11:34 Shiori wrote: i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
The siege tank is actually the problem with the 1-1-1 as it prevents the protoss from running circles around the marines picking them off with stalkers, but you'd have no clue about anything gameplay wise based on your posts. Is there any thread you're not whining about protoss balance in?
Trying doing a 1-1-1 without siege tanks and tell me how it went.
If you send in the immortals to absorb tank fire while you pick units off with stalkers, the marines will focus fire the immortal and you are in the same spot, with maybe 2 less marine. And if the terran uses a pdd, you did nothing.
I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
What a fucking joke. And the rest of them. Their reasoning just seems plain retarded to me.
Retarded? These people are responsible for one of the greatest games ever created. Believe me, they are anything but retarded. Behind each of their patches there are hours of hard work and a good number of tests. The resources Blizzard has available to make each of their decisions surpasses by a large margin everything that is at your disposal. If you think they are being retarded, it is very likely that there is something you are not understanding. I'm not saying that Blizzard is perfect, but it is obviously amazing.
Well, saying that they want both bio and mech to be viable in TvT (which is literally impossible) then in the same breath effectively saying it's impossible to make both the Carrier and Mothership viable is something I just can't swallow.
Yup, again, my point is that there must be something you are not understanding (and that is why you cannot swallow...it).
On September 23 2011 11:34 Shiori wrote: i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
The siege tank is actually the problem with the 1-1-1 as it prevents the protoss from running circles around the marines picking them off with stalkers, but you'd have no clue about anything gameplay wise based on your posts. Is there any thread you're not whining about protoss balance in?
Trying doing a 1-1-1 without siege tanks and tell me how it went.
its not yust siege tanks m8... there is banshy (insane dps on imortas stalkers) marines... also insane dps...
they can fix 1-1-1 if they do something to banshy...some nerf or marines....i dont think siege tanks are problem....
in every terran rush there is marines... i think they are main problem....
blizzard for PvT planed this gameplay for WOL :
T--- MMM vikings ghoust ---P--- Gateway+collos+templars....and that is balanced... problem is 1-1-1 right now.... toss and zerg dont have that caind of push....
I m a tos. I'm ashamed to hav u f'ing whiners as fellow toss members. The explanation given by blizz is raional and logical. They took an even keeled approach to balancing. Yet, all the tosses besides myself just whine. How about som thankfulness for the immortal buff and pvp balance? All u ingrate fuks. U disgust me. If u don't like my race, then get the fuk out. Go play bw and fuk off.
The terrans get nerfd every patch and u don't see them whining. Their entire timing is now thrown off with the rax nerf and they are not whining. Don't u whiners learn some class from the Terran players? They seem to be taking each nerf in stride. They got their hellions slaughter nerfd and they just read the bliz explanation and hav intelligent discussions. All I hear from my fellow toss is whining and bitching. Get the fuk out of my race if u can't handle it and b appreciative of the buffs that we did get. Fukers
Signed a disgusted Protoss. Disgeuestwed by the behavior of fellow protsses
On September 26 2011 07:18 Junkshooter wrote: I m a tos. I'm ashamed to hav u f'ing whiners as fellow toss members. The explanation given by blizz is raional and logical. They took an even keeled approach to balancing. Yet, all the tosses besides myself just whine. How about som thankfulness for the immortal buff and pvp balance? All u ingrate fuks. U disgust me. If u don't like my race, then get the fuk out. Go play bw and fuk off.
The terrans get nerfd every patch and u don't see them whining. Their entire timing is now thrown off with the rax nerf and they are not whining. Don't u whiners learn some class from the Terran players? They seem to be taking each nerf in stride. They got their hellions slaughter nerfd and they just read the bliz explanation and hav intelligent discussions. All I hear from my fellow toss is whining and bitching. Get the fuk out of my race if u can't handle it and b appreciative of the buffs that we did get. Fukers
Signed a disgusted Protoss. Disgeuestwed by the behavior of fellow protsses
Please do not generalize the vocal minority in these kinds of threads on all protoss players beside yourself, tyvm. We have enough cycling of kneejerk BS that sprouts more BS while attempting to correct someone'else BS already.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: "In a perfect world of terran vs. terran, we’d like to see both bio and mech based strategies viable. We don’t know for certain that this is possible, but this change makes the Hellion relationship vs. Marines and Workers only 1 shot different (assuming marines use Stimpacks in combat). Meaning, this is the smallest change we could make in order to attempt to meet that goal."
We've seen bio (marauders) own mech time and again in GSL. Every time mech starts to come out at the top level something gets heavily nerfed (tanks, thor energy, now hellions)
Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
How does nerfing hellions make marauders more viable exactly?
If people could go pure marauder to stop mech, they would, except that siege tanks in mass numbers trash marauders still, on top of PDD dicking it as well.
The reason mass marauders or bio as you say is not viable is not because of hellions.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
What a fucking joke. And the rest of them. Their reasoning just seems plain retarded to me.
Retarded? These people are responsible for one of the greatest games ever created. Believe me, they are anything but retarded. Behind each of their patches there are hours of hard work and a good number of tests. The resources Blizzard has available to make each of their decisions surpasses by a large margin everything that is at your disposal. If you think they are being retarded, it is very likely that there is something you are not understanding. I'm not saying that Blizzard is perfect, but it is obviously amazing.
Well, saying that they want both bio and mech to be viable in TvT (which is literally impossible) then in the same breath effectively saying it's impossible to make both the Carrier and Mothership viable is something I just can't swallow.
There's nothing impossible about making both bio (as in biomech) and mech be viable in TvT... When Blizzard mentions bio they don't mean pure bio, they do mean bioMECH. That 5 damage nerf to blueflame could very well be the tipping point to where full mech doesn't SLAUGHTER biomech into obscurity.
On September 26 2011 07:18 Junkshooter wrote: I m a tos. I'm ashamed to hav u f'ing whiners as fellow toss members. The explanation given by blizz is raional and logical. They took an even keeled approach to balancing. Yet, all the tosses besides myself just whine. How about som thankfulness for the immortal buff and pvp balance? All u ingrate fuks. U disgust me. If u don't like my race, then get the fuk out. Go play bw and fuk off.
The terrans get nerfd every patch and u don't see them whining. Their entire timing is now thrown off with the rax nerf and they are not whining. Don't u whiners learn some class from the Terran players? They seem to be taking each nerf in stride. They got their hellions slaughter nerfd and they just read the bliz explanation and hav intelligent discussions. All I hear from my fellow toss is whining and bitching. Get the fuk out of my race if u can't handle it and b appreciative of the buffs that we did get. Fukers
Signed a disgusted Protoss. Disgeuestwed by the behavior of fellow protsses
hahaha... you are JOke man... i didnt read posts abouth whining...
but look toss zerg dont have free suplay (for enrgy) and (warp in probes (mules) ) for enrgy...
terran have plenty of openings becous of marines....
whay you as toss player alweys need to look (scaut) what terran build and then make dicision what you gona build.... ( vs zerg you dont do that)...
answer is becous terran have too meny openings to meny rushs and best ramp block from eny other race...(suplay dipot block)= as toss you dont have free sentuery in beging to block ramp...
From beging of game Toss Zerg didnt have that meny easy Rushs like MMM SCV marine SCV reaper bunker, 1-1-1 , banshy rush ,.... and on and on....2 bunker rush....
toss have 4 gate blink stalker (and that isnt near to 1-1-1 reaper rush ...) zerg 6poll rouch ling... that is it.... compare those to 1-1-1....or reaper rush... it ist whining its FACTS
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
On September 26 2011 07:18 Junkshooter wrote: I m a tos. I'm ashamed to hav u f'ing whiners as fellow toss members. The explanation given by blizz is raional and logical. They took an even keeled approach to balancing. Yet, all the tosses besides myself just whine. How about som thankfulness for the immortal buff and pvp balance? All u ingrate fuks. U disgust me. If u don't like my race, then get the fuk out. Go play bw and fuk off.
The terrans get nerfd every patch and u don't see them whining. Their entire timing is now thrown off with the rax nerf and they are not whining. Don't u whiners learn some class from the Terran players? They seem to be taking each nerf in stride. They got their hellions slaughter nerfd and they just read the bliz explanation and hav intelligent discussions. All I hear from my fellow toss is whining and bitching. Get the fuk out of my race if u can't handle it and b appreciative of the buffs that we did get. Fukers
Signed a disgusted Protoss. Disgeuestwed by the behavior of fellow protsses
hahaha... you are JOke man... i didnt read posts abouth whining...
but look toss zerg dont have free suplay (for enrgy) and (warp in probes (mules) ) for enrgy...
terran have plenty of openings becous of marines....
whay you as toss player alweys need to look (scaut) what terran build and then make dicision what you gona build.... ( vs zerg you dont do that)...
answer is becous terran have too meny openings to meny rushs and best ramp block from eny other race...(suplay dipot block)= as toss you dont have free sentuery in beging to block ramp...
From beging of game Toss Zerg didnt have that meny easy Rushs like MMM SCV marine SCV reaper bunker, 1-1-1 , banshy rush ,.... and on and on....2 bunker rush....
toss have 4 gate blink stalker (and that isnt near to 1-1-1 reaper rush ...) zerg 6poll rouch ling... that is it.... compare those to 1-1-1....or reaper rush... it ist whining its FACTS
Hi.
I would just like to state that it's impossible to read your posts, as in it actually hurts my eyes trying, and you should clean them up, otherwise everyone will skip them..
On September 26 2011 06:30 altfornorge wrote: maybe nerf medivac healing rate so gateway units become viable in TvP?
Isn't that a bit of an overstatement?
I share your concern with medivacs as they make my life tough in PvT. But gateways units as unviable in PvT? This is tough MU for P to the extent that the T is good at using ghosts. Yet I find upgraded gateway with archon/ht units to be a legitimate alternative, if not a means of transitioning into, mass colossus.
On September 23 2011 11:34 Shiori wrote: i'm pretty sure that the only thing this situation report reveals is that blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing. blink timings are powerful? against what? zergs that don't get infestors? that's like void rays being OP against terrans who don't get marines. immortal range gonna help 1-1-1? the siege tank isn't the problem. mothership buff? the fuck? warp prism buff? cool, gonna give us anything that doesn't cost a bajillion gas to drop yet? no? then why bother?
nothing done about the ghost though. because you know, emp is reasonable, but those blink timings are just too much.
The siege tank is actually the problem with the 1-1-1 as it prevents the protoss from running circles around the marines picking them off with stalkers, but you'd have no clue about anything gameplay wise based on your posts. Is there any thread you're not whining about protoss balance in?
Trying doing a 1-1-1 without siege tanks and tell me how it went.
2port banshee with marines and hellions is actually quite good. It gets blindcountered by Stargate openings, but does better against standard Robo openings. Marine/Banshee/Raven was the most popular version of the all-in for a very long time too.
At least among Protoss players, it's a widespread opinion that it's Mules and Marines that make the all-in possible, with banshees and Tanks serving as counters to the ways Protoss has of dealing with Marines at that point in the game. When Terran players win with the all-in, they usually only have a huge Marine ball remaining, with most of the Tanks and Banshees dead. It's also why it doesn't work against Zerg - they have Banelings.
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I forgot that every terran end game composition consists of a 1:1 ratio for medivacs and marines. Posters like you are why I typically avoid threads like this.. the amount of short-sightedness and whine is utterly disgusting.
On September 25 2011 23:22 MorroW wrote: why are everyone suddenly talking about marauders? :D i thought the immortal buff was a nerf to marauders
It might help vs marauders early game, but the fact is if you invest in immortals pvt, and terran gets ghosts, your immortals are nonsense.
This is not true. The Immortal's health:shield ratio is tied with the zealot for the best of all Protoss ground units (2:1). The Phoenix and the Carrier also have 2:1 ratios.
An unshielded Immortal is much more useful to have around than two unshielded Stalkers (unless you're dealing with air of course). Hardened Shield is a very strong ability, but it is not essential and Immortals do not suddenly become obsolete when Ghosts are on the field.
On September 26 2011 07:18 Junkshooter wrote: I m a tos. I'm ashamed to hav u f'ing whiners as fellow toss members. The explanation given by blizz is raional and logical. They took an even keeled approach to balancing. Yet, all the tosses besides myself just whine. How about som thankfulness for the immortal buff and pvp balance? All u ingrate fuks. U disgust me. If u don't like my race, then get the fuk out. Go play bw and fuk off.
The terrans get nerfd every patch and u don't see them whining. Their entire timing is now thrown off with the rax nerf and they are not whining. Don't u whiners learn some class from the Terran players? They seem to be taking each nerf in stride. They got their hellions slaughter nerfd and they just read the bliz explanation and hav intelligent discussions. All I hear from my fellow toss is whining and bitching. Get the fuk out of my race if u can't handle it and b appreciative of the buffs that we did get. Fukers
Signed a disgusted Protoss. Disgeuestwed by the behavior of fellow protsses
Not much to complain about when your race composes like 80% of Code S -_-
On September 25 2011 23:22 MorroW wrote: why are everyone suddenly talking about marauders? :D i thought the immortal buff was a nerf to marauders
It might help vs marauders early game, but the fact is if you invest in immortals pvt, and terran gets ghosts, your immortals are nonsense.
This is not true. The Immortal's health:shield ratio is tied with the zealot for the best of all Protoss ground units (2:1). The Phoenix and the Carrier also have 2:1 ratios.
An unshielded Immortal is much more useful to have around than two unshielded Stalkers (unless you're dealing with air of course). Hardened Shield is a very strong ability, but it is not essential and Immortals do not suddenly become obsolete when Ghosts are on the field.
A factor to consider despite how much it's a vaccum situation:
An immortal with 100 shield and 1 life takes 11 marauder shots and 11 tank shots.
An immortal with 0 shield and max life takes 11 marauder shots and 5 tank shots.
The shield/life ratio does not apply very well to immortals due to hardened shields in most cases. Its lack of mobility also make it hard to salvage/manouver. You can't blink em away like with stalkers. If an immortal is caught in front of the army it can easily be focus fired down.
(Anything is better than unshielded stalkers in terms of tanking (except workers), even sentries)
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
On September 25 2011 23:22 MorroW wrote: why are everyone suddenly talking about marauders? :D i thought the immortal buff was a nerf to marauders
It might help vs marauders early game, but the fact is if you invest in immortals pvt, and terran gets ghosts, your immortals are nonsense.
This is not true. The Immortal's health:shield ratio is tied with the zealot for the best of all Protoss ground units (2:1). The Phoenix and the Carrier also have 2:1 ratios.
An unshielded Immortal is much more useful to have around than two unshielded Stalkers (unless you're dealing with air of course). Hardened Shield is a very strong ability, but it is not essential and Immortals do not suddenly become obsolete when Ghosts are on the field.
That's not quite what i'm saying.
Your stat is interesting and actually something I didn't know, but I don't think it tells the whole story. As I said before, the only attack unit you can build early game from the robotics bay is immortals. After that short period of time, however, the choice is between immortals and colossus.
As you know, to beat MMMG, you normally need splash damage. Without ghosts, it might be possible to pump immortals, especially with the range buff. But because of ghosts, building a Zeal Sentry Stalker Immortal composition would be suicide. But, if you build coli instead, you've got a great counter composition.
Now, a ZSSI + HT composition might be effective, but I believe adding Colli instead would be even more effective (unless there happen to be a ton of vikings, in which case I think sticking to ZSS HT alone would be more effective.
Hmm, but actually using immortals to bridge the gap to HT, and continuing to pump them might not be the worst thing in the world. I might try it :-)
One problem with immortals vs stalkers is the mobility. Once you engage with immortals you can't blink away or try and run away because they are so slow. That's a big reason why we see mainly stalkers being used over immortals.
I think they are making steps in the right direction. Obviously the game is far from perfectly balanced but also players haven't exhausted the strategies yet. I am just waiting for a pro protoss player to "figure it out" and then everyone will be having completely opposite thoughts then they are now.
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
lol nice joke blizzard. you might as well remove carriers in the next patch.
terrans are incorporating battlecruisers in their late game. zergs are incorporating brood lords with infestor for late game. what about carriers?
if blizzard can't see this problem, then i only hope for HotS.
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Infestors were always fairly useful, but come on now, you should use a better example than Fruitdealer. I think as time has passed it's become more and more obvious that his GSL win was more a product of Starcraft 2 being young at the time rather than Fruitdealer being any good.
On September 23 2011 16:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: Is this c&c influence or something for not liking positioning based play? I agree with Artosis on the Marauders. In fact, Marauders are the worst thing that happened in SC2. We have Protoss, Zerg and Space Marines. T_T
What did Artosis say about Marauders and when? Anyone hating on Marauders are ok by me :/
he's constantly shitting on them (and colossus) for being "skill-less attack move units" and has said that he doesn't play terran in sc2 because he doesn't want to use them.
I'd love to hear why exactly they felt ridiculously strange APM counting was a priority over just having seconds in-game be normal seconds? This still to this day confuses me. Not that it affects how I play, I'm just genuinely curious both why they're so dumb about it, and how fast the guy that just whooped my ass was playing!
so after a year+ Blizzard still has no balls to buff hydras? What they are waiting for expansion so they can add new icon and speed upgrade? gawd They are changing 1 unit but completely ignore other unit which is bad since the beginning.
I guess they won't do anything significant to Hydra, Carrier, Momaship and other underused unit before expansion...
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
All of the fungal usage in that video was Fruitdealer locking units down to kill them with banelings or ultras, not dealing insane DPS to mop up poorly microed bio-balls, stalkers, or vikings. The fungal buff was absolutely massive. It's what makes brood lord/infestor viable against terrans, and it's what makes stalker/colossus deathballs possible to deal with. Without something to deal with vikings while somewhat avoiding thors and tanks, zerg had no way to push against a defensive terran player other than throwing away 200 supply for every 50 of the terran's.
The difference between needing three fungals in 12 seconds to kill a viking and needing four fungals in 32 seconds to kill a viking is game-changing. The difference between needing four fungals in 16 seconds to kill a stalker and needing five fungals in 40 seconds to kill a stalker is game-changing. Do not ever say that the infestor buff was just a "pointer."
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
lol nice joke blizzard. you might as well remove carriers in the next patch.
terrans are incorporating battlecruisers in their late game. zergs are incorporating brood lords with infestor for late game. what about carriers?
if blizzard can't see this problem, then i only hope for HotS.
To fix the carrier blizzard will have to remove the colossus. They fill the same role and are countered by the same thing, so why would you ever swap from one to the other? You wouldn't, instead you just build more of the stronger one(colossus), this is one of many things that makes protoss so predictable - "oh no, he swapped from colossus to carrier! I guess I'll keep producing vikings".
The design is the entire backbone of the balance, they can keep fiddling with numbers but it'll never solve the real problems.
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
In the end it came down to a choice between the carrier and the mothership????
Are you fucking serious david kim, you guys try to create more functionality out of a unit that you have condemned multiple times to casual play and isnt even really built for competitive play, but leave alone the flagship air unit for protoss....
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
I think you are completely wrong on that...
People like Sase, Destiny etc have said that the damage Infestors do is irrelevant and why they are so strong is because of the stun
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
I had to re-read that line couple of times to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Why on earth did they choose the Mothership over Carriers?
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
lol nice joke blizzard. you might as well remove carriers in the next patch.
terrans are incorporating battlecruisers in their late game. zergs are incorporating brood lords with infestor for late game. what about carriers?
if blizzard can't see this problem, then i only hope for HotS.
To fix the carrier blizzard will have to remove the colossus. They fill the same role and are countered by the same thing, so why would you ever swap from one to the other? You wouldn't, instead you just build more of the stronger one(colossus), this is one of many things that makes protoss so predictable - "oh no, he swapped from colossus to carrier! I guess I'll keep producing vikings".
The design is the entire backbone of the balance, they can keep fiddling with numbers but it'll never solve the real problems.
Colossus counter marines and hydras, marines and hydras counter carriers. Hardly the same roles
warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 26 2011 13:45 Acritter wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
I think you are completely wrong on that...
People like Sase, Destiny etc have said that the damage Infestors do is irrelevant and why they are so strong is because of the stun
By your logic that means they would have been even better before with an 8 second stun. I dont think many people see that as the case though.
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote: [quote] im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 26 2011 13:45 Acritter wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
I think you are completely wrong on that...
People like Sase, Destiny etc have said that the damage Infestors do is irrelevant and why they are so strong is because of the stun
By your logic that means they would have been even better before with an 8 second stun. I dont think many people see that as the case though.
The Pro players obviously do, I don't know about the casuals out there.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
lol nice joke blizzard. you might as well remove carriers in the next patch.
terrans are incorporating battlecruisers in their late game. zergs are incorporating brood lords with infestor for late game. what about carriers?
if blizzard can't see this problem, then i only hope for HotS.
To fix the carrier blizzard will have to remove the colossus. They fill the same role and are countered by the same thing, so why would you ever swap from one to the other? You wouldn't, instead you just build more of the stronger one(colossus), this is one of many things that makes protoss so predictable - "oh no, he swapped from colossus to carrier! I guess I'll keep producing vikings".
The design is the entire backbone of the balance, they can keep fiddling with numbers but it'll never solve the real problems.
Colossus counter marines and hydras, marines and hydras counter carriers. Hardly the same roles
You're a confused young man, colossus counters everything that doesn't fly and marines and hydras doesn't really counter carriers unless the carriers are completely alone. They're both long range DPS units, you don't build them to counter anything but they are both countered by vikings/corruptors.
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 26 2011 13:45 Acritter wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
I think you are completely wrong on that...
People like Sase, Destiny etc have said that the damage Infestors do is irrelevant and why they are so strong is because of the stun
I don't know which part was wrong according to you, but I did say the old infestor might actually be better in ZvT and ZvZ... so I agree with Destiny apparently.
In ZvP however, infestors are all about the DPS (which is why they weren't made in that matchup before) so I don't know if Sase said that but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure every Protoss would love it if infestors went back to their old selves.
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
hahahaha xD nice troll i liek :D
if you are serious, watch herO vs IdrA etc. warp prisms are a nice way to harass... also I assume you are not on their level, so dts can work wonders in master league and lower.... or just warp in 6 zealots and cause havoc in mineral lines or destroy hatcheries etc. just because its not easy, doesnt make it useless oO also get your HTs in the dropship to save them from emp...
Also, I will give you a tip everyone was giving back when zerg had problems... JUST LEARN TO PLAY AND WAIT FOR THE METAGAME TO CHANGE
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote: [quote] im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 26 2011 13:45 Acritter wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote:
On September 24 2011 13:11 Weebem-Na wrote: Good read, I especially like the overall tone they use throughout. It's obvious they are doing the best anyone could, and really care about all of the matchups being interesting and even.
I would've voted for carriers as far as my play goes, but Mothership buff makes for some sweet pro matches so I'm cool with it.
im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
I think you are completely wrong on that...
People like Sase, Destiny etc have said that the damage Infestors do is irrelevant and why they are so strong is because of the stun
I don't know which part was wrong according to you, but I did say the old infestor might actually be better in ZvT and ZvZ... so I agree with Destiny apparently.
In ZvP however, infestors are all about the DPS (which is why they weren't made in that matchup before) so I don't know if Sase said that but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure every Protoss would love it if infestors went back to their old selves.
Infestors on their own, perhpas. But when broodlords come into play, the strenght of the infestor is to make the broods very hard to snipe with either blink stalkers or void rays, thus allowing them to do the damage. In that sense, infestors with an 8 seconds root are better than infestors with a 4 seconds root.
Also keep in mind that the old infestors would have been able to easily take down high sentry counts just as easily as the current infestor, since the damage vs light units unchanged. 3 fungals (i think it's 3, not sure) always killed sentries, and with no colossi/templar you aren't able to keep that from happening regardless of how fast that damage is being dealt.
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
Clearly you never watched pro BW and do not watch LiquidHero's games at all. Go watch him play vs MKP in WCG on GOM of Tyler's stream archive.
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
Not necessarily. Yes zealots may not be cost effective in some occasions, but warp prism harass accomplishes more than that. You can dictate his army movements, spread him thin, keep him from attacking you while you expand, force him out of position to snipe bases or tech with your main army. It's not only about killing 20 scv's with a zealot drop.
* David Kim is a game designer for StarCraft II and owns a Baneling pet in real life.
Pics?
Problem with the infestor range is that infestor has highest thread priority so anything in range will attack it and with the NP change that basically means everything. Haven't been able to use NP much against protoss and only when theres no tanks/few thors in vs T...
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
Clearly you never watched pro BW and do not watch LiquidHero's games at all. Go watch him play vs MKP in WCG on GOM of Tyler's stream archive.
What does BW even have to do with anything? Everything was way different back then, Zealots with speed were fearsome, and it was more difficult to simply react to drops in general. Dropping basically anything at an undefended location usually meant tons of damage, cause getting units over took a lot of time, comparatively. Also, Zealots were better, DTs were a much smaller commitment, and HTs were a lot more expendable in general - or at least losing a shuttle with 3 HTs didn't mean an instant loss, like it often can in SC2. And we also had Reavers.
The guy you quoted is wrong though, the buff does help. Protoss does have some ways to deal economic damage, including funky Sentry drops and Storm drops. The problem with those is that they rely on very expensive units, so losing the Warp Prism is terrible, and going through with the drop is a huge risk for not that much reward. Buffing the HP makes it less of a risk, which indeed makes drops worthwhile in some situations.
Still, Protoss drops will never be as effective as Marine or Baneling drops. They just don't have the necessary units.
On September 26 2011 08:17 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote: [quote]
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
This is totally wrong. Infestors were always a good unit, the fungal buff just made them even better. Personally, I'd of been fine if they left the infestor alone and just went ahead and tweaked the ultra, corruptor, or hydralisk because they really need it.
the difference was that 4s-8s fungal change <,< The dps increase and added potential of mass infestor play got exponentially greater.
I agree with FrostedMiniWheats that they were always good, and I think you got the most important part in that after the patch it became viable to mass them, that's the main difference.
People used to get 3 or 4 infestors maximum, and they were working great like this. Now it's actually less viable to do that IMO, you're encouraged to mass them because their only real use is to damage the other army, and if you only have a few there's no point.
I really wouldn't mind getting the old infestor back, I actually use them less now (of course, zerg would need something else in the late game to deal with deathballs).
On September 26 2011 13:45 Acritter wrote:
On September 26 2011 07:47 Joey Wheeler wrote:
On September 26 2011 03:46 Acritter wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:38 Jermstuddog wrote:
On September 25 2011 23:23 Firesilver wrote:
On September 24 2011 18:48 Roblin wrote: [quote] im honestly scared of the prospect of a carrier buff. its a good unit as it is, just very difficult to field in the game, but if people would find a good way to get them Im afraid of a "carrier-realization" equal or greater than the "infestor-realization" months ago.
And they shall block out the sun! I hope for this day to come personally because carriers are one of my all-time favorite units.
I really hate how people think that the infestor somehow got its utility from people just realizing it's good.
The Fungal Growth change is what made the infestor good, nothing else.
Do you honestly think that if Blizzard reverted Infestors to 8-second Fungal and 9-range Neural that they would be unused?
Infestors would be completely useless against Terran (medivac heals bio and mech has too much HP), unless going for a very heavy thor build so you can neural (they were already used for this).
Infestors would only be used against Protoss to keep Blink Stalkers immobile. So yes, it would be unused.
I seem to remember this one Zerg player using old Infestors against Terran. Such a pity I can't remember his name. Vegetabledistributor or something like that. Well, at least he didn't do it when Zerg was universally considered the weakest race or anything like that. It would be really great if I could link you to a famous video dedicated to his achievements that clearly showed him using Fungal on a ball of Tanks and Thors.
Please stop this ridiculousness. Infestors were always good. Zergs just needed a pointer from Blizzard to learn it, similar to the Ghost.
Now you're the one being ridiculous. Infestors were already standard in ZvZ and ZvT, no one needed a pointer.
There weren't used in ZvP because they were useless (trust me, at the time zerg players were trying everyting).
Why are they used in ZvP these days? Because of their DPS. Would that have been possible before? Not at all, they just didn't do the DPS against Stalkers. Remember their DPS was buffed by 160%...
I think you are completely wrong on that...
People like Sase, Destiny etc have said that the damage Infestors do is irrelevant and why they are so strong is because of the stun
I don't know which part was wrong according to you, but I did say the old infestor might actually be better in ZvT and ZvZ... so I agree with Destiny apparently.
In ZvP however, infestors are all about the DPS (which is why they weren't made in that matchup before) so I don't know if Sase said that but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure every Protoss would love it if infestors went back to their old selves.
Infestors on their own, perhpas. But when broodlords come into play, the strenght of the infestor is to make the broods very hard to snipe with either blink stalkers or void rays, thus allowing them to do the damage. In that sense, infestors with an 8 seconds root are better than infestors with a 4 seconds root.
Also keep in mind that the old infestors would have been able to easily take down high sentry counts just as easily as the current infestor, since the damage vs light units unchanged. 3 fungals (i think it's 3, not sure) always killed sentries, and with no colossi/templar you aren't able to keep that from happening regardless of how fast that damage is being dealt.
It's not just the bonus to damage though, it's how fast it's dealt. With the old infestor by the time you did your damage your army was dead. The meat of the Protoss army late game is the Stalker, and against them the DPS went up 160% (!!!) so there's a reason why infestors didn't work before and do now.
Anyway that's theory crafting, and the old infestor is sadly not going to come back so it's a pointless discussion.
* David Kim is a game designer for StarCraft II and owns a Baneling pet in real life.
Pics?
Problem with the infestor range is that infestor has highest thread priority so anything in range will attack it and with the NP change that basically means everything. Haven't been able to use NP much against protoss and only when theres no tanks/few thors in vs T...
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
You couldn't be more wrong, I think I can show you a game that will change your mind. Game 3 OGSvines vs IMtrue (it starts at about 32 minutes into the video) http://www.justin.tv/ignproleague/b/295902507
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers
No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait.
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
In lategame ZvP where the protoss is near to max and banking on ressources they actually are really good, something like 4 dts in the main can snipe tech structures very fast, and force to pull back some forces and detection. I even remember a game I lost because the protoss sniped my morphing greater spire just before it finished, leaving me with a bunch of useless corrupters and proceeded to roll me while I was building a new spire. Also 8 zealots in an expansion wreck stuff so fast it's ridiculous, spines don't really matter anymore against 3/3 zealots.
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
In lategame ZvP where the protoss is near to max and banking on ressources they actually are really good, something like 4 dts in the main can snipe tech structures very fast, and force to pull back some forces and detection. I even remember a game I lost because the protoss sniped my morphing greater spire just before it finished, leaving me with a bunch of useless corrupters and proceeded to roll me while I was building a new spire. Also 8 zealots in an expansion wreck stuff so fast it's ridiculous, spines don't really matter anymore against 3/3 zealots.
Not to mention I've seen some Masters Protoss players using a very unique style of play vs Zerg that revolves around getting a Robo simply for an Observer and Warp Prisms. What the Protoss does is keeps the Zerg in a defensive position by constantly dropping Zealots and DTs while expanding across the map. If the Zerg doesn't have a Spire to take out the Prisms he basically can't move out at all, Spine Crawlers and Spores just get demolished by Zealot/DT. It's a guerrilla style of play that can be quite difficult for Zerg to deal with, it carries them all the way into the late game and when you get to that point you have your Templar tech unlocked and already have a Robo for Immortals or Colossus to add into your army.
While yes, it does end up being rather expensive since the Protoss is constantly losing Zealots and DTs but if you do it properly that doesn't really matter since you should be able to establish a firm economic advantage anyways.
the ultralisk is waaay more useful with the build time buff
it's still not all that good though. I look forward to seeing pros use them in games that aren't already won. As is, they are amazing as a "get out" unit, or something to punish someone who doesn't know how to counter them.
stalker collossi is a good situation for ultra ling infestor, zealot archon will destroy ultra ling infestor with absolutely insane cost efficiency though. (i've been maxed with better upgrades and ultra ling infestor, and I'll trade army for army vs a 120 food zealot archon toss.)
On September 28 2011 18:02 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: warp prisms suck, not just because they die too easily, but because whatever units you harass with, it's pretty much a one way ticket. "wow lolol we can warp in so many units into the prism energy field" .... "oh shit, they are surrounded by zerglings within 1 second, and there's not enough room in the prism to help them escape.".
how exactly is harassment viable when you only have one-way transportation? Would anyone do muta harassment if mutas can only fly towards but not away from the enemy?
Now there is the second question... what unit do you harass with... exactly? zealots can't hit fleeing scvs. stalkers have dps worse than probes. i'm not even joking. a warpprism full of probes will do more damage in a straight up fight than a warp prism full of stalkers. what's left... collosus? prism+collosus is a pretty expensive combo to be shut down by 1 viking.
on the other hand, you have terran who can have one dropship of marauders kill your nexus before you can even get your army halways back to yourr base. oh, and they have dropships anyways in their army so why not use them...
only way to balance warp prism with terran dropships is to make high templar into a flying unit and able to carry 6 supply, and give it 150 hp. if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. welcome to the protoss equivalent of a terran unit.
as it stands currently, buffing the hp on warp prism doesn't do a damn thing. it totally misses the point. the design behind it seems to completely lack an understanding of what the unit needs to be able to do...
There is this cool unit called a high templar that can go into the warp prism (doesn't need to fly). If you put at least 2 into a prism you can take out a whole mineral line using this cool spell they have called psi-storm.
There is this other cool unit called a dark templar that you can warp in using the prism and then even leave it in the base while you fly away with your warp prism causing much frustration to your opponent (and perhaps a win).
You seem to lack understanding and are using hyperboles all throughout your post sir.
Also, protoss shouldn't be able to do everything that terran or zerg can do.
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__;
There is this cool unit called a high templar that can go into the warp prism (doesn't need to fly). If you put at least 2 into a prism you can take out a whole mineral line using this cool spell they have called psi-storm.
There is this other cool unit called a dark templar that you can warp in using the prism and then even leave it in the base while you fly away with your warp prism causing much frustration to your opponent (and perhaps a win).
The main problem seems to be that the Warp Prism is available and has such potential in the midgame, but the fact that all the options for it are either gimmicky or really high-tech/lategame means that you can only use the Warp Prism realistically when you are on 3 bases plus. Because there is no low-tech harassment option (Zealots are melee and slow before Charge, Stalkers are... well, Stalkers, Sentries are gas intensive and required for defense), Protoss can only use the Warp Prism later in the game.
And especially in PvT, the problem is often reaching the lategame with the 1-1-1.
I use to be okay with all the TvT in code S because mech play made it really fun to watch. Now its boring ass mass marines again. I just want to vent my frustration that all we every see are those fucking marines.......
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__;
My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them"
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
lol nice joke blizzard. you might as well remove carriers in the next patch.
terrans are incorporating battlecruisers in their late game. zergs are incorporating brood lords with infestor for late game. what about carriers?
if blizzard can't see this problem, then i only hope for HotS.
To fix the carrier blizzard will have to remove the colossus. They fill the same role and are countered by the same thing, so why would you ever swap from one to the other? You wouldn't, instead you just build more of the stronger one(colossus), this is one of many things that makes protoss so predictable - "oh no, he swapped from colossus to carrier! I guess I'll keep producing vikings".
The design is the entire backbone of the balance, they can keep fiddling with numbers but it'll never solve the real problems.
Wait now, so to fix carriers, remove colossus? I'm not sure if you're being serious. Newsflash: in SC1 carriers AND reavers existed. now are you gonna tell me colossus are stronger than reavers? Keep in mind that SC1 carriers > SC2 carriers.
The only reason I can see colossus being removed is if they, blizzard, heavily buff gateway units.
There is this cool unit called a high templar that can go into the warp prism (doesn't need to fly). If you put at least 2 into a prism you can take out a whole mineral line using this cool spell they have called psi-storm.
There is this other cool unit called a dark templar that you can warp in using the prism and then even leave it in the base while you fly away with your warp prism causing much frustration to your opponent (and perhaps a win).
The main problem seems to be that the Warp Prism is available and has such potential in the midgame, but the fact that all the options for it are either gimmicky or really high-tech/lategame means that you can only use the Warp Prism realistically when you are on 3 bases plus. Because there is no low-tech harassment option (Zealots are melee and slow before Charge, Stalkers are... well, Stalkers, Sentries are gas intensive and required for defense), Protoss can only use the Warp Prism later in the game.
And especially in PvT, the problem is often reaching the lategame with the 1-1-1.
I'm pretty sure the point of the change was to make protoss prism harass more effective and viable. I think the patch succeeded. The original poster in my quotes said there were no units to put in the prism. There are. I don't think the point of the change was to make prism harass available during the early game or to balance the 1-1-1 strategy but good points on THAT problem.
I am still shocked at the carrier vs mothership statement by Blizz... Just shocked.
It's almost as bad as the constant bunker changes we've seen in the past.
I've been trying to work in Carriers a lot lately.. and it's just not good. period. I mean, I should clarify, that perhaps carriers are just more difficult to use than collosus/HT tech, but that seems unlikely.
I just dont get why they dont do anything about carriers. All you would need to change is what liquid'Tyler was saying a few SOTG's ago... That the need the SC1 interceptor AI. Where tey only fly back to the carrier once out of range... the way it is now is if you issue a move command, many of those interceptors just fly back to the carrier muuuuuch earlier than in sc1, so ther isn't any carrier micro.
It's just so sad they went with the mothership change instead. So sad.
I think that thors having energy is stupid because its not necessary for balance. I mean, plox, how often do you see a thor being feedbacked? But mostly it is because the thor does not feel like a "mana-unit", lulz if u know what I mean. Leik, just for balance, they could like give the ultralisk (if it was strong lol) a useless ability that costs 500/500 to research and then a bunch of mana. But it would feel stupid and lame. Ok?
On September 29 2011 05:18 sagefreke wrote: I'd take a better ultralisk pathing over a build time buff anyday.
Ultras are still inferior as a late game unit compared to broodlords.
many people have suggested allowing Ultras to "walk over" Zerglings, much like the collossus do with protoss units(even though, obviously, collosi have the tall legs)
On September 24 2011 19:09 theBizness wrote: Agree. If they don't want to reduce the versatility of basically every Terran unit, they could simply make specialized add-ons so you can't just keep switching them around whenever it suits you.
Or make the other races have that same versatility, which is (hopefully) to come in the upcoming expansions, unfortunately.
Zerg lacks diversity, Protoss is rather predictable (which is part of their current downfall)
I have to completely disagree. Terran already has the hardest time in dealing with Zerg lategame tech switches and there is nothing more frustrating than having to deal with mass warp ins.
Yes you are right, terran can swap add ons, but what most people forget is that 1 tech building(cyber core- dark shrine - archives) gives you access to an almost infinite amount of dark templars, stalkers and high templars, only limited by the amount of ressources and warp gates.
If terran wants to go for mass banshees they are limited because they can only produce them off starports, which are expensive and high tech, same goes for factory units, the only similar unit that works like protoss units in production is the ghost (1 ghost academy - only limited by amount of barracks with add on), that's why it's so hard for terran to deal with lategame tech switches.
It's even a bigger problem against zerg, 1 tech building gives you access to an almost infinite amount of every unit, only limited by larva and ressources.
Zerg can tech switch from mass air, into mass tier 1 into mass tier 3 in less than a minute, it's already next to impossible for terran lategame to adjust to these tech switches, if you take away the ability to swap add ons to for example quickly produce mass vikings or mass marauders, etc... it's going to be absolutely impossible. If for example the zerg goes for mass broodlord and you have to get vikings, and you then need to build the reactors instead of swapping them with your barracks it would be pretty much game over.
Terran lategame tech switches are by far the slowest in the game, even with add on swapping, take that away from terran and there is no way on earth they will ever beat zerg lategame ever again and it will be very very problematic against protoss, if not impossible aswell.
What most people forget is that terran add-ons actually are really expensive, larva (which is the same thing essentially) is for free though and like I said, protoss can build units only limited by the amount of warpgates.
So you see, both other races use similar mechanics, for zerg it is even easier. Even Protoss robotics units use similar mechanics, immortals dont need an add-on, collossus need 1 robo bay and are then only limited by the amount of robos, same goes for carriers for example.
I think it's funny that Z and P players complain about add-on swaping when their races don't even require add-ons and can use the same game mechanic for essentially free. Larva even might be overpowered for all we know, there are no zerg who really perfectioned larva usage and tech switches, in years they might have to nerf larva because it might be too hard for terran and maybe protoss to keep up with zerg lategame tech switches.
You made me think for a minute... yet Stargates cost 150/150. Starports only cost 175/125 with a tech lab. If you have a sudden need for a raven you can quickly addon swap. Terran has it pretty good. Terran uses so little gas for their main army and have extra minerals per base due to MULEs. So I don't think there is anything harder or more expensive tech switch for Terran than for Protoss. Zerg? Yes they have good tech switch abilities. Is there any surprise that Protoss usually have 4 high templar when Terran has 8 ghosts?
On September 29 2011 05:46 B00ts wrote: I am still shocked at the carrier vs mothership statement by Blizz... Just shocked.
It's almost as bad as the constant bunker changes we've seen in the past.
I've been trying to work in Carriers a lot lately.. and it's just not good. period. I mean, I should clarify, that perhaps carriers are just more difficult to use than collosus/HT tech, but that seems unlikely.
I just dont get why they dont do anything about carriers. All you would need to change is what liquid'Tyler was saying a few SOTG's ago... That the need the SC1 interceptor AI. Where tey only fly back to the carrier once out of range... the way it is now is if you issue a move command, many of those interceptors just fly back to the carrier muuuuuch earlier than in sc1, so ther isn't any carrier micro.
It's just so sad they went with the mothership change instead. So sad.
I dont think carriers are the only problem with stargate units.
In PVT, phoenix are almost useless. People only go phoenix when terran go for some stupid 2port banshee. MC tried to make them viable, but its reaaaaally hard. When you see void rays if a protoss isnt doing an all in? Never.
In PVZ, zerg learned so fast how to adapt against void ray and phoenix harass, and we never see the cost paying for itself. Infestors and spore crawlers buff made it so easy to defend. After infestors are out, you can even use your phoenix to scout a zerg base anymore. One fungal and everything is gone.
Maybe if phoenix could also hit grounds units, like they were supposed to do, stargate would be so much better. This way, we would have an harass unit and a viable tech tree. Void rays could be an air to air unit, like phoenix are today.
* Mothership acceleration increased from 0.3 to 1.375. We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
lol nice joke blizzard. you might as well remove carriers in the next patch.
terrans are incorporating battlecruisers in their late game. zergs are incorporating brood lords with infestor for late game. what about carriers?
if blizzard can't see this problem, then i only hope for HotS.
To fix the carrier blizzard will have to remove the colossus. They fill the same role and are countered by the same thing, so why would you ever swap from one to the other? You wouldn't, instead you just build more of the stronger one(colossus), this is one of many things that makes protoss so predictable - "oh no, he swapped from colossus to carrier! I guess I'll keep producing vikings".
The design is the entire backbone of the balance, they can keep fiddling with numbers but it'll never solve the real problems.
Wait now, so to fix carriers, remove colossus? I'm not sure if you're being serious. Newsflash: in SC1 carriers AND reavers existed. now are you gonna tell me colossus are stronger than reavers? Keep in mind that SC1 carriers > SC2 carriers.
The only reason I can see colossus being removed is if they, blizzard, heavily buff gateway units.
Just to explain things for you: The point, he is trying to make, is that Colossi (which are kind of standard) have the same counter as carriers: the Viking and because of that switching from Colossi to Carriers doesn't give you any advantage at all.
Since your SC1 knowledge seems to be pretty good, you might also know that Reavers and Carriers do NOT have the same counter, since Reavers can't be targeted by anti-air. Furthermore I disagree on Colossi being stronger than Reaver. They fullfill different roles and due to the way they work, they can hardly be compared. If you still do so, I think most people would pick reavers over Colossi any time.
And the reason why people say "Remove Colossi" is not because of balance or because they want Carrier buffs, but rather because the Colossus is blunt and boring and because all Protoss MUs kind of revolve around that unit. Sure, we see different builds than the usual Colossus-stuff, but the Protoss play is too dependant and centered around Colossi and to some degree HTs.
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers
No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait.
On September 29 2011 01:11 Let it Raine wrote: the ultralisk is waaay more useful with the build time buff
it's still not all that good though. I look forward to seeing pros use them in games that aren't already won. As is, they are amazing as a "get out" unit, or something to punish someone who doesn't know how to counter them.
stalker collossi is a good situation for ultra ling infestor, zealot archon will destroy ultra ling infestor with absolutely insane cost efficiency though. (i've been maxed with better upgrades and ultra ling infestor, and I'll trade army for army vs a 120 food zealot archon toss.)
the buff has changed ZvZ. Ultras are quick and efficient against Infestor armies that were forced because of mutas.
On September 30 2011 07:42 RavenLoud wrote: Just make Carriers like in BW, 6 interceptor base dmg instead of 5 and with 4 armor.
Buff corruptors a bit too while they're at it
Carriers actually do 10 damage per interceptor in SC2 (the interceptors have two shots). If anything, they are stronger than their SC1 counterparts. Might I add that they start with 4 interceptors (SC1 carriers started with none) and they can purchase up to 8 without having to buy an upgrade? The only thing that the SC1 carrier has over it is +2 armor and the auto-heal interceptors when they come back in.
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__;
My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them"
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__;
My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them"
On September 30 2011 07:42 RavenLoud wrote: Just make Carriers like in BW, 6 interceptor base dmg instead of 5 and with 4 armor.
Buff corruptors a bit too while they're at it
Carriers actually do 10 damage per interceptor in SC2 (the interceptors have two shots). If anything, they are stronger than their SC1 counterparts. Might I add that they start with 4 interceptors (SC1 carriers started with none) and they can purchase up to 8 without having to buy an upgrade? The only thing that the SC1 carrier has over it is +2 armor and the auto-heal interceptors when they come back in.
Ah, for some reason I thought that BW carrier had 2x attack of 6. Never mind.
It comes with 4 interceptors but that's why it takes longer to build. (The build time doesn't need a nerf imo. Carriers is one of those "counter everything when massed" units that do need to have a long build time.)
So as you said, give it 4 armor, the auto-heal and the AI that someone mentioned above in the next PTR and see what happens.
On September 30 2011 07:42 RavenLoud wrote: Just make Carriers like in BW, 6 interceptor base dmg instead of 5 and with 4 armor.
Buff corruptors a bit too while they're at it
Carriers actually do 10 damage per interceptor in SC2 (the interceptors have two shots). If anything, they are stronger than their SC1 counterparts. Might I add that they start with 4 interceptors (SC1 carriers started with none) and they can purchase up to 8 without having to buy an upgrade? The only thing that the SC1 carrier has over it is +2 armor and the auto-heal interceptors when they come back in.
Ah, for some reason I thought that BW carrier had 2x attack of 6. Never mind.
It comes with 4 interceptors but that's why it takes longer to build. (The build time doesn't need a nerf imo. Carriers is one of those "counter everything when massed" units that do need to have a long build time.)
So as you said, give it 4 armor, the auto-heal and the AI that someone mentioned above in the next PTR and see what happens.
The most powerful part of carriers in SC1 was the ability to micro them. They could attack while moving once the interceptors were out. This may not seem like a big deal to the new members of the community but its basically what defined them as unit to those who played SC1 at a high level. Interceptor auto heal is also a huge loss.
Rofl @ "Infestors are too general" ...have you met marines? Pretty much saying "they weren't broken but we just didn't like the unit on a philosophical level so we screwed one of the races over big-time"
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers
No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait.
(edit): A reasonable buff.
Shorter build times?
Shorter build times, so when they die horribly to vikings/corruptors you can rebuild them faster? Yeah sounds reasonable. I said: name a buff that would make the carrier a VIABLE OPTION. Build times do not do that. Sorry. The unit would stay clunky, useless, and countered by easy to get units that can come out in huge numbers very quickly. Just because you can make them faster, does not change this fact.
Giving carriers a faster build time, 2 more armor, allowing interceptors to fire while the carrier is moving, and doing an instant full heal when they return would STILL not make the carrier viable. It would make it stronger, for sure... but it would still be countered brutally by both vikings and corruptors, which, by the time you can get out any threatening force of carriers, can be built REACTIVELY in large numbers. See, the carrier requires a pretty major change in game design which can only be implemented in an expansion (Possibly a new kind of interceptor that you can mix into your normal combination, or a new upgrade?) before it will be viable. Blizzard knows this. They gauged the situation, decided that any small tweak they give to carriers would ultimately be worthless because it would STILL not make carriers viable, and went with the mothership. They didn't just flip a coin. They didn't decide to succumb to their childish nostalgia. They did what was best for the game. The mothership is already close to viable in all matchups, and all it takes would be a small tweak before we could see them in action. Trust me... I want to build carriers too. But I understand their problems. I understand their limitations. I understand their counters. I can also use my brain. If any one person can give me a suggestion for a buff to the carrier that would allow it to be a viable end game option, without overpowering it or overhauling it, I will eat my hat. But I can pretty much guarantee you wont.
This has been for all you whining crybabies who have difficulty reasoning through a decision they do not like.
since when do carriers die to vikigns x3 its the other way round, the only way to really beat carriers is to kill their interceptors and chase them down on retreat. Carriers work just like in bw, sneak in the tech and suprise the opponent with 4 unbeatable air units. But since terran is mostly going bio and is pretty much aggressive, you have to be ahead to not die to the aggression. So carriers are already viable late late game and i don't see a reason to make them viable earlier. When it comes to 4 base carriers are my go to unit x3 (well i only get one for sniping things most of the time)
Carriers are just underestimated and if you play something with the mind set of its bad it will be bad. Especially with such a micro intensive unit. Well they work for me. But that doesn't mean that they work in bronze or in gm. I mean banelings busts breaking the wallin is a win for the zerg in master often. In gm you just traded 2 depots for 20 banelings as the marines are in perfect anti baneling formation.
PS: i love the interceptor retreat on range 13 saving interceptors yay.
On September 30 2011 09:35 FeyFey wrote: since when do carriers die to vikigns x3 its the other way round, the only way to really beat carriers is to kill their interceptors and chase them down on retreat. Carriers work just like in bw, sneak in the tech and suprise the opponent with 4 unbeatable air units. But since terran is mostly going bio and is pretty much aggressive, you have to be ahead to not die to the aggression. So carriers are already viable late late game and i don't see a reason to make them viable earlier. When it comes to 4 base carriers are my go to unit x3 (well i only get one for sniping things most of the time)
Carriers are just underestimated and if you play something with the mind set of its bad it will be bad. Especially with such a micro intensive unit. Well they work for me. But that doesn't mean that they work in bronze or in gm. I mean banelings busts breaking the wallin is a win for the zerg in master often. In gm you just traded 2 depots for 20 banelings as the marines are in perfect anti baneling formation.
PS: i love the interceptor retreat on range 13 saving interceptors yay.
Mass Reapers is viable in that it wins the occasional game. Saying that a unit wins you games does not make that unit a "viable unit".
We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership.
That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__;
My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them"
Because that is not how you balance a race.
Protoss is balanced by having carriers suck?
No one uses carriers much. People used mothership more than carrier. Therefore they chose to improve the unit that was used more instead of using a random guess. :|
Its like how they buffed infestors when people started using them and nerfed Thors when people started going mass Thor.
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers
No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait.
(edit): A reasonable buff.
Shorter build times?
Shorter build times, so when they die horribly to vikings/corruptors you can rebuild them faster? Yeah sounds reasonable. I said: name a buff that would make the carrier a VIABLE OPTION. Build times do not do that. Sorry. The unit would stay clunky, useless, and countered by easy to get units that can come out in huge numbers very quickly. Just because you can make them faster, does not change this fact.
Giving carriers a faster build time, 2 more armor, allowing interceptors to fire while the carrier is moving, and doing an instant full heal when they return would STILL not make the carrier viable. It would make it stronger, for sure... but it would still be countered brutally by both vikings and corruptors, which, by the time you can get out any threatening force of carriers, can be built REACTIVELY in large numbers. See, the carrier requires a pretty major change in game design which can only be implemented in an expansion (Possibly a new kind of interceptor that you can mix into your normal combination, or a new upgrade?) before it will be viable. Blizzard knows this. They gauged the situation, decided that any small tweak they give to carriers would ultimately be worthless because it would STILL not make carriers viable, and went with the mothership. They didn't just flip a coin. They didn't decide to succumb to their childish nostalgia. They did what was best for the game. The mothership is already close to viable in all matchups, and all it takes would be a small tweak before we could see them in action. Trust me... I want to build carriers too. But I understand their problems. I understand their limitations. I understand their counters. I can also use my brain. If any one person can give me a suggestion for a buff to the carrier that would allow it to be a viable end game option, without overpowering it or overhauling it, I will eat my hat. But I can pretty much guarantee you wont.
This has been for all you whining crybabies who have difficulty reasoning through a decision they do not like.
When you integrate splash damage you counter the stuff that counters carriers.
Marines and Vikings get torn up by Storm. Goliaths were great against Carriers (although a bit weaker since they can't fly), but if you got the "holy trinity" of Dragoon-Templar-Carrier, than you were in good shape.
On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote: In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK.
this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers
No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait.
(edit): A reasonable buff.
Shorter build times?
Shorter build times, so when they die horribly to vikings/corruptors you can rebuild them faster? Yeah sounds reasonable. I said: name a buff that would make the carrier a VIABLE OPTION. Build times do not do that. Sorry. The unit would stay clunky, useless, and countered by easy to get units that can come out in huge numbers very quickly. Just because you can make them faster, does not change this fact.
Giving carriers a faster build time, 2 more armor, allowing interceptors to fire while the carrier is moving, and doing an instant full heal when they return would STILL not make the carrier viable. It would make it stronger, for sure... but it would still be countered brutally by both vikings and corruptors, which, by the time you can get out any threatening force of carriers, can be built REACTIVELY in large numbers. See, the carrier requires a pretty major change in game design which can only be implemented in an expansion (Possibly a new kind of interceptor that you can mix into your normal combination, or a new upgrade?) before it will be viable. Blizzard knows this. They gauged the situation, decided that any small tweak they give to carriers would ultimately be worthless because it would STILL not make carriers viable, and went with the mothership. They didn't just flip a coin. They didn't decide to succumb to their childish nostalgia. They did what was best for the game. The mothership is already close to viable in all matchups, and all it takes would be a small tweak before we could see them in action. Trust me... I want to build carriers too. But I understand their problems. I understand their limitations. I understand their counters. I can also use my brain. If any one person can give me a suggestion for a buff to the carrier that would allow it to be a viable end game option, without overpowering it or overhauling it, I will eat my hat. But I can pretty much guarantee you wont.
This has been for all you whining crybabies who have difficulty reasoning through a decision they do not like.
When you integrate splash damage you counter the stuff that counters carriers.
Marines and Vikings get torn up by Storm. Goliaths were great against Carriers (although a bit weaker since they can't fly), but if you got the "holy trinity" of Dragoon-Templar-Carrier, than you were in good shape.
Keyword: Were. This applies nicely in SC1, but in SC2, it doesn't work so well. Storm is significantly harder to pull off, because the area of effect is very low, and anyone with a peanut for a brain can split vikings. Not to mention the presence of Ghosts. While a science vessel was an easy target back in the day, ghosts are not so much. Because of this HT value is greatly diminished in SC2 as a whole. Also, comparing vikings to goliaths is hardly apt, because Vikings are easier to spread, and stack (as an air unit) allowing more of them to attack at longer range. And while Dragoons would shit all over goliaths, Stalkers do no such thing to vikings, because of Marine support.
So while HT/Stalker/Carrier seems roughly equal to HT/Dragoon/Carrier in terms of a units position in the tech tree, they are nothing remotely similar in terms of power.
People who grumble about Mothership buff v. Carrier buff need to sit back a bit and look at the big picture. Mothership, while a strange concept, can be useful at the right hand - especially in PvZ. Carriers, on the other hand, simply don't have the role in current game design. (admittedly Blizzard's fault) For harrasing, pheonix do better. For DPS, Void Rays are more cost/food efficient. That leaves carriers as a seige unit, and then its role will overlap that of colossus. And they becomes too similar to brood lords.
So Carrier buff can potentially break the fragile balance. The unit needs redesign and we will have to wait for HotS for that.
On September 30 2011 08:35 Lumi wrote: Rofl @ "Infestors are too general" ...have you met marines? Pretty much saying "they weren't broken but we just didn't like the unit on a philosophical level so we screwed one of the races over big-time"
how short is your memory? You are acting like an ingrate. They buff'd the heck out of the infestor previously and just took it back a bit, because they waaaayyyyyy over shot. Now you are acting like you have been robbed when it was actually a huuuugggge buff that you got on the infestor.
On September 28 2011 15:59 bgx wrote: so after a year+ Blizzard still has no balls to buff hydras? What they are waiting for expansion so they can add new icon and speed upgrade? gawd They are changing 1 unit but completely ignore other unit which is bad since the beginning.
I guess they won't do anything significant to Hydra, Carrier, Momaship and other underused unit before expansion...
In the entire thread, this is the only intelligent thing that has been said. There has been hundreds of posts in this thread, but none of them have brain. But, the hydra definitely needs buff. They currently have no role in tvp (colosus) and in tvz (they die easily).
In BW, the hydra was easy to get and amass. In SC2, hydras got screwed and zergs can't fight protoss.
On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote: I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t
On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote: I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t
On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote: I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t
enough said.
The ghost would like to have a word with you.
and the colossus would like to have a word with the ghost.
Seriously, until mech becomes somewhat viable against P it isn't profitable for Terrans to go into the late game. What can we build lategame that is better than our early game units? We can upgrade our bio (and protoss always upgrades faster), we can add in some vikings (to try to counter colossi, a delicate dance at best because if you overbuild those it's gg just the same) and we can add ghosts for emp to try to counter templar and archons.
On the other hand protoss usually research charge sooner or later they can mix robo units (colossi) with the higher gateway units for a VERY harsh combination, and can stock up on 15+ warpgates if they want. That just isn't something any terran likes to face so they try to finish the game earlier...
On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote: I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t
enough said.
Is this a serious post? I see so many pro games where the toss vastly outplays the terran all game, then loses to mass EMP.
In the entire thread, this is the only intelligent thing that has been said. There has been hundreds of posts in this thread, but none of them have brain. But, the hydra definitely needs buff. They currently have no role in tvp (colosus) and in tvz (they die easily).
In BW, the hydra was easy to get and amass. In SC2, hydras got screwed and zergs can't fight protoss.
Hydras don't have a role in TvP? WOW, what a surprise.
This Patch is a step in the right direction, but the nerf to the Neural came out of the blue. The Mothership buff was a pleasant surprise, but their thought process on the Carrier displayed a surprising lack of logic.
On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote: I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t
enough said.
The ghost would like to have a word with you.
and the colossus would like to have a word with the ghost.
Seriously, until mech becomes somewhat viable against P it isn't profitable for Terrans to go into the late game. What can we build lategame that is better than our early game units? We can upgrade our bio (and protoss always upgrades faster), we can add in some vikings (to try to counter colossi, a delicate dance at best because if you overbuild those it's gg just the same) and we can add ghosts for emp to try to counter templar and archons.
On the other hand protoss usually research charge sooner or later they can mix robo units (colossi) with the higher gateway units for a VERY harsh combination, and can stock up on 15+ warpgates if they want. That just isn't something any terran likes to face so they try to finish the game earlier...
I approve of this message. There is just no way I am going to let toss get into the k Late game
* Protoss * Immortal attack range increased from 5 to 6. We wanted to help protoss fight against the terran 1/1/1 strategy without impacting or changing other parts of the game too much.
i am not sure if this statement is a joke - it affects PvZ a lot. Roaches seem to be a lot weaker because immortals are way harder to snipe now well protected behind the stalkers. Also allinish pushed with immortals are way harder to defend and makes spine crawlers even worse as they used to be in PvZ.
EPT
Waiting until HotS to fix these problems might be too late, as we can see from the recent GSL results.
