|
On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal.
Yeah I always found this extremely stupid. What does this even accomplish? To help a cheesing bunker terran to transition into safe play afterwards? For terrans to safely build defense without much thinking on whether they even need the bunkers? I just don't understand it.
|
Brazil267 Posts
finally something to balance toss race with the others...
|
On October 26 2011 06:29 VPCursed wrote:
why does toss need cheaper upgrades, dont they get 3-3 fast enough?
This exactly.
|
On October 26 2011 07:43 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal. Yeah I always found this extremely stupid. What does this even accomplish? To help a cheesing bunker terran to transition into safe play afterwards? For terrans to safely build defense without much thinking on whether they even need the bunkers? I just don't understand it.
no one else has to spend army supply for static defense either.
|
On October 26 2011 07:34 ExorArgus wrote:
Protoss rejoice.
So now our upgrades that effect our units less that come from the most expensive of the buildings (Evo chamber is 75(a drone is lost though so w.e) E bay is 125 and forge is 150). Now that extra 375 minerals/gas for 3/3/3 can be used for hookers and beers...i mean an expansion and extra sentries.
Edit: people complaining about "now they getting them the fastest and the cheapest" its 375/375 over 1825 seconds-10(# cronoboosts used) (assuming 2 forges)
I think your assessment of the cost and use of the upgrading buildings themselves is a little short sighted. The forge upgrades literally everything that Protoss has on the ground, where E Bay only does bio (and structure upgrades) and Evo Chamber only does melee or ranged at a time. Additionally it could be argued that the access to the cannon, especially early game is a required slightly higher mineral cost.
On topic though, I get the shield reduction and the EMP change, but the armour and weapons costs were never really an issue. That said, I don't think changing those two as well is going to matter so I'll just be happy for the Protoss players out there.
|
|
|
I really like this patch from Blizzard. The EMP change was needed as we see way too many blanket EMPs into lol all over the protoss army in TvP. I also like the upgrade cost changes. It's really subtle as 25/25, 50/50, 75/75 isn't going to be a big deal over the course of a 20+ minute game but it might give protoss that tiny bit of extra stability with a few more units out.
|
Fun to see people complain about upgrades when zerg and terran can just make any unit they want and run protoss over before collosus is out. Protoss needs this for earlygame.
|
On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal.
Bunkers are absolutely necessarily to stop certain timing attacks from protoss. When is protoss ever forced to build cannons against terran?
Spines can be uprooted and used to control space elsewhere, bunkers can be salvaged, cannons give detection and shoot both ground and air targets. Different defensive structures are different.
|
OH EM GEE
This means I can play how I want effffffffff yessssssssss
|
On October 26 2011 07:43 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal. Yeah I always found this extremely stupid. What does this even accomplish? To help a cheesing bunker terran to transition into safe play afterwards? For terrans to safely build defense without much thinking on whether they even need the bunkers? I just don't understand it.
Terran get to move their bunkers, Zerg get to physically move their Spines/Spores and Protoss get a single structure that detects and shoots grounf and air. Sounds fair to me?
|
On October 26 2011 07:43 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal. Yeah I always found this extremely stupid. What does this even accomplish? To help a cheesing bunker terran to transition into safe play afterwards? For terrans to safely build defense without much thinking on whether they even need the bunkers? I just don't understand it.
A bunker in its self is just a wall, you have to put something in it for it to be useful, which reduces the size of your army.
P has both anti air and ground in one, takes less space. Cannon rushes
Z has awesome MOVEABLE anti air and good anti ground. Both are useful for the supply trick at 200/200.
The races are different. Deal with it 
|
On October 26 2011 07:44 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:43 pzea469 wrote:On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal. Yeah I always found this extremely stupid. What does this even accomplish? To help a cheesing bunker terran to transition into safe play afterwards? For terrans to safely build defense without much thinking on whether they even need the bunkers? I just don't understand it. no one else has to spend army supply for static defense either.
Wat? You can leave the bunker. It has a door on it.
|
Wait, weren't the Protoss weapons upgrades always that cost? or did I just assume that it was the same as BW and never bother to read the tooltip?
|
woot woot 
|
i think this is wrong way of changing toss. since they have super strong units already and double upgrades (tripple) with cb seems to strong.
|
Hmm cheaper upgrades, interesting.
anyways I agree with the shield upgrades, don't know if the weps/armor were necessary.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 26 2011 07:42 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:40 Whitewing wrote:On October 26 2011 07:39 darkness wrote:On October 26 2011 07:38 Thobrik wrote:
I can't believe they didn't touch the bunker. I really strongly feel terrans should get at the very least 77% of the resources back from salvaging rather than the petty 75. Irony? Because it's about 2 minerals I think. :D Anyway, bunker should give only 50% back imho. Bunker shouldn't even be salvagable at all -_-. Nobody else gets to throw down a defensive structure then voluntarily get rid of it when they don't need it anymore to get most of the money back. Terran's defense is too strong, and their harass is downright lethal. Its to compliment Zergs being able to uproot and reroot somewhere else. And Protoss used to have phase cannons. But was decided that having two stationary structures inside one unit was enough.
It doesn't need to compliment another race. Terran defense is too powerful, and there's very low cost for making a bad decision to bunker. Terran can bunker and sell it if it turns out they didn't need it, and hell, they can sell it even if they did need it, as long as it doesn't die, which it doesn't because they repair it -_-.
Zergs need the ability to uproot because their defense is MUCH weaker than Terran's, so bad building position costs them immensely. I feel the same way about protoss, but cannon rushing would be too strong if they could move their cannons. Arc shield should help, but frankly Terran is just too forgiving as a race.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 26 2011 07:46 Emata wrote:
Wait, weren't the Protoss weapons upgrades always that cost? or did I just assume that it was the same as BW and never bother to read the tooltip?
You just assumed and were wrong.
|
On October 26 2011 06:58 stormfoxSC wrote:
EMP change is good, but those upgrade changes are gonna leave me seriously wanting HotS a lot sooner... gonna be needing those battle hellions to even think of surviving chargelot/archon in TvP. T_T;; I'll do my best with regular hellions in the meantime...
DUDE, plz tell me, are you just as ignorant, as all the other QQers?
The buff to the fucking upgrades is negligible! 3/3/0 costs 150/150 less. Thats 1 Zealot and 1 Sentry. Do you seriously think, that having these 2 additional units, at the time when upgrades are finished (well above 100 supply), is gonna make protoss overpowered in PvT?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
