1.4.2 Patch notes PTR - Page 98

Masayoshi

9 Posts

October 27 2011 04:11 GMT

#1941

Instead of nerfing emp and reducing cost of upgrades I think it would have been cool to give shield upgrades emp shielding.

For example +2 shield gives the normal shield upgrade and only takes 75% damage from emp and +3 shield gives the normal shield upgrade and only takes 50% damage from emp.

This would have made no change in PvZ, but reduced the "OMG my army is at half health before they fired a shot" effect. It would also make shields extremely viable in PvT

kofman

Andorra698 Posts

October 27 2011 04:20 GMT

#1942

On October 27 2011 11:29 Plansix wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 27 2011 05:21 blamekilly wrote:

On October 27 2011 03:34 Plansix wrote:

On October 27 2011 02:27 blamekilly wrote:

On October 27 2011 02:10 nanaoei wrote:

On October 27 2011 00:28 AmericanUmlaut wrote:

On October 27 2011 00:24 Big.E33 wrote:
is it now viable to get shields +1 before armor +3?

especially in a archon/zealot composition?

Keep in mind that the more defense you already have, the better a defense upgrade is. Going from +2 armor to +3 means you're going from taking 3 damage per shot from an unupgraded Marine to 2 damage, a 33% reduction. Going from +0 shields to +1 takes you from 6 damage per shot to 5, which is only a 17% reduction. Especially given that a lot of those shots will be reduced still further by Guardian Shield, it's probably still worth the investment to get the armor first.

lets pretend health and shields are the same, to mostly simulate a stalker,a sentry, or even a collosus (for almost any other units this is wrong)

you're not wrong, but considering you're picking your first upgrade, +1 armor and +1 shields is practically the same upgrade (with the above). there is however a tendancy to want to not take hull damage or actual HP. the handful-of-stalker-vs-handful-of-marine situation happens a bit earlier than you would get either upgrade, but i can't help but think shields-first would be ideal if you can save most of your hurt units from death in your very first engagements.
shields recharge to their full amount, armor only applies to the remaining health of the unit whether it's 10 hp or 80. i'm sure you get what i mean there.
...

*edit* i guess this is why people value attack upgrades more than armor sometimes : D when they get a ball of units.
the units themsevles---the zealot or even a stalker are special units for protoss though which go against this because of the units that are used against them. (marauders which do 10, with marines, or zerglings against stalkers)

Are you absolutely sure that armor only affects the health portion of a protoss army??? That doesn't sound right to me.

source?

Are you dead serious???? You claim to be a masters player on the NA server and you have no idea that the shield's upgrade only affects shields?

Did you know that zerg melee upgrade only affects melee units?

Actually, I didn't know any of these things. I play terran, the race everyone complains about and just happen to make masters easily.

Clearly with zero game knowledge. Do you ever wonder why people complain about the race?

I wonder why people complain about terran when toss can just 1a their deathball to victory...

User was warned for this post

Penecks

United States600 Posts

October 27 2011 04:21 GMT

#1943

I won't speak for GSL level players, but playing in the lowly master's league any late game engagement against Toss without multiple EMPs ready is a disaster for the terran. Actually going toe to toe with fully shielded chargelot/archon/possibly collosi will see your army absolutely demolished almost regardless of anything else. That's assuming you dodge every storm as well. I'll wait to try out the changes before crying further, however.

Reborn8u

United States1761 Posts

October 27 2011 04:21 GMT

#1944

“Audio Fade” under Sound Options has been renamed to Game Volume During Alerts. Its tooltips have also been changed for clarification.

The fade-in for game sound during alerts changed from .5 seconds to 2 seconds"

This has been completely overlooked in this thread, but I'm a little unsure of what it means precisely. I know there have been plenty of times when I get an alert WAY to late. I hear the alert that my probes or my base is under attack (while I'm in the middle of microing a battle), then press space bar only to find the damage is already done and I was under attack 10 seconds ago. As I'm sure you know MMM or mutas can kill A LOT of stuff in just 5 seconds. Has anyone else noticed this?

Please don't flame with the "you should be looking at your minimap", I can't argue that isn't true, but I should be able to rely on both my visual and audio sensory to be alerted of danger. These types of alerts are in the game for this reason.

mordk

Chile8385 Posts

October 27 2011 04:23 GMT

#1945

On October 27 2011 13:21 Penecks wrote:
I won't speak for GSL level players, but playing in the lowly master's league any late game engagement against Toss without multiple EMPs ready is a disaster for the terran. Actually going toe to toe with fully shielded chargelot/archon/possibly collosi will see your army absolutely demolished almost regardless of anything else. That's assuming you dodge every storm as well. I'll wait to try out the changes before crying further, however.

EMP still exists and can still cause massive damage. I think the patch is meant to give templars some sort of possibility in the caster vs caster encounter.

tomatriedes

New Zealand5356 Posts

October 27 2011 04:38 GMT

#1946

On October 27 2011 12:19 The_Unseen wrote:

Show nested quote +

Errr... You do realize he did so good with this build because no one knew about it at the time? I swear, try doing just this build 50 games now, and you can say goodbye to your MMR

Alright, not as effective anymore but still it showed the power of terran all-ins. And the 1-1-1 build remains a very well-known and yet still extremely difficult to stop build. Many terran players on TL have admitted they can get 90% win rates vs toss below masters level if they 1-1-1 every game. If you 4-gate against terran in platinum or diamond you'll win maybe 1 in 10 games if you're lucky. Vr all-in is better but will still only work about 50% or less. Still nowhere near as good as 1-1-1.

penguinking

United States23 Posts

October 27 2011 04:42 GMT

#1947

i would like to see one of these PTR patch thread where people say that this is just the PTR and there is a chance the changes wont even make it into the game and where people say that while they might dislike the changes being tested out that blizzard probably has a reason for doing them and tries to see why these changes might be happening.

Soulish

Canada1403 Posts

October 27 2011 05:25 GMT

#1948

On October 27 2011 10:58 HarryHood wrote:
I don't think people realize how much of a nerf this is. The the area covered by EMP is 56.25% of what it was, that is HUGE for a balance change.

even progamers were using multiple emps on stuff like zealots anyways, if you get like 5 ghosts there would still be np emping units

Hoodlum

United States350 Posts

October 27 2011 05:32 GMT

#1949

On October 27 2011 13:23 mordk wrote:

Show nested quote +

EMP still exists and can still cause massive damage. I think the patch is meant to give templars some sort of possibility in the caster vs caster encounter.

In my opinion, if the problem was caster vs caster battles then snipe is what need a look because I'm much more likely to snipe your templaar then to emp it...

DarkPlasmaBall

United States44252 Posts

October 27 2011 05:40 GMT

#1950

On October 27 2011 14:32 Hoodlum wrote:

Show nested quote +

In my opinion, if the problem was caster vs caster battles then snipe is what need a look because I'm much more likely to snipe your templaar then to emp it...

Well EMP and Snipe both tend to take out infestors, high templar, and other spellcasters quite easily.

You know what would solve both problems? Making the ghost's range shorter so that they couldn't get away with casting their spells over the other spellcasters every frickin time -.-'

edc

United States666 Posts

October 27 2011 05:40 GMT

#1951

Yes, what an epic Protoss buff! Though I must admit that it is a totally unexpected and rather strange one...

Dingobloo

Australia1903 Posts

October 27 2011 05:55 GMT

#1952

On October 27 2011 13:11 Masayoshi wrote:
Instead of nerfing emp and reducing cost of upgrades I think it would have been cool to give shield upgrades emp shielding.

For example +2 shield gives the normal shield upgrade and only takes 75% damage from emp and +3 shield gives the normal shield upgrade and only takes 50% damage from emp.

This would have made no change in PvZ, but reduced the "OMG my army is at half health before they fired a shot" effect. It would also make shields extremely viable in PvT

If that's the direction they wanted to head they would have just reduced the amount of shield damage emp does, they clearly want it to affect both TvP and TvZ.

bovineblitz

United States314 Posts

October 27 2011 06:00 GMT

#1953

The EMP nerf is definitely intended to reduce the DAMAGE done via blanket EMP. Templars can still be neutralized via snipe at the same distance as before. It'll be harder to hit every single sentry too, but IMO the intention is to prevent an EMP from doing instant 1k damage.

susySquark

United States1692 Posts

October 27 2011 06:02 GMT

#1954

I've been playing PTR but have never had a game that has gone long enough for +2 to kick in as toss or for ghosts to see play. Stop all-inning me please guys!

Dalavita

Sweden1113 Posts

October 27 2011 06:44 GMT

#1955

On October 27 2011 14:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

Show nested quote +

How does that make sense if they'd only get feedbacked a hundred percent of the time then? What kind of balance is that?

mlspmatt

Canada404 Posts

October 27 2011 06:57 GMT

#1956

I think the patch is close to the mark. Maybe the ghost AOE nurf is a little much, 40%+ is a lot, but a lot of credible Toss like Whitera have said they think the ghost is too strong. So it's probably warranted.

theBizness

United States696 Posts

October 27 2011 07:04 GMT

#1957

Should just change EMP to non instantaneous. Amount of energy removed based on duration a la storm.