|
On November 07 2011 04:01 CellTech wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 03:02 IVN wrote:On November 07 2011 03:00 CellTech wrote:On November 07 2011 02:54 IVN wrote:On November 07 2011 02:43 CellTech wrote: Please learn to read, did I say PvT or PvZ. Archons were worse in PvT because they effectively had 10 hp because the EMP was complete shield depletion. Never did I mention PvZ or PvP.
Not to mention they'd have to travel through a minefield/mass siege tank line. Clearly you nubs above have never even seen a single Broodwar game / are probably 12 years old. Archons werent used in PvT, because there were better tanking and anti mine units (zealots), and because of the size of mech units, splash wasnt too helpful. Besides, having HTs for storm (which had insane radius compared to SC2) was more important, than having them for archons. Archons werent bad, there were just better options. In HotS, if mech becomes popular (thx to warhounds and new hellions), you wont be seeing archons either. That's fine i'll just transition into carriers. Wait no I won't. You'll prob make a lot of chargelots, replicants, immortals and phoenixes. Chargelots will melt like kit kat bars being thrown into the sun. Immortals are meh.. Phoenix's will get wrecked by warhounds, and replicants arent really good for anything because theyll be outnumbered. Simple theorycrafting tells you, you need to switch to air vs a highly immobile mech army. Chargelots will only be there for absorbing tank shots, and for harrasing. Immortals are awesome vs full mech. Its the bio mech (marines), that fuck immortals up. Repicants will be good for copying tanks, and for controlling space, so that terran cant just move to your front door and siege. And phoenix will be good for busting siegelines. You basically send them in simultaneously with the chargelots, lift the tanks, siege your replicants in range and send immortals in. Your replicants target hellions, your immortals own warhounds while waiting for the phoenix to get wiped out/for tanks to come down.
|
On November 07 2011 04:01 CellTech wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 03:02 IVN wrote:On November 07 2011 03:00 CellTech wrote:On November 07 2011 02:54 IVN wrote:On November 07 2011 02:43 CellTech wrote: Please learn to read, did I say PvT or PvZ. Archons were worse in PvT because they effectively had 10 hp because the EMP was complete shield depletion. Never did I mention PvZ or PvP.
Not to mention they'd have to travel through a minefield/mass siege tank line. Clearly you nubs above have never even seen a single Broodwar game / are probably 12 years old. Archons werent used in PvT, because there were better tanking and anti mine units (zealots), and because of the size of mech units, splash wasnt too helpful. Besides, having HTs for storm (which had insane radius compared to SC2) was more important, than having them for archons. Archons werent bad, there were just better options. In HotS, if mech becomes popular (thx to warhounds and new hellions), you wont be seeing archons either. That's fine i'll just transition into carriers. Wait no I won't. You'll prob make a lot of chargelots, replicants, immortals and phoenixes. Chargelots will melt like kit kat bars being thrown into the sun. Immortals are meh.. Phoenix's will get wrecked by warhounds, and replicants arent really good for anything because theyll be outnumbered. Simple theorycrafting tells you, you need to switch to air vs a highly immobile mech army.
I can do some simpler theorycrafting -robo tech will still be in the game and it does just fine against mech given that colossus never have to siege giving you a huge advantage from the get go, not to mention the now 6 range immortals being so fucking sick against tanks. And chargelots make pretty good meat shields tbh.
Also that's not simple theorycrafting you're doing, it's copy pasting what you have seen in BW and assuming it will work the same way in SC2.
And this
Clearly you nubs above have never even seen a single Broodwar game / are probably 12 years old.
displays much more immaturity than the people you were insulting did...
|
On November 07 2011 02:54 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 02:43 CellTech wrote: Please learn to read, did I say PvT or PvZ. Archons were worse in PvT because they effectively had 10 hp because the EMP was complete shield depletion. Never did I mention PvZ or PvP.
Not to mention they'd have to travel through a minefield/mass siege tank line. Clearly you nubs above have never even seen a single Broodwar game / are probably 12 years old. Archons werent used in PvT, because there were better tanking and anti mine units (zealots), and because of the size of mech units, splash wasnt too helpful. Besides, having HTs for storm (which had insane radius compared to SC2) was more important, than having them for archons. Archons werent bad, there were just better options. In HotS, if mech becomes popular (thx to warhounds and new hellions), you wont be seeing archons either.
Sure you will. They're one of the only non-mech toss units, so they'll rape warhounds. Tanks and hellions are crap against them too.
|
On November 07 2011 05:15 _Search_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 02:54 IVN wrote:On November 07 2011 02:43 CellTech wrote: Please learn to read, did I say PvT or PvZ. Archons were worse in PvT because they effectively had 10 hp because the EMP was complete shield depletion. Never did I mention PvZ or PvP.
Not to mention they'd have to travel through a minefield/mass siege tank line. Clearly you nubs above have never even seen a single Broodwar game / are probably 12 years old. Archons werent used in PvT, because there were better tanking and anti mine units (zealots), and because of the size of mech units, splash wasnt too helpful. Besides, having HTs for storm (which had insane radius compared to SC2) was more important, than having them for archons. Archons werent bad, there were just better options. In HotS, if mech becomes popular (thx to warhounds and new hellions), you wont be seeing archons either. Sure you will. They're one of the only non-mech toss units, so they'll rape warhounds. Tanks and hellions are crap against them too. And archons are crap against all those units, thanks to low DPS against non organic units. Why would any protoss throw away precious gas on archons, when he can make immortals against mech?
And no, warhound wont do squat against immortals.
|
I think bringing KA back will actually balance the matchup from where it is now. Its kinda ironic how its nerf led to a few other nerfs and Terran buffs that eventually put Protoss in a hole. Now we're slowly heading in the other direction :s
|
On November 06 2011 06:24 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 06:18 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2011 06:13 IVN wrote:On November 06 2011 05:56 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2011 05:04 IVN wrote:On November 06 2011 04:55 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2011 04:28 Eternalmisfit wrote:On November 06 2011 03:34 iamke55 wrote: Excellent post. It boggles my mind that there are people who consider it imbalanced for PvT to have a ~50% winrate with KA, but balanced when PvT has a ~40% winrate without KA. Depending on what you exactly meant in your post, my post below may agree/disagree with that. I believe the balance of an individual unit does not necessarily correlate with the win-rate percent of a match. The W-L % of the match at any given point in time depends on the map pool, evolution of strategies and counter strategies combined with maturation of the potential of a unit. Until the game is mature enough and devoid of balance changes for a while, it is hard to make an argument whether a unit/ability in balanced or not. The best example of this, in context of SC2, being the hellion. BFH have been pretty much untouched in the game since its inception. However, during the entirety of the 1st year of the game, the blue flame upgrade was rarely used and BFH strategies were non-existent. It was only in mid-2011 when Slayers hellion strategies were developed when we came to know how strong that ability was. If you go back to late 2010 or early 2011, I do not think you would find anyone arguing the BFH were imbalanced. However, in view of current information, it can argued that BFH strategies were equally or even more 'imba' due to the fact that medivcas moved faster, Terran timings could come earlier due no bunker before rax requirements and so on. The key point I am trying to make that even though there might have been a time period when ZvT was 50-50 split pre-BFH era, BFH were still 'imbalanced' ( in quotes as imo we still just don't have enough knowledge to claim confidently) independent of the win-rate. Extending this logic to KA, it is not possible to prove that KA is imbalanced at PvT 50% or even at 40%. Until the game becomes mature enough that a lot of the unit potentials/strategies are realized, determining the balance of an individual unit/ability in terms of a matchup win-loss % is not possible as there are too many variables that come into play. Note that by similar logic, removing KA was an equally bad idea since a local event of PvT matchup increase did not necessarily mean that KA was imbalanced at that point of time. Though I applaud Blizzard for being active with the amount of balance changes going on, I do think that they are making too many drastic changes too quick and not letting strategies evolve sufficiently. If Blizzard had strong reason/evidence to believe that KA was imba, it should have been nerfed to a point where you needed 4-5 sec after warp-in to storm and then studied how much of a difference this made instead of outright removing it. The idea of KA was flawed in actual practice though. For both Terran and Zerg, starting the production of the iconic caster is an investment and risk, basically predicting you aren't going to be attacked in the next ~45s. At the very least, you won't need the abilities of the caster for the next ~45s. For Protoss, this removed all forward thinking of the HT out of the equation. If you needed storms, you just warped them in ~5s. There is no significant waiting period or forward thinking, just reaction. Especially with the archon buff, this would become an incredibly hard scenario to deal with for both Terran and Zerg. To address other arguments about gateways being on cooldown, we're beginning to see a metagame shift where gateways are being massed beyond the income potential of Protoss. This allows them to warp in units on demand when having to address harassment forces away from their main force. Thus, the cooldown for HTs becomes moot and the only barrier is gas income. On 2-3 bases, that gives harassment opportunity for 18s at most (only 7-11s for a medivac drop) if you're relying ONLY on HTs. With zealots as a buffer, it's very easy to warp in a HT in time. Races are different. Terran has the best defense in the game, zerg has the best production (remax in under a minute), so why is it wrong for protoss to have something equally potent? And no, warpgates are not, since they give you no defenders advantage, since they are balanced around timing attacks. Protoss can warp in small defense forces ANYWHERE they have pylon power and the can remax in less than 5s. FFs and high AoE make attacking head on suicidal after a certain point in the game. But if you want to live in a world where the only advantage to gateway tech is 4 and 6 gate timing attacks, be my guest. It at least wouldn't be a surprise why you would want a massive buff to Protoss. It was already established, that warpgates must be balanced around attacking, therefore, they give yo no defender advantage. And you also cant remax in 5 sec, thats BS. FFs and AoE are not a plus, they are a necessity to survive. Warpgates on cooldown -> attack at 200/200 -> lose gateway units in attack -> warp in fresh set of wargate units in 5s When was it "established" that warpgates must be balanced around timing attacks? And since when do balances around timing attacks give you no defenders advantage? Defenders advantage takes into account positioning, reinforcement, and static defense. How warp gates would ignore even one of those aspects makes no sense. 1) That wont let you remax in 5 sec. 2) It was discussed to death in many threads, and even terran and zerg players agreed that due to being balanced around attacking, warpgates dont give porotoss any defenders advantage. Its quite simple, if WGs warp to any location with equal speed/efficiency, and that speed/cooldown is balanced so that protoss dont have an advantage over Z or T while attacking (means toss production has to be somewhat slower), then wehn your defending as a protoss, you have no defenders advantage. Whether you are fighting and warping in the middle of the map, or at your natural, its the same. And protoss also dont have bunkers or creep, therefore no "home-field advantage".
About #2, the no homefield advantage for Protoss seems real to me. Warp in late game obviously is good for getting around, but for a major assault you really have to have colossus and not allow the enemy to retain their corruptor/viking count or your colossi count will not matter.
|
|
|
|