|
Please DISCUSS the changes and the impact they will have on gameplay.
Straight up whining and bitching will get you a ban, no exceptions. |
On February 15 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:
The point of the patch is to make ghost weaker against broodlords.
No. The point of the patch is to make Ghosts weaker against both Broodlords and Ultralisks. But even if it was against Broodlords alone, it would still be a terrible idea.
On February 15 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:
BLs are very slow and highly positional. Pushing their attack back is not to be underestimated. It would be like nuke v tank. Even you don't kill them, you could force them into a bad position.
No, this has nothing to do with “nukes vs tanks”. Broodlords do not need to unsiege to go back and forth and, unlike Tanks, they can move forward to kill your Ghost (unlike Tanks). In mirrors, you use nukes to gain ground with your own Tanks, but obviously you cannot do this against Broodlords.
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
So many people talking here as if they get to play real zvt late game in every game, while i highly doubt that even master level z's are facing them enough to actually have any right to say if they are imba or not. Terrans are neither Protoss nor Zerg, they need very strong armies so they can compensate their inflexibility by the stability of the core units and good micro skills. In other words they are not able\supposed to switch army compositions like
When u nerf core late game core unit by freaking 45% against anything but the infestors and templars u'd better fucking know what u r doing. Even banelings will need 2 shots to get killed.
I see strange tendency in blizzard patching: it seems like they don't want any unit except marine-marauders be the pillars of terran gameplay which is just hella annoying.
Raven uber nerf from beta times when noone couldn't work out how the game actually works, several reaper and tank cumulative nerfs right after starcraft release, hellion drop-down, immediate thor energy retrieval right after thorzain showcased couple of games played using them.
Most of those while fixing balance issues were a complete overkill and could be fixed in a bit different way (like increasing reaper speed cost\research time, making normal maps so u don't have to nerf tank damage twice etc). Blizzard balancing team sometimes seem to be these gold level players that just figured out the word "counter" and think that everything should have "counters" so the game is balanced "properly".
I think u know that game broodwar, where half of the "counters" depends on whether u r controlling units right. I'd actually recommend u to check that out before u try nerfbating another strong unit to please... well we all know who.
I can't believe that those changes were made upon high level players feedback because those won't purpose something that overwhelmingly dumb. Go check SotG or any other player's opinion for the reference.
Have nothing else to do here. *yaoface*
|
yeah don't know how i feel about the snipe nerf... we'll have to see how it ultimately plays out, brood lords just seem so hard to deal with for terran... but then i'm protoss so idc!
|
On February 15 2012 02:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 02:10 shizna wrote:On February 15 2012 02:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2012 01:56 zimms wrote:On February 15 2012 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[...]
2. Infestors did get nerfed, big time. High templar did get nerfed, big time. And of the three major spellcasters, ghosts were always the best. The EMP radius nerf was a nice start in TvP, and it was a nerf that the high templar had received long ago. Now I think it's time for this new ghost nerf to play out[...] So you suggest we also should nerf feedback for about 50%?  Can we double the cost of ghosts so that they actually cost money?  No one is complaining about feedback. Most of the time, feedback can't even kill off a unit (e.g. medivac drop); it ends up only draining the energy. And for what it's worth, high templar already lost its amulet and radius. You're silly wtf ghosts already cost 200/100, one of the most expensive units in the game per supply... surely you're trolling.to answer your question about what i meant about races having a 'progressive' option, i mean an option which is going to lead to a more entertaining and deep game... as in NOT 'lolz make vikings and a-move!'. And 'for what it's worth', ghost already lost emp strength and radius. you're silly. Hi, I play Protoss. Nearly every one of my units cost the same amount- or more than- ghosts. I remember a time when spellcasters used to actually cost gas. Do you remember that time? Remember the ghost cost buff from 150/150 to 200/100? Darn The ghosts don't really need to cost twice as much as they do now, but they are relatively lower tech and immediately useful compared to other spellcasters. I think races can be entertaining depending on how players (e.g. Kiwikaki) strategize and use their units and spells. I don't think such things are restricted to early vs. mid vs. late game either. I think the game is still going to progress greatly in that respect. Anyways, I have to go. Please don't write off the new patch just yet ^^ It's just day one.
please, ghost cost change was a nerf, as shown by terrans pooling gas in the thousands.
hts costing gas is a godsend by blizzard, giving you guys a perfect composition of zealots/archons/hts, dont act as if hts costing gas is a bad thing.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 14 2012 16:35 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:32 Whitewing wrote:On February 14 2012 06:29 s3rp wrote:On February 14 2012 06:27 Whitewing wrote:On February 14 2012 06:24 Remi wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 14 2012 06:04 Remi wrote:On February 14 2012 05:24 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 zmansman17 wrote:
[quote]
What you're ignoring is that it is much easier to shift click a probe and put down a bunch of cannons all over map and even on the fringes of your base to negate drop play (and thus negate the "mobility of the terran army" that you refer to). Note that even 2 cannons in an expo for Toss is more than enough to defend a 2 medivac drop late game. All the Protoss has to do is warp in a round of units and mop up.
And that's assuming a few things: 1) that the drop made it safely into the base and didn't get shot down by cannons 2) there was no HT there to feedback the medivacs.
The reality is late game Protoss can make a pretty impregnable defense and it's much faster and easier than having to cue Scvs to build CCs and then babysit them so the SCV doesn't get destroyed and then morph it into a PF. Granted, I play Protoss at Rank 2 master as well, so you can't convince me that it isn't way easier to shift click 1 probe and mass cannons all over the map then trying to deal with SCVs. There's a reason you don't see Terrans doing this more, it's because it's a multi step process and surprisingly time consuming.
Also note that the time it takes to make an CC and then a PF (if the scv is not killed) is MUCH greater than dropping a pylon and a few cannons.
Furthermore a PF can only attack ground whereas a cannon can attack air AND ground. And just as importantly, 3 cannons can cover MUCH MORE ground than 1 PF (but the PF is still more expensive, 550 minerals, 150 gas versus 550 minerals, including pylon) 1. While the ability to quickly queue buildings is surely an asset to Protoss, I can't recall a single game where the Terran purposely dropped two medivacs in the middle of my defense... let alone two cannons stopping a double medivac drop. Two cannons are going to stop two medivacs and the ten units that come out? You must be joking. Fact: A photon cannon will get killed by a single medivac drop. 2. Warping in a few units to simply *clean up a medivac drop* is easier said than done, especially if the Terran army is wedged behind the mineral line (which is often the case). And especially if there are two or three medivacs full of units. Zealots are useless because of the minerals and buildings in the way. Medivacs heal. Terran units can stim and micro. Warpgates might be on cooldown. High templar being warped in can't use storm. When a Terran drops, he's nearly guaranteed to snipe one or two vital tech structures (or even a nexus) unless there are an equivalent number of high templar waiting in each base and the player has perfect reaction time. And you're worried about throwing down a PF or a missile turret or leaving behind a few marines? Please. You're stuff is free and costs no supply compared to what Protoss has to possibly leave behind. You forgot to add that a late game protoss hasn't got the supply available to warp in units until terran kills something, most likely probes, and once you do wrap in some units you now need to get them killed so you can remake your probes. The thing that is confusing me however is that we're talking about a changes to XvZ, so how is TvP, which is largely unaffected by this patch, even a discussion point? I actually agree with QXC who pointed out that when snipe no longer 1 shots marines and reapers it's useless in TvT. Also it's 'bonus' dps vs zealots is lost too, and this was not the stated intention of the patch. This is the unfortunate by product of the way this patch addresses the issue. The parts we don't know are "Is negative damage bonus possible". Cause if '-20 damage to massive' is possible then what is being done is super stupid. The other thing QXC noted is that since he started using ghosts he hasn't bothered with ravens. HSM works vs BL. It does, don't lie and say 'but i have to risk my raven waa waa waa' HSM can make BL go boom. But does HSM works against Ultra? And if not, what do you propose Terran should do with ultra switch? HSM doesn't, but auto-turret walls with marine/tank support do pretty well, you can actually dump auto-turrets to create chokes. With building armor upgraded they do hilariously well at slowing down the zerg ground army and getting a few extra tank volleys off. The ultras can kill the turrets in about 5-10 seconds, but that extra time with the huge DPS of the terran ground army is astounding. Plus, auto-turrets last like... 4 minutes with the upgrade, and they do decent damage. Just create a wall to block off the ultras and lings from reaching your siege tanks, and make a few marauders or thors (thors are fantastic vs. ultras, especially with strike cannon, and zerg doesn't have an anti-caster unit). Great, now we are expected to deals with ultras with... auto-turrets, now that's the plan all terrans can get behind, terrific. You misunderstand: I wasn't telling you that you have to do it, obviously you could make marauders, or any number of other things. I was suggesting a way that ravens could help significantly against ultras, that most people don't try. I have seen a few games where it was done, and it seemed pretty effective in combination with good army positioning. Drop 12 turrets off of 6 ravens and create walls, and laugh as the lings and ultras can't even reach your marines and tanks. Autoturrests are armored right ? Ultras will kill them in 2 or 3 hits then ? Don't think this works so well. The value isn't in how much damage the turrets do, but they're a strong force multiplier. Generally what happens when the fight starts is zerg runs in, tanks fire, marines shoot once or twice then get pulled back and split to avoid banelings or to avoid ling surrounds, then they engage again once they're safe while the tanks fire. Tanks get killed off, and then it's which army lives. With the turrets, you get an extra 5-10 seconds of your entire army shooting at the zerg force before you even have to worry about taking any damage at all. That's pretty significant, a large amount of zerg will die before anything terran dies. This would be generally true, IF I could conjure ravens out of thin air. Sadly I lack this skill and thus it is very very likely, that my ground army is substantially smaller. I don't know if you have ever tried to use auto turrets as an ad-hoc support in a fight. It's next to impossible to place them, while you retreat with your marines and lings swarm in. You get MAYBE two or three turrets down that won't help in any way. Turrets are bulky and require space that is unoccupied for about 1.5 ingame seconds. Which just does not happen in a TvZ engagement.
This was a conversation regarding how ravens could help beat ultras, after someone accepted that seeker missile could be used to deal with brood lords. It was "Okay, ravens beat broods, how do you deal with the ultra switch?". Obviously you don't just randomly have ravens, you make them. With regards to the turret placement, it's not that hard to throw down a few when you siege up in position to make a partial wall then throw a few more if you decide you need it. It doesn't hurt against broods either: at least the first brood shots hit turrets instead of your marines/tanks and you don't splash damage your actual units when you go to unsiege.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 14 2012 20:05 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 19:38 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 17:33 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 14 2012 14:48 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 14:34 mlspmatt wrote:On February 14 2012 13:09 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 12:23 mlspmatt wrote:On February 14 2012 11:58 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 11:28 mlspmatt wrote:On February 14 2012 10:59 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
That didn't stop Ryung against Tassadar, and it seemed to work pretty well. Assuming they hit feedback on your BC when it's at completely full energy, it won't even take out half it's hp, and you can EMP it or just Yamato a building or something (or even rocks!).
As for upgrades folks, you get them anyway for your vikings. This is what people argue who have no valid arguments to make. Make Battle Cruisers. It's been tried, it doesn't work. If your in a Max v Max battle and want to remax with 4 battle Cruisers. After the battle you start building your BC's, and wait the 90s for them to build. In that 90 seconds Toss can use his 15 gates to wapr in 30 supply 3 times before your BC's hit the field. How do you suggest Terran survives during that 90 seconds when 24 supply is occupied in the starport? That's assuming BC's give you any real advantage, which they don't. 4 Stalkers are about the same cost as 1 BC, are much more mobile, have more health, very similar DPS (Both fully upgraded) and can be produced much much faster. It simply doesn't make sense to make BC's. And yes of course Terran will have marauders to handle the Stalkers, but protoss will have charge-Lots + Archons to handle the marauders. There's no advantage to making BC's. And if you take into consideration the cost of getting the BC tech, it's a losing proposition for terran. Who said anything about re-maxing on BC? When you're remaxing you want as many units as fast as possible so you don't die. It's like Protoss 'remaxing' on Carriers. Good way to die. I'm talking about at the point where you start sacking SCV's to increase army size don't waste your extra size on 4 more marauders when Protoss is already doing everything they can do counter exactly that. The 'upgrades' required are what, a Fusion core and a starport with tech lab? Terran can so afford that at that stage of the late game. The resources are there, the time is there, usually there are too big arse armies dancing around the map, Protoss are trying to get a decent re-max bank and finishing off upgrades. Terran are getting a PFs up and sacking SCV's to for a bigger army. And honestly, pick whatever unit you want, the BC is just an obvious choice. The fact is that Terran banks a shitload of gas in that stage of the game and uses their extra 25 army supply on units that Protoss already has a way to deal with. That 25 supply is Terran's edge in the late game, and it's being squandered away on a handful of extra marines, marauders and maybe an extra ghost. You could fit 3 BC's in there, Yamoto an SCV before battle and use the BC's to control space while you micro your bio. Love to see how those zealots fare as they chase a kiting bio army while under fire from 3 BCs. Yes, some damage will come from storms and feedback on the BCs, yes some stalkers will take them down, but I'd be willing to bet you'd get more value from 3 BCs as your 'bonus supply' than you will from 12 more Maruaders getting stormed and cut apart by colossus. First of all, Terrans are not going to invest in BC tech to make just one round of them. There will come a time when Terran needs to use them as part of their remax army, then they are stuck waiting for them to build while their base is being torn apart, or they engage and lose their entire army. Secondly you pawned off the Stalker issue by saying "Yes, some damage will come from storms and feedback on the BCs, yes some stalkers will take them down"this is what people say when they have no ligitimate response. They pawn it off as no big deal to minimize its importance, when it is the core of the issue. I didn't bring up fedback or storms in my earlier comment. I didn't need to, the Stalkers alone prove the point. There has to be a reason to spend all those resources on BC's and the tech required. There has to be an advantage gained somewhere or it's not worth the investment. You've not yet made a single point as to what advantage the BC's offer. They don't control any space with range 6. Sure, they'll kill a few extra Zealots while your bio army kites, but at the same time the stalkers are killing them. So I, the terran, killed a few extra Zealots with my BC's and your Stalkers killed my BC's. I think Protoss wins that one. You also added that BC's are just an example, and then don't suggest what unit exactley terrans should add that helps them. Thors? Ravens? What unit exactley is going to help Terran so much that it's better than the units that Terran has already invested in and upgraded? And it's not enough to suggest units without saying HOW exactley they are going to help, and if they are better than what terran already has. Otherwise your just "Throwing it out there" with little or no thought behind it and it's not worth much debate. Ok, the reason I didn't throw out 'how' to use it is because something like that needs to be workshopped with people who want to attempt to make it work instead of people who just want to say why it won't. So, there are two kinds of protoss death ball, stalker colossus and zealot colossus. Look at recent GSL Genius vs MKP for a great example of stalker colossus and Parting vs Jjakji for the zealot colossus variant. Obviously is you're facing stalker colossus BC is bad juju. Maybe thors are better in that situation since thors are better vs stalkers? Or maybe you should just be throwing away as many marines as you can and maxxing on pure maruader in that situation. Anyway, assuming you're facing a zealot heavy, low colossus count, low stalker count, high HT count composition like Parting fielded I think BC's would be a great addition for a couple of reasons: Zealots and colossus don't shoot up and the low stalker count will take forever to kill BCs. Infact, 3 BCs will probably kill all the stalkers first. Archons DO shoot up, and will get distracted by the BC. Their damage vs BC is pretty damn awful, so something tanking their damage is great. You can Yamoto the Colossus and / or focus fire the colossus and have no vikings at all. This means that when the colossus die you have supply that can shoot down, which is better than supply that can't shoot down. You can use the BC's as a pivot point to kite around making the micro tasks of the protoss player harder (stopping zealots and colossus from chasing the bio while the range shoots the BC for example). If the protoss player is grabbing HT's from all over the map to bring in storms then he won't be micro'ing his army much which means you can deal with the zealots without the pain of the archons and stalkers. The protoss will probably remax with a bunch of stalkers which eats his resources faster than zealot / HT -> archon meaning you know that remaxing marauder is a great idea. OK. If Terran can catch the protoss in Zealot/Archon/Colossus composition, I see how BC's can work. But it's very risky. If they're scouted and lose the element of surprise I think terran is in deep trouble and it's hard to hide starports from observers. In a straight up fight where both players know the other players composition, and react properly, I don't see the value in BC's. I don't think they offer any value for the extra cost of the tech required. But as a surprise they can work. But again, hiding BC's and their tech is going to be near impossible if the Toss is scouting properly. It's a big risk. Sure BC's can work under the right circumstances, but I don't see it as standard play - which is what we're talking about. Can you define "standard" play for me? Not trolling, just defining scope of discussion. I would think that with terran having such a hard time of "standard" play they would be look for solutions in the "non-standard" box to pull out and use. Especially situational stuff like 'Ah ha! he's over making zealots, slam down that fusion reactor and don't engage. Buy time for 2 BC then crush it". I think we've moved beyond "I get MMM + Ghost or Viking depending on if I see HT or Colossus first and just get as much of that as possible. I hope my EMPs are better than his storms." In the phase of a game, where I can "slam down that fusion reactor" (it's fusion core btw) and get two BCs giving your opponent three minutes to do what he wants can be deadly. But well.. lets say I manage to surprise him with 2 BCs. Also lets say he doesn't just sack 20 zealot with a counter attack and then buys time (the crucial FIVE SECONDS) to warp in 20 stalkers. And lets also say that on the way to the engagemet - BCs moving at breakneck speed - I continue to hide my BCs from his observers. The fight is there!! Terran gets rolled :/ How long does it take a +1 weapon BC to kill a single zealot (who in this phase will have 3/1/3)? 6 shots through the shields, then 20 shots through the HP. So my mighty battlecruiser kills a zealot every 5.85 seconds. Rawr. THAT turns the tide. WIth the typical engagement lasting 10 seconds tops before I have stutter stepped my bio army way out of reach of the BC range, each BC kills TWO zealots. Yes.. eat that protoss. But then you say: Focus the colossus! Colossus takes 19 shots through shields and then 40 shots through the hull. Two BCs firing bring a colossus down in 6.6 seconds. Thus my bio just has to endure 26seconds of colossus fire (or 40 volleys). You know how a bio army looks after 40 volleys of a colossus? Toasted. But maybe the toss is a standard toss who just a-moves and then claps his hand while he giggles gleefully. In THIS case, BC are slightly more useful, because the archons fire at them. But honestly.. in this case I rather float factories over my army. They are cheaper, have WAY more hp and cost no supply and I can build them MUCH MUCH quicker and closer to the battlefield. Now if you start me on the yamato cannon to take down those colossus... then you stretch the time you need to get BCs with yamato by another 2 minutes... just to get feedbacked by the HT that will be in the army. So how do YOU envision the 'BC a la surprise' to work? Buy SOMEHOW more time while you research ship weapons lvl 2+3? It's just a measely 410 seconds - SEVEN MINUTES! Firstly, if someone wants to sack 20 zealots, then dump 2500 mins and 1000 gas to counter 3 BC's then I think you just won the game. Also consider this, stalker armies lost Half their total hp to EMP. Zealot armies lost a Third. Terran is substantially better off facing stalkers than they are zealots. Secondly, you haven't been watching your GSL have you. Every terran in TvP is getting reasonably quick air upgrades to at LEAST +2 air attack at about the time Colossus start appearing. If you had the planning to go "if they are zealot heavy I'll get a fusion core and air attack +3. Swap my 2 starports onto tech labs and get 2 or 3 BCs. Done." Now lets look at how long it takes to tear down a 3/3/3 zealot. 18 shots total, 12 if you land an EMP first. Thirdly, put the cost and build time aside, would you rather have 6 marines VS a chargelot/archon/colossus/HT army or a BC. both are 6 supply. Or 3 Marauders. How much additional help will 3 marauders or 6 marines be when you have 140 supply of MMMGV. And lets say to manage that you also cut say, 1 Viking. So 1 Viking, 1 Marauder and 2 Marines. I think that's worth a BC on the field. Building 1 BC is less supply than a FUCKING DROP. Are you really telling me that losing 1 medivac of marines at end game is game over. You're fucked now! That was 10 supply that wasn't with your army the ENTIRE TIME it was in flight, and then it just DIED MAN! Holy fucking shit, you're ruined!! AND YOU HAD 3 IDLE SCVS!!! Lastly, say the big engagement happens, and all your 3 BCs accomplish is to soak up 2 rounds of stalker fire and kill 3 colossus. That's it. Worth it? FUCK YES. Those colossus are the Might of the protoss army. The big meaty fist of "I don't give a fuck if you have 35 marines, die sucker!!" Fuck the surprise part, WTF are protoss going to do? Go stalker heavy and allow your stimmed bioball to get 1 round of free shots off and EMP'd while they blink under the BCs, losing their colossus support and zealot meat shield to kill them? Get some VR that get slaughtered by vikings or marines and have no upgrades cause protoss NEVER USE AIR in PvT? Ignore the BCs and charge your Planetary Fucking Fortress while their Colossus ALL DIE. BC's are flying TANKS that have a crap load of health and armour and can't be ignored. You have to deal with the damn thing. They aren't going to magically kill everything, they aren't going to rofl stomp their way through the fight. Hell, they won't even live to see the end of the engagement. What they will do is force protoss to a less focused composition. They give you a damn sight more to your end game effectiveness than a viking and 2 marauders, or any other combination of terran units currently in play. The key is to not make too many. Just like colossus. 2 or 3 colossus leaves the terran thinking 'how many vikings is too many and i'll lose to the gateway army? how many is not enough and the colossus kill everything?' If protoss get 12 colossus Terran laugh all the way to victory as they get enough vikings to 1 shot them, EZPZ. How many BCs do you need to be effective, while not allowing protoss to shift their entire composition in such a way to hard counter them. 12 to 18 supply is not a huge commitment, especially if it means you can cut to 6 vikings... Zealot/Archon/colossus in the most cases starts out with a double forge and templar into colossus. Not colussus into archons. Thus Terran will always have invested their gas in medivacs/ghosts/bio upgrades. Because if they don't, they are dead. Thus as soon as they see their toss opponent adding colossus, they start +1. Maybe Terran has +1 and starts +2, but there is no way, a terran in this situation will already have +2. Yes.. if you open colossus, then air attacks can be at +2, though that's doubtful. Even if then there is still a straight up engagement, terran is on a constant backmovement stutter stepping. Else zealots overrun the bio. So after 8-10 seconds, the battlecruisers are out of position and not firing. I rather have 4 marines and a marauder stutterstepping the whole way than a battlecruiser. You will have to stutterstep, because 6 food in zealots deal more DPS than 6 food in BC. Yes, the BC survives - until the toss warps in stalkers to clean them up as they have no support now.
We're talking about BC's as a late game transition when you're looking at a 4+ base situation for terran, not as something you get early. If you don't have +3 air weapons at that point, I'm confused as to how you're still alive vs. toss. Obviously we're not suggesting you get BC's early on in the match: but when the game goes on for a while and both players have hit that point where they aren't sure how and when to attack, and are constantly jostling for position, getting BC's while doing drops is perfect.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 15 2012 04:40 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 02:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2012 02:10 shizna wrote:On February 15 2012 02:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2012 01:56 zimms wrote:On February 15 2012 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[...]
2. Infestors did get nerfed, big time. High templar did get nerfed, big time. And of the three major spellcasters, ghosts were always the best. The EMP radius nerf was a nice start in TvP, and it was a nerf that the high templar had received long ago. Now I think it's time for this new ghost nerf to play out[...] So you suggest we also should nerf feedback for about 50%? Can we double the cost of ghosts so that they actually cost money? No one is complaining about feedback. Most of the time, feedback can't even kill off a unit (e.g. medivac drop); it ends up only draining the energy. And for what it's worth, high templar already lost its amulet and radius. You're silly wtf ghosts already cost 200/100, one of the most expensive units in the game per supply... surely you're trolling.to answer your question about what i meant about races having a 'progressive' option, i mean an option which is going to lead to a more entertaining and deep game... as in NOT 'lolz make vikings and a-move!'. And 'for what it's worth', ghost already lost emp strength and radius. you're silly. Hi, I play Protoss. Nearly every one of my units cost the same amount- or more than- ghosts. I remember a time when spellcasters used to actually cost gas. Do you remember that time? Remember the ghost cost buff from 150/150 to 200/100? Darn The ghosts don't really need to cost twice as much as they do now, but they are relatively lower tech and immediately useful compared to other spellcasters. I think races can be entertaining depending on how players (e.g. Kiwikaki) strategize and use their units and spells. I don't think such things are restricted to early vs. mid vs. late game either. I think the game is still going to progress greatly in that respect. Anyways, I have to go. Please don't write off the new patch just yet ^^ It's just day one. please, ghost cost change was a nerf, as shown by terrans pooling gas in the thousands. hts costing gas is a godsend by blizzard, giving you guys a perfect composition of zealots/archons/hts, dont act as if hts costing gas is a bad thing.
It is, I'd rather have a colossi+archon composition than a zealot+archon composition =p.
|
On February 15 2012 04:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:
The point of the patch is to make ghost weaker against broodlords. No. The point of the patch is to make Ghosts weaker against both Broodlords and Ultralisks. But even if it was against Broodlords alone, it would still be a terrible idea. Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:
BLs are very slow and highly positional. Pushing their attack back is not to be underestimated. It would be like nuke v tank. Even you don't kill them, you could force them into a bad position. No, this has nothing to do with “nukes vs tanks”. Broodlords do not need to unsiege to go back and forth and, unlike Tanks, they can move forward to kill your Ghost (unlike Tanks). In mirrors, you use nukes to gain ground with your own Tanks, but obviously you cannot do this against Broodlords.
Yawn, just a thought. This just seems too hard against snipe and +psionic makes it stupidly redundant. I was simply suggesting another option to explore. I mean ffs it's just something you can do. Nukes and HSM are the most blatant position controlling abilities in the game. They're the two big GTFO abilities.
I see no reason why nukes would be ineffective against siege units that move as slow as broodlords do. If the nuke goes off you at the very least delay their push further to get better answers up. Maybe you could expose some infestors or broodlords to kill.
|
I see strange tendency in blizzard patching: it seems like they don't want any unit except marine-marauders be the pillars of terran gameplay which is just hella annoying.
I find this irritating as well. Terran takes a lot of flack for sticking to Bio play, but all too often when Terrans start implementing other units, Blizzard nurfs them.
Blizzard are telling Terran to stick with Bio. Terrans have shown willingness to innovate, bur Blizzard tells them to "Get back in the Sandbox."
|
Hi, I play Protoss. Nearly every one of my units cost the same amount- or more than- ghosts
What 2 supply unit does Protoss have that cost more than ghosts?
|
On February 15 2012 04:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I see no reason why nukes would be ineffective against siege units that move as slow as broodlords do.
Maybe because Nukes cost 100/100 and will not kill any Broodlord if the Zerg pays attention? Yes, Nukes can provide a “danger zone” for the opponent, and here and then they are used this way, but we cannot rely on them to actually kill Broodlords.
|
United States13143 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:05 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +I see strange tendency in blizzard patching: it seems like they don't want any unit except marine-marauders be the pillars of terran gameplay which is just hella annoying.
I find this irritating as well. Terran takes a lot of flack for sticking to Bio play, but all too often when Terrans start implementing other units, Blizzard nurfs them. Blizzard are telling Terran to stick with Bio. Terrans have shown willingness to innovate, bur Blizzard tells them to "Get back in the Sandbox."
woah there, that's not true at all
blizzard is also okay with terrans using siege tanks(as long as it's not against protoss)
|
On February 15 2012 04:50 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 20:05 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 14 2012 19:38 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 17:33 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 14 2012 14:48 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 14:34 mlspmatt wrote:On February 14 2012 13:09 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 12:23 mlspmatt wrote:On February 14 2012 11:58 Kharnage wrote:On February 14 2012 11:28 mlspmatt wrote:
[quote]
This is what people argue who have no valid arguments to make. Make Battle Cruisers. It's been tried, it doesn't work.
If your in a Max v Max battle and want to remax with 4 battle Cruisers. After the battle you start building your BC's, and wait the 90s for them to build. In that 90 seconds Toss can use his 15 gates to wapr in 30 supply 3 times before your BC's hit the field.
How do you suggest Terran survives during that 90 seconds when 24 supply is occupied in the starport? That's assuming BC's give you any real advantage, which they don't.
4 Stalkers are about the same cost as 1 BC, are much more mobile, have more health, very similar DPS (Both fully upgraded) and can be produced much much faster. It simply doesn't make sense to make BC's.
And yes of course Terran will have marauders to handle the Stalkers, but protoss will have charge-Lots + Archons to handle the marauders. There's no advantage to making BC's. And if you take into consideration the cost of getting the BC tech, it's a losing proposition for terran. Who said anything about re-maxing on BC? When you're remaxing you want as many units as fast as possible so you don't die. It's like Protoss 'remaxing' on Carriers. Good way to die. I'm talking about at the point where you start sacking SCV's to increase army size don't waste your extra size on 4 more marauders when Protoss is already doing everything they can do counter exactly that. The 'upgrades' required are what, a Fusion core and a starport with tech lab? Terran can so afford that at that stage of the late game. The resources are there, the time is there, usually there are too big arse armies dancing around the map, Protoss are trying to get a decent re-max bank and finishing off upgrades. Terran are getting a PFs up and sacking SCV's to for a bigger army. And honestly, pick whatever unit you want, the BC is just an obvious choice. The fact is that Terran banks a shitload of gas in that stage of the game and uses their extra 25 army supply on units that Protoss already has a way to deal with. That 25 supply is Terran's edge in the late game, and it's being squandered away on a handful of extra marines, marauders and maybe an extra ghost. You could fit 3 BC's in there, Yamoto an SCV before battle and use the BC's to control space while you micro your bio. Love to see how those zealots fare as they chase a kiting bio army while under fire from 3 BCs. Yes, some damage will come from storms and feedback on the BCs, yes some stalkers will take them down, but I'd be willing to bet you'd get more value from 3 BCs as your 'bonus supply' than you will from 12 more Maruaders getting stormed and cut apart by colossus. First of all, Terrans are not going to invest in BC tech to make just one round of them. There will come a time when Terran needs to use them as part of their remax army, then they are stuck waiting for them to build while their base is being torn apart, or they engage and lose their entire army. Secondly you pawned off the Stalker issue by saying "Yes, some damage will come from storms and feedback on the BCs, yes some stalkers will take them down"this is what people say when they have no ligitimate response. They pawn it off as no big deal to minimize its importance, when it is the core of the issue. I didn't bring up fedback or storms in my earlier comment. I didn't need to, the Stalkers alone prove the point. There has to be a reason to spend all those resources on BC's and the tech required. There has to be an advantage gained somewhere or it's not worth the investment. You've not yet made a single point as to what advantage the BC's offer. They don't control any space with range 6. Sure, they'll kill a few extra Zealots while your bio army kites, but at the same time the stalkers are killing them. So I, the terran, killed a few extra Zealots with my BC's and your Stalkers killed my BC's. I think Protoss wins that one. You also added that BC's are just an example, and then don't suggest what unit exactley terrans should add that helps them. Thors? Ravens? What unit exactley is going to help Terran so much that it's better than the units that Terran has already invested in and upgraded? And it's not enough to suggest units without saying HOW exactley they are going to help, and if they are better than what terran already has. Otherwise your just "Throwing it out there" with little or no thought behind it and it's not worth much debate. Ok, the reason I didn't throw out 'how' to use it is because something like that needs to be workshopped with people who want to attempt to make it work instead of people who just want to say why it won't. So, there are two kinds of protoss death ball, stalker colossus and zealot colossus. Look at recent GSL Genius vs MKP for a great example of stalker colossus and Parting vs Jjakji for the zealot colossus variant. Obviously is you're facing stalker colossus BC is bad juju. Maybe thors are better in that situation since thors are better vs stalkers? Or maybe you should just be throwing away as many marines as you can and maxxing on pure maruader in that situation. Anyway, assuming you're facing a zealot heavy, low colossus count, low stalker count, high HT count composition like Parting fielded I think BC's would be a great addition for a couple of reasons: Zealots and colossus don't shoot up and the low stalker count will take forever to kill BCs. Infact, 3 BCs will probably kill all the stalkers first. Archons DO shoot up, and will get distracted by the BC. Their damage vs BC is pretty damn awful, so something tanking their damage is great. You can Yamoto the Colossus and / or focus fire the colossus and have no vikings at all. This means that when the colossus die you have supply that can shoot down, which is better than supply that can't shoot down. You can use the BC's as a pivot point to kite around making the micro tasks of the protoss player harder (stopping zealots and colossus from chasing the bio while the range shoots the BC for example). If the protoss player is grabbing HT's from all over the map to bring in storms then he won't be micro'ing his army much which means you can deal with the zealots without the pain of the archons and stalkers. The protoss will probably remax with a bunch of stalkers which eats his resources faster than zealot / HT -> archon meaning you know that remaxing marauder is a great idea. OK. If Terran can catch the protoss in Zealot/Archon/Colossus composition, I see how BC's can work. But it's very risky. If they're scouted and lose the element of surprise I think terran is in deep trouble and it's hard to hide starports from observers. In a straight up fight where both players know the other players composition, and react properly, I don't see the value in BC's. I don't think they offer any value for the extra cost of the tech required. But as a surprise they can work. But again, hiding BC's and their tech is going to be near impossible if the Toss is scouting properly. It's a big risk. Sure BC's can work under the right circumstances, but I don't see it as standard play - which is what we're talking about. Can you define "standard" play for me? Not trolling, just defining scope of discussion. I would think that with terran having such a hard time of "standard" play they would be look for solutions in the "non-standard" box to pull out and use. Especially situational stuff like 'Ah ha! he's over making zealots, slam down that fusion reactor and don't engage. Buy time for 2 BC then crush it". I think we've moved beyond "I get MMM + Ghost or Viking depending on if I see HT or Colossus first and just get as much of that as possible. I hope my EMPs are better than his storms." In the phase of a game, where I can "slam down that fusion reactor" (it's fusion core btw) and get two BCs giving your opponent three minutes to do what he wants can be deadly. But well.. lets say I manage to surprise him with 2 BCs. Also lets say he doesn't just sack 20 zealot with a counter attack and then buys time (the crucial FIVE SECONDS) to warp in 20 stalkers. And lets also say that on the way to the engagemet - BCs moving at breakneck speed - I continue to hide my BCs from his observers. The fight is there!! Terran gets rolled :/ How long does it take a +1 weapon BC to kill a single zealot (who in this phase will have 3/1/3)? 6 shots through the shields, then 20 shots through the HP. So my mighty battlecruiser kills a zealot every 5.85 seconds. Rawr. THAT turns the tide. WIth the typical engagement lasting 10 seconds tops before I have stutter stepped my bio army way out of reach of the BC range, each BC kills TWO zealots. Yes.. eat that protoss. But then you say: Focus the colossus! Colossus takes 19 shots through shields and then 40 shots through the hull. Two BCs firing bring a colossus down in 6.6 seconds. Thus my bio just has to endure 26seconds of colossus fire (or 40 volleys). You know how a bio army looks after 40 volleys of a colossus? Toasted. But maybe the toss is a standard toss who just a-moves and then claps his hand while he giggles gleefully. In THIS case, BC are slightly more useful, because the archons fire at them. But honestly.. in this case I rather float factories over my army. They are cheaper, have WAY more hp and cost no supply and I can build them MUCH MUCH quicker and closer to the battlefield. Now if you start me on the yamato cannon to take down those colossus... then you stretch the time you need to get BCs with yamato by another 2 minutes... just to get feedbacked by the HT that will be in the army. So how do YOU envision the 'BC a la surprise' to work? Buy SOMEHOW more time while you research ship weapons lvl 2+3? It's just a measely 410 seconds - SEVEN MINUTES! Firstly, if someone wants to sack 20 zealots, then dump 2500 mins and 1000 gas to counter 3 BC's then I think you just won the game. Also consider this, stalker armies lost Half their total hp to EMP. Zealot armies lost a Third. Terran is substantially better off facing stalkers than they are zealots. Secondly, you haven't been watching your GSL have you. Every terran in TvP is getting reasonably quick air upgrades to at LEAST +2 air attack at about the time Colossus start appearing. If you had the planning to go "if they are zealot heavy I'll get a fusion core and air attack +3. Swap my 2 starports onto tech labs and get 2 or 3 BCs. Done." Now lets look at how long it takes to tear down a 3/3/3 zealot. 18 shots total, 12 if you land an EMP first. Thirdly, put the cost and build time aside, would you rather have 6 marines VS a chargelot/archon/colossus/HT army or a BC. both are 6 supply. Or 3 Marauders. How much additional help will 3 marauders or 6 marines be when you have 140 supply of MMMGV. And lets say to manage that you also cut say, 1 Viking. So 1 Viking, 1 Marauder and 2 Marines. I think that's worth a BC on the field. Building 1 BC is less supply than a FUCKING DROP. Are you really telling me that losing 1 medivac of marines at end game is game over. You're fucked now! That was 10 supply that wasn't with your army the ENTIRE TIME it was in flight, and then it just DIED MAN! Holy fucking shit, you're ruined!! AND YOU HAD 3 IDLE SCVS!!! Lastly, say the big engagement happens, and all your 3 BCs accomplish is to soak up 2 rounds of stalker fire and kill 3 colossus. That's it. Worth it? FUCK YES. Those colossus are the Might of the protoss army. The big meaty fist of "I don't give a fuck if you have 35 marines, die sucker!!" Fuck the surprise part, WTF are protoss going to do? Go stalker heavy and allow your stimmed bioball to get 1 round of free shots off and EMP'd while they blink under the BCs, losing their colossus support and zealot meat shield to kill them? Get some VR that get slaughtered by vikings or marines and have no upgrades cause protoss NEVER USE AIR in PvT? Ignore the BCs and charge your Planetary Fucking Fortress while their Colossus ALL DIE. BC's are flying TANKS that have a crap load of health and armour and can't be ignored. You have to deal with the damn thing. They aren't going to magically kill everything, they aren't going to rofl stomp their way through the fight. Hell, they won't even live to see the end of the engagement. What they will do is force protoss to a less focused composition. They give you a damn sight more to your end game effectiveness than a viking and 2 marauders, or any other combination of terran units currently in play. The key is to not make too many. Just like colossus. 2 or 3 colossus leaves the terran thinking 'how many vikings is too many and i'll lose to the gateway army? how many is not enough and the colossus kill everything?' If protoss get 12 colossus Terran laugh all the way to victory as they get enough vikings to 1 shot them, EZPZ. How many BCs do you need to be effective, while not allowing protoss to shift their entire composition in such a way to hard counter them. 12 to 18 supply is not a huge commitment, especially if it means you can cut to 6 vikings... Zealot/Archon/colossus in the most cases starts out with a double forge and templar into colossus. Not colussus into archons. Thus Terran will always have invested their gas in medivacs/ghosts/bio upgrades. Because if they don't, they are dead. Thus as soon as they see their toss opponent adding colossus, they start +1. Maybe Terran has +1 and starts +2, but there is no way, a terran in this situation will already have +2. Yes.. if you open colossus, then air attacks can be at +2, though that's doubtful. Even if then there is still a straight up engagement, terran is on a constant backmovement stutter stepping. Else zealots overrun the bio. So after 8-10 seconds, the battlecruisers are out of position and not firing. I rather have 4 marines and a marauder stutterstepping the whole way than a battlecruiser. You will have to stutterstep, because 6 food in zealots deal more DPS than 6 food in BC. Yes, the BC survives - until the toss warps in stalkers to clean them up as they have no support now. We're talking about BC's as a late game transition when you're looking at a 4+ base situation for terran, not as something you get early. If you don't have +3 air weapons at that point, I'm confused as to how you're still alive vs. toss. Obviously we're not suggesting you get BC's early on in the match: but when the game goes on for a while and both players have hit that point where they aren't sure how and when to attack, and are constantly jostling for position, getting BC's while doing drops is perfect.
This has been discussed over and over.
#1. Suppose terran does add some BC's, it's questionable they add anything to your army for the cost.
#2. If Terran doesn't kill Protoss in the first attack, it takes 90 seconds to build new BC's, which means Terran will die during the next Toss attack after the 5 second warp in, or Terran realizes they don't have time to make new BC's in which case it wasn't worth teching to BC's in the first place.
|
On February 15 2012 05:20 Elyvilon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 05:05 mlspmatt wrote:I see strange tendency in blizzard patching: it seems like they don't want any unit except marine-marauders be the pillars of terran gameplay which is just hella annoying.
I find this irritating as well. Terran takes a lot of flack for sticking to Bio play, but all too often when Terrans start implementing other units, Blizzard nurfs them. Blizzard are telling Terran to stick with Bio. Terrans have shown willingness to innovate, bur Blizzard tells them to "Get back in the Sandbox." woah there, that's not true at all blizzard is also okay with terrans using siege tanks(as long as it's not against protoss)
You're right, I exagerated, sorry.
|
On February 15 2012 04:50 Whitewing wrote:
We're talking about BC's as a late game transition when you're looking at a 4+ base situation for terran, not as something you get early. If you don't have +3 air weapons at that point, I'm confused as to how you're still alive vs. toss. Obviously we're not suggesting you get BC's early on in the match: but when the game goes on for a while and both players have hit that point where they aren't sure how and when to attack, and are constantly jostling for position, getting BC's while doing drops is perfect.
No. Battlecruisers are absolute garbage, and Terran doesn't have the gas to spare to get air upgrades. Stop trying to get him into feeding you easy wins after you spam feedback on them and win.
|
On February 15 2012 05:10 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +Hi, I play Protoss. Nearly every one of my units cost the same amount- or more than- ghosts What 2 supply unit does Protoss have that cost more than ghosts?
What? Who says it has to be 2 supply? Since when is having units cost fewer supply worse? Do you want roaches costing 1 supply again, or is 2 better? The fact that you can make ghosts and them not need to take up much of your army supply is an absolute blessing. Having to make fewer supply depots per minute is a good thing.
Recognize that ghosts are far cheaper in both cost and supply than the Zerg and Protoss units that they tend to take down. We're talking about how a few ghosts had been sniping down ultralisks and broodlords. They blanket EMP a whole Protoss army. They had directly countered the other spellcasters before the EMP nerf. Ghosts are insanely cost-efficient when used properly, and alone they're hardly "expensive" by any standards... unless you're comparing them to other barracks units, but that's just silly (different tier tech for Terran).
I don't see the problem o.O What it now comes down to is "Not only are ghosts cheaper than plenty of units, they cost less supply too!" >.> Thanks for that?
|
United States13143 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 04:50 Whitewing wrote:
We're talking about BC's as a late game transition when you're looking at a 4+ base situation for terran, not as something you get early. If you don't have +3 air weapons at that point, I'm confused as to how you're still alive vs. toss. Obviously we're not suggesting you get BC's early on in the match: but when the game goes on for a while and both players have hit that point where they aren't sure how and when to attack, and are constantly jostling for position, getting BC's while doing drops is perfect. No. Battlecruisers are absolute garbage, and Terran doesn't have the gas to spare to get air upgrades. Stop trying to get him into feeding you easy wins after you spam feedback on them and win.
Actually, terran does get air weapons(and, at least if you're Kas, air armour after that) against protoss so your vikings can take down colossi quickly.
I mean, BCs still aren't good against protoss, but they will have at least weapon upgrades.
|
I'm writing from a spectator perspective and I think that this change is going to make thing really, really bad. Yeah, I know that terrans are doing alright in the GSL but you know what? I just don't care about it all that much.
Somehow it takes at least some European and American players to makes games really exciting. And among them there aren't any successful terrans to follow. And this nerf is not going to make things better for the eu T's for sure.
Yeah, I guess another PvP or ZvZ works wonders if I want to fall asleep, but I'd like the SC2 to be something more, This ghost nerf is not helping.
|
On February 15 2012 05:05 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +I see strange tendency in blizzard patching: it seems like they don't want any unit except marine-marauders be the pillars of terran gameplay which is just hella annoying.
I find this irritating as well. Terran takes a lot of flack for sticking to Bio play, but all too often when Terrans start implementing other units, Blizzard nurfs them. Blizzard are telling Terran to stick with Bio. Terrans have shown willingness to innovate, bur Blizzard tells them to "Get back in the Sandbox."
you are confusing "innovate" with "explore". Most of the nerfs are from beta and early days. I mean, you seriously can't think about the reaper or the tanknerf when talking about stopping innovation.
it pretty much comes down to ghost, thor, hellion, when you talk about those nerfs. not to mention that bio got nerfed as well (stim, bunker, rax) and other things got buffed so you can be more innovative (raven, BC)
so clearly no, blizzard absolutly hasn't specifically nerfed terran nonbio.
|
On February 15 2012 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 05:10 mlspmatt wrote:Hi, I play Protoss. Nearly every one of my units cost the same amount- or more than- ghosts What 2 supply unit does Protoss have that cost more than ghosts? What? Who says it has to be 2 supply? Since when is having units cost fewer supply worse? Do you want roaches costing 1 supply again, or is 2 better? The fact that you can make ghosts and them not need to take up much of your army supply is an absolute blessing. Having to make fewer supply depots per minute is a good thing. Recognize that ghosts are far cheaper in both cost and supply than the Zerg and Protoss units that they tend to take down. We're talking about how a few ghosts had been sniping down ultralisks and broodlords. They blanket EMP a whole Protoss army. They had directly countered the other spellcasters before the EMP nerf. Ghosts are insanely cost-efficient when used properly, and alone they're hardly "expensive" by any standards... unless you're comparing them to other barracks units, but that's just silly (different tier tech for Terran). I don't see the problem o.O
Everything you said was inacurate. First you didn't answere the question - What Protoss units that are similar supply are more expensive than ghosts? NONE.
Then you say "Recognize that ghosts are far cheaper in both cost and supply than the Zerg and Protoss units that they tend to take down." Well thats true of all spell casters. Infestors use Fungal to kill hords of marines or neural units that cost far more.
2-3 storms can decimate an entire terran army. That's pretty cost effecient.
Then you say "We're talking about how a few ghosts had been sniping down ultralisks and broodlordse" - I'd like to see that replay. Show me the replay where a "FEW" ghosts take down an army of Ultralisks or BL's" maybe 15-20 ghosts do.
But I have seen games, every day, where a few HT kill an entire terran army, or a few infestors Fungal a terran army to death. Id suggest ghosts are similar to their counterparts. And thats using the current version of ghosts. If this nurf happens that will no longer be true. The Ghost will be both more expensive and less effective than it's counterpart in P and Z.
Then you say "Ghosts are insanely cost-efficient when used properly" - I would argue infestors and HT are both cheaper, and more cost effective. That's just the truth.
"they're hardly expensive by any standards" - They're expensive compared to their counterpart units: HT and infestors. Or are you arguing 200/100 is less than 50/150 or 100/150? Yes I know gas is the limiting factor, but not for Terran. Minerals are the limiting factor for Terran.
Every point you made was either a gross exageration, or devoid of any facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
