|
On May 10 2012 13:41 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:38 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 VPFaith wrote:
Again I am really disappointed in Blizzard's decision of not nerfing Terran...
1. Increase bunker build time to 60-70 seconds.
2. Increase Ghost Build cost to 300 min - 150 gas
3. Increase Queen starting energy to 50 - 75
4. Increase Raven build cost to 300 min - 300 gas
5. Increase Tech lab build time to 50 seconds
6. Decrease Collosus build time to 50 seconds
7. Decrease Protoss shield upgrade to 100- 100
8. Decrease Sentry cost to 50 minerals 50 gas
9. Decrease High Templar cost to 50 min 100 gas
10. Observer should not cost any supply I don't understand why people will continue to whine about Terran repeatedly getting nerfed throughout the early months of SC2 when they were winning everything and statistically much stronger than Zerg and Protoss. Guess what? If your race is overpowered, you get nerfed. Sometimes it takes more than one nerf to balance your race. That's why the earlier months were so ridiculously in your favor, and now the winrates are more balanced. The nerfs did their fucking job. Stop crying. Lol, I want Terran to have less ability and ways to win the game. I specifically said I am disappointed at Blizzard's failed effort to nerf the already OP Terran.... Are you okay? Understand English or no? fairly certain he detected the sarcasm in the post? Since you are a T player as well as the changes you stated are ridiculous?
Laughs and giggles. Hehe =)
|
On May 10 2012 13:35 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:32 doffe wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:19 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:12 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:05 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:59 ig0tfish wrote:On May 10 2012 12:57 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:45 s3rp wrote:
[quote]
Ravens against lategame Toss ? For what ? PDD only works against Stalkers that no Toss wants to build anyway. The other abilities are a joke. Autoturrets are a gimmick and Seeker Missile needs so much Energy that once the Raven has enough for it Feedback will instantly kill the Raven not to mention the abysmal range it has.
Ravens are only useful with Mechbuilds even in the other MU's and guess what sucks against Toss . Yeah you guessed right Mechbuilds. If i feedback a raven, It will be less storms on your army and what range does feedback have? if its the same as storm you will seeker then the feedback will land and then nothing will happen except me getting hit by a seeker missile. It will depend on the speed of the players, which it should unlike snipe, I wish they nerfed snipe range by 1 and put the emp radius and snipe damage back up. Ravens are more expensive than HTs, and building a raven requires a starport with tech lab. you didnt answer most of my question. Yes they are more expensive, but they are the similar to a colossi (cost wise) and I was discussing a way for terrans to spend all their gas late game. I'm sure a large seeker missile hit on my army would be as damaging as a storm on yours.....and the argument that I would just feedback the ravens is just like saying "why get HTs, you will just snipe them". if your floating 2K gas, why not add some high tech units, Zerg and Protoss do :D Its not . Siege Tanks deal have bigger Splash than Seeker Missiles . At best the first target gets hit for 100 , 1-2 targets get hit for 50 and 2-3 get hit for 25. Seeker Missile is good against Air Units since they stack up easily but against ground its just bad. Why not add tanks then, Its very hard to engage a terran force backed up by seige tanks. Because Sieged tanks don't move .... . The late Terran army need to avoid the masses of AOE Protoss has with kiting. Sieged tanks kind of not move .... . I mean they barely have more HP then Marauders and can't be healed as easily. They dont need to move if you engage properly, you can put them behind your army and kite back to the safety of seige tanks. There has to be units other than MMMVG to use against protoss late game. Instead of rejecting every unit except those, try to work out a way to use units with insane splash damage late game. the problem is that chargelots make siegetanks costinefficient due to splash on own units. You can try to use them all you want but as long as chargelots autoconnect and siegetanks splash friendlies I doubt they will be implented other then in a few timing attacks or maybe to defend locations where your army is not. And the second issue is upgrades. While the toss army share upgrades across the board a few 0-0 siegetanks wont do much against 3-3 armies. And upgrading both mech and bio is not realistic when the mechuse is so limited. so so wrong <.< i've seen plenty of games from MKP and MVP in particular where they work wonders.. so i have to completely disagree with you considering those two are certainly some of the top Ts in the world.
Seige tanks are good against protoss in the early to mid game before charge and templar colossi, and archons are present. It is also before protoss begins to get a lot of ground upgrades and everyone is at 0-0 maybe 1-1. After this it becomes unfeasible to upgrade air attack, bio, and mech upgrades while getting vikings and medivacs meaning your tanks will be severely out upgraded. Add to that the fact that chargelots auto hit your army causing your tanks to do more aoe to your army(dying easier to storm/colossi) you end up doing more harm than good with tanks. The supply/cost is better used on vikings and ghosts. These are the reasons why pro players( including mvp and mkp) only get tanks for certain 1-1-1 builds (including expo into 1-1-1) and then stop producing as they transition into 3 base economy.
|
On May 10 2012 13:42 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:33 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
If you ducktape a bunch of Dark Templar around a Colossus, would that Colossus now be cloaked? You'll just see through the DT and see only a Colossus.
It's funny how obvious that is in restrospect...
|
Overlord speed... no problem.
Observer buff... feels random, but okay.
Queen buff... Um...
I'm just not sure what the Queen Buff is supposed to do. The problem as Blizzard stated is Zerg has a hard time scouting in the very early game... so I'm guessing the buff is to just shut down all-ins? Except I severely doubt it will. The worst it'll do is weaken the SlayerS Marine/HEllion/Medivac timing push, which isn't an All-in. Bunker Rushes pop down before Queens pop and this'll only be effective if Terran commits heavily to it (2-rax with 3+ bunkers).
What this -will- hurt is pressure builds. Zerg will now be able to skimp back on defense now that the Queen range will guarantee hits on Hellions, and going Bio is weakened now that Queens can essentially be part of the battle now.
I severely doubt much will change in the match-up at all, but it seems Reactor Hellion will take the biggest blow. We'll have to wait and see how much it'll hurt.
|
On May 10 2012 13:43 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:40 emjaytron wrote:
^^ yeah I can still see 35 siege tank damage being handy even at 0-0, if you can set them up and kite back, the protoss army does tend to clump up narrowly when chasing bio. And -4 damage from zealot armor at 3-3 isn't going to be nearly as big a deal due to the high burst damage of tanks compared to 6+3 attack marines Chargelots close the distance too fast to tanks / the terran army while also beeing able to significantly withstand siege tank fire.
thats the thing though.. good T will target fire with their siege tanks. Have you ever watched 3-4 tanks target fire collosi?
|
Queen range makes ZvZ less volatile - lings and banes are affected units by queen range (and sniping banelings with queens is now a lot easier), and ovie speed makes scouing allins a bit easier. In general, this makes it easier to not die when your oppenent randomly decides to build a round of lings and just start allining.
Obviously it pretty much kills reaper openings which were barely used. I don't know why people complain about that, it's so rare and reactor hellion or some type of rax expand are both fine. Reactor hellion takes a (VERY) slight nerf, but it's not meant to be engaging queens; it's there as a deterrent to creep spread and a quick third.
Bunker rushes take a nerf too and will now be a lot harder to make work... but then, it was always easier in my eyes to perform a bunker rush than to defend one. (having done both)
The increased queen range has most effect on units with low health that are commonly engaged by queens: lings, banes, early game marines, worker scouts and reapers. Hellions still take a relatively long time to die to queens, so the extra couple of hits a queen gets changes very little, esp. considering the speed of hellions and the fact that they shouldn't be getting hit by queens too often anyway.
I would've liked to have seen a change to TvP lategame just to silence the whining, but it'd seem that the MU has a bigger flaw that might take more than a quick patch to fix.
|
On May 10 2012 13:35 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:32 doffe wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:19 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:12 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:05 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:59 ig0tfish wrote:On May 10 2012 12:57 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:45 s3rp wrote:
[quote]
Ravens against lategame Toss ? For what ? PDD only works against Stalkers that no Toss wants to build anyway. The other abilities are a joke. Autoturrets are a gimmick and Seeker Missile needs so much Energy that once the Raven has enough for it Feedback will instantly kill the Raven not to mention the abysmal range it has.
Ravens are only useful with Mechbuilds even in the other MU's and guess what sucks against Toss . Yeah you guessed right Mechbuilds. If i feedback a raven, It will be less storms on your army and what range does feedback have? if its the same as storm you will seeker then the feedback will land and then nothing will happen except me getting hit by a seeker missile. It will depend on the speed of the players, which it should unlike snipe, I wish they nerfed snipe range by 1 and put the emp radius and snipe damage back up. Ravens are more expensive than HTs, and building a raven requires a starport with tech lab. you didnt answer most of my question. Yes they are more expensive, but they are the similar to a colossi (cost wise) and I was discussing a way for terrans to spend all their gas late game. I'm sure a large seeker missile hit on my army would be as damaging as a storm on yours.....and the argument that I would just feedback the ravens is just like saying "why get HTs, you will just snipe them". if your floating 2K gas, why not add some high tech units, Zerg and Protoss do :D Its not . Siege Tanks deal have bigger Splash than Seeker Missiles . At best the first target gets hit for 100 , 1-2 targets get hit for 50 and 2-3 get hit for 25. Seeker Missile is good against Air Units since they stack up easily but against ground its just bad. Why not add tanks then, Its very hard to engage a terran force backed up by seige tanks. Because Sieged tanks don't move .... . The late Terran army need to avoid the masses of AOE Protoss has with kiting. Sieged tanks kind of not move .... . I mean they barely have more HP then Marauders and can't be healed as easily. They dont need to move if you engage properly, you can put them behind your army and kite back to the safety of seige tanks. There has to be units other than MMMVG to use against protoss late game. Instead of rejecting every unit except those, try to work out a way to use units with insane splash damage late game. the problem is that chargelots make siegetanks costinefficient due to splash on own units. You can try to use them all you want but as long as chargelots autoconnect and siegetanks splash friendlies I doubt they will be implented other then in a few timing attacks or maybe to defend locations where your army is not. And the second issue is upgrades. While the toss army share upgrades across the board a few 0-0 siegetanks wont do much against 3-3 armies. And upgrading both mech and bio is not realistic when the mechuse is so limited. so so wrong <.< i've seen plenty of games from MKP and MVP in particular where they work wonders.. so i have to completely disagree with you considering those two are certainly some of the top Ts in the world.
We were talking lategame here and not midgame pushes.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=334311
I assume this is what you're referring to? The consensus is that tanks are dead supply lategame but useful early and sometimes midgame depending on the protoss composition
This is not relevant to the topic at hand, I just couldn't help myself when he said tanks are good vs lategame protoss.
|
On May 10 2012 13:41 m!st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:38 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:31 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:28 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:19 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:12 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:05 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:59 ig0tfish wrote:
[quote]
Ravens are more expensive than HTs, and building a raven requires a starport with tech lab. you didnt answer most of my question. Yes they are more expensive, but they are the similar to a colossi (cost wise) and I was discussing a way for terrans to spend all their gas late game. I'm sure a large seeker missile hit on my army would be as damaging as a storm on yours.....and the argument that I would just feedback the ravens is just like saying "why get HTs, you will just snipe them". if your floating 2K gas, why not add some high tech units, Zerg and Protoss do :D Its not . Siege Tanks deal have bigger Splash than Seeker Missiles . At best the first target gets hit for 100 , 1-2 targets get hit for 50 and 2-3 get hit for 25. Seeker Missile is good against Air Units since they stack up easily but against ground its just bad. Why not add tanks then, Its very hard to engage a terran force backed up by seige tanks. Because Sieged tanks don't move .... . The late Terran army need to avoid the masses of AOE Protoss has with kiting. Sieged tanks kind of not move .... . I mean they barely have more HP then Marauders and can't be healed as easily. They dont need to move if you engage properly, you can put them behind your army and kite back to the safety of seige tanks. There has to be units other than MMMVG to use against protoss late game. Instead of rejecting every unit except those, try to work out a way to use units with insane splash damage late game. TvP has devolved into MMMVG because there is no alternative to it in lategame situations . Siege Tanks barely tickle Zealots and hurt your own units more then they hurt Zealots percentage wise. They do not provide any kinda of safety in TvP lategame . Not to mention you can't expect Terran to upgrade Bio , Air and Mech while the Toss only upgrades ground from 2 forges ... That is true, 3 kinds of ups wont work, well Do BCs have any place in the MU later on, im sure once your vikings get to 3-0 they are good but if you have spare gas drop a few starports and go BCs, yes Feedback is an issue but thats all up to control. You can add BC's if you reach good air upgrades and they can do well. Not as amazing as they should be for their price and the time they need to be build though. They also don't require any kind of special counter unlike other expensive units. Warpgate units are suffient. Why not make Stargate units be the counter to BC's . I mean i need Vikings to counter Colossi why don't BC's require something like this ? I dont know about that man, you dont want too many stalkers in your late game army, and BCs have huge DPS, if stalkers are your only worry they will have to deal with the BCs while your vikings can go to work.
BC's can also absolutely not deal with masses of Zealots. I mean yes the Zealots will not kill the BC's but the Protoss will just ignore them and run right past them. BC's are like the least scary lategame unit there is. Even in TvT if i see my opponent build BC's and i'm not hardcore meching i'm estatic because i know i just won the game.
|
On May 10 2012 13:43 Inty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:35 sc14s wrote:On May 10 2012 13:32 doffe wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:19 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:12 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:05 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:59 ig0tfish wrote:On May 10 2012 12:57 m!st wrote:
[quote]
If i feedback a raven, It will be less storms on your army and what range does feedback have? if its the same as storm you will seeker then the feedback will land and then nothing will happen except me getting hit by a seeker missile. It will depend on the speed of the players, which it should unlike snipe, I wish they nerfed snipe range by 1 and put the emp radius and snipe damage back up. Ravens are more expensive than HTs, and building a raven requires a starport with tech lab. you didnt answer most of my question. Yes they are more expensive, but they are the similar to a colossi (cost wise) and I was discussing a way for terrans to spend all their gas late game. I'm sure a large seeker missile hit on my army would be as damaging as a storm on yours.....and the argument that I would just feedback the ravens is just like saying "why get HTs, you will just snipe them". if your floating 2K gas, why not add some high tech units, Zerg and Protoss do :D Its not . Siege Tanks deal have bigger Splash than Seeker Missiles . At best the first target gets hit for 100 , 1-2 targets get hit for 50 and 2-3 get hit for 25. Seeker Missile is good against Air Units since they stack up easily but against ground its just bad. Why not add tanks then, Its very hard to engage a terran force backed up by seige tanks. Because Sieged tanks don't move .... . The late Terran army need to avoid the masses of AOE Protoss has with kiting. Sieged tanks kind of not move .... . I mean they barely have more HP then Marauders and can't be healed as easily. They dont need to move if you engage properly, you can put them behind your army and kite back to the safety of seige tanks. There has to be units other than MMMVG to use against protoss late game. Instead of rejecting every unit except those, try to work out a way to use units with insane splash damage late game. the problem is that chargelots make siegetanks costinefficient due to splash on own units. You can try to use them all you want but as long as chargelots autoconnect and siegetanks splash friendlies I doubt they will be implented other then in a few timing attacks or maybe to defend locations where your army is not. And the second issue is upgrades. While the toss army share upgrades across the board a few 0-0 siegetanks wont do much against 3-3 armies. And upgrading both mech and bio is not realistic when the mechuse is so limited. so so wrong <.< i've seen plenty of games from MKP and MVP in particular where they work wonders.. so i have to completely disagree with you considering those two are certainly some of the top Ts in the world. Seige tanks are good against protoss in the early to mid game before charge and templar colossi, and archons are present. It is also before protoss begins to get a lot of ground upgrades and everyone is at 0-0 maybe 1-1. After this it becomes unfeasible to upgrade air attack, bio, and mech upgrades while getting vikings and medivacs meaning your tanks will be severely out upgraded. Add to that the fact that chargelots auto hit your army causing your tanks to do more aoe to your army(dying easier to storm/colossi) you end up doing more harm than good with tanks. The supply/cost is better used on vikings and ghosts. These are the reasons why pro players( including mvp and mkp) only get tanks for certain 1-1-1 builds (including expo into 1-1-1) and then stop producing as they transition into 3 base economy.
They have the same range as colossi yeah? if so couldn't your bio deal with zeals while tanks and vikings deal with colossi? seems like they both fit a similar role but siege tanks are more fragile if you loose the battle, cant run away very easily. there has to be a way use your gas, whether it be more upgrades for your existing units, or upgrades and higher tech units. I guess Terran will keep complaining until a Pro figures out a way to use units out of the standard composition(which is fair enough :D)
|
Apparently update comes to SEA May 10, if someone wants to add that to the OP (presumably due to timezones as usual earlier than other regions?)
|
On May 10 2012 13:41 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:38 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 VPFaith wrote:
Again I am really disappointed in Blizzard's decision of not nerfing Terran...
1. Increase bunker build time to 60-70 seconds.
2. Increase Ghost Build cost to 300 min - 150 gas
3. Increase Queen starting energy to 50 - 75
4. Increase Raven build cost to 300 min - 300 gas
5. Increase Tech lab build time to 50 seconds
6. Decrease Collosus build time to 50 seconds
7. Decrease Protoss shield upgrade to 100- 100
8. Decrease Sentry cost to 50 minerals 50 gas
9. Decrease High Templar cost to 50 min 100 gas
10. Observer should not cost any supply I don't understand why people will continue to whine about Terran repeatedly getting nerfed throughout the early months of SC2 when they were winning everything and statistically much stronger than Zerg and Protoss. Guess what? If your race is overpowered, you get nerfed. Sometimes it takes more than one nerf to balance your race. That's why the earlier months were so ridiculously in your favor, and now the winrates are more balanced. The nerfs did their fucking job. Stop crying. Lol, I want Terran to have less ability and ways to win the game. I specifically said I am disappointed at Blizzard's failed effort to nerf the already OP Terran.... Are you okay? Understand English or no? fairly certain he detected the sarcasm in the post? Since you are a T player as well as the changes you stated are ridiculous?
Indeed, especially since this thread has already seen a dozen other people whine about Terrans being royally screwed by non-stop nerfs as proof that Blizzard hates them. 
|
On May 10 2012 13:47 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:41 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:38 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:31 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:28 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:19 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:12 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:05 m!st wrote:
[quote]
you didnt answer most of my question. Yes they are more expensive, but they are the similar to a colossi (cost wise) and I was discussing a way for terrans to spend all their gas late game. I'm sure a large seeker missile hit on my army would be as damaging as a storm on yours.....and the argument that I would just feedback the ravens is just like saying "why get HTs, you will just snipe them". if your floating 2K gas, why not add some high tech units, Zerg and Protoss do :D Its not . Siege Tanks deal have bigger Splash than Seeker Missiles . At best the first target gets hit for 100 , 1-2 targets get hit for 50 and 2-3 get hit for 25. Seeker Missile is good against Air Units since they stack up easily but against ground its just bad. Why not add tanks then, Its very hard to engage a terran force backed up by seige tanks. Because Sieged tanks don't move .... . The late Terran army need to avoid the masses of AOE Protoss has with kiting. Sieged tanks kind of not move .... . I mean they barely have more HP then Marauders and can't be healed as easily. They dont need to move if you engage properly, you can put them behind your army and kite back to the safety of seige tanks. There has to be units other than MMMVG to use against protoss late game. Instead of rejecting every unit except those, try to work out a way to use units with insane splash damage late game. TvP has devolved into MMMVG because there is no alternative to it in lategame situations . Siege Tanks barely tickle Zealots and hurt your own units more then they hurt Zealots percentage wise. They do not provide any kinda of safety in TvP lategame . Not to mention you can't expect Terran to upgrade Bio , Air and Mech while the Toss only upgrades ground from 2 forges ... That is true, 3 kinds of ups wont work, well Do BCs have any place in the MU later on, im sure once your vikings get to 3-0 they are good but if you have spare gas drop a few starports and go BCs, yes Feedback is an issue but thats all up to control. You can add BC's if you reach good air upgrades and they can do well. Not as amazing as they should be for their price and the time they need to be build though. They also don't require any kind of special counter unlike other expensive units. Warpgate units are suffient. Why not make Stargate units be the counter to BC's . I mean i need Vikings to counter Colossi why don't BC's require something like this ? I dont know about that man, you dont want too many stalkers in your late game army, and BCs have huge DPS, if stalkers are your only worry they will have to deal with the BCs while your vikings can go to work. BC's can also absolutely not deal with masses of Zealots. I mean yes the Zealots will not kill the BC's but the Protoss will just ignore them and run right past them. BC's are like the least scary lategame unit there is. Even in TvT if i see my opponent build BC's and i'm not hardcore meching i'm estatic because i know i just won the game.
I didnt say anything about chargelots, stimmed Marines and emps kill chargelots so quickly late game. imagine BCs filling the role of phoenix in colossi/phoenix. to distract stalker shots/storms away from your vikings, not sure if it would work just theorycrafting.
|
Hey, Hellion! Welcome to our oblivion!
Best wishes Battlecruiser, Reaper and Raven.
|
On May 10 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:41 sc14s wrote:On May 10 2012 13:38 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 VPFaith wrote:
Again I am really disappointed in Blizzard's decision of not nerfing Terran...
1. Increase bunker build time to 60-70 seconds.
2. Increase Ghost Build cost to 300 min - 150 gas
3. Increase Queen starting energy to 50 - 75
4. Increase Raven build cost to 300 min - 300 gas
5. Increase Tech lab build time to 50 seconds
6. Decrease Collosus build time to 50 seconds
7. Decrease Protoss shield upgrade to 100- 100
8. Decrease Sentry cost to 50 minerals 50 gas
9. Decrease High Templar cost to 50 min 100 gas
10. Observer should not cost any supply I don't understand why people will continue to whine about Terran repeatedly getting nerfed throughout the early months of SC2 when they were winning everything and statistically much stronger than Zerg and Protoss. Guess what? If your race is overpowered, you get nerfed. Sometimes it takes more than one nerf to balance your race. That's why the earlier months were so ridiculously in your favor, and now the winrates are more balanced. The nerfs did their fucking job. Stop crying. Lol, I want Terran to have less ability and ways to win the game. I specifically said I am disappointed at Blizzard's failed effort to nerf the already OP Terran.... Are you okay? Understand English or no? fairly certain he detected the sarcasm in the post? Since you are a T player as well as the changes you stated are ridiculous? Indeed, especially since this thread has already seen a dozen other people whine about Terrans being royally screwed by non-stop nerfs as proof that Blizzard hates them.
Nope, Blizzard doesn't hate Terran. Blizzard just hates MVP for being in GSL round of 4. Haha =)
|
On May 10 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:41 sc14s wrote:On May 10 2012 13:38 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 VPFaith wrote:
Again I am really disappointed in Blizzard's decision of not nerfing Terran...
1. Increase bunker build time to 60-70 seconds.
2. Increase Ghost Build cost to 300 min - 150 gas
3. Increase Queen starting energy to 50 - 75
4. Increase Raven build cost to 300 min - 300 gas
5. Increase Tech lab build time to 50 seconds
6. Decrease Collosus build time to 50 seconds
7. Decrease Protoss shield upgrade to 100- 100
8. Decrease Sentry cost to 50 minerals 50 gas
9. Decrease High Templar cost to 50 min 100 gas
10. Observer should not cost any supply I don't understand why people will continue to whine about Terran repeatedly getting nerfed throughout the early months of SC2 when they were winning everything and statistically much stronger than Zerg and Protoss. Guess what? If your race is overpowered, you get nerfed. Sometimes it takes more than one nerf to balance your race. That's why the earlier months were so ridiculously in your favor, and now the winrates are more balanced. The nerfs did their fucking job. Stop crying. Lol, I want Terran to have less ability and ways to win the game. I specifically said I am disappointed at Blizzard's failed effort to nerf the already OP Terran.... Are you okay? Understand English or no? fairly certain he detected the sarcasm in the post? Since you are a T player as well as the changes you stated are ridiculous? Indeed, especially since this thread has already seen a dozen other people whine about Terrans being royally screwed by non-stop nerfs as proof that Blizzard hates them.
Well at least they aren't like zerg in GSL  not that im bitching about Z being UP, all the zergs i saw drop out of code S lost in legitimate fashion through playing worse than their opponents.
|
On May 10 2012 13:22 psychotics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:16 BeeNu wrote:On May 10 2012 13:11 psychotics wrote:
Are all the terrans in this thread retarded? Cant deny creep tummors cause the scary queen will poke your helions and scratch the paint? Queens do terrible dps to ground units, takes years to kill 1 helion... 4-6 helions basically can 2 shot a creep tumor? how hard is it to dart in snipe the tumor and run away?? do u really think 2 queens are going to ever ever ever kill your helions if do even bronze level micro? this buff will only effect Bunker rushes. reaper opening are still 100% valid too you dont open reapers to kill drones (if u can its nice) but the main reason is to scout and deny scouting/ creep, again with decent micro u wont ever lose ur reaper to a queen. this isn't going to change much but just make it harder to bunker rush but it can and still will be done. Yeah, you can still slow down Creep and the Third Expo and gain map control with Hellions, the difference is now you can't just retardedly run 4-6 Hellions into a base and just run circles around everything while basically taking no damage. Good patch imo, let the Terrans cry about it all they want, they'll get over it. except they can still do this too. you moved ur queens to far forward? helions dart in good luck catching them queens. and by the time they are cleaned up ur down 15 drones and still have no creep spread
Well now at least as Hellions run around raping everything your Queens can actually get a few more hits off and destroy the Hellions in a semi-reasonable amount of time. This is the biggest change I see from this.
Of course all the gold league Terrans are gonna come out of the woodwork and cry about how +2 range is suddenly going to nullify all hellion use and any sort of rush and probably breaks the game entirely idk.
|
On May 10 2012 13:52 VPFaith wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:41 sc14s wrote:On May 10 2012 13:38 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 VPFaith wrote:
Again I am really disappointed in Blizzard's decision of not nerfing Terran...
1. Increase bunker build time to 60-70 seconds.
2. Increase Ghost Build cost to 300 min - 150 gas
3. Increase Queen starting energy to 50 - 75
4. Increase Raven build cost to 300 min - 300 gas
5. Increase Tech lab build time to 50 seconds
6. Decrease Collosus build time to 50 seconds
7. Decrease Protoss shield upgrade to 100- 100
8. Decrease Sentry cost to 50 minerals 50 gas
9. Decrease High Templar cost to 50 min 100 gas
10. Observer should not cost any supply I don't understand why people will continue to whine about Terran repeatedly getting nerfed throughout the early months of SC2 when they were winning everything and statistically much stronger than Zerg and Protoss. Guess what? If your race is overpowered, you get nerfed. Sometimes it takes more than one nerf to balance your race. That's why the earlier months were so ridiculously in your favor, and now the winrates are more balanced. The nerfs did their fucking job. Stop crying. Lol, I want Terran to have less ability and ways to win the game. I specifically said I am disappointed at Blizzard's failed effort to nerf the already OP Terran.... Are you okay? Understand English or no? fairly certain he detected the sarcasm in the post? Since you are a T player as well as the changes you stated are ridiculous? Indeed, especially since this thread has already seen a dozen other people whine about Terrans being royally screwed by non-stop nerfs as proof that Blizzard hates them. Nope, Blizzard doesn't hate Terran. Blizzard just hates MVP for being in GSL round of 4. Haha =)
Only if he makes cloaked units I suppose Otherwise, this patch will have no effect on him.
Naturally, he should be making a truckload of ghosts >.> Parting's pretty good at making extra observers anyway, so I don't think the buff would change his playstyle much.
|
Means marines can't kite Queens either. Yay!
|
On May 10 2012 13:48 m!st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:43 Inty wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 sc14s wrote:On May 10 2012 13:32 doffe wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:19 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:12 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 s3rp wrote:On May 10 2012 13:05 m!st wrote:On May 10 2012 12:59 ig0tfish wrote:
[quote]
Ravens are more expensive than HTs, and building a raven requires a starport with tech lab. you didnt answer most of my question. Yes they are more expensive, but they are the similar to a colossi (cost wise) and I was discussing a way for terrans to spend all their gas late game. I'm sure a large seeker missile hit on my army would be as damaging as a storm on yours.....and the argument that I would just feedback the ravens is just like saying "why get HTs, you will just snipe them". if your floating 2K gas, why not add some high tech units, Zerg and Protoss do :D Its not . Siege Tanks deal have bigger Splash than Seeker Missiles . At best the first target gets hit for 100 , 1-2 targets get hit for 50 and 2-3 get hit for 25. Seeker Missile is good against Air Units since they stack up easily but against ground its just bad. Why not add tanks then, Its very hard to engage a terran force backed up by seige tanks. Because Sieged tanks don't move .... . The late Terran army need to avoid the masses of AOE Protoss has with kiting. Sieged tanks kind of not move .... . I mean they barely have more HP then Marauders and can't be healed as easily. They dont need to move if you engage properly, you can put them behind your army and kite back to the safety of seige tanks. There has to be units other than MMMVG to use against protoss late game. Instead of rejecting every unit except those, try to work out a way to use units with insane splash damage late game. the problem is that chargelots make siegetanks costinefficient due to splash on own units. You can try to use them all you want but as long as chargelots autoconnect and siegetanks splash friendlies I doubt they will be implented other then in a few timing attacks or maybe to defend locations where your army is not. And the second issue is upgrades. While the toss army share upgrades across the board a few 0-0 siegetanks wont do much against 3-3 armies. And upgrading both mech and bio is not realistic when the mechuse is so limited. so so wrong <.< i've seen plenty of games from MKP and MVP in particular where they work wonders.. so i have to completely disagree with you considering those two are certainly some of the top Ts in the world. Seige tanks are good against protoss in the early to mid game before charge and templar colossi, and archons are present. It is also before protoss begins to get a lot of ground upgrades and everyone is at 0-0 maybe 1-1. After this it becomes unfeasible to upgrade air attack, bio, and mech upgrades while getting vikings and medivacs meaning your tanks will be severely out upgraded. Add to that the fact that chargelots auto hit your army causing your tanks to do more aoe to your army(dying easier to storm/colossi) you end up doing more harm than good with tanks. The supply/cost is better used on vikings and ghosts. These are the reasons why pro players( including mvp and mkp) only get tanks for certain 1-1-1 builds (including expo into 1-1-1) and then stop producing as they transition into 3 base economy. They have the same range as colossi yeah? if so couldn't your bio deal with zeals while tanks and vikings deal with colossi? seems like they both fit a similar role but siege tanks are more fragile if you loose the battle, cant run away very easily. there has to be a way use your gas, whether it be more upgrades for your existing units, or upgrades and higher tech units. I guess Terran will keep complaining until a Pro figures out a way to use units out of the standard composition(which is fair enough :D)
There was a time just about everything was used not just MMMGV. It just complely died out because outside of timing pushes MMMVG is by far stronger then anything you can build. Everybody plays it in later stages . I would like to do anything then MMMVG but after losing countless games with non-MMMVG i just resigned .
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On May 10 2012 13:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:52 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:41 sc14s wrote:On May 10 2012 13:38 VPFaith wrote:On May 10 2012 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 13:23 VPFaith wrote:
Again I am really disappointed in Blizzard's decision of not nerfing Terran...
1. Increase bunker build time to 60-70 seconds.
2. Increase Ghost Build cost to 300 min - 150 gas
3. Increase Queen starting energy to 50 - 75
4. Increase Raven build cost to 300 min - 300 gas
5. Increase Tech lab build time to 50 seconds
6. Decrease Collosus build time to 50 seconds
7. Decrease Protoss shield upgrade to 100- 100
8. Decrease Sentry cost to 50 minerals 50 gas
9. Decrease High Templar cost to 50 min 100 gas
10. Observer should not cost any supply I don't understand why people will continue to whine about Terran repeatedly getting nerfed throughout the early months of SC2 when they were winning everything and statistically much stronger than Zerg and Protoss. Guess what? If your race is overpowered, you get nerfed. Sometimes it takes more than one nerf to balance your race. That's why the earlier months were so ridiculously in your favor, and now the winrates are more balanced. The nerfs did their fucking job. Stop crying. Lol, I want Terran to have less ability and ways to win the game. I specifically said I am disappointed at Blizzard's failed effort to nerf the already OP Terran.... Are you okay? Understand English or no? fairly certain he detected the sarcasm in the post? Since you are a T player as well as the changes you stated are ridiculous? Indeed, especially since this thread has already seen a dozen other people whine about Terrans being royally screwed by non-stop nerfs as proof that Blizzard hates them. Nope, Blizzard doesn't hate Terran. Blizzard just hates MVP for being in GSL round of 4. Haha =) Only if he makes cloaked units I suppose Otherwise, this patch will have no effect on him. Naturally, he should be making a truckload of ghosts >.> Parting's pretty good at making extra observers anyway, so I don't think the buff would change his playstyle much.
Well, the observers are also useful for scouting and such-- and the reduced build time also helps get out immortals more quickly to defend all-ins and stuff right? Not saying that there's a problem with the unnecessary observer buff, just that observers serve multiple purposes, and so do robos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
