|
On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings.
There is one, it requires you to mobilize 4 pop in order to have it at it's full potential .... that's enough of a risk IMO ....
|
On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings.
You need to remember that the bunker is not a unit, it's a defensive structure that terran needs in any form of fast expand without dying.
|
really glad about that change with the OBs
|
People forget that the players adapt to changes, if 1 build gets shut down, another one pops up to replace it. You will all adapt. A lot of people seem to think that protoss ALWAYS gets an observer first. Not true. I myself always get an immortal first. Chance that enemy marauders/roaches/stalkers won't be in a game is usually pretty low. So getting 1 out quickly never hurts, and it pays off big vs. an all-in. Then if I find I have no use for an immortal I can still use it for drops. So it doesn't necessarily matter if obs takes 30 or 40 seconds, anyone who banks on a protoss not having an immortal for 10 crucial seconds is always taking a gamble.
And will those 10 seconds make DTs easier to counter? Of course, but it doesn't completely shut down DTs from the PvP matchup. What if your opponent goes stargate instead of robo? What if he has an expansion far from his main? What if his robo is only powered by 1 pylon? etc. etc.
The sky is not falling. Get a grip people.
|
On May 10 2012 22:35 Zarahtra wrote:
And I was hoping blizzard would actually stop with this stupidity that is this new patch before releasing it. This seems so out of touch with how the game is developing that it is very dishearthening(to the point of me very possibly just quit playing)
Yeah, and people thought LoL was more noob friendly.
I don't think they even took data other than their flawed gold league balance. They probably thought the results of their horrid map testing was somehow relevant.
If this goes on, SC2 won't be anywhere near e-sports quality in another change or two.
|
On May 10 2012 22:53 Emix_Squall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings. There is one, it requires you to mobilize 4 pop in order to have it at it's full potential .... that's enough of a risk IMO ....
I think he is being sarcastic.
|
On May 10 2012 22:54 Yoduh wrote:
And will those 10 seconds make DTs easier to counter? Of course, but it doesn't completely shut down DTs from the PvP matchup. What if your opponent goes stargate instead of robo? What if he has an expansion far from his main? What if his robo is only powered by 1 pylon? etc. etc.
I'll make myself the devil's lawyer here but the example you gave are pretty bad. One is gambling on the rarest opener you'll see on ladder for PvP (stargate), another one is based on an economic cheese and last one is based on your opponent doing a stupid mistake ....
Not that I don't agree with you but some other examples could've served your cause better :D
|
Great changes...But yeah, Terrans need something useful late-game in return, or I am afraid there won't be any terrans left on the NA/EU ladder.
|
On May 10 2012 22:57 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 22:53 Emix_Squall wrote:On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings. There is one, it requires you to mobilize 4 pop in order to have it at it's full potential .... that's enough of a risk IMO .... I think he is being sarcastic.
You think? My sarcasm-o-meter is off today then D:
|
SoCal8933 Posts
Terran
* Bunker is not changed
lmao nice touch. overall, great changes for the game i think. i didnt get to play around with the queen range so im very interested to see how it impacts bunker rushes and such. we shall see!
|
On May 10 2012 22:35 Zarahtra wrote:
And I was hoping blizzard would actually stop with this stupidity that is this new patch before releasing it. This seems so out of touch with how the game is developing that it is very dishearthening(to the point of me very possibly just quit playing)
These reactions always amaze me. Quit playing? Really? I think its you who is out of touch with how the game is developing. Queens with 5 range might not have been the right change, but zerg needs something.
|
On May 10 2012 22:57 Emix_Squall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 22:54 Yoduh wrote:
And will those 10 seconds make DTs easier to counter? Of course, but it doesn't completely shut down DTs from the PvP matchup. What if your opponent goes stargate instead of robo? What if he has an expansion far from his main? What if his robo is only powered by 1 pylon? etc. etc.
I'll make myself the devil's lawyer here but the example you gave are pretty bad. One is gambling on the rarest opener you'll see on ladder for PvP (stargate), another one is based on an economic cheese and last one is based on your opponent doing a stupid mistake .... Not that I don't agree with you but some other examples could've served your cause better :D
PvP stargate is super common...
|
On May 10 2012 22:53 Zowon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings. You need to remember that the bunker is not a unit, it's a defensive structure that terran needs in any form of fast expand without dying.
Your point it taken, but we've all seen Terrans use offensive bunkers in rushes and contains. My contention is that bunkers used in these instances should come at a greater risk than just losing 25% of the bunker value. It's not like any other race can salvage a finished offensive pylon for a 75% refund.
|
completely unnecessary and random changes, good job 
|
Mass Queen FTW!!!
Max Upgrade of 14 DPS vs Roach 11 DPS, longer range, self-heal, awesome air attack
and the best part:
No need to ever interrupt drone production!
Rack up those free ladder wins while it lasts!
|
On May 10 2012 11:33 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:29 Blazinghand wrote:On May 10 2012 11:25 S_SienZ wrote:
Way to slap Terrans in the face. Terrans have historically had the most success at the professional level, and are generally regarded as the strongest race + Show Spoiler [GSL 2012 S2] +If you don't count the Ro4 results from this most recent GSL . The 5-range queen will be stronger against reapers and hellions, but won't be nearly as strong as the 50-energy queen. Overall, Blizzard made some relatively mild buffs to the non-terran races, and that's okay. Show me a game where professional level players have trouble, enough trouble dealing with a hellion opening when they're not being ridiculously fucking greedy. The way the maps are set up now queen no gas openings are having a resurgence ALREADY because it's such a good economical opening that completely shuts down any hellion harass. This is directed toward lower level play 100%. Ye, it won't be as strong as the 50-energy queen, but I can't even fathom how that made it to public testing to be honest lol.
Nestea vs Keen...Lost to Blue Flame Hellions.
Not saying Queens needed to be buff though. It will be interesting to see the Queen buff in effect. I wonder if this was due to ZvZ all in early game pressure not anti-hellions.
|
On May 10 2012 23:01 striderxxx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 22:53 Zowon wrote:On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings. You need to remember that the bunker is not a unit, it's a defensive structure that terran needs in any form of fast expand without dying. Your point it taken, but we've all seen Terrans use offensive bunkers in rushes and contains. My contention is that bunkers used in these instances should come at a greater risk than just losing 25% of the bunker value. It's not like any other race can salvage a finished offensive pylon for a 75% refund.
And you wouldnt say that an offensive pylon create a unique thing that favors one race (warp-in)?
Every race has their own uniqueness with strength and weaknesses.
When you build bunkers your spending money that could otherwise be spent on units/buildings, so it's a pretty big investment.
|
On May 10 2012 22:58 Fragile51 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 22:57 Mehukannu wrote:On May 10 2012 22:53 Emix_Squall wrote:On May 10 2012 22:46 striderxxx wrote:
The bunker needs to be 100% NOT SALVAGABLE!. No other unit can be scrapped for minerals back, this is so unfair. There should be an element of cost and risk for throwing up a bunker like all other race defensive buildings. There is one, it requires you to mobilize 4 pop in order to have it at it's full potential .... that's enough of a risk IMO .... I think he is being sarcastic. You think? My sarcasm-o-meter is off today then D:
No, I don't think it is off. You have not updated it to detect sarcasm on the internet, yet. Though it is still quite buggy, since it is still in alpha stage. =]
|
On May 10 2012 22:54 Yoduh wrote:
And will those 10 seconds make DTs easier to counter?
Quick bit of maths for you:
DTs do 26.6 DPS
Robotics facility has 450/450 Health/Shields and +1 armor inherent.
By my reckoning thats fractionally under 17 seconds to kill the shield. Just over 17.5 seconds to kill health.
Therefore total of 34.5 seconds (approximately) to kill a robotics facility with a 0/0 Dark Templar.
Consequently prior to this you could actually snipe the robotics facility before they produced an unchronod observer if they started production right when you started attacking. Now you cannot.
Seems a minor difference, but I think the implication is quite significant here actually.
|
nice now reaper and hellion openings are useless
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
