|
are they seriously STILL contemplating adding a worse version of the carrier rather than just fixing it? i mean theyre fixing mothership why not fix the protoss best unit.... come on -_- this isn't rocket science this is fucking carriers
|
On July 10 2012 03:24 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:20 Darneck wrote:
At what time does the overlord reach the base of the protoss now?
Denying the nexus would be overpowered enough in my opinion but that wouldn't even be necessary because this you can just drop creep where the wall would be instead and prevent it for long enough to get lots of zerglings in. Exactly the point. If Ovie creep is moved to the evo chamber, 100 different holes get opened up in FFE. The build is effectively dead. Personally, I have never been much of a FFE fan, it seems cheap and lazy, but its so damn powerful that nobody really found a way to truly make 1 gate expos work. I personally think gateway openers are much stronger due to their ability to defend, tech, and attack all at the same time, but that has no relevance to this argument. I hope FFE dies, I am sure gateway expand openers are significantly more powerful, especially with the mscore being added.
Gateway expands were the norm for a long time. They are worse. The Zerg can just take a slightly later third, open Speedling expand, and still be ahead economically because the Protoss pressure is very limited on today's large maps. You can't waltz a bunch of Sentries across Condemned Ridge.
|
On July 10 2012 03:31 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:24 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:20 Darneck wrote:
At what time does the overlord reach the base of the protoss now?
Denying the nexus would be overpowered enough in my opinion but that wouldn't even be necessary because this you can just drop creep where the wall would be instead and prevent it for long enough to get lots of zerglings in. Exactly the point. If Ovie creep is moved to the evo chamber, 100 different holes get opened up in FFE. The build is effectively dead. Personally, I have never been much of a FFE fan, it seems cheap and lazy, but its so damn powerful that nobody really found a way to truly make 1 gate expos work. I personally think gateway openers are much stronger due to their ability to defend, tech, and attack all at the same time, but that has no relevance to this argument. I hope FFE dies, I am sure gateway expand openers are significantly more powerful, especially with the mscore being added. Gateway expands were the norm for a long time. They are worse. The Zerg can just take a slightly later third, open Speedling expand, and still be ahead economically because the Protoss pressure is very limited on today's large maps. You can't waltz a bunch of Sentries across Condemned Ridge.
Agreed, FFE is fine and the standard for the match up. I don't understand why people want gateway openings instead. It is not like the zerg 3 hatch openings involve a lot of things that arn't drones.
|
On July 10 2012 03:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:31 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:24 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:20 Darneck wrote:
At what time does the overlord reach the base of the protoss now?
Denying the nexus would be overpowered enough in my opinion but that wouldn't even be necessary because this you can just drop creep where the wall would be instead and prevent it for long enough to get lots of zerglings in. Exactly the point. If Ovie creep is moved to the evo chamber, 100 different holes get opened up in FFE. The build is effectively dead. Personally, I have never been much of a FFE fan, it seems cheap and lazy, but its so damn powerful that nobody really found a way to truly make 1 gate expos work. I personally think gateway openers are much stronger due to their ability to defend, tech, and attack all at the same time, but that has no relevance to this argument. I hope FFE dies, I am sure gateway expand openers are significantly more powerful, especially with the mscore being added. Gateway expands were the norm for a long time. They are worse. The Zerg can just take a slightly later third, open Speedling expand, and still be ahead economically because the Protoss pressure is very limited on today's large maps. You can't waltz a bunch of Sentries across Condemned Ridge. Agreed, FFE is fine and the standard for the match up. I don't understand why people want gateway openings instead. It is not like the zerg 3 hatch openings involve a lot of things that arn't drones.
Reactor hellion expand was the standart for TvZ for a year, Blizzard show that they don't care about changing this kind of thing.
|
On July 10 2012 03:41 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:34 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2012 03:31 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:24 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:20 Darneck wrote:
At what time does the overlord reach the base of the protoss now?
Denying the nexus would be overpowered enough in my opinion but that wouldn't even be necessary because this you can just drop creep where the wall would be instead and prevent it for long enough to get lots of zerglings in. Exactly the point. If Ovie creep is moved to the evo chamber, 100 different holes get opened up in FFE. The build is effectively dead. Personally, I have never been much of a FFE fan, it seems cheap and lazy, but its so damn powerful that nobody really found a way to truly make 1 gate expos work. I personally think gateway openers are much stronger due to their ability to defend, tech, and attack all at the same time, but that has no relevance to this argument. I hope FFE dies, I am sure gateway expand openers are significantly more powerful, especially with the mscore being added. Gateway expands were the norm for a long time. They are worse. The Zerg can just take a slightly later third, open Speedling expand, and still be ahead economically because the Protoss pressure is very limited on today's large maps. You can't waltz a bunch of Sentries across Condemned Ridge. Agreed, FFE is fine and the standard for the match up. I don't understand why people want gateway openings instead. It is not like the zerg 3 hatch openings involve a lot of things that arn't drones. Reactor hellion expand was the standart for TvZ for a year, Blizzard show that they don't care about changing this kind of thing.
You think TvZ is bad right now? I agree. But it's nothing compared to how fucking horrible PvZ would be if FFE was suddenly made non-viable.
|
I hope Ultralisk burrow doesn't make it through. Zerg is already way good late game, and Ultras are really good in TvZ. The Ultra probably should be tweaked, but imo the upgrade is overkill and will give zerg an even bigger advantage late game where they don't need it.
|
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership. Sometimes Protoss decides to shake things up and just skip thr midgame action entirely, subjecting us to an additional 10 minutes of straight macro.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable way to deal with Force Field in the early game and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides.
|
On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides.
You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses.
|
On July 10 2012 03:44 happyness wrote:
I hope Ultralisk burrow doesn't make it through. Zerg is already way good late game, and Ultras are really good in TvZ. The Ultra probably should be tweaked, but imo the upgrade is overkill and will give zerg an even bigger advantage late game where they don't need it.
Because we can possibly know what late game will be like in HotS with all the new units added right?
|
On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses.
The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd.
Again, more scrappy = more better.
|
On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better.
What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss
|
On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better.
It just means Zerg can Speedling expand. From there, he's perfectly safe against anything and can stop the Protoss from 1gate expanding. This means that the Protoss needs to DT expand, Stargate expand, or 3gate expand off one 1 base. The second the Protoss gets his Nexus down, the Zerg can take his third, and many times he'll be able to do so earlier. There is no way Protoss is going to be able to put pressure and expand against a Speedling expand without teching to Stargate/DTs, both of which are extremely pricey off of one base. Hell, they're pricey off of 2 bases.
Again: Protoss professionals stopped doing Gateway expands for a reason. There's a lovely post about it in the strategy section that I can't find, but it's basically to the effect that they're worse than FFE, because the minute tech advantage isn't worth the massive economic disadvantage. The only way Gateway expands work right now is against Zerg players that fail to scout and assume that you're FFEing.
|
On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss
Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it.
I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust.
The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid.
Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing.
Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then.
As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ.
|
On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ.
So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players.
|
On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ.
How does it make both sides fight for every inch of the game? Zerg has learnt how to deal with it easily except for a few unscouted 1 base all-ins perhaps. This would be nothing but a nerf and there's not really much to argue about it, FFE is proven to be the better option which would equal in a nerf if it was removed and it would also end up being the same old dance and song every other PvZ with a 1 gate expand instead of FFE.
|
On July 10 2012 04:16 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ. So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players.
Sure, prepatch ZvT was a beautiful MU. Anything that makes more matches like that, I am happy with. Post-patch is kinda a train wreck though... It would seem ZvT has moved closer to ZvP where we just skip the early game now. I can see why they made the change, but its a loss overall I think.
|
On July 10 2012 04:26 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:16 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ. So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players. Sure, prepatch ZvT was a beautiful MU. Anything that makes more matches like that, I am happy with. Post-patch is kinda a train wreck though... It would seem ZvT has moved closer to ZvP where we just skip the early game now. I can see why they made the change, but its a loss overall I think.
Yes, but if you want to make PvZ interesting again, you need to give Protoss something non-allin and reliable which the Zerg has to react to. I'm sick of watching professional Protoss players move from +1 4gates to Stargate to whatever just to be even with the Zerg. Give me something risk-free and fair, like the Hellion opener pre-patch, that puts me on even footing with Zergs, and I'll gladly play whatever style is available.
|
On July 10 2012 04:28 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:26 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 04:16 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ. So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players. Sure, prepatch ZvT was a beautiful MU. Anything that makes more matches like that, I am happy with. Post-patch is kinda a train wreck though... It would seem ZvT has moved closer to ZvP where we just skip the early game now. I can see why they made the change, but its a loss overall I think. Yes, but if you want to make PvZ interesting again, you need to give Protoss something non-allin and reliable which the Zerg has to react to. I'm sick of watching professional Protoss players move from +1 4gates to Stargate to whatever just to be even with the Zerg. Give me something risk-free and fair, like the Hellion opener pre-patch, that puts me on even footing with Zergs, and I'll gladly play whatever style is available.
Which is where the Oracle comes in...
|
On July 10 2012 04:32 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:28 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:26 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 04:16 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ. So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players. Sure, prepatch ZvT was a beautiful MU. Anything that makes more matches like that, I am happy with. Post-patch is kinda a train wreck though... It would seem ZvT has moved closer to ZvP where we just skip the early game now. I can see why they made the change, but its a loss overall I think. Yes, but if you want to make PvZ interesting again, you need to give Protoss something non-allin and reliable which the Zerg has to react to. I'm sick of watching professional Protoss players move from +1 4gates to Stargate to whatever just to be even with the Zerg. Give me something risk-free and fair, like the Hellion opener pre-patch, that puts me on even footing with Zergs, and I'll gladly play whatever style is available. Which is where the Oracle comes in...
Except the Oracle isn't something you can just go for on 1 base because it costs a lot of gas. The reason Hellion openers were good is because you could swap the Reactor, get only 1 gas, expand simultaneously, and because you needed the Factory anyway.
|
I must be the only one who thinks the tempest is a great unit. It gives a straight forward option against broodlords. It's a flying, more powerful, longer range siege tank that can attack air.
It's the kind of units that FORCES your opponnent to throw themselves into a toss deathball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
