|
On November 17 2013 10:50 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 10:09 plogamer wrote:On November 17 2013 07:35 Sabu113 wrote:
And all of the protoss ranged units cost gas, what is your point?
---
Why no love for the Zealot?
All air/mech units except the hellion cost gas.
If you can exclude a unit then so can I !
I won't go into a discussion with you Plansix. You are just a spamming troll.
Next week you will have 13000 posts.
--
The zealot is a ranged unit? When did this happen? The point is the that every race has its ups and downs. The terran have the best ranged unit in the game for the low low cost of 50 minerals.
--
And marines are not mech units. My god man. Did you even read the nested quote? Because it seems like you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Lol. Reading comprehension here. WHY WONT YOU ARGUE RATIONALLY YOU TROLL. Actually I was responding to your point that STOP TROLLING ME HURRDURR. A) Cut out the nested quotes about Terran mech being too strong against Protoss. B) Focus on a tangent about marines being ranged, as if it was relevant to the discussion. C) READING COMPREHENSION. I. You make a diversion from the main topic then go nuts when he addresses your diversion. I was ready to buy into Mr.Lawyer being argumentative but you're being hysterical. II. Touche Dwf. III. Poll: Would you trade a nerf to marine range and combat shield for70-85 Damage Tanks + No warp in (1) (10) 43% No way Jose (10) 43% 70->85 Damage Tanks (2) 9% 70-85 Damage Tanks + Other unit (1) 4% 23 total votes Your vote: Would you trade a nerf to marine range and combat shield for (Vote): 70-85 Damage Tanks + No warp in (1)
(Vote): 70-85 Damage Tanks + Other unit
(Vote): 70->85 Damage Tanks
(Vote): No way Jose
I am imagining the horrors of Marine/Tank TvP being a big consideration in why they didn't want to overboost the tank dps. So would you trade your marines for a good immobile but tough to kill mech? (Yeah forgot TvZ in my haste -.- edited poll for null option)
My diversion? You're talking to the wrong guy mate, but hey you would know that if you didn't cut out the quotes. Why do that anyway except to be an ass?
|
On November 17 2013 10:34 AxiomBlurr wrote:Yup...this is the hard data... ToD, MC, Stardust, Huk, Socke, Nightend, Hasuobs, Mana, and Harstem all fall...Not saying these Toss players are Code S calibre,,,just saying they all know how to micro Oracles to great effect...One can only assume the Oracle buff has not been the massive high end player game changer that the salty ones here are suggesting... Now it is harder for you gold scrubs...but then again so is any strat semi well executed... Put the crying to bed please...move on...the oracle is not broken like the hellbat was... GG GL HF.
Yeah this. I mean, obviously its just one tournament so its hard to draw too many conclusions, but based on what we've seen so far, the Oracle buff hasn't in any way made Toss unbeatable. Terran have looked just fine against Protoss.
|
On November 17 2013 07:01 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 06:49 Dynamitekid wrote:
1) They should make the tank do 70 damage against armored units like in broodwar.
And that would be unbalanced
How would that be unbalanced?
|
On November 17 2013 11:05 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 10:34 AxiomBlurr wrote:On November 17 2013 10:01 mishimaBeef wrote:
nice, 3t, 3z, 2p in HSC top 8 Yup...this is the hard data... ToD, MC, Stardust, Huk, Socke, Nightend, Hasuobs, Mana, and Harstem all fall...Not saying these Toss players are Code S calibre,,,just saying they all know how to micro Oracles to great effect...One can only assume the Oracle buff has not been the massive high end player game changer that the salty ones here are suggesting... Now it is harder for you gold scrubs...but then again so is any strat semi well executed... Put the crying to bed please...move on...the oracle is not broken like the hellbat was... GG GL HF. Yeah this. I mean, obviously its just one tournament so its hard to draw too many conclusions, but based on what we've seen so far, the Oracle buff hasn't in any way made Toss unbeatable. Terran have looked just fine against Protoss.
I don't know man, this tournament really is not representative of whether or not a race is dominant.
Like, Protoss wise, only HerO would be able to win that event. Korean Terran and Zerg presence was overall stronger (even in the first rounds).
|
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure.
|
On November 17 2013 11:17 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure.
Yes, I am not a fan of removing upgrades either. In DK's presentation at Blizzcon he talks about giving races more windows of opportunity to press their opponent (i.e. based on the asymmetrical design of SC2 ). I take this as meaning more times in the game where a race has a specific advantage over another. I would think upgrades (and other tech choices) are integral to that process. Protoss was stripped of quite a few upgrades in WOL. I'd dislike seeing the same in HOTS for Terran and Zerg.
That said, if it improves the game even further, I'd be OK with it. I just don't like this particular way of doing so.
|
On November 17 2013 11:28 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:17 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure. Yes, I am not a fan of removing upgrades either. In DK's presentation at Blizzcon he talks about giving races more windows of opportunity to press their opponent (i.e. based on the asymmetrical design of SC2 ). I take this as meaning more times in the game where a race has a specific advantage over another. I would think upgrades (and other tech choices) are integral to that process. Protoss was stripped of quite a few upgrades in WOL. I'd dislike seeing the same in HOTS for Terran and Zerg. That said, if it improves the game even further, I'd be OK with it. I just don't like this particular way of doing so.
same here... I miss HT's amulet
I also want zergs to have more 'evolutions'.
I wish they kept muta->viper morph or that kind of stuff.
Mutas had TWO choices but now don't even have one...
|
On November 17 2013 11:49 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:28 aZealot wrote:On November 17 2013 11:17 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure. Yes, I am not a fan of removing upgrades either. In DK's presentation at Blizzcon he talks about giving races more windows of opportunity to press their opponent (i.e. based on the asymmetrical design of SC2 ). I take this as meaning more times in the game where a race has a specific advantage over another. I would think upgrades (and other tech choices) are integral to that process. Protoss was stripped of quite a few upgrades in WOL. I'd dislike seeing the same in HOTS for Terran and Zerg. That said, if it improves the game even further, I'd be OK with it. I just don't like this particular way of doing so. same here... I miss HT's amulet I also want zergs to have more 'evolutions'. I wish they kept muta->viper morph or that kind of stuff.
i have no prob removing upgrades tbh when did u ever saw someone go for the roach upgrade - it was almost like it never existed (same with the other ebay upgrades for t - they get never researched) and u cant really compare that to the amulet back in WoL cuz the amulet really was shit when u instant could storm all over the map thx to the warpin mechanic.
Edit: just to make that clear ofc i would prefer some tweaks to updates over removing. But some upgrades simply not working out that way so its maybe better to get rid of them and create place for other stuff to get introduced.
|
On November 17 2013 11:55 TheDWorm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:49 SsDrKosS wrote:On November 17 2013 11:28 aZealot wrote:On November 17 2013 11:17 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure. Yes, I am not a fan of removing upgrades either. In DK's presentation at Blizzcon he talks about giving races more windows of opportunity to press their opponent (i.e. based on the asymmetrical design of SC2 ). I take this as meaning more times in the game where a race has a specific advantage over another. I would think upgrades (and other tech choices) are integral to that process. Protoss was stripped of quite a few upgrades in WOL. I'd dislike seeing the same in HOTS for Terran and Zerg. That said, if it improves the game even further, I'd be OK with it. I just don't like this particular way of doing so. same here... I miss HT's amulet I also want zergs to have more 'evolutions'. I wish they kept muta->viper morph or that kind of stuff. i have no prob removing upgrades tbh when did u ever saw someone go for the roach upgrade - it was almost like it never existed (same with the other ebay upgrades for t - they get never researched) and u cant really compare that to the amulet back in WoL cuz the amulet really was shit when u instant could storm all over the map thx to the warpin mechanic.
wowowowow come down mate. I was just saying HT thing for fun :p
But he is the only one (if you don't count queen)
who has no upgrade or skills to get extra mana. Thats all
Edit: opps I mean tier 3 spell caster
|
On November 17 2013 11:55 TheDWorm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:49 SsDrKosS wrote:On November 17 2013 11:28 aZealot wrote:On November 17 2013 11:17 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure. Yes, I am not a fan of removing upgrades either. In DK's presentation at Blizzcon he talks about giving races more windows of opportunity to press their opponent (i.e. based on the asymmetrical design of SC2 ). I take this as meaning more times in the game where a race has a specific advantage over another. I would think upgrades (and other tech choices) are integral to that process. Protoss was stripped of quite a few upgrades in WOL. I'd dislike seeing the same in HOTS for Terran and Zerg. That said, if it improves the game even further, I'd be OK with it. I just don't like this particular way of doing so. same here... I miss HT's amulet I also want zergs to have more 'evolutions'. I wish they kept muta->viper morph or that kind of stuff. i have no prob removing upgrades tbh when did u ever saw someone go for the roach upgrade - it was almost like it never existed (same with the other ebay upgrades for t - they get never researched) and u cant really compare that to the amulet back in WoL cuz the amulet really was shit when u instant could storm all over the map thx to the warpin mechanic. Edit: just to make that clear ofc i would prefer some tweaks to updates over removing. But some upgrades simply not working out that way so its maybe better to get rid of them and create place for other stuff to get introduced.
Actually, range and armor upgrade are pretty useful in the late game. in TvT, a PF with +2 armor just don't die to marines, and tank can't outrange them without sieging.
|
On November 17 2013 12:00 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:55 TheDWorm wrote:On November 17 2013 11:49 SsDrKosS wrote:On November 17 2013 11:28 aZealot wrote:On November 17 2013 11:17 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Seems like a decent change, odd that their making so many upgrade paths non-existent by combining it like the ship upgrade and now the burrow speed not actually needing roach speed. Cool to see a tank buff for sure. Yes, I am not a fan of removing upgrades either. In DK's presentation at Blizzcon he talks about giving races more windows of opportunity to press their opponent (i.e. based on the asymmetrical design of SC2 ). I take this as meaning more times in the game where a race has a specific advantage over another. I would think upgrades (and other tech choices) are integral to that process. Protoss was stripped of quite a few upgrades in WOL. I'd dislike seeing the same in HOTS for Terran and Zerg. That said, if it improves the game even further, I'd be OK with it. I just don't like this particular way of doing so. same here... I miss HT's amulet I also want zergs to have more 'evolutions'. I wish they kept muta->viper morph or that kind of stuff. i have no prob removing upgrades tbh when did u ever saw someone go for the roach upgrade - it was almost like it never existed (same with the other ebay upgrades for t - they get never researched) and u cant really compare that to the amulet back in WoL cuz the amulet really was shit when u instant could storm all over the map thx to the warpin mechanic. wowowowow come down mate. I was just saying HT thing for fun :p
This wasnt mean to insult u or something like that^^.
Its just that roach burrow speed and amulet upgrade were taken out cuz of different probs. Therefore i dont see any sense comparing those 2.
|
On November 17 2013 11:00 plogamer wrote:
I am imagining the horrors of Marine/Tank TvP
:O
you can't have a 1-1-1 without a Starport!
Banshees have a lot to do with the power of the 1-1-1. You're forced to put gas into stalkers and additional observers in order to defend your mineral line. A banshee can go toe-to-toe with a stalker and end the fight with 80 hp left, so you'll need about 5 or 6.
|
On November 17 2013 10:50 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 10:09 plogamer wrote:On November 17 2013 07:35 Sabu113 wrote:
And all of the protoss ranged units cost gas, what is your point?
---
Why no love for the Zealot?
All air/mech units except the hellion cost gas.
If you can exclude a unit then so can I !
I won't go into a discussion with you Plansix. You are just a spamming troll.
Next week you will have 13000 posts.
--
The zealot is a ranged unit? When did this happen? The point is the that every race has its ups and downs. The terran have the best ranged unit in the game for the low low cost of 50 minerals.
--
And marines are not mech units. My god man. Did you even read the nested quote? Because it seems like you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Lol. Reading comprehension here. WHY WONT YOU ARGUE RATIONALLY YOU TROLL. Actually I was responding to your point that STOP TROLLING ME HURRDURR. A) Cut out the nested quotes about Terran mech being too strong against Protoss. B) Focus on a tangent about marines being ranged, as if it was relevant to the discussion. C) READING COMPREHENSION. I. You make a diversion from the main topic then go nuts when he addresses your diversion. I was ready to buy into Mr.Lawyer being argumentative but you're being hysterical. II. Touche Dwf. III. Poll: Would you trade a nerf to marine range and combat shield for70-85 Damage Tanks + No warp in (1) (10) 43% No way Jose (10) 43% 70->85 Damage Tanks (2) 9% 70-85 Damage Tanks + Other unit (1) 4% 23 total votes Your vote: Would you trade a nerf to marine range and combat shield for (Vote): 70-85 Damage Tanks + No warp in (1)
(Vote): 70-85 Damage Tanks + Other unit
(Vote): 70->85 Damage Tanks
(Vote): No way Jose
I am imagining the horrors of Marine/Tank TvP being a big consideration in why they didn't want to overboost the tank dps. So would you trade your marines for a good immobile but tough to kill mech? (Yeah forgot TvZ in my haste -.- edited poll for null option)
waht??? I want it because I'm blinglingmuta zerg :p
but tbh if you nerf marine, (which will NEVER happen :'( ) you need to nerf banes too.
I think they should have give marine +1 upgrade instead of +10 hp. Just my 0.02.
|
Show nested quote +
I also want zergs to have more 'evolutions'.
I wish they kept muta->viper morph or that kind of stuff.
i have no prob removing upgrades tbh when did u ever saw someone go for the roach upgrade - it was almost like it never existed (same with the other ebay upgrades for t - they get never researched)
Those upgrades are so critical for turtling with mech to end game. a couple of tanks and thors + a Pf with turrets and scvs repairing can really withstand alot of dmg, If i have that set up established against a zerg and he goes sh thats nearly gg right there as he is investing that supply into sh which cant be used for other units and i can sit there, macro up, build up bank and get my 3/3 and raven cloud up and there is noting he can do about it as locusts just cannot break a upgraded pf with tank support and mas repair and we can afford to spare the scvs when we are sitting on 5+ oc's 
that being said, those upgrades are only ever used with mech. That bunker upgrade is an example of an upgrade that is never used though.
EDIT: maybe they could make it so units inside the bunker auto heal? You can active stim while units are in a bunker i believe so being able to add that extra burst of dmg could make it a worthwhile investment. 6 marines with stim do alot more dmg that 4 marines.
|
On November 17 2013 12:07 AlaxWayLaxed wrote:
That bunker upgrade is an example of an upgrade that is never used though.
Maybe one day for trying to hold a choked position with high efficiency, likely at a late expansion.
|
On November 17 2013 12:11 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 12:07 AlaxWayLaxed wrote:
That bunker upgrade is an example of an upgrade that is never used though. Maybe one day for trying to hold a choked position with high efficiency, likely at a late expansion.
At that point in the game you're using planetaries and depot walls, not bunkers.
|
On November 17 2013 12:11 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 12:07 AlaxWayLaxed wrote:
That bunker upgrade is an example of an upgrade that is never used though. Maybe one day for trying to hold a choked position with high efficiency, likely at a late expansion.
when you get to the late game bunkers just fall way to easily, atm all you can use bunkers for is to deflect zelot warp in harras and zergling runbys/muta harras. anything more than that is to much for bunkers to hold. If they want to make it viable they should try making it go up to 8 instead of 6 or maybe give it some of those neat upgrades we see in the campaign as well.
Also the pain with bunkers is that it is a investment of supply in your defense which is the real pain, with zerg and toss building spines and cannons requires no supply investment where as terran does which affects the late game a bit as terran needs all the supply in army so they can actually take engagements with out being overrun by zerg or rolled by toss.
|
Sure, if you don't need the extra DPS.
|
On November 17 2013 12:20 AlaxWayLaxed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 12:11 mishimaBeef wrote:On November 17 2013 12:07 AlaxWayLaxed wrote:
That bunker upgrade is an example of an upgrade that is never used though. Maybe one day for trying to hold a choked position with high efficiency, likely at a late expansion. when you get to the late game bunkers just fall way to easily, atm all you can use bunkers for is to deflect zelot warp in harras and zergling runbys/muta harras. anything more than that is to much for bunkers to hold. If they want to make it viable they should try making it go up to 8 instead of 6 or maybe give it some of those neat upgrades we see in the campaign as well. Also the pain with bunkers is that it is a investment of supply in your defense which is the real pain, with zerg and toss building spines and cannons requires no supply investment where as terran does which affects the late game a bit as terran needs all the supply in army so they can actually take engagements with out being overrun by zerg or rolled by toss.
Hell, once a good muta group is out it'll flock your shit up unless you have turrets/bunkers+mines
|
On November 17 2013 11:12 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:05 awesomoecalypse wrote:On November 17 2013 10:34 AxiomBlurr wrote:On November 17 2013 10:01 mishimaBeef wrote:
nice, 3t, 3z, 2p in HSC top 8 Yup...this is the hard data... ToD, MC, Stardust, Huk, Socke, Nightend, Hasuobs, Mana, and Harstem all fall...Not saying these Toss players are Code S calibre,,,just saying they all know how to micro Oracles to great effect...One can only assume the Oracle buff has not been the massive high end player game changer that the salty ones here are suggesting... Now it is harder for you gold scrubs...but then again so is any strat semi well executed... Put the crying to bed please...move on...the oracle is not broken like the hellbat was... GG GL HF. Yeah this. I mean, obviously its just one tournament so its hard to draw too many conclusions, but based on what we've seen so far, the Oracle buff hasn't in any way made Toss unbeatable. Terran have looked just fine against Protoss. I don't know man, this tournament really is not representative of whether or not a race is dominant. Like, Protoss wise, only HerO would be able to win that event. Korean Terran and Zerg presence was overall stronger (even in the first rounds).
Um what? Are you serious? Stardust won a DH, MC was at Blizzcon. Mana has been solid particularly in ATC. Not making a particularly good argument here.
There was 1 Terran from Blizzcon here(Taeja) and 0 Zergs to my knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
