|
Constructive criticism is welcome, but no mindless SC2/Developer bashing in this thread. |
United States7483 Posts
On January 28 2014 07:11 Grumbels wrote:
All splash units that deal friendly fire have very slow attack cooldowns (or are spells) and you have a chance to target your attacks this way. (fungal, storm, reaver) I don't think a colossus that fires once per second should deal friendly fire.
Fungal and reavers don't deal friendly fire damage.
|
Have you ever watched PvP? Do you know how fast Zealots die to Colossus fire? Having them take friendly fire would completely break the game. You'd need to make them much stronger than they currently are to able to tank this friendly fire AND the marine fire, which would just lead to a lot of unstoppable Gateway allins. It's a bad move for the game.
Yes 1A chargelots are strong, but if you've seen anyone micro well against it (clicking and pressing H a bunch, its not THAT hard) you'll see that unless there is a solid amount of splash damage behind them bio can just kite them for days.
Colossus are slow, storm takes time to cast. You can not chase a bio ball unless you have vastly superior numbers because you just get kited to death. So you need to spread out your shit, attack from several angles, hide templar etc. I think you underestimate the work it takes to engage a bio ball.
|
On January 28 2014 07:33 Grumbels wrote:Oh, so I'm pointlessly avoiding my zealots? 
Yes, if the reaver did friendly damage it would require like 500 apm to use effectively. It's already incredibly micro intensive. On the subject, colossus would be complete shit if it did FF. Storm is actually the only thing protoss has that does FF. Terrans have mines, HSM and tanks. Zerg has nothing that does FF.
|
On January 28 2014 06:36 matthy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 03:39 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2014 23:18 odem wrote:On January 25 2014 08:07 tadL wrote:Still no patch that gives Zerg and Protoss the same advantage of friendly fire like terrans have? is ur post supposed to make sense? its exactly the opposite. zerg and protoss have the advantage because they dont receive friendly fire from almost all of their splash units and can just go yolo swag a-move with it (even storm isnt really a thread to zealot/stalker compared to marine/ling instant death). on the other hand terran receives critical damage from tank/mine and hsm! it would only be fair to make fungal / coloss friendly fire aswell so kids would have to micro their shit the same way terrans have to do! You forget the part where Terran has no melee units. How exactly are you supposed to micro Colossus fire against marines when zealots are in melee range of those same marines. Same with ling/bane. The amount of micro needed to properly engage would be out of this universe. You'd need 800 apm just to take a fight the way you do now by 1A-ing. Please think before you speak. The biggest problem is the charge upgrade, what makes 1a zealots really good, compared to non micro MMM
Zealot charge is a good example of the basic SC2 game mechanics limiting potential cool stuff.
At the drawing board in very early game developing stages this sounded very cool because it is something that can be done by cauals mainly by leaving it on auto-cast and can be excelled by very good players by turning the ability off at certain situations like chasing an army were you dont want your zealots get too far ahead of the pack.
Maybe making it charge instead of just a speed upgrade was intentional to make something like situational micro possible to give more options to a relative simple melee unit.
But as we know now this never happend due to the massive damage output in 200/200 battles, the possibility to "cancel" charge (which looks awkward often at least for me) and due to the Protoss habit that microing units makes them worse due to the "Deathball". Thats why i would like to make Charge more of a "rampage" with a speed buff but no way back for the zealot.
It is kinda the same problem with the "why has only Terran splash that has friendly fire" thing.
At first It does make sense from a design or better said "feeling" point of view. If you look at reality no soldier would like to stay in a area were "artillerie or tanks" are going too shoot and the Terran race is highly influenzed throgh that.
Like Zealot charge it sounds good on a drawing board because in theory there could be cool interactions like how exacly you are positioning tanks. You dont want them too far away because well the battle is over when they shoot but you dont want them in front because it can picked off so finding the butterzone for tanks that can devestating to both sides would be a cool thing.
Or look at the mines. Would you want to be a soldier fighting in a minefield? No. No one would do that so you shouldn´t do that in an rts were mines should have a more "realistic" role like traps or space controle.
But Blizzard shoot themselves in the foot again by making this FF aoe untis boring and weak. The tank and the mine got nerfed to a point were the FF are not that big of a deal even to a point were Scarlett mentioned that the Mine nerf is actually a "buff". I persionally disagree as a fromer Terran player but it kinda shows the problem that Terran players don´t care that much about it because A. it doesnt matter that much besides funky situations like Forgg vs. Stephano and more importantly B. they cant do anything about it anyway.
Also the potential of a strategic element like "this stuff kicks ass but if i am not careful about it the only ass it kicks is on my rear" is torpedoed by the hardcounters like immortals or ultralisk and the fact that no one would make some sort of artelliery in human history if the enemy can close out on you in a third of a second like zerglings or chargelots do in sc2.
|
On January 28 2014 07:44 Micro_Jackson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 06:36 matthy wrote:On January 28 2014 03:39 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2014 23:18 odem wrote:On January 25 2014 08:07 tadL wrote:Still no patch that gives Zerg and Protoss the same advantage of friendly fire like terrans have? is ur post supposed to make sense? its exactly the opposite. zerg and protoss have the advantage because they dont receive friendly fire from almost all of their splash units and can just go yolo swag a-move with it (even storm isnt really a thread to zealot/stalker compared to marine/ling instant death). on the other hand terran receives critical damage from tank/mine and hsm! it would only be fair to make fungal / coloss friendly fire aswell so kids would have to micro their shit the same way terrans have to do! You forget the part where Terran has no melee units. How exactly are you supposed to micro Colossus fire against marines when zealots are in melee range of those same marines. Same with ling/bane. The amount of micro needed to properly engage would be out of this universe. You'd need 800 apm just to take a fight the way you do now by 1A-ing. Please think before you speak. The biggest problem is the charge upgrade, what makes 1a zealots really good, compared to non micro MMM Zealot charge is a good example of the basic SC2 game mechanics limiting potential cool stuff. At the drawing board in very early game developing stages this sounded very cool because it is something that can be done by cauals mainly by leaving it on auto-cast and can be excelled by very good players by turning the ability off at certain situations like chasing an army were you dont want your zealots get too far ahead of the pack. Maybe making it charge instead of just a speed upgrade was intentional to make something like situational micro possible to give more options to a relative simple melee unit. But as we know now this never happend due to the massive damage output in 200/200 battles, the possibility to "cancel" charge (which looks awkward often at least for me) and due to the Protoss habit that microing units makes them worse due to the "Deathball". Thats why i would like to make Charge more of a "rampage" with a speed buff but no way back for the zealot. It is kinda the same problem with the "why has only Terran splash that has friendly fire" thing. At first It does make sense from a design or better said "feeling" point of view. If you look at reality no soldier would like to stay in a area were "artillerie or tanks" are going too shoot and the Terran race is highly influenzed throgh that. Like Zealot charge it sounds good on a drawing board because in theory there could be cool interactions like how exacly you are positioning tanks. You dont want them too far away because well the battle is over when they shoot but you dont want them in front because it can picked off so finding the butterzone for tanks that can devestating to both sides would be a cool thing. Or look at the mines. Would you want to be a soldier fighting in a minefield? No. No one would do that so you shouldn´t do that in an rts were mines should have a more "realistic" role like traps or space controle. But Blizzard shoot themselves in the foot again by making this FF aoe untis boring and weak. The tank and the mine got nerfed to a point were the FF are not that big of a deal even to a point were Scarlett mentioned that the Mine nerf is actually a "buff" (i persionally disagree as a fromer Terran player). Also the potential of a strategic element like "this stuff kicks ass but if i am not careful about it the only ass it kicks is on my rear" is torpedoed by the hardcounters like immortals or ultralisk and the fact that no one would make some sort of artelliery in human history if the enemy can close out on you in a third of a second like zerglings or chargelots do in sc2.
I'm sorry but all the Terran players saying charge should not be autocast are have obviously not played enough Protoss. The apm required to just barely manage that would be insane. Just imagine what it would be like if you had to tell every single medivac manually what unit to heal. That's what it would be like.
EDIT - and microing Protoss units never makes them worse. Again, I seriously doubt you've spent any time playing Protoss because micro is very important. Even charge lots neeed to be pulled back when they get too far ahead of the army. If you watch a good TvP player he will kite, kite kite, until Zealots have been thinned out enough and then sudently they just grab everything and 1A the opposite direction when there isn't enough support for the AoE units. Players who let their Zealots get too fair ahead let them die for free while their splash units do zero damage (and get EMPd / focused by vikings).
1A is a very great way to lose games at anything mid-plat and above.
|
On January 28 2014 07:35 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 07:11 Grumbels wrote:
All splash units that deal friendly fire have very slow attack cooldowns (or are spells) and you have a chance to target your attacks this way. (fungal, storm, reaver) I don't think a colossus that fires once per second should deal friendly fire. Fungal and reavers don't deal friendly fire damage.
Yeah, I knew, just tired and writing in a confusing manner.
|
On January 28 2014 07:46 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 07:44 Micro_Jackson wrote:On January 28 2014 06:36 matthy wrote:On January 28 2014 03:39 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2014 23:18 odem wrote:On January 25 2014 08:07 tadL wrote:Still no patch that gives Zerg and Protoss the same advantage of friendly fire like terrans have? is ur post supposed to make sense? its exactly the opposite. zerg and protoss have the advantage because they dont receive friendly fire from almost all of their splash units and can just go yolo swag a-move with it (even storm isnt really a thread to zealot/stalker compared to marine/ling instant death). on the other hand terran receives critical damage from tank/mine and hsm! it would only be fair to make fungal / coloss friendly fire aswell so kids would have to micro their shit the same way terrans have to do! You forget the part where Terran has no melee units. How exactly are you supposed to micro Colossus fire against marines when zealots are in melee range of those same marines. Same with ling/bane. The amount of micro needed to properly engage would be out of this universe. You'd need 800 apm just to take a fight the way you do now by 1A-ing. Please think before you speak. The biggest problem is the charge upgrade, what makes 1a zealots really good, compared to non micro MMM Zealot charge is a good example of the basic SC2 game mechanics limiting potential cool stuff. At the drawing board in very early game developing stages this sounded very cool because it is something that can be done by cauals mainly by leaving it on auto-cast and can be excelled by very good players by turning the ability off at certain situations like chasing an army were you dont want your zealots get too far ahead of the pack. Maybe making it charge instead of just a speed upgrade was intentional to make something like situational micro possible to give more options to a relative simple melee unit. But as we know now this never happend due to the massive damage output in 200/200 battles, the possibility to "cancel" charge (which looks awkward often at least for me) and due to the Protoss habit that microing units makes them worse due to the "Deathball". Thats why i would like to make Charge more of a "rampage" with a speed buff but no way back for the zealot. It is kinda the same problem with the "why has only Terran splash that has friendly fire" thing. At first It does make sense from a design or better said "feeling" point of view. If you look at reality no soldier would like to stay in a area were "artillerie or tanks" are going too shoot and the Terran race is highly influenzed throgh that. Like Zealot charge it sounds good on a drawing board because in theory there could be cool interactions like how exacly you are positioning tanks. You dont want them too far away because well the battle is over when they shoot but you dont want them in front because it can picked off so finding the butterzone for tanks that can devestating to both sides would be a cool thing. Or look at the mines. Would you want to be a soldier fighting in a minefield? No. No one would do that so you shouldn´t do that in an rts were mines should have a more "realistic" role like traps or space controle. But Blizzard shoot themselves in the foot again by making this FF aoe untis boring and weak. The tank and the mine got nerfed to a point were the FF are not that big of a deal even to a point were Scarlett mentioned that the Mine nerf is actually a "buff" (i persionally disagree as a fromer Terran player). Also the potential of a strategic element like "this stuff kicks ass but if i am not careful about it the only ass it kicks is on my rear" is torpedoed by the hardcounters like immortals or ultralisk and the fact that no one would make some sort of artelliery in human history if the enemy can close out on you in a third of a second like zerglings or chargelots do in sc2. I'm sorry but all the Terran players saying charge should not be autocast are have obviously not played enough Protoss. The apm required to just barely manage that would be insane. Just imagine what it would be like if you had to tell every single medivac manually what unit to heal. That's what it would be like.
I apologise if i failed to explain my thoughts enough but i meant something different (english is not my first language and i used school mainly to flirt with girls  .
I have no problem with autocast (and even no problem with smartcast) and balancewise i think charge is ok.
What i tried to say was that Charge is a "dumb" upgrade. It makes a unit better and thats it. For some upgrades like +1 this is ok but for a "skill" upgrade it is bad.
In my opinion there should be a desicion between "does i want my zealots to close in as fast as possible" or "do i want them to be microable because then i can get more falue out of them" in varius situations. Charge adds no strategic depth at all unlike lets say stim that has some sort of decision making behind it in some situations and some stages of the game which makes it a "good" upgrade in my opinion.
/Edit (damn you edit!)
When i say "micro makes a battle worse than no micro" i mainly mean the zealot with charge which i doubt would be notable better when microed perfectly rather 1A ing (i only mean micro in battles excluding positioning and point of engagement which is very improtant to P more to T in my opinion).
Also in terms of in fight microing you have to admit that Protss is more "noob" friendly than terran. Not about balance or positioning but about awareness, apm requirments and how error forgiving or not forgiving it is on P and T side.
Again this is not about balance it is more about that Protoss upgrades like charge are dumb and doesn´t add anything interesting to the game.
|
On January 27 2014 01:07 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 21:57 Crackpot wrote:
Mech in TvP doesn't work with emp either. Just fix that (stacked up) toss-deathball-mechanic and Mech will be playable.
- Slow down colossi
- Dont allow colossi to walk over units
- Nerf Voidrays, they are good vs everything terran has but Marines
- Fix Immortal gameplay, they are good vs everything terran has but Marines Nerfing in this fashion also makes bio overpowered especially the colossus changes
The problem is that Bio has an armored unit called marauder. I think they should have never brought up this unit in SC2.
On January 27 2014 00:01 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 21:57 Crackpot wrote:
Mech in TvP doesn't work with emp either. Just fix that (stacked up) toss-deathball-mechanic and Mech will be playable.
- Slow down colossi
- Dont allow colossi to walk over units
- Nerf Voidrays, they are good vs everything terran has but Marines
- Fix Immortal gameplay, they are good vs everything terran has but Marines Have you ever mechd before? Tanks are actually good enough vs colossi that you only need to add in vikings when they go 4+ colossi. The clumping of colossi actually benefits tanks that deal splash and the immortal issue is more related to their shields rather than their damage. I also find VRs to be the only air unit of P that does not rape mech, viking kiting + HSM + emp deal with vrs really easily.
Those are just some ideas, I'd like to hear yours too.
Kiting voidrays is possible but I think its hard to do it in battle if you have no 200+ apm, first thing you need is vision. I want to see you kiting voidrays while defending vs a well-mixed-deathball. Positioning tanks/splitting vs storms/controlling ghosts. Problem is that voids just eat your vikings in seconds if not controlled well.
First of all Mech needs room for positioning, so in first place its about map design how they can engage vs a stacked up deathball. I think tanks should be able to give terrans some security when sieged up. There are enough possible strategies to destroy siege lines but for now its way to easy.
|
On January 28 2014 07:41 DinoMight wrote:
Have you ever watched PvP? Do you know how fast Zealots die to Colossus fire? Having them take friendly fire would completely break the game. You'd need to make them much stronger than they currently are to able to tank this friendly fire AND the marine fire, which would just lead to a lot of unstoppable Gateway allins. It's a bad move for the game.
Marines aren't strong enough to tank Siege Tank fire when Zealots close in, I guess we need to make them much stronger.
Or, you know, Terrans have to micro and come up with great positions that allow them to minimize friendly fire.
The point of changing the Colossus is to force the Protoss to have to micro his army as much as a Terran does. Like literally. Think about every single Marine split that happens during a game of TvZ, add 'em up, that's how many splits or whatever a Protoss should have to do.
The point is not to nerf Protoss. If whatever changes are implemented result in a weak race after players have adjusted, then Protoss can be buffed.
I want to hear a caster say "Look at that Zealot/Immortal/Archon/Colossus micro/positioning!" and be blown away on a regular basis. Do you not see how that would be amazing for the game?
|
On January 28 2014 07:54 Micro_Jackson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 07:46 DinoMight wrote:On January 28 2014 07:44 Micro_Jackson wrote:On January 28 2014 06:36 matthy wrote:On January 28 2014 03:39 DinoMight wrote:On January 25 2014 23:18 odem wrote:On January 25 2014 08:07 tadL wrote:Still no patch that gives Zerg and Protoss the same advantage of friendly fire like terrans have? is ur post supposed to make sense? its exactly the opposite. zerg and protoss have the advantage because they dont receive friendly fire from almost all of their splash units and can just go yolo swag a-move with it (even storm isnt really a thread to zealot/stalker compared to marine/ling instant death). on the other hand terran receives critical damage from tank/mine and hsm! it would only be fair to make fungal / coloss friendly fire aswell so kids would have to micro their shit the same way terrans have to do! You forget the part where Terran has no melee units. How exactly are you supposed to micro Colossus fire against marines when zealots are in melee range of those same marines. Same with ling/bane. The amount of micro needed to properly engage would be out of this universe. You'd need 800 apm just to take a fight the way you do now by 1A-ing. Please think before you speak. The biggest problem is the charge upgrade, what makes 1a zealots really good, compared to non micro MMM Zealot charge is a good example of the basic SC2 game mechanics limiting potential cool stuff. At the drawing board in very early game developing stages this sounded very cool because it is something that can be done by cauals mainly by leaving it on auto-cast and can be excelled by very good players by turning the ability off at certain situations like chasing an army were you dont want your zealots get too far ahead of the pack. Maybe making it charge instead of just a speed upgrade was intentional to make something like situational micro possible to give more options to a relative simple melee unit. But as we know now this never happend due to the massive damage output in 200/200 battles, the possibility to "cancel" charge (which looks awkward often at least for me) and due to the Protoss habit that microing units makes them worse due to the "Deathball". Thats why i would like to make Charge more of a "rampage" with a speed buff but no way back for the zealot. It is kinda the same problem with the "why has only Terran splash that has friendly fire" thing. At first It does make sense from a design or better said "feeling" point of view. If you look at reality no soldier would like to stay in a area were "artillerie or tanks" are going too shoot and the Terran race is highly influenzed throgh that. Like Zealot charge it sounds good on a drawing board because in theory there could be cool interactions like how exacly you are positioning tanks. You dont want them too far away because well the battle is over when they shoot but you dont want them in front because it can picked off so finding the butterzone for tanks that can devestating to both sides would be a cool thing. Or look at the mines. Would you want to be a soldier fighting in a minefield? No. No one would do that so you shouldn´t do that in an rts were mines should have a more "realistic" role like traps or space controle. But Blizzard shoot themselves in the foot again by making this FF aoe untis boring and weak. The tank and the mine got nerfed to a point were the FF are not that big of a deal even to a point were Scarlett mentioned that the Mine nerf is actually a "buff" (i persionally disagree as a fromer Terran player). Also the potential of a strategic element like "this stuff kicks ass but if i am not careful about it the only ass it kicks is on my rear" is torpedoed by the hardcounters like immortals or ultralisk and the fact that no one would make some sort of artelliery in human history if the enemy can close out on you in a third of a second like zerglings or chargelots do in sc2. I'm sorry but all the Terran players saying charge should not be autocast are have obviously not played enough Protoss. The apm required to just barely manage that would be insane. Just imagine what it would be like if you had to tell every single medivac manually what unit to heal. That's what it would be like. I apologise if i failed to explain my thoughts enough but i meant something different (english is not my first language and i used school mainly to flirt with girls . I have no problem with autocast (and even no problem with smartcast) and balancewise i think charge is ok. What i tried to say was that Charge is a "dumb" upgrade. It makes a unit better and thats it. For some upgrades like +1 this is ok but for a "skill" upgrade it is bad. In my opinion there should be a desicion between "does i want my zealots to close in as fast as possible" or "do i want them to be microable because then i can get more falue out of them" in varius situations. Charge adds no strategic depth at all unlike lets say stim that has some sort of decision making behind it in some situations and some stages of the game which makes it a "good" upgrade in my opinion. /Edit (damn you edit!) When i say "micro makes a battle worse than no micro" i mainly mean the zealot with charge which i doubt would be notable better when microed perfectly rather 1A ing (i only mean micro in battles excluding positioning and point of engagement which is very improtant to P more to T in my opinion). Also in terms of in fight microing you have to admit that Protss is more "noob" friendly than terran. Not about balance or positioning but about awareness, apm requirments and how error forgiving or not forgiving it is on P and T side. Again this is not about balance it is more about that Protoss upgrades like charge are dumb and doesn´t add anything interesting to the game.
But the problem is I don't think stim is a "smart" ability. I think you stim, and when your stim runs out you stim again. And you have enough Medivacs to heal your stuff so your bio kills them faster than it dies to stim. You never really decide "should I stim before fighting this battle?" If you have medivacs the answer is almost always, yes I should stim.
And regarding Zealots... having charge makes them run forward. If they get too far ahead you have to manually pull them back. I think that requires just as much apm as pressing a theoretical button that disables charge... SO I don't really any added strategic depth or micro potential there.
Maybe if they took away charge but increased Zealot speed and then took away concussive shell you could work something out, but honestly I think it's fine the way it is.
And NO, I do not agree that Protoss is more forgiving. I've seen Terrans lose literally entire mineral lines and come back to win off 1 base vs. a 2 base Protoss because their stim and medivacs finished. Zergs can make 20 drones at a time. Terrans can MULE. Protoss have a very very fragile economy compared to those two. So there are vulnerabilities that you're overlooking because you're only looking at the army aspect of it. Also, your major source of damage is expensive AOE units / spellcasters. SO if you bunch up a little too much 1-2 EMPs can cost you the game.
Again, TvP is frustrating (I've played a good amount of it) but PvT is also frustrating at times. It's especially frustrating when Terran gets a couple of good EMPs and you're warping in 15 zealots at a time that literally can't even tough the leftover bioball before they die.
I think the biggest problem (I've said this a thousand times) in the MU right now is the Extremely favorable map pool. The map pool being too Blink friendly makes Terran have to worry about blink on every single map, which is an advantage for P. I'd like to see statistics for games that aren't blink allins and see how those win rates compare.
Keep in mind that with a very blink friendly pool for a long time now, win rates are just around 52% which is not THAT bad.... Terrans still win 48% of the time in this MU. So I think some changes to the map pool could "fix" the win rates without patching the game.
|
On January 28 2014 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 07:41 DinoMight wrote:
Have you ever watched PvP? Do you know how fast Zealots die to Colossus fire? Having them take friendly fire would completely break the game. You'd need to make them much stronger than they currently are to able to tank this friendly fire AND the marine fire, which would just lead to a lot of unstoppable Gateway allins. It's a bad move for the game. Marines aren't strong enough to tank Siege Tank fire when Zealots close in, I guess we need to make them much stronger. Or, you know, Terrans have to micro and come up with great positions that allow them to minimize friendly fire. The point of changing the Colossus is to force the Protoss to have to micro his army as much as a Terran does. Like literally. Think about every single Marine split that happens during a game of TvZ, add 'em up, that's how many splits or whatever a Protoss should have to do. The point is not to nerf Protoss. If whatever changes are implemented result in a weak race after players have adjusted, then Protoss can be buffed. I want to hear a caster say "Look at that Zealot/Immortal/Archon/Colossus micro/positioning!" and be blown away on a regular basis. Do you not see how that would be amazing for the game?
Casters frequently commend players like Parting and HerO on their Templar positioning and unit control. Even guys like ToD who play the game competitively say things like "when I try that I just lose all my fucking Templar." MC has won games 100% based on how well he micros his units... Naniwa has microed his way back into games where his opponent had thrown down manner Hatcheries. The micro is there. I just don't think you appreciate it.
There's also an element that you don't see. Splitting marines is a simple thing - you just want them as spread out as possible. Splitting templar is not. If you spread them out too much, you don't have enough storm in the one place Terran attacks. If you bunch up too much you die to a few EMPs. It's more challenging than just splitting marines.
Zealots are basically damage sponges in PvT. If you want to see Protoss have to micro each one it's not going to happen. That's like asking MVP to have to micro each SCV when he does an SCV pull allin in Proleague.
|
On January 28 2014 08:42 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 28 2014 07:41 DinoMight wrote:
Have you ever watched PvP? Do you know how fast Zealots die to Colossus fire? Having them take friendly fire would completely break the game. You'd need to make them much stronger than they currently are to able to tank this friendly fire AND the marine fire, which would just lead to a lot of unstoppable Gateway allins. It's a bad move for the game. Marines aren't strong enough to tank Siege Tank fire when Zealots close in, I guess we need to make them much stronger. Or, you know, Terrans have to micro and come up with great positions that allow them to minimize friendly fire. The point of changing the Colossus is to force the Protoss to have to micro his army as much as a Terran does. Like literally. Think about every single Marine split that happens during a game of TvZ, add 'em up, that's how many splits or whatever a Protoss should have to do. The point is not to nerf Protoss. If whatever changes are implemented result in a weak race after players have adjusted, then Protoss can be buffed. I want to hear a caster say "Look at that Zealot/Immortal/Archon/Colossus micro/positioning!" and be blown away on a regular basis. Do you not see how that would be amazing for the game? Casters frequently commend players like Parting and HerO on their Templar positioning and unit control. Even guys like ToD who play the game competitively say things like "when I try that I just lose all my fucking Templar." MC has won games 100% based on how well he micros his units... Naniwa has microed his way back into games where his opponent had thrown down manner Hatcheries. The micro is there. I just don't think you appreciate it. There's also an element that you don't see. Splitting marines is a simple thing - you just want them as spread out as possible. Splitting templar is not. If you spread them out too much, you don't have enough storm in the one place Terran attacks. If you bunch up too much you die to a few EMPs. It's more challenging than just splitting marines. Zealots are basically damage sponges in PvT. If you want to see Protoss have to micro each one it's not going to happen. That's like asking MVP to have to micro each SCV when he does an SCV pull allin in Proleague.
I agree that there's a lot of skill to HT usage. The HT is actually the most skill-intensive unit in the Protoss arsenal, between Feedbacking Medivac drops, the dance of death with Ghosts, HT drops, timing Archon merges to save HTs. Even a storm can be impressive every once in a while (although more often than not it's like WOL Fungal).
So I totally appreciate it. There's just nowhere near enough because of the way the race is designed, and it's not the players' fault for not doing more, they have no tools to do more with.
Not every unit has to be as microable as a Marine, so maybe it's OK if the Zealot is basically 1A. That doesn't excuse half of the other units the Protoss army fields. Literally the only units that a pro can use to regularly pull off hat tricks are Stalkers, High Templar, Sentries (miracle FF do exist to extinguish godly play from mediocre play, but the spell itself is pretty awful, so...), and Phoenixes. In point of fact one of my favorite games of 2013 was a PvP between Flying and First where they both massed upwards of 20 Phoenixes on Gwangalli beach.
Even if we forgive the Zealot, that still leaves us with MSC, Immortals, Archons, Colossus, Archon, Observer, Oracle, Void Ray, Carrier that play basically the same in the hands of JYP and in the hands of Rain, which is a travesty. It's pretty fucking bad, man.
|
It was stated on the original starcraft site that terrans were supposed to be the more microable race. I can't find that particular phrase anywhere on the new page and there is probably a good PR reason for that. However complaining about protoss requiring less intensive micro than terran is sort of akin to complaining that protoss needs more gas or that zerg needs more bases and it has at best a marginal relevance to a balance test map. The game is assymetrical, deal with it
Terrans early game in PvT is... lets call it fragile.
Protoss early game in non-mirror is ... lets call it comfortable.
Additionally PvP early game is fairly volatile.
All in all this lends itself to a fairly generic Protoss early game nerf. Personally i don't understand why they dont increase warp gate research time (30 seconds would probably be a reasonable place to start). It would help PvP early game and the only thing severely affected outside of PvP is 4gate zealot spam off of two bases in pvz and oracle into 3 gate bust in pvt. That's a sacrifice i am willing to make, but to each his own. Couple that with the MsC sight change and i think were good.
|
On January 28 2014 10:14 bananafone wrote:It was stated on the original starcraft site that terrans were supposed to be the more microable race. I can't find that particular phrase anywhere on the new page and there is probably a good PR reason for that. However complaining about protoss requiring less intensive micro than terran is sort of akin to complaining that protoss needs more gas or that zerg needs more bases and it has at best a marginal relevance to a balance test map. The game is assymetrical, deal with it
Only flaw in that plan is that a lot of spectators would rather stop watching coin-flip MUs that showcase zero skill than "deal with it." So I'd rather stick with my way, which has a chance of revitalizing the game, than consign it to your oblivion.
All races need a lot of minerals to make their armies. All races should need a lot of micro to use those armies. There's your symmetry.
|
they should just get rid of the roach and put the hydra as 75/25 in LOTV. The roach is a boring unit the blizzard is trying so hard to make it interesting but they can't. Same thing with the swarm host.
|
I seriously can't think of a one good reason of why to not experiment with the Widow-Mine bonuses vs Protoss.. I seriously don't..
Like - imagine if you got the WM to a point in versatily to be almost as useful as vs Zerg.. Sort of like a Marine 2.0.. Only that not that good at poking and sniping, but more like a "position control" unit.. Wouldn't that give Terran more options in TvP without screwing TvZ ??
The options are limitless - like really limitless:
1 - increase splash damage (add bonus vs shields to the splash as well) (con is that this can be boring though)
2 - give the sentinel missile "stun" effect to mech units - like Immortals, Collosi, e.t.c.
3 - increase WM detonation radius - i.e. - require the 5 range for a bio unit to activate it, but make it so that a mech unit would disturb the mine from even further - like 7, or even 8 range - that severely increases the chance that mines will end up hitting Immortals
4 - combine 3 with a slower detonation response - like - increase detonation period of mine for some amount, but make them activate from even further away - that way won't make change for faster units like Mutas and Lings, but will make a lot of difference to slower units like Stalkers and Roaches for example
5 - make WM shot also cause a DoT shield drain effect - that way Immortals won't be as much of a hard-hitter when hit by a mine..
Like - the options are limitless.. Just try ANYTHING really.. It's like as if they purposely intended the mine to work only vs Zerg :/
|
On January 28 2014 12:39 Dynamitekid wrote:
they should just get rid of the roach and put the hydra as 75/25 in LOTV. The roach is a boring unit the blizzard is trying so hard to make it interesting but they can't. Same thing with the swarm host.
That is because of lack of data and lack of experimentation.. The SwarmHost (as well as the Widow-Mine - see post above) was released in it's "primary" form without any tweaks/tests/whatsoever..
On top of that - it relies on the most broken upgrade in the game - the Enduring locusts upgrade.. Without it the unit is almost useless, or at least a bit too too much vulnerable to afford to play with it.. And after the upgrade - it gets even more ridiculous to just how the unit becomes to be a set-and-forget thingy 
EDIT: agree on the Roach part though.. In the WoL alpha the Roach was "thought" to be a "make a few" and burrow-micro with them to great success.. But people were just mining more gas and made more roaches, and just burrowed all of them instead..
|
On January 28 2014 08:42 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 28 2014 07:41 DinoMight wrote:
Have you ever watched PvP? Do you know how fast Zealots die to Colossus fire? Having them take friendly fire would completely break the game. You'd need to make them much stronger than they currently are to able to tank this friendly fire AND the marine fire, which would just lead to a lot of unstoppable Gateway allins. It's a bad move for the game. Marines aren't strong enough to tank Siege Tank fire when Zealots close in, I guess we need to make them much stronger. Or, you know, Terrans have to micro and come up with great positions that allow them to minimize friendly fire. The point of changing the Colossus is to force the Protoss to have to micro his army as much as a Terran does. Like literally. Think about every single Marine split that happens during a game of TvZ, add 'em up, that's how many splits or whatever a Protoss should have to do. The point is not to nerf Protoss. If whatever changes are implemented result in a weak race after players have adjusted, then Protoss can be buffed. I want to hear a caster say "Look at that Zealot/Immortal/Archon/Colossus micro/positioning!" and be blown away on a regular basis. Do you not see how that would be amazing for the game? Casters frequently commend players like Parting and HerO on their Templar positioning and unit control. Even guys like ToD who play the game competitively say things like "when I try that I just lose all my fucking Templar." MC has won games 100% based on how well he micros his units... Naniwa has microed his way back into games where his opponent had thrown down manner Hatcheries. The micro is there. I just don't think you appreciate it. There's also an element that you don't see. Splitting marines is a simple thing - you just want them as spread out as possible. Splitting templar is not. If you spread them out too much, you don't have enough storm in the one place Terran attacks. If you bunch up too much you die to a few EMPs. It's more challenging than just splitting marines. Zealots are basically damage sponges in PvT. If you want to see Protoss have to micro each one it's not going to happen. That's like asking MVP to have to micro each SCV when he does an SCV pull allin in Proleague.
Splitting marines is not just about spreading them out as much as possible. When you split too much, you are losing a lot of DPS...
|
|
|
I can't get enough of the tears in this thread. Everyones a psychic and can read the future of SC2 based on these changes. No one cares what most of you think. How about waiting for the release, playing the game and then giving your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
