On February 13 2014 00:59 ejozl wrote: [quote] I think this could be cool as in a Race feature and could definitely be used for the campaign for LotV, but from a pure multiplayer standpoint, Warp Gate tech is one of the mechanics that really differentiate the Protoss race from the rest, which is even more important.
Sure it differentiates them, but is it in a positive way? And Protoss had a "queuing production" too in SC1, and it did not make them similar to Terran for all that.
It did not make them a better race than SC2 Protoss either.
Unsure where you want to go with that sentence?
That I actually think that warpgate production makes them a little more different from Terran, while I don't think the main reason why Protoss balls up or allins stems from something like warpgate, but rather from "untradeable" expensive, lots of survival, little damage output units like the stalker, the dragoon, the immortal, the scout, the Archon...
The immortal? Holy shit.
You mean the unit that owns 5 siege tanks single-handedly and survives with only shield damage?
Low damage output indeed.
And I'm not even gonna get started about the Archon.
Immortal: 14-35dps for 250/100/4
2*Marauder: 20-40dps for 200/50/4 4*Marine: 42dps for 200/0/4 2*Zealot: 27dps for 200/0/4 8*zergling: 57.6dps for 200/0/4
The Immortal is a bad damage dealer for its price, it's barely over average against armored. Point is that it has 200life + 100hardened shields.
Now - mobility issues aside which is the next problem a lot of Protoss problems have and why you don't go over the map with them - what would you rather use against something that doesn't shoot back like workers: - Immortals - who gain nothing from their high HP in that situation, since the opponent isn't fighting back and when he is you have to run anyways - something cheaper with higher dps
You know, the game is made in a way that you can have marines or banelings dropped into your mineral line and you can react to their damage output. Guess which units won't be worth dropping. The ones with lower damage output which do even less if your opponent is on top of his defense. That's one of the main problems with Protoss harassment play. You can give dragoons all the blink in the world, they will still only kill very few SCVs before they have to retreat if you harass with them. Meanwhile zerg suicides 15zerglings without doing anything 2-3times, but when they hit the opponent, oh man does he bleed.
That is a ridiculous way to look at it. Especially when I specifically mentioned its unmatched ability to survive vs tanks. A key thing about most protoss units is that they have high survivability, not high dps. This is TL.net in a nutshell - only argue against one part of someones argument and leave out the other parts which were needed to make a point in the first place.
And what about the archon? You conveniently forgot to comment on that. Why don't you show me some calculations about the poor damage output of the archon while ignoring the fact that it does splash damage and has 350hp.
Oh, I like how you changed his name to "Big N00B" in the quote just because you disagree with him.
He said that Immortals have low damage output for their cost, you attacked him and stated how 1 Immortal kills 5 Siege Tanks which doesn't have anything to do with Immortals "godly" dps, but with the fact that it is actually "immortal" against Siege Tanks. On the other hand, Immortals are quite bad against Zerglings, Zealots, Marines etc. so I don't see your point where you pick Immortal and say how it amazingly handles units that it is supposed to counter.
Then you are saying how "this is a ridiculous way to look at it" and how "this is TL.net in a nutshell" which sounds quite quite ironic from your previous post, I must say.
I didn't do that because I just disagree with him. I did it because he was outright wrong, and so are you.
The original statement that caught my attention was: "The Immortal is a bad damage dealer for its price, it's barely over average against armored." This is an outright incorrect statement. In fact, it is a quite empty statement. It doesn't say anything.
Even if you follow it up with the sentence: "Point is that it has 200life + 100hardened shields." It still doesn't make things better.
In reality both things can be true. If microed correctly it can fuck up a lot of armored units. Disregard "dps" health and other unimportant things. If used correctly vs terran it can in some situations kill a lot of mech. In some other situations it can be EMP'd, focus fired by marines, surrouned by lings or hit by a widow mine only to be shelled to death by 10 tanks. It is not as simple as a situation where you input resources and get "dps" or "cost effectiveness" as output. It takes skill to use, it has to fit into your strategy and tactics and there are a ton of opportunities to be creative with it by using warp prisms. It is a unit in a real time strategy game.
This is what makes his analysis too simplistic.
"I did it because he was outright wrong, and so are you." "in reality both things can be true" Now this is what I don't get, it seems to me that you are constantly contradicting yourself with your statements if I understood this correctly.
Of course that it is too simplistic saying that Immortals aren't good damage dealers, but it really depends on the scenario. The way he used it, he is correct, he stated that most of the Protoss units have high HP and low DPS for their cost and he was comparing DPS of the Immortal with other units of the same cost. That by itself doesn't mean much, but it is still completely correct.
He also pointed out why Immortal shield doesn't matter in some situations, and those are if you are going to use Warp Prism for Drops, you won't be dropping Immortals to kill workers, but Zealots that have a lot better DPS against workers for the same cost.
There are a lot of situation where you can use your analogy, for example, Hydralisks are quite useless against big number of Siege Tanks, they won't even come near, that still doesn't mean that Hydras don't have solid DPS for their cost(~14 dps per Hydra I think but don't quote me on this).
All in all, he was looking at the units in the vacuum, but his statement was completely correct. If you are going to bash his statement, then yours of "1 Immortal kills 5 Siege Tanks" really isn't better at all.
I kind of want to see what happened in Brood War. Blizzard says OKAY WERE DONE HERE and just leaves the game alone for 10 years. Let map makers and metagame figure it out.
The metagame evolves so quickly especially nowadays when information sharing is so much easier (there were no Day9 dailies and Youtube tutorials back then, pros could not as easily send each other replays and watch VoDs). We need to give people some time to learn how to react to things. It's much easier to create a new cheese or strategy than to learn how to stop it effectively.
Map making is also a VERY powerful balance tool. Just look at Daedalus. Once Zergs figured out that the only option was for Protoss to go balls out cheese they started going 14/14 and winning every game. It was in fact the only balance tool used in BW once the last patch hit in like 2001 (or whatever, not sure when exact date was).
Blizzard's approach with SC2 seems to be "nerf the build du jour" without really allowing people to figure out alternatives. As soon as something becomes standard, Blizzard decides it needs a nerf. If they just left the game alone, people would eventually figure out things to do, out of necessity. Like they did in Brood War. SC2 has no Bisu, has no Savior... just a bunch of guys playing standard until Blizzard changes standard by nerfing something into the ground.
On February 13 2014 09:41 DinoMight wrote: I kind of want to see what happened in Brood War. Blizzard says OKAY WERE DONE HERE and just leaves the game alone for 10 years. Let map makers and metagame figure it out.
The metagame evolves so quickly especially nowadays when information sharing is so much easier (there were no Day9 dailies and Youtube tutorials back then, pros could not as easily send each other replays and watch VoDs). We need to give people some time to learn how to react to things. It's much easier to create a new cheese or strategy than to learn how to stop it effectively.
Map making is also a VERY powerful balance tool. Just look at Daedalus. Once Zergs figured out that the only option was for Protoss to go balls out cheese they started going 14/14 and winning every game. It was in fact the only balance tool used in BW once the last patch hit in like 2001 (or whatever, not sure when exact date was).
Blizzard's approach with SC2 seems to be "nerf the build du jour" without really allowing people to figure out alternatives. As soon as something becomes standard, Blizzard decides it needs a nerf. If they just left the game alone, people would eventually figure out things to do, out of necessity. Like they did in Brood War. SC2 has no Bisu, has no Savior... just a bunch of guys playing standard until Blizzard changes standard by nerfing something into the ground.
While I do agree with your points for the long term. Right now it just isn't possible because of the fact that there's still another expansion coming. With the prospect of having another wave of balancing issues after the last expansion, I doubt it would be wise to leave the game as it is in the meanwhile. The playerbase has to be pampered with short term fixes to prevent them from leaving the game before LotV hits. Once the dust clears after the initial year of balancing after the release of LotV, then your scenario might become desirable.
On February 13 2014 08:11 SC2Toastie wrote: Wow you are aggressive 0.0
Immortal DPS is average for it's cost, whatever way you turn it. You pay for Anti-Armored and for high survivability vs high damage low speed attacks.
Did you know Broodlords own Tanks too? And Banshees, and Void Rays? Every unit can "fuck up" another unit it hardly takes damage from?!
Aggressive?
I don't think you understood my post completely. Read it again and explain to me how DPS is a good way to compare units.
DPS doesn't matter when 1 immortal can kill 5 tanks and then regenerate its shields and come out unharmed or when surrounded by lings and killed in 2 seconds taking 2 lings with it to death.
To say that the immortal has "barely above average dps vs armored" is misleading unless you just compare raw unit stats.
On February 14 2014 xx:xx one-one-one wrote: I didn't do that because I just disagree with him. I did it because he was outright wrong, and so are you. This is what makes his analysis too simplistic.
That is.
And his statement is right. It doesn't talk about all situations, but it is right.
It is wrong.
But it is nice that you seem to agree. Then you can be friends. It is nice to have friends.
The Immortal is a bad damage dealer for its price, it's barely over average against armored. Point is that it has 200life + 100hardened shields.
He literally says the damage for it's cost is quite low, BUT IT HAS HIGH SURVIVABILITY. So, can you now please explain to us what is wrong about the statement "Immortal DPS is quite low for it's cost". He doesn't consider other factors in said statement, so nor should you if you want to break that statement.
Please go be popular and nasty on Reddit, people are supposed to be respectful to each other over here. And you are clearly not.
On February 13 2014 09:41 DinoMight wrote: I kind of want to see what happened in Brood War. Blizzard says OKAY WERE DONE HERE and just leaves the game alone for 10 years. Let map makers and metagame figure it out.
The metagame evolves so quickly especially nowadays when information sharing is so much easier (there were no Day9 dailies and Youtube tutorials back then, pros could not as easily send each other replays and watch VoDs). We need to give people some time to learn how to react to things. It's much easier to create a new cheese or strategy than to learn how to stop it effectively.
Map making is also a VERY powerful balance tool. Just look at Daedalus. Once Zergs figured out that the only option was for Protoss to go balls out cheese they started going 14/14 and winning every game. It was in fact the only balance tool used in BW once the last patch hit in like 2001 (or whatever, not sure when exact date was).
Blizzard's approach with SC2 seems to be "nerf the build du jour" without really allowing people to figure out alternatives. As soon as something becomes standard, Blizzard decides it needs a nerf. If they just left the game alone, people would eventually figure out things to do, out of necessity. Like they did in Brood War. SC2 has no Bisu, has no Savior... just a bunch of guys playing standard until Blizzard changes standard by nerfing something into the ground.
It is not as easy as you think.
Blizzard left Brood Lords + Infestors in WoL go on for 6 months, not a single Protoss/Terran said it was fine, hell, even Zergs were saying how it is boring, not Zergy and how it isn't fine. The game was disgustingly stale, nothing changed in those 6 months. I mean sure, Terran and Protoss players tried something but they didn't do much.
So, on the one hand, we have players like you that would like Blizzard to leave the game alone, and on the other hand there are bunch of players that are screaming at Blizzard how they didn't touch the game for 6 months. Sometimes, it is pretty obvious that something has to be done, it was obvious when Terran had their dominance in WoL, it was obvious when Zerg was in Brood Lord + Infestor era, it is obvious now with mass Ravens, Swarm Hosts and Deathballs in PvT and all those stale games.
It is SC2, not BW, maps can make a difference but probably won't change much. And beside, they can do that, but they have to finish LotV first, with another wave of new units, then they can balance the game out and leave it like they did with BW.
On February 13 2014 06:48 Squat wrote: I'd be interested to hear any theories as to quite why snipe was nerfed so relatively quickly, likewise with things like Thors.
There was a famous Blizzcon finals, I think it was 2012 where Nestea's broodlord army got owned by an army of MVP Ghosts. MVP used a little mech, but mostly ghosts and sniped everything Nestea had.
This strategy had been gaining in popularity up until that point and I think that game was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ghost snipe was nerfed shortly thereafter.
Oh that is well known, but I mean you had BL/Infestor for what 6+ months of the game?
The difference in time it took to address both was absolutely insane
BL Infestor was never adressed.
Blizzard has a history of instantly nerfing Terran and waiting months with the other races... (see now, Protoss has been dominating for 2 months xD)
To be fair they did wait several months until they started to apply the first terran nerfs in HoTS.
Which nerfs? Hellbats got nerfed for TvT and Mines because ZvT was getting stale (swarmhost v mech is way more fun!)? Or am I missing one?
Balance early HotS wasn't that bad and the metagame was still a mess at the time.
HoTS was released on the 12th of March, Hellbat patch hits on July 11th, 4 months after release and WM nerf in November the 11th, 4 more months later. That's a far cry from instantly nerfing terran, like you said. I didn't comment on weather they where justified or not, just that Blizzard did wait a while.
Of course the did massively fuck up with the WM nerf patch, the same patch that also buffed oracles, no one in his right mind can deny this.
The reason of said patch is important in determining whether it was 'late' or not. As neither patch was aimed to fix an imbalance, these are not the right examples.
I was talking more about WOL tho, with constant Terran nerfs that followed really fast... A lot of those nerfs could probably be reverted without problems nowaday
Nerfs that I believe could potentially be reverted given the current state of the game and map design.
1. Stim research time. Gives Terran extra chance of holding the Blink allins especially, shouldn't be too broken given the travel distance increases in average, plus the new tools that other races have to play with nowadays. 2. Snipe. For no reason other than it was fucking cool. 3. EMP Radius - I'm definitely wavering on this one, it COULD be over-the-top but it was a nerf for a different era. It's actually the radius being its current size that IMO still means Mech with a sprinkling of Ghosts isn't potent due to the sheer size of Archons and Immortals.
Probably others. I'm all for changing the game and patching, I just don't get why to my knowledge no patch ever actually looks at removing the actions of previous ones.
Nope, Blizzard does for some reason refuse to admit they made mistakes. Ghost Snipe (A SNIPE ABILITY) doesn't kill the unit in the game with the lowest HP (bar Changeling) in one shot. Nice Snipe bro!
On February 13 2014 09:41 DinoMight wrote: I kind of want to see what happened in Brood War. Blizzard says OKAY WERE DONE HERE and just leaves the game alone for 10 years. Let map makers and metagame figure it out.
The metagame evolves so quickly especially nowadays when information sharing is so much easier (there were no Day9 dailies and Youtube tutorials back then, pros could not as easily send each other replays and watch VoDs). We need to give people some time to learn how to react to things. It's much easier to create a new cheese or strategy than to learn how to stop it effectively.
Map making is also a VERY powerful balance tool. Just look at Daedalus. Once Zergs figured out that the only option was for Protoss to go balls out cheese they started going 14/14 and winning every game. It was in fact the only balance tool used in BW once the last patch hit in like 2001 (or whatever, not sure when exact date was).
Blizzard's approach with SC2 seems to be "nerf the build du jour" without really allowing people to figure out alternatives. As soon as something becomes standard, Blizzard decides it needs a nerf. If they just left the game alone, people would eventually figure out things to do, out of necessity. Like they did in Brood War. SC2 has no Bisu, has no Savior... just a bunch of guys playing standard until Blizzard changes standard by nerfing something into the ground.
It is SC2, not BW, maps can make a difference but probably won't change much. And beside, they can do that, but they have to finish LotV first, with another wave of new units, then they can balance the game out and leave it like they did with BW.
I don't think maps can do it. There's very little to vary with, as the economy only requires 3 bases to deathball, Naturals need to be easy to acquire for Protoss, and a third too far away forces Protoss to 2 base all in. The game is currently balanced around these kinds of maps and with the economy system we have, deathballs are near unfixable by maps.
Map making in SC2 is highly restricted, there are so many limiting factors. Making good maps for this game has to be a fucking nightmare. Trying to balance through maps is not something we should rely upon, every map needs to have a set of quite inflexible features not to be broken, mostly because protoss was cobbled together during a lunch break.
I don't think maps can do it. There's very little to vary with, as the economy only requires 3 bases to deathball, Naturals need to be easy to acquire for Protoss, and a third too far away forces Protoss to 2 base all in. The game is currently balanced around these kinds of maps and with the economy system we have, deathballs are near unfixable by maps.
If we really wanted to encourage mass expanding we could just have more bases but only say 4 minerals and 1 gas per base, although it'd probably slow the game waaaay down. But then instead of 3 base being max, it'd be 6 base!
I think it's still something we could play around with those, having more maps that have 1/2 bases or less minerals but more gas or lots of minerals but almost no gas etc etc etc.
I don't think maps can do it. There's very little to vary with, as the economy only requires 3 bases to deathball, Naturals need to be easy to acquire for Protoss, and a third too far away forces Protoss to 2 base all in. The game is currently balanced around these kinds of maps and with the economy system we have, deathballs are near unfixable by maps.
If we really wanted to encourage mass expanding we could just have more bases but only say 4 minerals and 1 gas per base, although it'd probably slow the game waaaay down. But then instead of 3 base being max, it'd be 6 base!
I think it's still something we could play around with those, having more maps that have 1/2 bases or less minerals but more gas or lots of minerals but almost no gas etc etc etc.
On February 13 2014 06:48 Squat wrote: I'd be interested to hear any theories as to quite why snipe was nerfed so relatively quickly, likewise with things like Thors.
There was a famous Blizzcon finals, I think it was 2012 where Nestea's broodlord army got owned by an army of MVP Ghosts. MVP used a little mech, but mostly ghosts and sniped everything Nestea had.
This strategy had been gaining in popularity up until that point and I think that game was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ghost snipe was nerfed shortly thereafter.
Oh that is well known, but I mean you had BL/Infestor for what 6+ months of the game?
The difference in time it took to address both was absolutely insane
BL Infestor was never adressed.
Blizzard has a history of instantly nerfing Terran and waiting months with the other races... (see now, Protoss has been dominating for 2 months xD)
To be fair they did wait several months until they started to apply the first terran nerfs in HoTS.
Which nerfs? Hellbats got nerfed for TvT and Mines because ZvT was getting stale (swarmhost v mech is way more fun!)? Or am I missing one?
Balance early HotS wasn't that bad and the metagame was still a mess at the time.
HoTS was released on the 12th of March, Hellbat patch hits on July 11th, 4 months after release and WM nerf in November the 11th, 4 more months later. That's a far cry from instantly nerfing terran, like you said. I didn't comment on weather they where justified or not, just that Blizzard did wait a while.
Of course the did massively fuck up with the WM nerf patch, the same patch that also buffed oracles, no one in his right mind can deny this.
The reason of said patch is important in determining whether it was 'late' or not. As neither patch was aimed to fix an imbalance, these are not the right examples.
I was talking more about WOL tho, with constant Terran nerfs that followed really fast... A lot of those nerfs could probably be reverted without problems nowaday
Nerfs that I believe could potentially be reverted given the current state of the game and map design.
1. Stim research time. Gives Terran extra chance of holding the Blink allins especially, shouldn't be too broken given the travel distance increases in average, plus the new tools that other races have to play with nowadays. 2. Snipe. For no reason other than it was fucking cool. 3. EMP Radius - I'm definitely wavering on this one, it COULD be over-the-top but it was a nerf for a different era. It's actually the radius being its current size that IMO still means Mech with a sprinkling of Ghosts isn't potent due to the sheer size of Archons and Immortals.
Probably others. I'm all for changing the game and patching, I just don't get why to my knowledge no patch ever actually looks at removing the actions of previous ones.
Nope, Blizzard does for some reason refuse to admit they made mistakes. Ghost Snipe (A SNIPE ABILITY) doesn't kill the unit in the game with the lowest HP (bar Changeling) in one shot. Nice Snipe bro!
Correct! Snipe should be able to kill any unit in one shot, then ricochet around the map killing everything, then leave the video game realm of starcraft through the computer monitor to headshot any zerg or protoss players in real life. The snipe bullet then explodes, disintegrating their bodies. Sounds like something that DK would dig.
There was a famous Blizzcon finals, I think it was 2012 where Nestea's broodlord army got owned by an army of MVP Ghosts. MVP used a little mech, but mostly ghosts and sniped everything Nestea had.
This strategy had been gaining in popularity up until that point and I think that game was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ghost snipe was nerfed shortly thereafter.
Oh that is well known, but I mean you had BL/Infestor for what 6+ months of the game?
The difference in time it took to address both was absolutely insane
BL Infestor was never adressed.
Blizzard has a history of instantly nerfing Terran and waiting months with the other races... (see now, Protoss has been dominating for 2 months xD)
To be fair they did wait several months until they started to apply the first terran nerfs in HoTS.
Which nerfs? Hellbats got nerfed for TvT and Mines because ZvT was getting stale (swarmhost v mech is way more fun!)? Or am I missing one?
Balance early HotS wasn't that bad and the metagame was still a mess at the time.
HoTS was released on the 12th of March, Hellbat patch hits on July 11th, 4 months after release and WM nerf in November the 11th, 4 more months later. That's a far cry from instantly nerfing terran, like you said. I didn't comment on weather they where justified or not, just that Blizzard did wait a while.
Of course the did massively fuck up with the WM nerf patch, the same patch that also buffed oracles, no one in his right mind can deny this.
The reason of said patch is important in determining whether it was 'late' or not. As neither patch was aimed to fix an imbalance, these are not the right examples.
I was talking more about WOL tho, with constant Terran nerfs that followed really fast... A lot of those nerfs could probably be reverted without problems nowaday
Nerfs that I believe could potentially be reverted given the current state of the game and map design.
1. Stim research time. Gives Terran extra chance of holding the Blink allins especially, shouldn't be too broken given the travel distance increases in average, plus the new tools that other races have to play with nowadays. 2. Snipe. For no reason other than it was fucking cool. 3. EMP Radius - I'm definitely wavering on this one, it COULD be over-the-top but it was a nerf for a different era. It's actually the radius being its current size that IMO still means Mech with a sprinkling of Ghosts isn't potent due to the sheer size of Archons and Immortals.
Probably others. I'm all for changing the game and patching, I just don't get why to my knowledge no patch ever actually looks at removing the actions of previous ones.
Nope, Blizzard does for some reason refuse to admit they made mistakes. Ghost Snipe (A SNIPE ABILITY) doesn't kill the unit in the game with the lowest HP (bar Changeling) in one shot. Nice Snipe bro!
Correct! Snipe should be able to kill any unit in one shot, then ricochet around the map killing everything, then leave the video game realm of starcraft through the computer monitor to headshot any zerg or protoss players in real life. The snipe bullet then explodes, disintegrating their bodies. Sounds like something that DK would dig.
The sarcasm really helps.
TBH, I really liked ghosts when snipe did 45 damage, it was a lot of fun watching ghost rushes in TvT because snipe one shotted marines before combat shields. Snipe would be a lot better doing 45 flat -20 vs. massive: you'd still solve the problem of sniping broods and ultras to death but it would still be useful against things like banelings or high templar/infestors etc. Snipe was worth using vs. zealots and marauders too. But ghosts are extremely expensive, and as long as broodlords or ultras aren't dealt with by snipe, snipe would never be enough to win on its own.
On February 13 2014 07:49 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] Oh that is well known, but I mean you had BL/Infestor for what 6+ months of the game?
The difference in time it took to address both was absolutely insane
BL Infestor was never adressed.
Blizzard has a history of instantly nerfing Terran and waiting months with the other races... (see now, Protoss has been dominating for 2 months xD)
To be fair they did wait several months until they started to apply the first terran nerfs in HoTS.
Which nerfs? Hellbats got nerfed for TvT and Mines because ZvT was getting stale (swarmhost v mech is way more fun!)? Or am I missing one?
Balance early HotS wasn't that bad and the metagame was still a mess at the time.
HoTS was released on the 12th of March, Hellbat patch hits on July 11th, 4 months after release and WM nerf in November the 11th, 4 more months later. That's a far cry from instantly nerfing terran, like you said. I didn't comment on weather they where justified or not, just that Blizzard did wait a while.
Of course the did massively fuck up with the WM nerf patch, the same patch that also buffed oracles, no one in his right mind can deny this.
The reason of said patch is important in determining whether it was 'late' or not. As neither patch was aimed to fix an imbalance, these are not the right examples.
I was talking more about WOL tho, with constant Terran nerfs that followed really fast... A lot of those nerfs could probably be reverted without problems nowaday
Nerfs that I believe could potentially be reverted given the current state of the game and map design.
1. Stim research time. Gives Terran extra chance of holding the Blink allins especially, shouldn't be too broken given the travel distance increases in average, plus the new tools that other races have to play with nowadays. 2. Snipe. For no reason other than it was fucking cool. 3. EMP Radius - I'm definitely wavering on this one, it COULD be over-the-top but it was a nerf for a different era. It's actually the radius being its current size that IMO still means Mech with a sprinkling of Ghosts isn't potent due to the sheer size of Archons and Immortals.
Probably others. I'm all for changing the game and patching, I just don't get why to my knowledge no patch ever actually looks at removing the actions of previous ones.
Nope, Blizzard does for some reason refuse to admit they made mistakes. Ghost Snipe (A SNIPE ABILITY) doesn't kill the unit in the game with the lowest HP (bar Changeling) in one shot. Nice Snipe bro!
Correct! Snipe should be able to kill any unit in one shot, then ricochet around the map killing everything, then leave the video game realm of starcraft through the computer monitor to headshot any zerg or protoss players in real life. The snipe bullet then explodes, disintegrating their bodies. Sounds like something that DK would dig.
The sarcasm really helps.
TBH, I really liked ghosts when snipe did 45 damage, it was a lot of fun watching ghost rushes in TvT because snipe one shotted marines before combat shields. Snipe would be a lot better doing 45 flat -20 vs. massive: you'd still solve the problem of sniping broods and ultras to death but it would still be useful against things like banelings or high templar/infestors etc. Snipe was worth using vs. zealots and marauders too. But ghosts are extremely expensive, and as long as broodlords or ultras aren't dealt with by snipe, snipe would never be enough to win on its own.
Snipe was also only overpowered on Shakuras, because you needed Tank Ghost (Turret Planetary) to defend, it's super weak against counter attacks. Nowadays Hosts could deal with it too.
45-20massive+5Psionic would be really sweet.
I think it is silly an ability called Snipe actually snipes nothing.
On February 13 2014 09:41 DinoMight wrote: I kind of want to see what happened in Brood War. Blizzard says OKAY WERE DONE HERE and just leaves the game alone for 10 years. Let map makers and metagame figure it out.
The metagame evolves so quickly especially nowadays when information sharing is so much easier (there were no Day9 dailies and Youtube tutorials back then, pros could not as easily send each other replays and watch VoDs). We need to give people some time to learn how to react to things. It's much easier to create a new cheese or strategy than to learn how to stop it effectively.
Map making is also a VERY powerful balance tool. Just look at Daedalus. Once Zergs figured out that the only option was for Protoss to go balls out cheese they started going 14/14 and winning every game. It was in fact the only balance tool used in BW once the last patch hit in like 2001 (or whatever, not sure when exact date was).
Blizzard's approach with SC2 seems to be "nerf the build du jour" without really allowing people to figure out alternatives. As soon as something becomes standard, Blizzard decides it needs a nerf. If they just left the game alone, people would eventually figure out things to do, out of necessity. Like they did in Brood War. SC2 has no Bisu, has no Savior... just a bunch of guys playing standard until Blizzard changes standard by nerfing something into the ground.
It is SC2, not BW, maps can make a difference but probably won't change much. And beside, they can do that, but they have to finish LotV first, with another wave of new units, then they can balance the game out and leave it like they did with BW.
I don't think maps can do it. There's very little to vary with, as the economy only requires 3 bases to deathball, Naturals need to be easy to acquire for Protoss, and a third too far away forces Protoss to 2 base all in. The game is currently balanced around these kinds of maps and with the economy system we have, deathballs are near unfixable by maps.
Well as I said, they won't change much, but to be honest even in SC2 maps can change things, remember those crazy Kespa maps where people were seeing mass Reapers or rushing Nyduses? Then some other common maps like Whirlwind were really big and spread out that just going for a Deathball was never optimal because players would destroy you with multi-prong attacks and run-bys.
It is just the thing that maps doesn't have the same impact on the strategy as they had in BW.
Well as I said, they won't change much, but to be honest even in SC2 maps can change things, remember those crazy Kespa maps where people were seeing mass Reapers or rushing Nyduses? Then some other common maps like Whirlwind were really big and spread out that just going for a Deathball was never optimal because players would destroy you with multi-prong attacks and run-bys.
It is just the thing that maps doesn't have the same impact on the strategy as they had in BW.
I think it makes even more impact in SC2 that's why map making is so troublesome.
On February 13 2014 09:41 DinoMight wrote: I kind of want to see what happened in Brood War. Blizzard says OKAY WERE DONE HERE and just leaves the game alone for 10 years. Let map makers and metagame figure it out.
The metagame evolves so quickly especially nowadays when information sharing is so much easier (there were no Day9 dailies and Youtube tutorials back then, pros could not as easily send each other replays and watch VoDs). We need to give people some time to learn how to react to things. It's much easier to create a new cheese or strategy than to learn how to stop it effectively.
Map making is also a VERY powerful balance tool. Just look at Daedalus. Once Zergs figured out that the only option was for Protoss to go balls out cheese they started going 14/14 and winning every game. It was in fact the only balance tool used in BW once the last patch hit in like 2001 (or whatever, not sure when exact date was).
Blizzard's approach with SC2 seems to be "nerf the build du jour" without really allowing people to figure out alternatives. As soon as something becomes standard, Blizzard decides it needs a nerf. If they just left the game alone, people would eventually figure out things to do, out of necessity. Like they did in Brood War. SC2 has no Bisu, has no Savior... just a bunch of guys playing standard until Blizzard changes standard by nerfing something into the ground.
It is SC2, not BW, maps can make a difference but probably won't change much. And beside, they can do that, but they have to finish LotV first, with another wave of new units, then they can balance the game out and leave it like they did with BW.
I don't think maps can do it. There's very little to vary with, as the economy only requires 3 bases to deathball, Naturals need to be easy to acquire for Protoss, and a third too far away forces Protoss to 2 base all in. The game is currently balanced around these kinds of maps and with the economy system we have, deathballs are near unfixable by maps.
Well as I said, they won't change much, but to be honest even in SC2 maps can change things, remember those crazy Kespa maps where people were seeing mass Reapers or rushing Nyduses? Then some other common maps like Whirlwind were really big and spread out that just going for a Deathball was never optimal because players would destroy you with multi-prong attacks and run-bys.
It is just the thing that maps doesn't have the same impact on the strategy as they had in BW.
That's a result of the poor design of the protoss race. Being balanced around forcefield (it's not even warp gates) means that protoss needs to be able to reliably use forcefields to hold their bases: gateway units aren't strong enough without them to accomplish pretty much anything. If you made it so forcefield wasn't necessary by buffing gateway units, you could get more map variance. Pushing warp gate back to late game tech (make it require a templar archives or a fleet beacon to research it or something) and reversing production times between gateways and warp gates (warp gates currently produce 10% faster, switch that around) would probably solve that problem entirely.
You could then make colossus a little bit weaker since gateway units are stronger, which would make the protoss army less reliant on having to stay in a big ball.
Do you mean holding the third? Or expanding in general? If the latter, this is demonstrably untrue. Heck, Daedalus Point was as bad for Terran as for Protoss. A choke or ramp to the second is as necessary for T against Z as for P.
As for FF and GW units, you may be right. But, no GW units are strong enough to hold off Banelings or massive Ling surrounds without FF. You'd buff them so much they could be OP when massed or at any stage of the MU vs Terran.
It's not as easy as tossing around numbers and dreaming up our ideal Protoss (or SC for that matter).
I 100% agree on the Colossus though. I wish it is tweaked for LOTV. If anything so as to help SG play.
On February 13 2014 11:21 aZealot wrote: Do you mean holding the third? Or expanding in general? If the latter, this is demonstrably untrue. Heck, Daedalus Point was as bad for Terran as for Protoss. A choke or ramp to the second is as necessary for T against Z as for P.
As for FF and GW units, you may be right. But, no GW units are strong enough to hold off Banelings or massive Ling surrounds without FF. You'd buff them so much they could be OP when massed or at any stage of the MU vs Terran.
It's not as easy as tossing around numbers and dreaming up our ideal Protoss (or SC for that matter).
I 100% agree on the Colossus though. I wish it is tweaked for LOTV. If anything so as to help SG play.
For terran, Daedalus point had a lot to do with the distance from the main to the natural as well, it's not just the ramp size. On maps where you can't wall off a choke, you can usually do a partial wall from the nexus to the ramp or something to prevent units from running past, and rely on good sim city for defense. On Daedalus point, because the distance is so huge, you can't even attempt it.
EPT
