|
On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc
The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed.
|
On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed.
Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control
|
On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control
Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling?
If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy.
|
On December 01 2015 08:13 ledarsi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 07:58 ledarsi wrote:
Oh woe is me I have to micro the shot that kills 12 Stalkers in one go. What ever shall the poor Protoss do?
Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage.
Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all.
On December 01 2015 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy.
Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play.
If anything zerg is the a move race
|
Ok im out,this is turning into a toss-hater fest
Not surprising,since all the toss hater are the same that also blame DK all the time cause he did'nt make sc2 like bw, he just said that to have you in your pocket ahahahah
Also yes talk about the zealot like it's the core of the toss army, don't talk about those unit which you have to flash on each of it (Oh don't says i'm lol player it was DotA for me before i quitted this toxic game)
Im gonna stop it here ,and never step again in this f* place full of toss hater full of theirself who can't ever have an argument on the mechanics of the game without wanting toss nerf and implying it's a noob race and thinking their A-move is much more skilled for them since they have to press T before or press 4 V and click on a hatch between,dear gosh! The worst is the discussion was PvP and TvT centered..
|
No, a typical protoss army used to have colossi.
Disruptors are much needed finesse, and have a huge potential for reward when used with skill. This is a big improvement over the Colossi bullshit. And what they should do is give the Colossus a different weapon that fills a role Protoss currently doesn't have. Like a big single target damage dealer with a long cooldown, or something.
|
On December 01 2015 08:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:13 ledarsi wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 07:58 ledarsi wrote:
Oh woe is me I have to micro the shot that kills 12 Stalkers in one go. What ever shall the poor Protoss do?
Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage. Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all. Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy. Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play. If anything zerg is the a move race
Which race is the a-move race is completely context dependent. Marines can a-move with the best of them when Terran is winning and theres no aoe. Early game ZvZ is the antithesis of a-move. HotS ZvT with Hellbats and WMs takes tons of multitasking and while not as much micro as Terran, its still a lot. (Talking about trends, not outlier games) HotS Protoss can take very impressive micro and multitasking in the case of heavy 2-base Stalker aggression, but those games aren't common. SCV pulls in TvP turn Terran into an a-move race as well.
Right now it doesn't matter at all what I personally think. You said the Disruptor doesn't fit SC2, my answer was that it perfectly fits if we assume that the designers think HotS Protoss was too easy to control. And they have said that they think that (unless you have a better interpretation of DKim's quote). So don't argue with me, argue with them. 
|
On December 01 2015 09:02 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:13 ledarsi wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 07:58 ledarsi wrote:
Oh woe is me I have to micro the shot that kills 12 Stalkers in one go. What ever shall the poor Protoss do?
Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage. Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all. On December 01 2015 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy. Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play. If anything zerg is the a move race Which race is the a-move race is completely context dependent. Early game ZvZ is the antithesis of a-move. HotS ZvT with Hellbats and WMs takes tons of multitasking and while not as much micro as Terran, its still a lot. (Talking about trends, not outlier games) HotS Protoss can take very impressive micro and multitasking in the case of heavy 2-base Stalker aggression, but those games aren't common.
You just told him that a-move is dependent on context, and then made the argument that protoss was the a-move race. Is it that special kind of context that disappears when you agree with the criticism?
|
On December 01 2015 09:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 09:02 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:13 ledarsi wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 07:58 ledarsi wrote:
Oh woe is me I have to micro the shot that kills 12 Stalkers in one go. What ever shall the poor Protoss do?
Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage. Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all. On December 01 2015 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy. Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play. If anything zerg is the a move race Which race is the a-move race is completely context dependent. Early game ZvZ is the antithesis of a-move. HotS ZvT with Hellbats and WMs takes tons of multitasking and while not as much micro as Terran, its still a lot. (Talking about trends, not outlier games) HotS Protoss can take very impressive micro and multitasking in the case of heavy 2-base Stalker aggression, but those games aren't common. You just told him that a-move is dependent on context, and then made the argument that protoss was the a-move race. Is it that special kind of context that disappears when you agree with the criticism?
I'm not sure where you see a contradiction. Maybe you don't understand what I mean by context?
In the context of a Colossus-heavy meta, Protoss takes less mechanical and multitasking skill to use well than other races do.
Most of WoL and HotS were Colossus-heavy metas.
In the context of a Disruptor-heavy meta, Protoss takes more mechanical and multitasking skill to use well (impossible to tell, yet, how it will compare to LotV T and Z).
|
I don't really understand why people dislike pylon overcharge in comparison to nexus overcharge. The nexus overcharge had a massive range and completely zoned out anything that wasn't already a large enough army to commit to a serious battle. Pylon overcharge may be able to output more damage in a short time, but it leaves opportunities to seriously punish an inattentive Protoss player, since they can't defend their whole base without units now.
|
On December 01 2015 10:43 alexanderzero wrote:
I don't really understand why people dislike pylon overcharge in comparison to nexus overcharge. The nexus overcharge had a massive range and completely zoned out anything that wasn't already a large enough army to commit to a serious battle. Pylon overcharge may be able to output more damage in a short time, but it leaves opportunities to seriously punish an inattentive Protoss player, since they can't defend their whole base without units now.
Does anyone actually suggest bringing back Nexus PO? All the Pylon PO complaints I've heard have said "keep it to Pylons, but make it harder to spam."
|
I think that people are giving up on the fact that the Mothership Core and indeed the Mothership are just unbelievably stupid designs, and getting down to just barely fixing the game so the bad design doesn't permanently break the game.
It doesn't really make that much difference whether it's nexus or pylon overcharge. It's a dumb ability on a dumb unit that is an unapologetic band-aid for Blizzard's boneheaded decision to make Gateway units weak, because warp-in would otherwise make BW strength Gateway units broken. Everything about Protoss; Colossi, Sentries, Mothership Core, and so on, all stems from the creation of Warp Gate fundamentally breaking the rules of SC2 production by paying after the cycle, and allowing warp-in anywhere, with a quicker build time than producing directly from a Gateway.
Basically, whether it's nexus or pylon is small potatoes. They're both dumb and broken. Ideally Blizzard would rethink the very existence of the Mothership Core, perhaps adding upgrades that buff the basic stats of Gateway units, so they can get stronger in the mid/late game without needing all these stupid band-aids.
A normal, build-as-many-as-you-want, Arbiter-ish unit with a photon cannon type weapon could serve a similar role to the pylon overcharge with just its standard weapon, even if it was initially produced with only one, or perhaps no abilities available. It could have strong abilities like Recall and Time Warp that must be researched in various different buildings. As you get research at various tech buildings, this unit would become more powerful. A high tech passive Cloaking Field upgrade would make it scale pretty hard into the lategame. This would be so, so much better than the limit-1 bullshit Mothership Core and Mothership.
|
Everything about Protoss; Colossi, Sentries, Mothership Core, and so on, all stems from the creation of Warp Gate fundamentally breaking the rules of SC2 production by paying after the cycle, and allowing warp-in anywhere, with a quicker build time than producing directly from a Gateway.
These complaints read like something out of HotS. Collosi and Sentries have taken a back seat in Legacy, so much that they're barely used and they are nowhere near as game breaking (if you really wanna call it that) as before. Offensive warp-in was also massively nerfed but there's no acknowledgement of that from you...
Basically, whether it's nexus or pylon is small potatoes.
I don't think so. As a Terran player who depends on drops to deal damage I think it's much more fun to play against the pylon cannon, and there have been games when the pylon placement was too good for me to do damage. However you can at least take up some position near a protoss base now which was even nearly impossible before.
|
On December 01 2015 01:50 Kenny_mk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 20:29 KOtical wrote:
i totally disagree with your oppionon that you should be able to spell overcharge on nexus... with the high dmg output it got its absolutly dumb to put it on nexi, coz u cant kill a nexus as fast as u can kill pylons... that would totally break the game. also if u feel bad about losing a game coz u forgot to put a pylon near ur mineral line, tbh thats like the easiest thing to fix, by just building the damn pylon... protoss player first world problems... It's hard staying polite with people like you.Long live to toss hater i guess,even if you may be right on this point you guys are just ruining SC2 experience sometimes. Don't worry this is the least of my problem in LotV,mb lost 2 games on that, was just 2cts more for a casual approach OF COURSE You can imagine this photon could cost more energy.Anyways i don't really care about this, was up to hear other comments would just be nice if it was not in the form of Protoss whining, for the god who know reason people hate this race and think it's OP no matter what (let's see PvZ without this! lolololol) Something is strange because ppl don't like all or nothing of the disruptor,but for me the new overcharge is far less all or nothing than the previous one, on every aspect (You can cast it faster most of time in case Mcore is in danger of getting sniped, you have more choice on where the area is, and the list goes on, be it too strong or not) If you guys want to get back to WoL where T just had to get MM and go in the Toss&win like a tard before the 2nd base is up (, if the toss is'nt 2 league ) just says it. And for disruptor i don't like the idea of it shooting less.. Aside from the balance perspective, i think for the part of the game where the P only have 1-2 Disruptor, it make the game even more all or nothing,since those shoots will be even more crucial. It would maybe make P more "economic" on those shots, and thus more defensive,but the result might be disruptor and stalker just staying in back since shooting is more risky,which is even more boring than protoss sending balls to each other. Energy though might be a way to give templar a role in the match-up, though the fact that feedback almost killing the disruptor feels a bit easy to me.(it's easy to click and the disruptor can't really fight back like in a ghost/templar fight,+ the fireball being desamorced once it's dead..) Also i don't know what to think about the ghost countering both templar and Disruptor. While it might not be that much a counter if energy regen fast..
well i can understand that protoss players want the old msc mechanic back, coz they´ve been totally save against ANY early harass from terran side with it. so i know alot of protoss players feel like uncomftorble right now coz they have to think about pylon/building placements etc. im not a protoss hater , i just think giving back the (early game) invurnability from hots back to lotv would just be broken... as for energy concerns i agree with you, the disruptor would be countered to ez by ghosts then. but tbh just remove emp and feedback and use energy more often to balance things out would be way better imo. just like zerg they dont have any type of emp/feedback units.
|
On November 29 2015 05:49 NexT_SC2 wrote:
I do agree that disruptors are not good design. The ball that does damage is invincible, super fast, and one shots many units. But I feel like game 4 solar vs parting, solar needs to split his lurkers so that disruptor shots don't hit more than two lurkers and he needs to not unburrow his lurkers so frequently. I feel like if he had done those things Parting would have died to that attack in game 4.
wat? The Disruptor is one of the best designed units in SC2. It's purely skill-based, promotes micro from BOTH sides and is powerful and fun to use, without being game-breaking or frustrating to play against.
Maybe, down the track they'll need a nerf, but atm I'm finding Protoss the hardest to win with against good opponents, despite my Toss builds being a lot smoother than my Terran builds or even my Zerg builds. I do probably get more free win moments as Toss though where my opponent just flat-out derps, maybe Toss is harder to scout now that they can be active and be out controlling the map (I'm not sure, I just roll Toss over with death armies as Terran or Zerg, which doesn't need much scouting past the early game).
|
On November 30 2015 20:38 Liquid`Snute wrote:
PvP stalker/disruptor is what troubled me the most !
I think Disruptors should have energy, each shot costing 100, but a very fast regeneration rate, making it work in similar strength to the current CD but less spam-able, easier to read visually, and more interesting since you can either have double shots, or be baited into being 'starved' rather than just firing once every x seconds. This will make having fewer disruptors more valuable as they can reach 200/200 energy. Spamming multiple disruptors is still strong because you can fire more shots. Careless usage of this would punished though, because you'd have dead supply for a while until energy is back up to 100.
Energy units are neglected in the current design, which is sad. While they sometimes seem OP, Energy is great design compared to flat Cooldowns, and it would be a very conservative step compared to reworking other units in order to fight stalker/disruptor !!
i really like this idea, i think energy-dependant shots that result in nonlinear cooldown is a great mechanic that should be implemented on more units
kinda like the non-linear cooldown of reavers in bw where building scarabs took longer than shooting them making their fire rate slower once they ran out
|
My worry about an energy based Disruptor is that it will bring back the Colossus because the Colossus can't be countered by EMP.
If you want to be able to double tap it could have charges instead of energy. But honestly, one shot seems reasonable, since if you want to fire twice just buy two.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 01 2015 09:46 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 09:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 01 2015 09:02 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:13 ledarsi wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 07:58 ledarsi wrote:
Oh woe is me I have to micro the shot that kills 12 Stalkers in one go. What ever shall the poor Protoss do?
Seriously, the Disruptor is an extremely powerful unit. Saying you have to micro the shot is its downside is asinine. You don't seem to get the point. The disruptor is the only unit which works like that in sc2. You micro the attack of it, until it explodes. Banelings? The Disruptor is an inexhaustible factory of free, invincible, superspeed Banelings that phase through units and force fields, and deal 145 (+55 Shield) damage in a larger blast radius, instead of the Baneling's 20 (+15 Light) damage. Banelings work just fine with a move (for the most part). Not really comparable at all. On December 01 2015 08:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2015 08:26 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2015 08:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The disruptor basically is a caster type unit, the difference here is that every other caster has an immediate effect on something, the disruptor shot has to be microed till it explodes. You can't just 'amove' it (well you can somewhat, just move it in the direction of the enemy and you "zone" like that) and hope it works.
I dislike this mechanic quite a lot actually, it doesn't belong in a game where you control big armies, have to macro, etc The Disruptor was obviously meant to single handedly make up for the glaring ease with which the rest of a Protoss army controls. In a theoretical vacuum, the mechanic may be bad. In the context of SC2, it was sorely, desperately needed. Hurr Durr protoss is so easy to control Do I need to pull out David Kim's quote about HotS Protoss being easier to "easier to master" aka having a lower skill ceiling? If you want to think that Zealots take skill to micro, go ahead and think that. It must be a huge coincidence that Adepts and Disruptors were introduced with huge mechanical and multitasking skill requirements. It's all just an anti-Protoss conspiracy. Yes because a typical protoss army is zealots only :D Sry but all this "protoss is so easy to control" is bs. Which doesn't mean that i like the protoss design in general, but i never thought it's oh so easy to play. If anything zerg is the a move race Which race is the a-move race is completely context dependent. Early game ZvZ is the antithesis of a-move. HotS ZvT with Hellbats and WMs takes tons of multitasking and while not as much micro as Terran, its still a lot. (Talking about trends, not outlier games) HotS Protoss can take very impressive micro and multitasking in the case of heavy 2-base Stalker aggression, but those games aren't common. You just told him that a-move is dependent on context, and then made the argument that protoss was the a-move race. Is it that special kind of context that disappears when you agree with the criticism? I'm not sure where you see a contradiction. Maybe you don't understand what I mean by context? In the context of a Colossus-heavy meta, Protoss takes less mechanical and multitasking skill to use well than other races do. Most of WoL and HotS were Colossus-heavy metas. In the context of a Disruptor-heavy meta, Protoss takes more mechanical and multitasking skill to use well (impossible to tell, yet, how it will compare to LotV T and Z).
In the context of Colossus-heavy metas - that was the mech people here cry for. The army was super immobile, that army was super fragile when it was in bad spot. Yes, it was easier to use it, but I wouldn't say it was easier to control than other armies because your units were dumb(colossus dance), slow(templars, sentries) and very, really very depending on proper positioning. Yes, if your opponent went passive stance and you selected when things happen it was pure won for you. The same happens when you go passive against the old mech(HotS/WoL). Right now nobody cares about positioning, about planning and about predicting when you have this mobile composition. Right now it's all about "micro", free shots of kamikaze balls. I always thought that micro is about moving units not about using proper skills, than templars and sentries were the proper micro all the time, or...? 
Anyway, I still hate the disruptor for being hit or miss unit. The more disruptors you have the more it doesn't matter. But at the beginning of their production you have 2 or 3 shots and they really matter. That's just bad, the unit's scaling is bad. It's just bad unit... (and it's also a ballish unit. after oracle and msc they added another ball of doom)
Edit> Also it would be worth mentioning I played many games as random. I honestly feel taht the easier race to master is Zerg. Not sure why DKim claims otherwise and it would be nice if he made public reasoning
On December 01 2015 17:18 althaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 05:49 NexT_SC2 wrote:
I do agree that disruptors are not good design. The ball that does damage is invincible, super fast, and one shots many units. But I feel like game 4 solar vs parting, solar needs to split his lurkers so that disruptor shots don't hit more than two lurkers and he needs to not unburrow his lurkers so frequently. I feel like if he had done those things Parting would have died to that attack in game 4. wat? The Disruptor is one of the best designed units in SC2. It's purely skill-based, promotes micro from BOTH sides and is powerful and fun to use, without being game-breaking or frustrating to play against. Maybe, down the track they'll need a nerf, but atm I'm finding Protoss the hardest to win with against good opponents, despite my Toss builds being a lot smoother than my Terran builds or even my Zerg builds. I do probably get more free win moments as Toss though where my opponent just flat-out derps, maybe Toss is harder to scout now that they can be active and be out controlling the map (I'm not sure, I just roll Toss over with death armies as Terran or Zerg, which doesn't need much scouting past the early game).
It is not fun to use.
|
On December 01 2015 18:16 ledarsi wrote:
My worry about an energy based Disruptor is that it will bring back the Colossus because the Colossus can't be countered by EMP.
If you want to be able to double tap it could have charges instead of energy. But honestly, one shot seems reasonable, since if you want to fire twice just buy two.
So change the Colossus... it isn't any more interesting than it was in HotS, it's only tolerated because it barely exists. There's no good reason for Protoss to have 3 ground based AOE units anyway, two of them requiring basically the exact same tech.
|
On December 01 2015 18:46 deacon.frost wrote:
In the context of Colossus-heavy metas - that was the mech people here cry for. The army was super immobile, that army was super fragile when it was in bad spot. Yes, it was easier to use it, but I wouldn't say it was easier to control than other armies because your units were dumb(colossus dance), slow(templars, sentries) and very, really very depending on proper positioning.
Are you fucking kidding? You try attack-moving with siege tanks and see how far that gets you.
For that matter, Colossi are not immobile. I don't know where people got the idea that they are. Blizzard originally thought the Colossus would be a fast, cliff-striding RAIDER. The damn thing moves at 3.15 (that's almost as fast as a stimmed marine- all the time) and can fire instantly at a rate of 1.18. Not to mention it ignores cliffs. The Colossus is not a positional unit. No siege, no burrow, no shuttle required, no nothing. It doesn't zone units away from itself; it just pewpews lazors with high damage. You are smoking something if you think the motherfucking COLOSSUS is positional "mech" play. Lurkers, even goddamn DISRUPTORS are more positional despite their speed.
Shit, people who think the COLOSSUS is immobile are freaking spoiled. Not everything can be as fast as the freaking Stalker, for crying out loud. That thing is on chemicals.
Positional play means you control space, and force the enemy to either avoid it, or engage with special care or tactics. Like a siege line in BW would prompt zealot bombs or picking them off with mutalisks rather than just attack-move an army directly into it. Disruptors do this; as DH PvP showed us, you don't aggressively blink on top of Disruptors unless you want to lose a lot of Stalkers. So you have to stay away, either pushing the enemy back across territory, and destroying a base that way since the enemy army is zoned away from their own expo, or skirting the edges, or straight up attacking an entirely different area.
Colossi never did this ever, not one time. You make the counter unit and you attack move into it with an army. Vikings, Corruptors, what have you, and attack alongside your Marauders or whatever. Instead of having this positional dance for many minutes trading units and territory all over the map, you have a single, decisive clash of two deathballs that ends in seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
