Maps Update on Feb 9 To begin, we would like to thank everyone for the constructive feedback on the specific map changes. It’s great to see so many people making map-balance suggestions that uphold the goal of map diversity. It was also awesome to be able to stay focused, aligned, and work through the details in such a quick period of time.
Looking towards the future, we gained a lot of confidence about this map process after working through and locating solid suggestions with you. As we continue to push for map diversity, there will be maps that come up that have balance issues. When that happens, we can stay focused and aim to fix those balance issues as they come up without altering the cool factor of those maps.
As we’ve been discussing this week, there are several changes that will go into the maps:
Lerilak Crest – Replacing Rock Towers with Destructible Debris. Prion Terraces – Changing the natural to a gold base and changing the 3rd to a normal base. Central Protocol – Removing the back door to main bases and disabling vertical spawns.
Promoting Balance Test Maps Recently, we tried having a landing screen take over when the Balance Test Map was up, and we were able to get a lot more testing on it. Going forward, we believe that polishing and iterating on this method looks to be the way to go. For example, if we were to add a button on the landing screen as well that players can just click to go directly into the balance testing channel, it could help a lot. The reason why we want to push this type of balance test map promotion over something like a match maker, is mainly due to the population of players out there who are willing to test. Because the population is not big enough to have skill based match making, the wait time will be very long and a majority of the time players won’t even get to test units properly due to a large skill difference between the players. On the other hand, promoting the test map and allowing players to arrange matches within the chat channel allows players to organize matches at their own pace, add test map partners for the future to your friends list, and/or discuss issues together as a group.
Still, we know this is something that you have requested, and we’re not saying that having a match maker is out of the question. If the interest and actual games that happen on the balance test map becomes big enough to support having a skill-based match maker, we can definitely discuss this option again. Until then, let’s focus on finding ways to improve this new approach that we’ve tried recently to get more and more people to play games on balance test maps!
Map Diversity Going Forward We wanted to talk to those of you out there who are or will be participating in the map contest going forward.
Obviously, map diversity is something we must push for the game, because we’ve seen in the past that when all 7 maps in the pool were basically the same, we were only seeing 1 timing/strategy/build order per matchup and the game became stale really quickly.
The main thing we wanted to discuss on this front was the idea of perhaps identifying some archetypes of maps that should always be represented in the map pool. For example, say the rule was something like this: 1 macro map, 1 rush map, 1 high yield minerals exploration map, 1 completely new type of map, etc. This way, there are better guidelines and a bit better set expectation on the map pool as a whole for players, but we would be able to avoid the situation of having only 1 same type of map. Obviously, we’re not there yet because we don’t have 7 solid archetypes of maps to go by. Still, we believe one of our main goals for this year’s map creation could be to focus not only on creating unique and cool maps, but also to focus on locating solid, long-term map archetypes. The reason is that some map ideas only work for 1 season and then their cool factor wears off, and some map ideas will be ideas that can be explored for a long time in different ways.
Therefore, when you create maps for submission, please keep this in mind. If you come up with a new idea altogether, it doesn’t need to be perfectly executed. Alternatively, you could take an existing idea but re-use it in a better or cooler way. For example, if you like the idea of Ulrena but would like to submit an even better map of that type, it is definitely an option to just replace Ulrena with that new map without impacting the overall map diversity of the map pool.
These are just only our initial thoughts about how we could take this archetype concept, and we’re extremely eager to hear your thoughts. We’d love to see the diversity of map-types grow in a big way, so let us know what you think.
Balance While it’s probably still too early to talk about what the next balance changes should be, here are our current thoughts:
PvP Disruptors look to be really powerful again.
We wanted to get your thoughts on potentially removing the +shield damage on Disruptors.
This change is a very safe change that only affects 1 matchup, and we’ve tested this heavily already, so we can make this change to the live game if needed.
Remove Siege Tank Medivac pick up – to help out in TvT
We still also agree completely that this change will have a big impact on ZvT, and we would definitely combo this nerf with some sort of a mech buff. We could look into things many players have pointed out already such as: increasing Siege Tank damage slightly, making Cyclones stronger vs. Roach/Ravager combo, or bringing the Banshee speed upgrade down a tech level.
Let’s definitely start discussing this one.
TvP definitely looks to be better than before like many of you have also pointed out, but it looks to be too early to know for certain where this matchup has settled.
We will need to keep a close watch on this one together, and react as needed.
Just like the pro feedback we get, ZvT looks to be a good mix of even games with both sides looking really strong in various games.
We don’t have a lot going on this front this week because the balance patch was just last week, but there are definitely at least a couple topics we can already start working on. Other than the 2 immediate balance topics, if there are other critical issues please definitely bring those up and we can work together on locating what the best moves are for the next Balance Test Map
No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
On February 05 2016 07:06 DinoMight wrote: Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that.
It's not like the 3rd is further away by air than the natural.
But you can wall of the natural.
This. Flying to the exposed third has risks, flying to the natural doesn't.
You can wall the 3rd base too. That's how Gangnam Terran worked on Dash & Terminal. Also it's probably not even worth it to float with a 12 worker start.
Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote: Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly.
Disruptor change for PvP sounds awesome. Allows for more diverse gameplay, and maybe I can actually use the new Colossi skin now!
I think the state of PvZ and PvT both need to settle a bit after adept change, but I feel like PvZ is pretty god damn hard for P and could use some tweaking now that the two greatest advantages of P over Z have been nerfed. Too early to say, but I hope for more updates on these topics in the future.
EDIT: There's discussion about adding an armor tag to Ravagers...I think this would be pretty awful. I mean, Immortals would just wreck ravagers so hard, and tanks would pop them like big Zerg balloons.
meh. The pidgeonhole maps idea just sets my teeth on edge. Why not try to actually have different playstyles viable for every race on every map so that the game creates variety by itself, not only thanks to maps ?
Give tanks +6 flat damage and change upgrades from 3+2 each to 2+3 each.
Makes tanks kill most zerg and toss units in 1 shot less while keeping the amount of shots required to kill marines the same, even when fully upgrade.
Also making banshee speed easier to access (and cheaper) wouldn't be so bad, banshee are barely used at all anyway. Can you imagine a build where terran goes speed banshee vs toss? that would be pretty exiting.
Please please don't change disruptors. It's okay to have some units that come up a lot, and the macro disruptor games are really skillful and entertaining.
Tankivacs, I don't really care. I was excited at first because I thought TvP might be too good for T after the two nerfs; that hasn't happened yet, so I have no opinion on this.
Pretending PvZ doesn't exist: great idea! You should totally pursue this, nobody will notice.
On February 05 2016 07:27 Lexender wrote: Give tanks +6 flat damage and change upgrades from 3+2 each to 2+3 each.
Makes tanks kill most zerg and toss units in 1 shot less while keeping the amount of shots required to kill marines the same, even when fully upgrade.
Tank damage buff doesn't really address any issues with the game at the moment.
Lifting them makes TvT unplayable.
Not lifting them makes Ravagers kill them too easily.
Removing Ravagers' ability makes Zerg too weak to Liberator rushes.
A series of bad designs just outdoing each other...
I don't disagree with you, but having tanks unsiege when picked and buffing the damage a tad atually adresses issues in the game at the moment, namely buffing mech and making siegevacs less stupid without it being too much of a nerf in non-mirror MUs.
Decreasing the time that cyclone lock-on needs to dish out it's damage, even if means nerfing the total damage it does (this is one of the Iaguz solutions)
as a massive balance whiner, zerg fanboy, protoss hater (a-move, no honor), terran hater (total abusers), and so on...
let me just say that the sieged tank medivac pickup should STAY in the game ffs please. it's too cool of a feature to be removed just because it dominates tvt. so what, every mirror match has a focus, just think about ling bane or roach ravager wars in zvz. the tank pickup is just too freakin cool even to a total zerg racist.
you can't support nerfing the sieged tank pickup and still call yourself a starcraft fan.
So im curious, do you think those 3 adjustments to those maps will make the map pool more desirable? To me it seems like a lot of people want them replaced with some of the GSL maps, not only because of balance but because of being bored with the maps? I suppose if were stuck with the maps then adjusting them is better than nothing?
PvP disruptors. Did anyone see Zest vs Dear in Proleague? Well its not singular to that match, but pvp disruptor is soo volatile.. Zest was owning Dear 90% of the game, then it came down to those 2 disruptor shots that ended it for zest. It certainly is fun to watch, but damn that has got to be frustrating to lose. 1 shot can just wipe out 6 stalkers or so too. Should it have less area of effect? or will just lowering the +shield damage fix it?
What if it was like a Reaver in that you had to pay 25 minerals per round, store up 5 shots..? I suppose it would make it more difficult for new players..Just spitballin here.
make it so tanks kill ravagers and stalkers in 2 shots, and completely change the liberator to have no air-ground damage and instead have a utility deployment zone that allows tank to siege/unsiege instantly while in the liberation zones and/or reduce aoe damage into them by a LOT.
On February 05 2016 07:04 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Balance
PvP Disruptors look to be really powerful again.
On February 05 2016 07:04 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Remove Siege Tank Medivac pick up – to help out in TvT
On February 05 2016 07:04 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
We could look into things many players have pointed out already such as: increasing Siege Tank damage slightly, making Cyclones stronger vs. Roach/Ravager combo, or bringing the Banshee speed upgrade down a tech level.
On February 05 2016 07:04 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
We still also agree completely that this change will have a big impact on ZvT, and we would definitely combo this nerf with some sort of a mech buff.
Am I fucking dreaming?
They finally stopped being stubborn and are addressing most of the issues. Way to go!
Ravager Corrosive Bile don't damage buildings (Nerf needed with Tank change and new Pylon Overcharge.)
Thor: 1) Switch Liberator and Thor AoE/Damage/number of attacks, keep range. 2) Bring back Thorzain Strike Cannon, but instead of being an ability you use on a unit, you simply click it, just like Medivac Boost. From there The Thor goes into Strike Cannon mode (same animation, same range, same attack,) but instead of overkilling a single unit he shoots at whatever unit is currently within range. It doesn't stun. 3) Give Thor +1 armour.
I like map diversity in all its forms. Tankivac needs to go, I'm all for removing it, if you do however we need a proper tank buff no other useless change that will keep mech gimped. Especially Banshee speed upgrade hitting earlier sounds like something that will only make the game worse. Mech gets weaker because of tankivac being removed and mech doesn't get a stright up buff at all (I don't call running away faster a buff in a direct confrontation of army vs army) also stimmed banshee lacks counter play which is never good.
Protoss still needs to be nerfed, protoss pylon overcharge should be removed, I know it will not happen so it should be nerfed. At the moment Protoss can out expand zerg with less units which is frankly insane. Zerg still does well but the reason for that is because their units and comps are very powerful. So the solution is to nerf both zerg and protoss, possibly terran as well(liberator).
Biggest problem this game have is pylon overcharge that makes the early game a snooze in all vs P matchups and pidgeonholds all other races to play macro or midgame all-in. Might as well start the game on two bases in vP matchups to save time, frankly its bad design. Especially bad is that it gives these tools to a race that already has the most options of most races and tons of different build options. PvT is broken because P can always always get ahead on econ (or all in and kill T/kill Ts econ) which makes it so that a hard matchup (don't know which races actually has an edge mid-late game because there are barely any games were P and T enter that stage evently) becomes almost impossible since you enter the mid-late game behind. The main reason for this is the pylon overcharge, fix it, nerf it and give us balance and options to all races against all races.
On February 05 2016 07:37 JonnySC2 wrote: Are they serious? They don't even mention PvZ at all. Very disappointing.
They specifically note to add any pressing balance changes. Instead of just being "disappointed", would you suggest something for PvZ? I got nothing other than expecting something new to come from the meta.
Believe me, if siegetank pick ups are removed, even a dmg buff won´t be enough. The ravager shots are so damn powerfull, no way this will turn out well. I really don´t know what to change though.
On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote: Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly.
Tends to be NA Protosses that complain who are still opening Robo first and going into sentry/stalker/disruptor (what an awful composition). Once the Protosses complaining start doing a phoenix into chargelot/archon/immortal, they will enjoy pvz a lot more.
On February 05 2016 07:41 inken wrote: as a massive balance whiner, zerg fanboy, protoss hater (a-move, no honor), terran hater (total abusers), and so on...
let me just say that the sieged tank medivac pickup should STAY in the game ffs please. it's too cool of a feature to be removed just because it dominates tvt. so what, every mirror match has a focus, just think about ling bane or roach ravager wars in zvz. the tank pickup is just too freakin cool even to a total zerg racist.
you can't support nerfing the sieged tank pickup and still call yourself a starcraft fan.
the siege tank deserves <3 <3 <3
siege drops destroy the actual "cool" aspect of siege tanks, which is strategic, positional play based on their immobility. basic defender's advantage stuff. since tanks are stronger in siege mode, you will always be at a disadvantage when attacking into tanks in TvT, which forces the attacker to out-position your opponent, resulting in interesting tactics.
if you can instantly drop your tanks in range of your opponent's tanks then defensive setups get thrown out the window, and it just becomes a matter of who has more tanks, which is boring.
On February 05 2016 07:27 Lexender wrote: Give tanks +6 flat damage and change upgrades from 3+2 each to 2+3 each.
Makes tanks kill most zerg and toss units in 1 shot less while keeping the amount of shots required to kill marines the same, even when fully upgrade.
Tank damage buff doesn't really address any issues with the game at the moment.
Lifting them makes TvT unplayable.
Not lifting them makes Ravagers kill them too easily.
Removing Ravagers' ability makes Zerg too weak to Liberator rushes.
A series of bad designs just outdoing each other...
Tank damage does matter. If you remove tank-vac lift and buff the tank base damage then it will offset this nerf. For instance, as a mech player, if I see early ravager rush what I may do is decide to go for 2 siege tanks instead of 1tank/1medivac. Furthermore, if you give the tank a buff, not just for siege mode, but tank mode, then you can just decide NOT to siege versus any early roach ravager and the units will be more effective. Right now unsieged tanks are pretty pathetic, while the siege tank isn't too far behind.
Give tanks an extra 2-3 range (sieged) through an upgrade.
Radical. Allows armies that moved too close to still pull back after just one shot but also makes it a little more dangerous to commit to attacking into them. Since it still requires vision and an upgrade it might not be totally broken.
Might start playing again if tankivacs are removed.
I stopped playing not long after I lost to avilo on ladder for the first time ever because of how stupid TvT is. I don't care much what TvP and TvZ are like, so long as TvT goes back to being the most interesting matchup.
First, this is a really cool update and I want to say that you please keep up the discussion about gameplay. The last few updates have been a bit lackluster and felt mainly like reports of the sort "we will put down a balance test map", "we will really put out the balance test map for these issues", "the balance test map is out now and we will patch next week", "we have patched". I.e. keep the discussion about various topics going, even if there are more pressing issues and the discussed topics are not on a balance test map (yet).
Siege tank, here is my simple suggestion:
The reasoning is rather simple: Siege tanks have high burst damage, but rather low damage over time. This makes them strong against units which they can burst down easily and which are greatly affected by their splash damage like zerglings, banelings or marines. They are still decent against the middle-health, middle-size units like marauders, roaches or stalkers because they deal 15 extra against armored. But the tank is very weak at doing this job against units with higher health and greater size, for example immortals, archons or ultralisks or even smaller high health units without the armor tag like zealots or adepts. This buff would leave the most common scenarios in which tanks are used as splash damage dealer widely unchanged but give the tank a greater range of units it can work well against. This effect could also be introduced as an upgrade effect, e.g. by the iconic name of Maelstrom Rounds from the Wings of Liberty campagin.
On February 05 2016 08:37 Fran_ wrote: Tank pickups is working at Pro level to differentiate good players from better players, and it's exciting to watch. I wouldn't want to see it go.
Upsets have been traditionally quite rare in TvT. I'd expect that the tankivac mechanic would make the situation worse.
And frankly, everyone hates 1a'ing a bio ball into the enemy team and then dropping all the tanks simultaneously behind it. It's dumb to play. It's dumb to watch. It needs to go.
I don't personally think this point is a boon for the matchup, but some do, and that is that early game cliff jumping and contains are much more intense and fast. Past that point, there is no redeeming quality to the tankivac.
On February 05 2016 08:40 Big J wrote: First, this is a really cool update and I want to say that you please keep up the discussion about gameplay. The last few updates have been a bit lackluster and felt mainly like reports of the sort "we will put down a balance test map", "we will really put out the balance test map for these issues", "the balance test map is out now and we will patch next week", "we have patched". I.e. keep the discussion about various topics going, even if there are more pressing issues and the discussed topics are not on a balance test map (yet).
Siege tank, here is my simple suggestion:
The reasoning is rather simple: Siege tanks have high burst damage, but rather low damage over time. This makes them strong against units which they can burst down easily and which are greatly affected by their splash damage like zerglings, banelings or marines. They are still decent against the middle-health, middle-size units like marauders, roaches or stalkers because they deal 15 extra against armored. But the tank is very weak at doing this job against units with higher health and greater size, for example immortals, archons or ultralisks or even smaller high health units without the armor tag like zealots or adepts. This buff would leave the most common scenarios in which tanks are used as splash damage dealer widely unchanged but give the tank a greater range of units it can work well against. This effect could also be introduced as an upgrade effect, e.g. by the iconic name of Maelstrom Rounds from the Wings of Liberty campagin.
I think a good solution would be if the Siege Tank could still be picked up in siege mode, but only dropped unsieged. That way defensive micro against Ravagers would still be possible if you're good and fast enough. Maybe also a slight buff to unsieged mode in general to make it more viable to play.
On February 05 2016 07:41 inken wrote: as a massive balance whiner, zerg fanboy, protoss hater (a-move, no honor), terran hater (total abusers), and so on...
let me just say that the sieged tank medivac pickup should STAY in the game ffs please. it's too cool of a feature to be removed just because it dominates tvt. so what, every mirror match has a focus, just think about ling bane or roach ravager wars in zvz. the tank pickup is just too freakin cool even to a total zerg racist.
you can't support nerfing the sieged tank pickup and still call yourself a starcraft fan.
the siege tank deserves <3 <3 <3
This post is wonderful. As a pure viewer of sc2 (I don't play) I love tank lifts.
On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote: Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly.
Tends to be NA Protosses that complain who are still opening Robo first and going into sentry/stalker/disruptor (what an awful composition). Once the Protosses complaining start doing a phoenix into chargelot/archon/immortal, they will enjoy pvz a lot more.
Terrans would have enjoyed TvP a lot more if they opened like jjakji did in first map vs Classic. Don't recall that this was a compelling argument at the time. And this was for a close to 50% match-up, we're talking 42-45% here.
On February 05 2016 08:40 Big J wrote: First, this is a really cool update and I want to say that you please keep up the discussion about gameplay. The last few updates have been a bit lackluster and felt mainly like reports of the sort "we will put down a balance test map", "we will really put out the balance test map for these issues", "the balance test map is out now and we will patch next week", "we have patched". I.e. keep the discussion about various topics going, even if there are more pressing issues and the discussed topics are not on a balance test map (yet).
Siege tank, here is my simple suggestion:
The reasoning is rather simple: Siege tanks have high burst damage, but rather low damage over time. This makes them strong against units which they can burst down easily and which are greatly affected by their splash damage like zerglings, banelings or marines. They are still decent against the middle-health, middle-size units like marauders, roaches or stalkers because they deal 15 extra against armored. But the tank is very weak at doing this job against units with higher health and greater size, for example immortals, archons or ultralisks or even smaller high health units without the armor tag like zealots or adepts. This buff would leave the most common scenarios in which tanks are used as splash damage dealer widely unchanged but give the tank a greater range of units it can work well against. This effect could also be introduced as an upgrade effect, e.g. by the iconic name of Maelstrom Rounds from the Wings of Liberty campagin.
I agree. 150% damage is necessary. Seige tanks need to be units that are feared. It is kind of like how Ultralisks are finally units that are feared in LotV. Seige tanks need to undergo a similar buff.
On February 05 2016 07:16 Jer99 wrote: is it even worth it to float? you start with so many workers now that you hit max saturation much earlier, where's Sholip, we need some numbers :D
Haha I have a lot of studying to do but maybe I can do an analysis tomorrow...
On February 05 2016 08:37 Fran_ wrote: Tank pickups is working at Pro level to differentiate good players from better players, and it's exciting to watch. I wouldn't want to see it go.
Upsets have been traditionally quite rare in TvT. I'd expect that the tankivac mechanic would make the situation worse.
And frankly, everyone hates 1a'ing a bio ball into the enemy team and then dropping all the tanks simultaneously behind it. It's dumb to play. It's dumb to watch. It needs to go.
I don't personally think this point is a boon for the matchup, but some do, and that is that early game cliff jumping and contains are much more intense and fast. Past that point, there is no redeeming quality to the tankivac.
i disagree. the tankivacs forces players to reposition 24/7 instead of just camping. i don't see how you can prevent a terran from turtling with buffed tanks and we will have 20 mins snoozefests watching TvT's where nobody can attack eachother.
As a watcher and not really a player, I was neutral toward Tankivac before, I mean I mostly cares about Protoss and Tankivac doesn't seem like it affect anything but TvT. But then I watch the Solar vs TY, I realised how much potential it had, it was so fun to watch and when execute right, it's crazy and absolutely entertaining. I talked to my friends (who are mostly watchers as well) and they agreed that it was super cool. So Blizzard, please don't remove the Tankivac
I really would like to see a change to the Corruptor, I think it is the most lackluster and boring unit in the whole game. I think it needs a new attack animation, a new attack design, speed change? I dont know, something to make it more of a enjoyable unit.
I really don't want Tankivac removed because I think it can make the games exciting with proper micro. It also encourages players to constantly reposition tanks instead of just sitting there turtling. People having been suggesting tanks automatically unsiege if they get picked up while seiged. I actually want to see this in action first before considering removing tankivacs altogether.
So the people defending tankivacs are openly admitting not playing the game. KK, you have no opinion that should be respected by anyone. Play the game if you want to have a saying in it and don't fuck with other people's hobbies just because you like to watch an hour of Starcraft occasionally when there are players playing on a daily basis vocally against it because they have to deal with this thing every day in actual games they play. You know, the 99.9% of us that are not progamers. On top of that we have progamers, casters and streamers quite openly raising their voices against it as well. Even when it looks fun at times, there are strategical and tactical dynamics that kill a lot of fun for the players to begin with, but I guess since you don't understand the game this is completely overlooked by you guys.
On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote: Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly.
Tends to be NA Protosses that complain who are still opening Robo first and going into sentry/stalker/disruptor (what an awful composition). Once the Protosses complaining start doing a phoenix into chargelot/archon/immortal, they will enjoy pvz a lot more.
I do that and PvZ is still damn hard, especially when they do 3 base roach/ravager.
On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote: What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss
What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
I think the problem with tankivac lies less with the siege tank and more with the medivac, which has definitely seen its share of balance complaints over the years. What if medivacs moved substantially slower once loaded with a sieged tank, or had their afterburners disabled? This would make it significantly more difficult to withdraw from danger, and would emphasize the importance of careful tank positioning, while still preserving the fun of "dropping the hammer" of a handful of sieged tanks.
On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote: What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss
What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
Unless you're better than pro, then I'd like to say even pro gamers express criticism towards PvZ. Just watch most protoss streams and you'll read/hear it.
This game is getting very close to being fucking excellent, I really mean that. Nothing gets me as excited as the prospect of Terran returning to exciting positional play based on Siege Tank offense and defense.
On February 05 2016 07:41 sAsImre wrote: TvT is way better than HotS due to Tankivacs. Please don't change that it improved the match up so much.
no it really isnt ask any terran and they tell you its dumb and not fun
Doom dropping better than your opponent is still worse. Marine/Tank vs Marine/Tank HotS was the worse version of TvT and it's way worse than current TvT where a ton of series are quite enjoyable and dynamic.
Tankivacs is the stupidest thing ever. Idk how people could think its cool/fun. Obviously they dont play it and have tronworry about 5 dieged tanks intantly getting dropped in your base and gg
On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote: What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss
What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
Apparently whining works since Terrans whining managed to make DK overlook PvZ 42-44% and prioritize PvT (I guess thanks Seeds's rant too) when statistically it was bad but not nearly as bad (granted the games were ugly mass adept but that's another problem). So yeah not happening soon until he at least acknowledge there is something definitely wrong. Can you believe he has not written a single time "PvZ" since december 18th as if it is a non-issue? Adept and overcharge got nerfed, frankly good riddance but no sign of making another move. Really? Are we doomed to always put huge restrictions on maps' layout or else lose half a season until they get patched in the hope of bandaiding a more radical issue?
On February 05 2016 10:23 seemsgood wrote: People like tankivac because they don't care how siege tank was designed.
Actually it's a bad unit that doesn't do much until you get 10 + of them except against marines. That's SC2 tank for you.
Did they address why they nerf siege tank damage back from WOL ? i didnt find community feedback which address it. We must know why they do that to reduce complain and find another solution. Follow thier design goal is good way to keep both improve each other but of course not alway true.
Addressing the possible mech buff after the tank pick-up has been removed, what are your suggestions ppl?
There were some pretty interresting ideas going on the forum already, now's the best moment to let the dev team take a look at what we want.
Blizz seems to favor slight cosmetic changes that don't necessarily throw all the matchups off balance. The Siege Tank damage buff could be the right move in my opinion. Question is: should it be a flat damage increase? An upgrade, as someone had suggested in one of recent topics (the campaign upgrade), or the BW styled delay between the shot and the hit, which made them overkill?
First of all, I agree that tankivacs are getting abused especially in TvT and maybe also killing mech in TvT because bio + tanks is way to mobile and has so high dps... Making them unload unsieged when picked up from medivacs seems like a pretty good idea...
But, with this ZvT ravagers is where the problem is at and also causing trouble in PvZ... Ravagers need to be nerfed in my opininon they are WAY too strong at the moment... At least give them a unit type, they have 1 armor but are not even armored unit type, hell how can any unit counter them effectively ?? Also maybe increase their spawning time to 20-30 seconds, hell they are as fast and easy as banes to morph and don't require any upgrades or additional buildings !! you could maybe even require a lair to make them... Disabling their damage agaisn't buildings is also another option that could be tested... but ravagers are the most problematic unit right now in my opininon...
Even in proleagues and GSL you see Zerg players such as Dark or Ragnarok completely abusing them and even ending games in like 6-7 mins with crazy all-ins...
Why is the mapool still the same? Change the maps already, it's been since the beginning of the beta that we play on the same maps. Basetrade TV already strarts to get custom mappool...
2) Balance
- Disruptor still is terrible design wise - Cyclone is still useless - Removing the tankivac IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. And please, don't make them unsiege in the medivac... Remove the whole thing - Buffing the tank damage IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. Maelstorm upgrade (+30-40 dmg on primary target, splash unchanged) seems nice with armory requirement, for 100/100 and with a LONG research time. Kind of a mech stim. - "bringing the Banshee speed upgrade down a tech level." REALLY???? Yeah mech can't win against roach ravagers BETTER BUFF TERRAN HARASS. Are you people for real??? - "Just like the pro feedback we get, ZvT looks to be a good mix of even games with both sides looking really strong in various games." NOPE NOPE NOPE. Terran plays on a timer and zerg has to survive way to many ways of aggression. - TvP DOES look good. However the tankivac nerf needs to be compensated by a tank damage buff to still be used in this matchup
Overall I'm still absolutly stunned by how the dev team doesn't want to change designs, but stats only. Disruptor design, cyclone design, PO design, PB design, prism blink design : these are all things that are gonna be either ridiculously OP, either terrible and never used. Because the design is so bad you'll never manage to hit a sweet spot.
I think if you change tanks to deal more damage to the primary target and reduce their supply and cost slightly that would be fun.
e: I am also ambivalent on the Disruptor change seeing as how late they come into the match-up and the choices you need to take to get there having them make an immediate and powerful impact feels correct. Maybe instead of removing the + vs Shields damage try giving them radial splash damage?
Higher damage siegetank is a rightfully way to go. Abour Ravager problem, i think Davie has a point of what to do next: Banshee upgrade, higher damage Siegetank. Medivac picking up cause tank to unsiege is also a good help to solve this problem, it make siegetank have more chance to survive.
On February 05 2016 11:46 chipmonklord17 wrote: The thought of a gold natural is frightening and almost instant veto worthy, the rest of the changes seem in a positive direction
Gold base third is problematic too
What race are you to be afraid of a gold natural? I'd guess zerg - and zerg has map pool advantage overall right now
On February 05 2016 11:46 chipmonklord17 wrote: The thought of a gold natural is frightening and almost instant veto worthy, the rest of the changes seem in a positive direction
Gold base third is problematic too
What race are you to be afraid of a gold natural? I'd guess zerg - and zerg has map pool advantage overall right now
I mentioned it in the previous thread, I think the map should be changed but the decision to move the gold base from the third to the natural makes the map go from zerg favored to...not zerg favored. In either ZvP or ZvT it is much easier for a Protoss/Terran to take and hold a natural compared to a zerg in a normal macro game. This is because of bunkers and walls for terran and pylons/MSC for protoss.
This is a problem for multiple reasons 1) Harass options for protoss and terran are better than those of zerg. Liberators/reapers/mines/adepts/cannons are all very good harass options, where as zerg requires a larger committal of units to do damage. Like mentioned earlier that is harder to do because of things like overcharge. This leads into
2) Because protoss and terran can hold said naturals more easily, and can harass more easily, having an easy to hold gold base puts things further in their favor. That single liberator that denied mining now means a lot more when the terran is both still mining AND mining gold minerals.
This all adds together with the fact that zerg units are worse than protoss or terran units. Zerg units are meant to be in mass and swarmy, so now you're giving the terran and protoss an easier to hold gold with the ability to produce better units. It just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
My solutions are: 1) Change the 4th base to a normal base and keep the third base gold. This might prove to be slightly zerg favored still but I think the ability to only get 1 gold reasonably might prevent that.
or in a more wonky solution
2) Rotate spawns ~90 degrees. Instead of top left and bottom right spawns spawn in the top right and bottom left where the high ground bases are. This would require a change to the ramp but once done would create the same general idea the current map has. The base directly to the right of the top left spawn (the normal mineral patch) would act as the easy to take natural, and the gold base in the middle of the map and where the current third base gold base are would act as harder to take bases. The center gold base would become the more natural 3rd but would still be wide open to counter attacks from the opposing race.
This is what I mean. You would have to remove the watchtower and change remove the ramp going from the new main to the other base (the normal mineral patch not labeled 2). You could also switch 2 to be the other side and remove the opposite ramp, it wouldn't matter
Give Siege Tanks an upgrade Blizz, make them glorious again. Bonus dmg to primary target, or at least give them 0.5 second delay between shot and hit..
On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote: Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly.
Tends to be NA Protosses that complain who are still opening Robo first and going into sentry/stalker/disruptor (what an awful composition). Once the Protosses complaining start doing a phoenix into chargelot/archon/immortal, they will enjoy pvz a lot more.
Terrans would have enjoyed TvP a lot more if they opened like jjakji did in first map vs Classic. Don't recall that this was a compelling argument at the time. And this was for a close to 50% match-up, we're talking 42-45% here.
It is a popular build order, though. The disadvantage was that despite what protoss did - attack or not, fail or succeed the protoss still got ahead
i think the basic problem with PvZ is that it seems to take more strategy, control, work to win as P (for instance building placement), while Z can to go ravager and roach (and later lurkers). This means at a very high level PvZ is prolly more balanced where at lower levels Z is gonna kill it.
i think I=its reminiscent of TvP of early days, when T could win by making the simple comp of MMM. Also I think we need to keep the map pool in mind. Z has a great defenders advantage on creep and good counter-play with lings which allows them to hold more attack paths + potential scout and deny more bases....
+1 to removing siege tank pickup and buffing damage.
As for maps. I think they're going about this the wrong way. I don't want a "rush map" and a "turtle map" where there's only one strong strategy. That just makes games predictable and boring. Not to mention it upsets the whole balance between cheese, greed, and safe play. I would like to see maps that support a variety of strategies.
Besides, simplifying maps to rush or macro play is so boring. I have this crazy idea that in strategy games, taking and holding key locations/positions is a major kind of objective. The only way this exists in SC2 right now is mining bases. What about gameplay that revolves around fighting over ramps/chokepoints rather than just expansions? In BW this was called a "containment" strategy and you'd sometimes see it in TvT with tanks and missile turrets. Maybe this will never be important in SC2 because protoss will just warp-in/blink/cliff-walk past them and terrans will just lift up in their ubiquitous medivac fleets.
I like the idea of archetypes... and I actually like the archetypes you layed out. I'll just add... 3 macro maps = at least 1 of them a hardcore macro map (like dawn) 1 voted map, basically set up a poll with a couple options inwhich people vote for the map they want and go with it
YES! GOLD NATURAL... I never considered that a possible way to change Prion Terrace. This needs to happen!
Overall good changes, I still get nervous about TvZ and Ravager rushes if they change the Siege Tank pickup. There has to be another reliable way to stop Ravager rushes if they arent going to change how much damage Ravagers do to buildings (bunkers).
Awesome hope blizzard keeps up with frequent updates and balance maps and patches...will really re-invigorate SC2 imo.
Thoughts / feedback about TvT / mech:
-tankivac is way too strong TvT. Tanks themselves have always been way too weak ever since the old school tank nerf, please give tanks back some fire power. Tanks that can kill things and are a force to reckon with will allow mech games to be more aggressive because tanks will trade better making it so you aren't forced to turtle as much
-cyclone: cyclones are terrible units right now it's basically a worse marauder. It's single target, has a terrible auto attack (which even bugs out sometimes) and does incredibly poorly versus any swarm of units. It needs to be cheaper, 150/150 for this unit is so extreme - it has 120 health. A MARAUDER HAS 125 HEALTH, BETTER AUTO, BUILT FROM RAX, AND COST LESS MONEY WHAT THE HELL?! And can stim and be healed -_-
Cyclones should be something like 125/75 - a unit that can be built and traded with enemy units so that mech can actually be aggressive instead of turtle fest....with that said....
-Tempests - are actually ridiculously OP and make mech basically unplayable. Tempest is the same supply as a void ray aka 4 supply. It has basically 3-4x the health of a cyclone, and this unit is just one of those air deathball units that forces mech games to turn into a turtle "i can't attack because he built air units" fest.
Every single mech TvP played, if Protoss starts massing tempest, the mech player has to sit and turtle another 10 minutes to make 30 viking/raven or you just auto-lose since thors/cyclones suck as anti-air and widow mines are just RNG.
Please make cyclones/thors do more damage against air units as was proposed in a previous update. This will dissuade the mass air bullshit from even occurring.
I honestly think the same issue exists with all the air units in the game. Broodlords, liberators, tempest, carriers...these units need nerfs in supply costs and power and ground anti-air counter parts should be buffed.
There should never be SC2 games where you're basically rewarded for turtling into broodlords + vipers or mass liberators. If cyclones, hydralisks, thors...were strong enough to actually fight air then games would all trend towards action packed ground versus ground games where people trade army value units instead of sitting and accumulating the OP air units.
The problem with broodlords, liberators, BCS, ravens, carriers, and tempests being how they are is that when you begin massing those units there is no limiting factor to dissuade you from continuously producing air. There are no ground units in the game from any race that can dissuade you from massing air units and that's a problem because air units have the inherent advantage of FLYING aka a lot of units in the game can't even fire at them.
Please Blizzard tone down air units or discuss this it would be nice to know blizzard's thoughts on this. For me personally i find it really frustrating when i try to play Mech TvP or Mech TvZ only to find my opponent starts massing brood/viper or mass tempests and then i am forced to turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator to have a chance to win since my entire ground army is now invalidated.
QUOTE]On February 05 2016 07:41 sAsImre wrote: TvT is way better than HotS due to Tankivacs. Please don't change that it improved the match up so much.[/QUOTE]
TvT is probably one of the worst match-ups right now because of tankivac + coinflip doom drop every game that it brought on.
99% of TvT on ladder are marine tank vs marine tank and if you are brave and try to Mech it Happen you play vs people that load up 10 medivacs and right click to your base which really is not a strategy game at all, just a coinflip on whether u catch the doom drop or not.
I'm surprised they don't mention reapers which are also make TvT early game a complete coin flip like ZvZ.
i think the basic problem with PvZ is that it seems to take more strategy, control, work to win as P (for instance building placement), while Z can to go ravager and roach (and later lurkers). This means at a very high level PvZ is prolly more balanced where at lower levels Z is gonna kill it.
If by lower levels you mean not within the top fraction of a percent sure. It's just way easier to play solid ZvP than PvZ right now.
Also @ people saying PvZ is massively Zerg favored...i just casted 3 bo3 PvZ games in the WCS NA qualifiers...state, catz, jimrising, etc.
PvZ to me looked to be incredibly Protoss favored regardless of what statistics anyone wants to refer to. From the games i play and saw adepts are just as ridiculous post "-1 dmg" (LOL) as they were before.
Also apparently Protoss has a secretly OP unit called the immortal - i don't know if many of you realize this yet or have seen many pro games or noticed this in your games...Protoss players are going double/triple robo mass immortal versus both Terran and Zerg. Immortals basically have a second health bar with barrier so it's almost as if 1 immortal in LOTV = 2 HOTS immortals. I am not joking, go into the unit tester and try out some fights or just watch current games.
On the Tankivac issue, as Zerg I'd say the best fix is to buff siege tanks damage and remove the pickup. Bio feels so weak right now that I am not worried about too much damage from tanks... Mech is the only concern I'd have but there are other ways to deal with that. If you try to compensate for the tank nerf with banshee speed or cyclone you're just gona reduce bio to nothing
i think the basic problem with PvZ is that it seems to take more strategy, control, work to win as P (for instance building placement), while Z can to go ravager and roach (and later lurkers). This means at a very high level PvZ is prolly more balanced where at lower levels Z is gonna kill it.
If by lower levels you mean not within the top fraction of a percent sure. It's just way easier to play solid ZvP than PvZ right now.
It's actually very strategic on both sides, roach ravager every game is not ideal at all, as the game gets more refined I think we will start to see Zerg choosing more carefully. Right now the games are pretty haphazard.
On February 05 2016 14:19 Nars_ wrote: They still don't see how boring and overpowered lurkers are...
huh... I dont seem to get that impression at all.... From the games I watched they were definitely worth while units but I'd see whole bunches of them get wiped out in one fell swoop too..
People forgot they creat ravager to counter position units.Siege tank just need slight buff damage to scale better in low number and i prefer they buff cyclone if you play mech and banshee if you play bios than buff siege tank to the level it counter thier counter which conflict design. People overreact with speed banshee come too soon but put it in armory should do the trick,we just need test map for more insight.
I like the proposed changes. I'm a little worried about the Siege Tank. Tankivac gave it new mobility that aided its low area damage against light. I don't think they'll go back to the days where you couldn't generally overrun siege tank lines with marines & zerglings because of smart fire and high reg damage splash. I don't see how they can buff it back to a fun unit that's great to use without making it clearly overpowered, while at the same time moderate buffs just making TvT a worse matchup to play.
TvP change to adept letting marines trade better early game is great. I'm glad it's staying. I'm glad the mothership core change is staying. I've won so many games dropping multiple locations and kite killing defending units because he eventually runs out of overcharges and I do damage.
ZvT I need to see more Korean pro games to judge where the matchup is.
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
When you dont play for the lategame and you put all your resources into trying to kill your opponent you can't complain when you lose when your opponent actually reaches lategame. Byun was at like 25 workers or something, was too focussed on ending the game in the midgame to even make more cc's or infrastructure to deal with ultras. And he was behind from the very start anyway.
Stop whining, he got outplayed.
Anyway good update I think, but removing drop tanks might make ravager allins too strong.. not sure how they could fix that. Making ravager armored would make them too weak vs immortals, marauders and void rays.
Honestly i dont think removing tankivac is a good idea, tvt in legacy of the the void is defenetly more fun and dynamic cause of them. Finally doomdrops are not the main game winning moves, infact you can defend them if you have the tanks on the medivacs and you are reactive enough. Further more, unlike hots, if you have an army advantage you can engage into your enemy if you have good micro. I feel like in TvT good micro is rewarded at the moment during the midgame (more the hots at least). For the other matchups tankivacs can be really effective cause of their mobility and pick up micro options, in particular tankivacs bio seems the best composition to deal with roaches ravagers infestors and its very effective against heavy adepts and stalkers protoss armies. Removing tankivacs and buffing the tank would èrobably reward turtler player but would also remove many aggressive play options (as well as reactive defense options) that terran have now, so i dont think its a good change for the game.
I play Terran but i'm still kinda surprised that PvZ was ignored.. One step at a time, right?
Completely agree with changing Disruptors. Make them do less damage to shields.
I'm conflicted with removing tankivacs but i think it could make TvT a bit less volatile again. Let's focus on the TvZ matchup after this ability is removed. Can we maybe change Steady Targeting so it does added damage to massive units? This would make it a bit more viable against Ultras (i think it takes 3 snipes per ultra right now). We could also increase their overall & sieged damage?
On February 05 2016 07:37 JonnySC2 wrote: Are they serious? They don't even mention PvZ at all. Very disappointing.
They specifically note to add any pressing balance changes. Instead of just being "disappointed", would you suggest something for PvZ? I got nothing other than expecting something new to come from the meta.
I am just disappointed by the fact that they don't even mention that they are looking into PvZ or something, but rather don't talk about it at all.
Disruptor deals less damage further from explosion center like all other forms of splash damage (siege tank) should. Lower cool down to compensate. It rewards people who split, even if imperfectly, instead of "split like a pro or lose" or "run away and bait shots leading to stale gameplay and less action".
TvT is alot more fun with tankivacs than none-tankivacs. TvT in hots was really boring imo. Now its atleast more fun than before.
Would still prefer tanks to work without medivacs. But the tank isnt true mech, what is true mech is all pieces together. Hellion doesnt feel like a mech unit, or should i rephrase it and say it doesnt belong in mech. It has to little impact and also not room for much play. Hellbat has impact, but isnt much fun.
Sure, medibat harass in mid/lategame can still be fun but i would prefer if the unit could do move on its own and also not be this a-move either in big armee vs big armee. Hope blizzard really have the balls to try and adress more mech units but also look at the other side of the table, for example tempest do they bring a fun gameplay?
In my small experience they dont. So nerf/remove some design of that unit(such as the range) and compensate otherwise. If tempest gets lowered range, then perhaps upgraded liberators do to.
On February 05 2016 15:51 Mugen93 wrote: Honestly i dont think removing tankivac is a good idea, tvt in legacy of the the void is defenetly more fun and dynamic cause of them. Finally doomdrops are not the main game winning moves, infact you can defend them if you have the tanks on the medivacs and you are reactive enough.
So what you are saying is you can counter the doomdrop if you also do exactly the same as your opponent, and do a defensive doomdrop effectively. That sounds like great gameplay.
Further more, unlike hots, if you have an army advantage you can engage into your enemy if you have good micro.
Exactly the problem imo. It has little to do with positioning, and only who can fly faster and more efficient with his static siege units. Why not just make them fire while in a medivac, then we can call them tempests.
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
When you dont play for the lategame and you put all your resources into trying to kill your opponent you can't complain when you lose when your opponent actually reaches lategame. Byun was at like 25 workers or something, was too focussed on ending the game in the midgame to even make more cc's or infrastructure to deal with ultras. And he was behind from the very start anyway.
Stop whining, he got outplayed.
lol you aren't serious? So terrans should just sit in their base and turtle to ghost liberator without doing anything? You know that zerg then just takes the entire map and wins the game. There is a reason why every single terran tries to win in midgame. You can believe me I've watched a ton of lotv games and I haven't seen a SINGLE high level tvz where ultras came out and the zerg didn't win unless the terran was already massively ahead. ( well, except ty - soulkey but that doesn't count because soulkey didn't know vipers exist) they just don't have a real counter to ultras, ghosts work vs ultras in low numbers but vs 10+ ultras with baneling infestor support they are not enough. Liberators get invalidated by vipers or just by attacking somewhere else. so thors? BCs? Stop trolling. terran plays at a timer at the moment in this matchup like during BL/infestor and this time there are also biased zergs like you that say: it's all fine terran has enough ways to beat it, or: you let me get there so I deserve to win.
And before anyone comes and says I'm just salty about my ladder losses; no tvz is my best matchup with 70% winrate because I allin every game but the way the matchup plays is just bullshit atm.
On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote: What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss
What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
So why were we not waiting in PvT then? The game was at 50 % and more and more Terrans were getting better at defending adepts. Where is the difference between TvP and ZvP? I simply cannot see it, we have for almost 3 months PvZ under 45 % win rate but "lets wait", we have PvT for 3 months around 50 % and everybody is insane because of adepts.
On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote: What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss
What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
So why were we not waiting in PvT then? The game was at 50 % and more and more Terrans were getting better at defending adepts. Where is the difference between TvP and ZvP? I simply cannot see it, we have for almost 3 months PvZ under 45 % win rate but "lets wait", we have PvT for 3 months around 50 % and everybody is insane because of adepts.
WTF? Am I the only one who doesn't get that?
sometimes you have to not only look at winrates but have to jist look at the games ... well and listen to pro feedback. and no terrans weren't getting better at defending adepts, they just sacrificed more and more into defending them which gave protoss a bigger and bigger lead in the mid-lategame.
On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote: What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss
What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
So why were we not waiting in PvT then? The game was at 50 % and more and more Terrans were getting better at defending adepts. Where is the difference between TvP and ZvP? I simply cannot see it, we have for almost 3 months PvZ under 45 % win rate but "lets wait", we have PvT for 3 months around 50 % and everybody is insane because of adepts.
WTF? Am I the only one who doesn't get that?
sometimes you have to not only look at winrates but have to jist look at the games ... well and listen to pro feedback. and no terrans weren't getting better at defending adepts, they just sacrificed more and more into defending them which gave protoss a bigger and bigger lead in the mid-lategame.
Yeah, I agree. The PvT games were 1 dimensional bullshit boring games, kinda like swarm host Zerg games or meching Terran in the end of HotS. But Protoss were having difficulties and nothing changed.
And I honestly think that the biggest fucked up thing in PvZ is actually the map pool.
Tankivacs are on one hand side against everything that Tank is. However, on the other hand side, it made TvZ really interesting. Plus atm, I cannot imagine TvZ without this ability. It would make Tanks useless against Ravegers. And removing Tank pick-up will make TvT extremely boring again. Do we really want TvT to become chess game again?
I'm agree with gsl commentator when they said TvT is the most beautifull and exciting matchup to see. So I think it's counterproductive to remove Tankivac and to buff mech. Maybe all of people who whine against tankivac have forget how sc2 was when mech was good. Maybe they forget camp game and their match with 45 minutes and 0 actions. Indeed Zvp it's clearly imbalance with the tankivac harass but I don't think remove the ability of tank is a good idea.
On February 05 2016 07:41 sAsImre wrote: TvT is way better than HotS due to Tankivacs. Please don't change that it improved the match up so much.
no it really isnt ask any terran and they tell you its dumb and not fun
I am a master terran. Before the tankivacs I hated TvT. Now I enjoy it as much as the other matchups. If they remove tankivacs, I think I would enjoy tvt much less.
I think there's an inherent problem in having AoE's deal way too much bonus damage to armoured. It's kind of counterintuitive, since you initially get splash to ward of masses of smaller units. Siege Tank/Lurker/WoL Ultralisk. They never really stood the test of time, the outlier being the Lurker here. I think that lies in the sheer power of the unit, but even then they're not utilized to counteract Bio compositions, they have problems vs Chargelot/Archon, vs Zerg, well that matchup is mostly based around Roaches and so Lurkers are strong in that matchup.
Compare that to Widow Mines, Ravager Corrosive Bile, HotS Ultralisk, Disruptors, Psionic Storm, Colossus and even Planetary Fortress. Marines still stand tall in the aftermath of all these strong AoE's and I don't think changing Siege Tanks to 50 damage across the board suddenly changes that. Funnily enough this could save Mech vs Zealot(Charge,) Adept(Shade,) Archons, Ravagers, Lings with +1 armour and as mentioned Marines. Tank harass will be much weaker without Tankivac and so I think it's actually cool that they one shot workers. I still think Medivacs should be able to lift up Sieged Tanks though, then they become Unsieged in the Medivac.
To all the people praising the tankivac : you obviously don't play TvT.
Having absolutely no way to prevent an ennemy with a macro avantage to drop tanks in your face and win the game is incredibly punishing and onesided. Right now the matchup is HARASS => HARASS => HARASS => HARASS => SWITCH MARINE TANKS AT SOME POINT. And the guy who killed the most SCVs during the harass period drops tanks in your face => win. TvT isn't about positionning anymore. Doom drops are countered less by preparation/strategy (leaving 10 marines, a tank and turrets in your main for instance), and more by coinflip (am I close enough to my base with my own tankivacs?). Removing the tankivac doesn't mean that it's gonna be mech every game like in HOTS. Bio already has this HUGE new advantage of having the possibility to switch for viking liberators, which is HOTS's viking banshee switch on steroids. Oh and maps and new eco favors bio a lot, too.
As a whole, removing the tankivac will make TvT a positionnal/strategic matchup again, and not a retarded coinflippy APM penis battle, while you'll still have compositionnal ways to deal with mech.
On February 05 2016 20:15 JackONeill wrote: To all the people praising the tankivac : you obviously don't play TvT.
why do you keep making assumptions like this? I am a master terran, I played around 600 games in the last season. I absolutely love the tankivacs. I think they make TvT much less punishing than it was before. I would be very sad to see the tankivac go, as they make for amazing games.
I am all for the end of the tankivac and a nerf of the roach/ravergers composition (it makes zvt insanely stupid to watch and play for a zerg pov with not that much stuff to micro) but what would be the compensation in zvp? The phoenix builds following 10 immortals with a chargelot and archont frontline are pretty hard to deal with despite the constant whines of the traditionnal protoss lobby.
Good stuff this week. Disruptors are too strong in PvP, the matchup is good otherwise. They will still be extremely powerful units, but not to the ridiculous extent they are right now.
As for tanks, dunno. I don't mind flying tanks actually. I'm weird like that.
Basically all big topics people were talking about are addressed though, that makes me happy.
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
When you dont play for the lategame and you put all your resources into trying to kill your opponent you can't complain when you lose when your opponent actually reaches lategame. Byun was at like 25 workers or something, was too focussed on ending the game in the midgame to even make more cc's or infrastructure to deal with ultras. And he was behind from the very start anyway.
Stop whining, he got outplayed.
lol you aren't serious? So terrans should just sit in their base and turtle to ghost liberator without doing anything? You know that zerg then just takes the entire map and wins the game. There is a reason why every single terran tries to win in midgame. You can believe me I've watched a ton of lotv games and I haven't seen a SINGLE high level tvz where ultras came out and the zerg didn't win unless the terran was already massively ahead. ( well, except ty - soulkey but that doesn't count because soulkey didn't know vipers exist) they just don't have a real counter to ultras, ghosts work vs ultras in low numbers but vs 10+ ultras with baneling infestor support they are not enough. Liberators get invalidated by vipers or just by attacking somewhere else. so thors? BCs? Stop trolling. terran plays at a timer at the moment in this matchup like during BL/infestor and this time there are also biased zergs like you that say: it's all fine terran has enough ways to beat it, or: you let me get there so I deserve to win.
And before anyone comes and says I'm just salty about my ladder losses; no tvz is my best matchup with 70% winrate because I allin every game but the way the matchup plays is just bullshit atm.
No, you sound like a troll to me really, if you think Byun should have had a chance vs Curious that game. He had bad economy and no infrastructure to actually produce a lot of ghosts/libs.
And yes the reason terran goes for heavy midgame pressure is because it is their strongest point in the game. It's completely viable way to play buy you will get crushed in the lategame.
I wont deny that zerg isn't stronger then terran in the lategame but saying it's unbeatable is just dumb. Terran currently had an slight advantage in the midgame and zerg in the lategame. If you want to nerf zerg lategame you have to buff their midgame. But I dont think terran will ever be happy unless they have 60%+ winrate in all matchups
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
Does zergs army not cost more than terrans bio army? Did they trade really even?
Even does not always mean they have both the same things. That is unlikely in an asymmetrical game (its not chess or tic tac toe).
Thank you Blizzard and David Kim. I am very pleased with the recent direction for the game. If the trend continues, this game is going to be the one to play and spectate for the decade to come.
if they remove the Medivac SiegeTank pick up then i want the Tank made stronger. I absolutely don't want Banshees made stronger via a change in how you obtain their speed upgrade.
What about increasing the delay between when you drop the tank on the ground and when it can fire a siege shot?
In general, any changes made to Terran should involve their ground army getting stronger and their Air army getting weaker. When you need to buff the Terran for some reason: make it a ground unit that gets the buff. When you need to nerf the Terran for some reason: make it an air unit that gets the nerf.
On February 05 2016 22:10 PressureSC2 wrote: Thank you Blizzard and David Kim. I am very pleased with the recent direction for the game. If the trend continues, this game is going to be the one to play and spectate for the decade to come.
I feel the same way. The problem is other communities already think sc2 is dead. But i believe we will see a slowly resurrection of the community (not as big as before but the community will grow).
there's not much to do about the tank pick-up. it will be too mechanically demanding to both use and macro for if there are changes like say to the time it takes to do the pickup. then there's having to use liberators in smaller numbers with that army too. they're vulnerable for various reasons and they're difficult to control in a mobile army.
the terran macro game will forever be quite difficult (rax, fac, starport simultaneously), i think buffing aspects of mech is the right direction right now.
On February 05 2016 20:30 DarkLordOlli wrote: Good stuff this week. Disruptors are too strong in PvP, the matchup is good otherwise. They will still be extremely powerful units, but not to the ridiculous extent they are right now.
As for tanks, dunno. I don't mind flying tanks actually. I'm weird like that.
Basically all big topics people were talking about are addressed though, that makes me happy.
It's because you don't watch TvT
Seriously, I don't see another way to make TvT good again than removing tankivacs. No composition is more efficient and seeing always the same 3 units in the match up is just bad (esp. when it was arguably the most diverse matchup back in LotV)
As for people whining about PvZ, we only have few days of match history, trying to fix it now would be a shot in the dark and would risk doing more bad then good. I don't care waiting for a few weeks to see how exactly the meta will evolve after the adept and OC nerf : we will see exactly where the match up needs a fix. + Show Spoiler +
Remember that TvZ is very good in terms of balance atm, fixing PvZ and getting an OP TvZ would be pointless. The zerg nerf -if it's actually needed - will need surgery like precision
On February 05 2016 22:10 PressureSC2 wrote: Thank you Blizzard and David Kim. I am very pleased with the recent direction for the game. If the trend continues, this game is going to be the one to play and spectate for the decade to come.
I feel the same way. The problem is other communities already think sc2 is dead. But i believe we will see a slowly resurrection of the community (not as big as before but the community will grow).
improving technology has passed the RTS genre by. when a genre goes down due to tech. improvements both the good and bad games go down with it. there is nothing wrong with this particular game declining. it has nothing to do with how much fun it is. i still play NHL '94. its still great even though improving technology passed it by. and most of the people who played it left. same applies to SC2. and NHL '94 is still more fun than NHL '98 through to NHL '16.
there will be no renaissance. the RTS player base will continue to decay and i will have had 10 years of good fun playing SC2. that's good enough for me and my lousy stinkin' $40.
the only thing that takes away from my NHL '94 time is Zealot Hockey.
I'd like to see Zealots get a basic small arc attack, similar to the Ultralisk, where they do maybe two or 3 damage to enemies adjacent to the primary target. It'd allow for more diversity in the opening game vs Z, and make chargelots slightly better in late game PvT as they'd have great burst damage onto the bioball. Zealot walls would be very strong vs zerglings to help with the difficulty in securing a 3rd, but that change wouldn't affect vs roach play.
On February 05 2016 20:30 DarkLordOlli wrote: Good stuff this week. Disruptors are too strong in PvP, the matchup is good otherwise. They will still be extremely powerful units, but not to the ridiculous extent they are right now.
As for tanks, dunno. I don't mind flying tanks actually. I'm weird like that.
Basically all big topics people were talking about are addressed though, that makes me happy.
It's because you don't watch TvT
Seriously, I don't see another way to make TvT good again than removing tankivacs. No composition is more efficient and seeing always the same 3 units in the match up is just bad (esp. when it was arguably the most diverse matchup back in LotV)
As for people whining about PvZ, we only have few days of match history, trying to fix it now would be a shot in the dark and would risk doing more bad then good. I don't care waiting for a few weeks to see how exactly the meta will evolve after the adept and OC nerf : we will see exactly where the match up needs a fix. + Show Spoiler +
Remember that TvZ is very good in terms of balance atm, fixing PvZ and getting an OP TvZ would be pointless. The zerg nerf -if it's actually needed - will need surgery like precision
+1. i agree. if this poster were 65 years old he'd still be wise beyond his years. asuming this poster is male of course.
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
Does zergs army not cost more than terrans bio army? Did they trade really even?
Even does not always mean they have both the same things. That is unlikely in an asymmetrical game (its not chess or tic tac toe).
Byun played those games like it was HOTS. He hardly had any liberators, his ghosts were late. ... Not a good game to point at as an example.
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
Does zergs army not cost more than terrans bio army? Did they trade really even?
Even does not always mean they have both the same things. That is unlikely in an asymmetrical game (its not chess or tic tac toe).
Byun played those games like it was HOTS. He hardly had any liberators, his ghosts were late. ... Not a good game to point at as an example.
It´s basically the same as zerg going full Roach/hydra mid game and eventually losing to <160 supply bio. You aim to kill your opponent before he get´s to a certain point.
Ultras should also be addressed, they don't need 8 armor it's pretty BS that once ultras come out Terran has to go back to their base and turtle into mass ghost liberator.
It really does remind me of how mech currently is - "oh my opponent now has 10 broods and vipers, i must sit here and do nothing and turtle into mass viking raven liberator because my ground units now do nothing."
Except now the issue is the same thing for bio...once ultras are out your entire ground army is invalidated until you turtle for ghosts and liberators. It's pretty fucking stupid let's be honest.
And for people that don't understand why it's really stupid - it slows down the pace of the game and doesn't allow continual unit trades to happen when one player gets out their "super unit" that can beat everything.
The only way to take down that "super composition" is to turtle into your own bullshit "super composition" in this case ghost + liberator which is also questionable at best considering how flimsly ghosts are.
They honestly need to make it so if you use snipe, it will snipe and not have this stupid mechanic of "oh wow my ghost got hit now he does nothing!."
What other race has some idiotic handicap on a unit that makes the unit worthless if it gets hit in this manner? It's really makes no sense. If i paid for a unit that unit should 100% be able to do it's job, not have some handicap in place for it to be effective.
And to top that off about the current ghost snipe mechanic...then remember your opponent is literally box selecting ultras and right clicking to your army while you're doing physics equations to position your ghosts right and try to get snipes off that might be cancelled because of bad game design.
On February 06 2016 03:34 avilo wrote: Ultras should also be addressed, they don't need 8 armor it's pretty BS that once ultras come out Terran has to go back to their base and turtle into mass ghost liberator.
It really does remind me of how mech currently is - "oh my opponent now has 10 broods and vipers, i must sit here and do nothing and turtle into mass viking raven liberator because my ground units now do nothing."
Except now the issue is the same thing for bio...once ultras are out your entire ground army is invalidated until you turtle for ghosts and liberators. It's pretty fucking stupid let's be honest.
And for people that don't understand why it's really stupid - it slows down the pace of the game and doesn't allow continual unit trades to happen when one player gets out their "super unit" that can beat everything.
The only way to take down that "super composition" is to turtle into your own bullshit "super composition" in this case ghost + liberator which is also questionable at best considering how flimsly ghosts are.
They honestly need to make it so if you use snipe, it will snipe and not have this stupid mechanic of "oh wow my ghost got hit now he does nothing!."
What other race has some idiotic handicap on a unit that makes the unit worthless if it gets hit in this manner? It's really makes no sense. If i paid for a unit that unit should 100% be able to do it's job, not have some handicap in place for it to be effective.
And to top that off about the current ghost snipe mechanic...then remember your opponent is literally box selecting ultras and right clicking to your army while you're doing physics equations to position your ghosts right and try to get snipes off that might be cancelled because of bad game design.
If snipe cannot be canceled thats basically one-click auto kill. I would rather tone down ultras, ghost and liberators so that the interaction between those units is less binary.
Muta ling bane is no longer feasible in zvt due to overpowered liberator splash damage. The fact that the lib splash damage completely wipes out corruptors too is a very good additional sign they need to be nerfed.
On February 05 2016 07:12 Charoisaur wrote: No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious? It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg. it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
Often times it can look like that but it's actually due to one player playing defensive while teching up, and the other player going full "mid game all in". So of course if you can play conservative while making it to the 3rd tech tier, and you opponent just stays on the same tech, then you should win.
and we would definitely combo this nerf with some sort of a mech buff. We could look into things many players have pointed out already such as: increasing Siege Tank damage slightly
On February 06 2016 04:23 Aocowns wrote: cant we just pls make ZvT a great match up again by making players do muta ling bane vs bio/mine or bio/tank
please
best match up ever
i think the whole point of game design is not making the player do anything. let the players and community resolve the meta, just try and make a fun game.
There are several things they can try to adjust the Siege Tank.
- Adjusting the accuracy depending on the range from the target. The further it is, the more inaccurate the attack should be. If they improve the damage output(which should be the case if tankivacs get nerfed), you get Siege Tanks that don't accurately deal too much damage from afar but punish stuff from mid-range/close. Weapon upgrades should also improve the accuracy.
- Adjust the damage based on distance from target. Same as above except they always hit, but with less strength from afar.
- Adjust the fire rate depending on the range from the target. The closer the target is the faster the tank fires. Weapon upgrades should improve the fire rate.
There are more ways to make the tank very powerful, but punishable. If you decrease the turret rotation speed, fast or flanking units can punish it before it even fires.
On February 06 2016 04:23 Aocowns wrote: cant we just pls make ZvT a great match up again by making players do muta ling bane vs bio/mine or bio/tank
please
best match up ever
i think the whole point of game design is not making the player do anything. let the players and community resolve the meta, just try and make a fun game.
The nerf of the inject and the strengh of the liberators against mutas make this compo way weaker than before and the armies with ultras or ravagers are just boring no matter how you play them. Bio/mine vs mutaling was great because it involves great micro from both side with bait, spread, split, now, you have just to A+click and clicking some silly capacities like the good old time of BL/infest... Or like every protoss do. :D The current design of this MU and the arrestation of Life are pretty depressing from a zerg pov, even more than the fantasized imbalance of the protoss.
On February 06 2016 04:23 Aocowns wrote: cant we just pls make ZvT a great match up again by making players do muta ling bane vs bio/mine or bio/tank
please
best match up ever
i think the whole point of game design is not making the player do anything. let the players and community resolve the meta, just try and make a fun game.
The nerf of the inject and the strengh of the liberators against mutas make this compo way weaker than before and the armies with ultras or ravagers are just boring no matter how you play them. Bio/mine vs mutaling was great because it involves great micro from both side with bait, spread, split, now, you have just to A+click and clicking some silly capacities like the good old time of BL/infest... Or like every protoss do. :D The current design of this MU and the arrestation of Life are pretty depressing from a zerg pov, even more than the fantasized imbalance of the protoss.
Yeah I must have hallucinated Aligulac's 41.82% PvZ in December and 44.78% in January and my own experience from ladder. PvZ is fine indeed. Since nothing is wrong, that must be why DK and his teams are tweaking the maps now.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go on ladder a-move my army of msc, oracles, phoenixes, disruptors and high templars.
On February 06 2016 04:23 Aocowns wrote: cant we just pls make ZvT a great match up again by making players do muta ling bane vs bio/mine or bio/tank
please
best match up ever
i think the whole point of game design is not making the player do anything. let the players and community resolve the meta, just try and make a fun game.
The nerf of the inject and the strengh of the liberators against mutas make this compo way weaker than before and the armies with ultras or ravagers are just boring no matter how you play them. Bio/mine vs mutaling was great because it involves great micro from both side with bait, spread, split, now, you have just to A+click and clicking some silly capacities like the good old time of BL/infest... Or like every protoss do. :D The current design of this MU and the arrestation of Life are pretty depressing from a zerg pov, even more than the fantasized imbalance of the protoss.
Yeah I must have hallucinated Aligulac's 41.82% PvZ in December and 44.78% in January and my own experience from ladder. PvZ is fine indeed. Since nothing is wrong, that must be why DK and his teams are tweaking the maps now.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go on ladder a-move my army of msc, oracles, phoenixes, disruptors and high templars.
Ah no wonder you are losing, you are using an awful unit composition! Take out Disruptors, and navigate to a chargelot/archon/immortal composition after phoenix. You are welcome in increasing your PvZ winrate .
On February 06 2016 04:23 Aocowns wrote: cant we just pls make ZvT a great match up again by making players do muta ling bane vs bio/mine or bio/tank
please
best match up ever
i think the whole point of game design is not making the player do anything. let the players and community resolve the meta, just try and make a fun game.
The nerf of the inject and the strengh of the liberators against mutas make this compo way weaker than before and the armies with ultras or ravagers are just boring no matter how you play them. Bio/mine vs mutaling was great because it involves great micro from both side with bait, spread, split, now, you have just to A+click and clicking some silly capacities like the good old time of BL/infest... Or like every protoss do. :D The current design of this MU and the arrestation of Life are pretty depressing from a zerg pov, even more than the fantasized imbalance of the protoss.
Yeah I must have hallucinated Aligulac's 41.82% PvZ in December and 44.78% in January and my own experience from ladder. PvZ is fine indeed. Since nothing is wrong, that must be why DK and his teams are tweaking the maps now.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go on ladder a-move my army of msc, oracles, phoenixes, disruptors and high templars.
Ah no wonder you are losing, you are using an awful unit composition! Take out Disruptors, and navigate to a chargelot/archon/immortal composition after phoenix. You are welcome in increasing your PvZ winrate .
On February 06 2016 05:10 Djangoobie wrote: There are several things they can try to adjust the Siege Tank.
- Adjusting the accuracy depending on the range from the target. The further it is, the more inaccurate the attack should be. If they improve the damage output(which should be the case if tankivacs get nerfed), you get Siege Tanks that don't accurately deal too much damage from afar but punish stuff from mid-range/close. Weapon upgrades should also improve the accuracy.
- Adjust the damage based on distance from target. Same as above except they always hit, but with less strength from afar.
- Adjust the fire rate depending on the range from the target. The closer the target is the faster the tank fires. Weapon upgrades should improve the fire rate.
There are more ways to make the tank very powerful, but punishable. If you decrease the turret rotation speed, fast or flanking units can punish it before it even fires.
Wouldn't it make more sense for theirr accuracy to be worse the closer they are?
Map diversity moving foward: I like the archetype concept, but so far everyone is vetoing the cheesy maps or the most imbalanced and pro series are played only in the so called macro ones. The series are not bad and the games that are played in the least liked maps because there are not enough vetoes are not better. While 7 standard maps with similar gameplay is bad, we don't need 7 vastly different maps, lets not move from one extreme to another. How about this: 1-2 rush maps, that could be considered "rush" for different reasons (backdoors, wide ramps, small rush distance or other). 2-3 standard maps that can have a gold base or some creative feature and maybe some change in gameplay due to spawn positions. 1-2 macro maps, with big rush distance a relatively safe 3rd and many bases spread out, and 1-2 crazy maps that plays out differently.
disruptor: great change, imo. But i think its best to just tune down the extra damage, PvP right now is fun. While right now disruptors are too powerful (no doubt about it) if they are "removed" from the meta it will be a change for the worse, imo.
tank: It was suggested before but maybe remove the ability to drop the tanks sieged but allow them to be picked up. They are an important tool to play vs ravagers. Even if they are buffed terran will surely just play bio vs roach ravager if they cannot escape the biles. The matchup may become stale. I suggest allowing them to be picked while sieged but they will automatically "unsiege" and ocupy the tank mode space on the medivac while also buffing the damage slightly.
PvZ: Protoss does need some buff, but its indeed a bit unclear what is the issue exactly. The simple answer is nerf mutas but if that means forcing zerg into ground compositions the matchup will change for worse. Might be best to target something else, indirectly making it easier for protoss to react to mutas. Less zerg favoured maps may do the trick too.
On February 06 2016 10:20 emc wrote: fuck their concerns about TvT, is it really that bad? I think medivac tank pick up is the coolest thing in the game and I play zerg...
yeah that the point, as a zerg you never play TvT.
As a Zerg player, i for one have enjoyed watching Tankivac play. Not sure why it seems so unpopular. Though obviously, you can't buff tanks while allowing them to be so mobile.
What if you could upgrade select tanks to have more dmg, for a small cost and then they loose the Tankivac ability?
The particular tanks you upgrade could have the mercenary skin from WOL on them to alert enemy's they hit harder.
After seeing TY use them so skillfully i don't want that kind of multi tasking to just be removed. Though i see why Terrans are making the argument for the trade off. This to me is the best of both worlds.
On February 06 2016 10:20 emc wrote: fuck their concerns about TvT, is it really that bad? I think medivac tank pick up is the coolest thing in the game and I play zerg...
yeah that the point, as a zerg you never play TvT.
seriously it's bad, TvT always been a very deep match up with wide diversity, nowadays it's just the dumbest match up ever.
Not that i've given Tankivacs much critical thinking (in terms of TvT) , though surely there's a better TvT related means of nerfing the tankivac without its entire removal.
I know it's just lore, but I still have a problem with the fact the entire reason siege tanks go into siege mode, is because it has such a big fucking attack it was considered artillery, and needs to fucking deploy into the ground to hold / stabilize itself. That's the entire reason siege tanks are immobile in the first place. Tankivacs totally shit on that concept.
Concerning ZvP, i think the PO nerf will change a lot the meta game. P need to build more army to take expansion, and can't no longer just take B3 with only 2 adepts and 1 MSC.
That means they need to build more army, and then have less economy at the beginning. So they need to make some early-midgame push to slow zerg economy, or rely more on AOE like colossus/disruptor/storm.
Need to wait imo, to see how progamer protoss developp new build order, before talking this soon about balance on the MU.
On February 06 2016 10:20 emc wrote: fuck their concerns about TvT, is it really that bad? I think medivac tank pick up is the coolest thing in the game and I play zerg...
I agree. Tanks are so lame without that. Actually tanks are the worst units in the game because you have to siege/unsiege them and that require a lot of micro, and you cannot siege them all at once, you have to split to avoid blinding cloud for example, and if you siege them too late you are dead. They are really expensive and so immobile. Tankivac is a very good way to compensate that big lack. When they are well used games are really funny to watch and that prevent tanks to get ravage by ravagers. And that kind of games are pretty fun to watch.
If you want to see more mech, you have to buff Thors because now they suck so much and combine again air and ground mech upgrade for example.
Unpickupabble Tanks need +Massive and should stagger the ultralisk. Right now tankivac is critical for Terran midgame. If you make tanks unpickupable then every last tier 3 Z comp is going to eat tanks. BLs. Ultras. Vipers. All that will devour crappy tanks.
Bring mech base on siege tank back kinda hard decision because it came from brood war and this is sc2.I believe they hardly accept a sequel which have exact same playstyle with new unit but i'm happy they tried in HOTS tho. Another thing is how we solve the rest if we can bring back old style ?We can't just torn down air unit and caster because very little interact in that way.If we torn down them meanwhile buff mech so how another race win again mech ?Everyone just asking for buff and nerf but never mention this issue.We need a huge redesign on another race too and that why i think bring back brood war mech style is very hard decision because this is sc2.
On February 06 2016 05:10 Djangoobie wrote: There are several things they can try to adjust the Siege Tank.
- Adjusting the accuracy depending on the range from the target. The further it is, the more inaccurate the attack should be. If they improve the damage output(which should be the case if tankivacs get nerfed), you get Siege Tanks that don't accurately deal too much damage from afar but punish stuff from mid-range/close. Weapon upgrades should also improve the accuracy.
- Adjust the damage based on distance from target. Same as above except they always hit, but with less strength from afar.
- Adjust the fire rate depending on the range from the target. The closer the target is the faster the tank fires. Weapon upgrades should improve the fire rate.
There are more ways to make the tank very powerful, but punishable. If you decrease the turret rotation speed, fast or flanking units can punish it before it even fires.
Wouldn't it make more sense for theirr accuracy to be worse the closer they are?
They still won't fire at melee units(like zerglings) when close. If the turret rotates slower, fast units can flank it. I forgot to mention the falloff range should be added to the range, not subtracted.
If they increase the damage output and the range, I don't want them to be too powerful from a distance. You get boring camping games where one tank outranges the other.
I photoshopped what I meant on a screenshot I found at google. In the inner circle radius the stats should be 100%(accuracy/damage or fire rate). In the second circle it should be lower. Maybe something up to 30% at the end of the circle.
On February 06 2016 04:54 Loccstana wrote: I would like to see a siege tank range buff to 16 units and also a single target damage increase.
I like it for 2 reasons: 1) it doesn't punish enemies as much for getting into range as a damage buff would but it does make it more of a commitment to attack into a sieged position. 2) it still requires T to have additional vision (which isn't free). This could add some good trade dynamics.
I'd also have this be a tech-lab upgrade (maybe armory requirement).
or you could make tanks fire 2x slower whilst having huge impact when they actually hit and making them micro-worthy for player (positioning) and opponent (baiting shots before attacking en mass)
i.e. the same as broodwar tanks not these machine-gun tanks you guys have in sc2
i have no idea what you're talking about but BW tanks do it right in every way and it might be because they fire much much slower than sc2 tanks (afaik) :|
Meanwhile the best idea since the Hydraroach got ignored
On February 05 2016 09:37 Penev wrote: Remove tankivacs but still have Medivacs be able to attach to a sieged tank. It then can function as a shield against corrosive bile
On February 05 2016 09:37 Penev wrote: Remove tankivacs but still have Medivacs be able to attach to a sieged tank. It then can function as a shield against corrosive bile
On February 06 2016 19:31 Penev wrote: Meanwhile the best idea since the Hydraroach got ignored
On February 05 2016 09:37 Penev wrote: Remove tankivacs but still have Medivacs be able to attach to a sieged tank. It then can function as a shield against corrosive bile
Tank needs to be revised from its current "fast firing, low damage" to "slow firing, high damage" variant. Brood War Tank has less DPS then SC2 Tank. So what exactly is wrong with the Tank as we know it?
I'm going to quote a great post by TerranicII on Blizzard forums that sums up my thoughts better then anything, since I'm not a native English speaker. + Show Spoiler +
That doesn't matter. Tanks are strongest when there are enough of them to one-shot a unit. They operate on burst and killing power, not DPS. The rule of thumb for Tanks is that you want enough Tanks to one-shot any armored or large unit the enemy throws at you, or a multiple of that number. Anything less is very inefficient in practice, regardless of the attack rate, and other support units (Hellbats, Vultures, Goliaths, etc) should be used to hold or kill the other units (mostly light or squishy units) the enemy will use.
Brood War Tanks killed units in fewer shots, so players needed less of them for critical mass. Brood War Terran only needed 2 Tanks to one-shot most units in TvZ and TvT, and 3 shots for Dragoons and Reavers in TvP. Terran never needed more than 6 Tanks (Archon or Ultralisk) for critical mass in any match-up. Thismade mech very versatile.
The StarCraft II Tank is much weaker: Terran needs up to 11 Tanks for critical mass in TvP (this used to be 14 with hardened shields), and up to 10 for critical mass in TvZ. These same numbers would be 6(5 with upgrades) and 8 (7 with upgrades) for the old Tank. The critical mass for SC2 against squishier units is also 3 or 4 in every match-up instead of 2/3. - SC2 Tanks also cost more supply, meaning that mech has less army (less Tanks and less support). Taken together, Terran needs almost twice the supply of Tanks for the same effect in most match-ups. - StarCraft II Tanks also hit in a smaller area. Brood War units hit in squares rather than circles, so the StarCraft II Tank would need an outer splash radius of 1.41 to cover the same area as its Brood War predecessor. The attack range follows the same principles, and SC2 Tanks would need about 13.54 range for the same coverage. - The attack rate change is not that much. The old Tank fired with an attack cooldown of about 4.166 seconds (normal time) when translated into SC2. That is 2.9757 seconds in LOTV's faster setting. SC2 Tanks fire (fixed) around 32% faster, which is smaller than the supply difference and the burst damage loss. SC2 Tanks perform somewhat better against light units, but that is pointless considering that Hellions, Hellbats, Vultures, both Mines, and Goliaths all perform better against light ground units by design. The Tank has an anti-armor/anti-large role in mech, and this is where the Tank is most lacking.
On top of all of this, the Tank's design only works when its damage, supply cost, and rate of fire are balanced against the mobility and durability of the opposing army. StarCraft II units are almost always more durable and more mobile, and they often even have relocating abilities (like Blink, Warpgates, Charge, Adept's shade) or abilities that punish units that cannot move (Blinding Cloud, the Ravager's bile shot, etc) that increase the Tank's strength requirements even more. A balanced SC2 Tank would be much stronger than the Brood War variant by necessity.
The current SC2 Tank is just bad.
Response: I do think that if the tank fired more quickly the lower damage would be justifiable because it would mean more frequent damage, killing power doesn't deminish with increased dps and lowered burst damage.
No, you are completely wrong on that point, and an attack speed buff would be a very bad change for multiple reasons: -The accidental friendly-fire on support would become much more common because the player must manually target many more shots (one top of his/her other micro) to prevent it. This is counter productive to mech's viability. -Attack speed buffs are indiscriminate. Mech doesn't have a problem with Marines and Zerglings, it needs more damage to kill armored and massive targets. Buffing the Tank's attack speed makes it a problem in TvT long before it fixes any of the Tank's problems in the other match-ups. The Tank's problem is best fixed by adding specialized burst damage, or even increasing the attack cooldown to give the Tank far greater burst damage.
-A faster-shooting Tank cannot be balanced with enough damage to be any better at its job. Faster shooting units tend to be extremely efficient against squishy targets (which they kill in short succession) and very inefficient against the tougher units (which take much longer). For splash damage units in particular, a fast attack rate will let them kill squishy targets in droves while anything tougher will last many waves. Shredders were scrapped because they had this very problem. They slaughtered Zerglings and workers within seconds, but they took many times longer to kill Zealots and other tough units that could just shrug them off. Zone control units need to inflict their damage in large bursts to be successful. The burst is extremely important because it allows the unit to be balanced with a high damage output against tough targets (such as Ultralisks, Archons, Thors, Stalkers, etc) without really increasing their strength against squishy targets (most of the extra damage is lost on overkill). The Brood War Tank was only successful because it inflicted such high burst damage. A faster attacking, lower-damage variant would have sucked against everything.
-Attack speed buffs do very little in the small engagements that LOTV is supposed to promote. The exact number of Tanks is always far more important than their attack rate in small engagements because they don't have as much time (not as much of a barrier, and not as many Tanks) for repeated volleys. Tanks that can ensure each kill are far more valuable in small engagements than Tanks that will probably die waiting for the third or fourth or fifth volley. Attack speed buffs have the greatest affect in large engagements, where Tanks have a larger barrier giving them far more time to fire, and the excess number of Tanks can kill wave after wave with each volley. In short, buffing the Tank's attack speed makes the death-ball problem much worse because faster-attacking units are generally far more efficient in large engagements. Faster attacking units also cannot be balanced with enough splash damage to break up death-balls from the opponent (Reavers and Disruptors can, Colossus cannot; Spider Mines and Widow Mines can, Shredders could not unless the opposing army was squishy as mud; etc).
-Buffing the attack rate would also makes Tank death-balls much worse, since the Tanks would inflict their damage
because it will kill squishy units far too quickly to be balanced with the DPS it needs for tougher targets (Stalkers, Marauders, Immortals, Colossus, Ultralisks, etc). The Tank needs to inflict damage in large bursts (wasting most of their DPS on squishier targets as overkill damage) in order to be balanced with the damage.
It is better to have a long cooldown tank with a very high burst than to have a short cooldown Tank with a very small burst. Short cooldown, low-burst Tanks just don't work outside of a very large army. This is one of the problems with StarCraft II mech.
Please no buff to another air unit.. Adjust the tank, not something that isn't even related to the role that tankivacs fulfill in TvZ (and wouldn't even help, at all).
don't increase the range on the tank, decrease the range on the lurker and decrease the movement speed of all units very slightly. Reason: increasing tank range allows more tanks to populate a given area providing more dps to a single spot, if you decrease the movement speed of all units then the tank will be allowed to shoot sooner or possibly get an additional shot off, without increasing the max damage cap
On February 06 2016 04:54 Loccstana wrote: I would like to see a siege tank range buff to 16 units and also a single target damage increase.
I like it for 2 reasons: 1) it doesn't punish enemies as much for getting into range as a damage buff would but it does make it more of a commitment to attack into a sieged position. 2) it still requires T to have additional vision (which isn't free). This could add some good trade dynamics.
I'd also have this be a tech-lab upgrade (maybe armory requirement).
i agree with this as well. It will also help to make mech more viable vs [stalker disruptor] and [roach ravenger] combinations without making the tanks instant OP in larger numbers. Would be nice to test it on the test map.
On February 06 2016 23:18 DanceSC wrote: don't increase the range on the tank, decrease the range on the lurker and decrease the movement speed of all units very slightly. Reason: increasing tank range allows more tanks to populate a given area providing more dps to a single spot, if you decrease the movement speed of all units then the tank will be allowed to shoot sooner or possibly get an additional shot off, without increasing the max damage cap
On February 05 2016 07:36 Nebuchad wrote: Please please don't change disruptors. It's okay to have some units that come up a lot, and the macro disruptor games are really skillful and entertaining.
Tankivacs, I don't really care. I was excited at first because I thought TvP might be too good for T after the two nerfs; that hasn't happened yet, so I have no opinion on this.
Pretending PvZ doesn't exist: great idea! You should totally pursue this, nobody will notice.
Not really sure Protoss needs any specific buffs to deal with Zerg, seems like an issue adjusting to LOTV and tailoring the builds and compositions considering Protoss was so radically altered.
If you aren't trying Phoenix into Chargelot/Archon/Immortal then your doing PvZ wrong.
On February 05 2016 07:36 Nebuchad wrote: Please please don't change disruptors. It's okay to have some units that come up a lot, and the macro disruptor games are really skillful and entertaining.
Tankivacs, I don't really care. I was excited at first because I thought TvP might be too good for T after the two nerfs; that hasn't happened yet, so I have no opinion on this.
Pretending PvZ doesn't exist: great idea! You should totally pursue this, nobody will notice.
Not really sure Protoss needs any specific buffs to deal with Zerg, seems like an issue adjusting to LOTV and tailoring the builds and compositions considering Protoss was so radically altered.
If you aren't trying Phoenix into Chargelot/Archon/Immortal then your doing PvZ wrong.
Everyone needs to constantly adjust, not just protoss. When PO is nerfed it means protoss must play more safely, but it also means zergs can explore more aggressive options, or they can become greedier with toss focusing more on defense at home. If after the new changes there is, as you suggest, only one good composition for toss (which I've already been using a version of since HotS), then that is a bad sign for a matchup where zergs have a multitude of choices that are only increasing. But I'm fine with waiting a while to see what comes of all this.
Hm the attackspeed is faster but the unitspeed seems also faster. I mean a siegetank can still just shoot 1 time until zlings arrive at its location. So increasing the radius would be nice ( upgrade would be needed to prevent 1/1/1 ). But still some z allins or pushes would be really hard to defend without tankivac
When tankivacs will disappear TvT will become interesting again, the only question at this point is how do you deal with ravagers?
Atm the most common solution is just to pick up the tank and avoid the bile, if you can't do this anymore how do you avoid insta kill?
On the other hand, alot of protosses are whinning about PvZ, win rate is low, the reason is not clearly identified afaik (maps? ravagers? lurkers?something else?)
Let's say the solution to PvZ could be a nerf to ravagers, it may also solve the issue of tanks being insta killed if they can't be picked up?
To sum up : removing tankivacs and then nerfing ravager may fix 3 match ups (TvT, TvZ and PvZ,...)
It's just assumptions though, needs to be tested somehow...
On February 07 2016 23:12 Gwavajuice wrote: When tankivacs will disappear TvT will become interesting again, the only question at this point is how do you deal with ravagers?
Atm the most common solution is just to pick up the tank and avoid the bile, if you can't do this anymore how do you avoid insta kill?
On the other hand, alot of protosses are whinning about PvZ, win rate is low, the reason is not clearly identified afaik (maps? ravagers? lurkers?something else?)
Let's say the solution to PvZ could be a nerf to ravagers, it may also solve the issue of tanks being insta killed if they can't be picked up?
To sum up : removing tankivacs and then nerfing ravager may fix 3 match ups (TvT, TvZ and PvZ,...)
It's just assumptions though, needs to be tested somehow...
Remember they used to mention about increase morphing time of ravager ?
In BW, tanks splash originated from the direction the unit is hit from. In SC2, the splash is centered on the unit. Example: L - ling O - splash T - tank
BW: T OZ SC2: T oZo
It means that Tanks straight out are better against most targets, lings included. Also, Tank fires 32% faster then the BW Tank. Because of this, the DPS of a Tank is in SC2 greater then the one in BW, even when you take into account the lower damage vs armored targets. But the Tank's DPS is not an issue - Tank is a unit that performs best when its burst damage is great enough to kill targets.
Greater attack speed but lower damage means Tank is better against smaller/less tanky units. It also means that it performs worse against high hit point targets. In BW, Tank fires slowly, but for higher damage against armored (large/medium) targets, meaning that you need less Tank shots to one-shot a unit. In SC2, Tank fires fast, but for lower damage against armored targets, meaning that you need more Tanks to one-shot a unit.
What Tank needs, is to LOWER its attack speed, but INCREASE its damage, so you need less Tanks to one-shot high priority targets like Immortal, Stalkers, Lurkers, Roaches, Ravagers etc. It makes Tanks better at performing their job of a zone control/anti-armored unit. It will mean that it will also perform worse against swarms of light targets like lings, but killing those is not a Tank's job - it is Hellbats/Hellions job to do that.
Increasing Tank's range will not help the Tank as much as changing it from fast firing pea shooter into slow firing one punch KO unit.
That is the fundamental reason why Tanks are bad in SC2.
prion 3rd? err, im not sure if ur noticing blizz but there are 2 . . thirds! ive never gone to the non gold first as its easier to defend i find, barely any choke. . oh well i dont care i roll with all of the punches
On February 07 2016 23:24 beheamoth wrote: prion 3rd? err, im not sure if ur noticing blizz but there are 2 . . thirds! ive never gone to the non gold first as its easier to defend i find, barely any choke. . oh well i dont care i roll with all of the punches
still nothing about invincible Nydus ? With the changes to overcharge this is imo quite an important issue. The +shield nerf on disruptors is really needed too.
The adept is still a ridiculous unit in every respect. Disappointingly, it replaced the zealot, which was a staple protoss unit in all matchups. That is terrible from a design viewpoint. It should have its strength and weaknesses, not being excellent at harass and at the same time filling in as a tanker and assault unit. It surpasses the zealot in both respects (far surpasses it as a harass unit).
On February 08 2016 09:46 cheekymonkey wrote: The adept is still a ridiculous unit in every respect. Disappointingly, it replaced the zealot, which was a staple protoss unit in all matchups. That is terrible from a design viewpoint. It should have its strength and weaknesses, not being excellent at harass and at the same time filling in as a tanker and assault unit. It surpasses the zealot in both respects (far surpasses it as a harass unit).
It hasn't replaced the Zealot. In PvP Adepts are only used early game for scouting and pressure, I can't even remember the last time I saw someone get the Adept upgrade in PvP. In PvZ Adepts are strong but they aren't that great army units unlike Chargelots which are the core of most PvZ armies these days. Really PvT is the only matchup where Adepts are good core army units.
On February 08 2016 09:46 cheekymonkey wrote: The adept is still a ridiculous unit in every respect. Disappointingly, it replaced the zealot, which was a staple protoss unit in all matchups. That is terrible from a design viewpoint. It should have its strength and weaknesses, not being excellent at harass and at the same time filling in as a tanker and assault unit. It surpasses the zealot in both respects (far surpasses it as a harass unit).
nah it's inferior as a damage dealer. Lategame armies usually don't have adepts because even the 25 gas are precious. It's a tank that can hit various timings in PvT (and to a lesser extent PvZ). But it doesn't replace the zealot at all. As others pointed out, no one goes adepts in PvP past the early game skirmishes.
It seems like the main issue for TvT has to do with mass drops into your base that can't be stopped unless your whole army is waiting in your base. I think this is an issue with the speedvac, more so than tanks or the pick up and drops style. If you remove the speedvac then this will allow for the pickup siege tank tactics and allow for defending your base from doom drops.
The main issue with tanks vs ravagers is corrosive bile. It's not overpowered at all, however, the low cool down allows for a lot of spamming. It would be great to make the cool down longer. Zerg can still crack open a front wall, hit a few tanks, without completely ending the game. This also allows the defender to have a short window of time to try and regroup. This would also make force-field vs corrosive bile more interesting as players will be forced to make decisions on the fly.
On February 09 2016 05:16 ShoNuff23 wrote: It seems like the main issue for TvT has to do with mass drops into your base that can't be stopped unless your whole army is waiting in your base. I think this is an issue with the speedvac, more so than tanks or the pick up and drops style. If you remove the speedvac then this will allow for the pickup siege tank tactics and allow for defending your base from doom drops.
The main issue with tanks vs ravagers is corrosive bile. It's not overpowered at all, however, the low cool down allows for a lot of spamming. It would be great to make the cool down longer. Zerg can still crack open a front wall, hit a few tanks, without completely ending the game. This also allows the defender to have a short window of time to try and regroup. This would also make force-field vs corrosive bile more interesting as players will be forced to make decisions on the fly.
The problem with slow Medivacs is that ... well, they're actually slow. They're slower than Mutas, Phoenix, Stalkers, warp prism... and unlike WP, they expose critical army resources to being sniped in transit.
If you're ensuring that fewer drops get to the target, and fewer drops get back safely, then there have to be more drops to compensate. Meaning probably a significant buff to MULEs. Which would make stuff like Hellbat pushes way stronger, and nobody wants that.
...
I really wish Blizzard would try just increasing the delay before a dropped sieged tank can fire. HotS TvT produced amazing games. Just put the fear of defensive bio back into sieged tanks and that should make a huge difference.
When in siege mode, the range of the siege tank increases by 1 from its base range every second, up till a maximum range of 18. Attacking causes the the range increase to reset back to 0.
What does this upgrade do? It enables the siege tank to attack from long range, yet makes things balanced by increasing the cooldown of being able to fire again at the same range. The siege tank can attack units in 13 range with 3 sec cooldown, 15 range with 5 second cooldown, etc, up till 18 range with 8 second cooldown.
This would create very interesting game dynamics where a Terran can slow siege a target while the opponent tries to exploit the siege tank's long cooldown to try to rush in and attack.
On February 09 2016 05:16 ShoNuff23 wrote: It seems like the main issue for TvT has to do with mass drops into your base that can't be stopped unless your whole army is waiting in your base. I think this is an issue with the speedvac, more so than tanks or the pick up and drops style. If you remove the speedvac then this will allow for the pickup siege tank tactics and allow for defending your base from doom drops.
The main issue with tanks vs ravagers is corrosive bile. It's not overpowered at all, however, the low cool down allows for a lot of spamming. It would be great to make the cool down longer. Zerg can still crack open a front wall, hit a few tanks, without completely ending the game. This also allows the defender to have a short window of time to try and regroup. This would also make force-field vs corrosive bile more interesting as players will be forced to make decisions on the fly.
No that's not the main issue at all. Doom drop always existed, and now you can defend them by simply droping your own tanks for defense.
In HotS when your opponent had tanks sieged in your main, it was very difficult to not loose. In LotV it's way easier.
The real problem of tankivacs in TvT is the fact that with a marine support this compisition can outmanouver any other army composition and break any kind of defense : you find the correct angle you boost, drop the tanks and stim the marines in, and voila.
Therefore 1) you are forced to go for this composition, making every TvT based on the same 3 units 2) you don't have the global positionning strategy and map control all good old TvT had cause now it's just about who will drop in the money spot to kill their opponents tanks before they attack back.
You loose units diversity and strategy aspect. Actually, even roach vs roach in ZvZ was way more interesting than the current TvT meta.
Something that baffles me is how in the name of David Kim is the warp prism blink pickup still in the game? I don't mind it balance-wise, but GOD how stupid is it that you can overextend 5 range with a harass drop and still get safely into your dropship?
On February 09 2016 12:19 JackONeill wrote: Something that baffles me is how in the name of David Kim is the warp prism blink pickup still in the game? I don't mind it balance-wise, but GOD how stupid is it that you can overextend 5 range with a harass drop and still get safely into your dropship?
It's not different than speedvacs. Both features (pickup range and speed) serve the purpose of being able to do damage and get out of there with minimal loses.
Speedivac is dumb in its own way, but at least you can't pickup from a safe distance without commiting the dropship. Even with the boost, you can't drop to close without loosing hitpoints. Not only with the prism can you do that, but half its healthpool regenerates AND with the speed it's like a permaboosted medivac, so I think my point stands...
On February 09 2016 12:19 JackONeill wrote: Something that baffles me is how in the name of David Kim is the warp prism blink pickup still in the game? I don't mind it balance-wise, but GOD how stupid is it that you can overextend 5 range with a harass drop and still get safely into your dropship?
It's not different than speedvacs. Both features (pickup range and speed) serve the purpose of being able to do damage and get out of there with minimal loses.
That the is the purpose of warp prism speed upgrade. Pickup range buff is overkill and rewards poor play.
On February 09 2016 12:19 JackONeill wrote: Something that baffles me is how in the name of David Kim is the warp prism blink pickup still in the game? I don't mind it balance-wise, but GOD how stupid is it that you can overextend 5 range with a harass drop and still get safely into your dropship?
It's not different than speedvacs. Both features (pickup range and speed) serve the purpose of being able to do damage and get out of there with minimal loses.
That the is the purpose of warp prism speed upgrade. Pickup range buff is overkill and rewards poor play.
Pickup range allows for Protoss harass, which wasn't possible before, due to slow movement speed of Protoss units. If you remember, there was only WP harass in WoL/HotS in the late game with chargelots. Now, thanks to pickup range we see Protoss harass which is similar to medivac harass from Terran, which is a good thing, since it allows for more dynamic games, instead of turtlefest with Deathball vs Deathball. WP speed upgrade minimizes the risk of losing high cost units, like disruptors and HTs, but it does nothing for early game harass, because it comes too late.
On February 09 2016 12:42 JackONeill wrote: Speedivac is dumb in its own way, but at least you can't pickup from a safe distance without commiting the dropship. Even with the boost, you can't drop to close without loosing hitpoints. Not only with the prism can you do that, but half its healthpool regenerates AND with the speed it's like a permaboosted medivac, so I think my point stands...
And which point is that, that the Protoss dropship unit is different than Terran dropship unit? If you want to play an RTS game with different "skins" instead of truly different races, there are a number of other games out there. But if you want an RTS with asymmetric race design, then you have to accept that different races work differently and need units with different stats and features to be balanced.
What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
cheddartoss. I cannot count the games protoss won because of warpprism sentry warpin at the ramp. Dt harass with warpprism was also a thing. And in midgame you often had a warpprism to harass terran. It was already fine in HotS and is now a bit stronger in combination with adepts and also because the defense is stronger with pylon overcharge and tanky adepts. But pickuprange... The warpprism already has an advantage compared to for example medivacdrops. You do just invest 200 minerals after the tech is done. If you send in a full medivac you invest more and you have to think about how much it will hurt my core army, am i going to be attacked etc. This is completely not the thing for warpprisms. you can decide just outside of the base if you want to fill it with units and then warpin and how many units you want to warpin at this moment or if you want to warp in at home to defend. The later the stage of the game the more units you can warpin. That can also be a thing for the other races. That is all fine and that is what i like about the warpprism. Each race has different drop potentials. But if you have the pickuprange it is a little bit too unforgiving.
It would be fine for me if other things of the protoss army were buffed instead and this one gets nerfed.
We all want a mech/ tank buff but then bio + tank compositions get too strong.
The thing to do then is to nerf bio by standards of logic. In the current scenario I would think about increasing marauder gas costs to something like 50 or inbetween 25 and 50. Introduce a late upgrade for marauders that justifies their higher costs in lategame (e.g. which unlocks after 3-3 bio is researched).
The same thing about liberator and ravagers. Liberators need to be nerfed severely from a design point of view. They are just alot too strong when comparing them with banshees and vikings.
Zerg roach/hydra style actually needed something to better deal with bio and bio drops and not something to better deal with mech.
Therefore: Roaches should morph into lurkers and hydras into ravagers (of course balance adustments for both units in their new position). - Lurker morphing only with lair or even after lair+upgrade like in BW. - It is wrong to assume that lurkers must stay on hydras as they were on hydras in BW. Hydras were a t1 unit and now are a t2 unit. The new t1 unit that is on the position the hydra was in BW is the roach. Lurkers wont get a good position in the meta when they stay on top of t2 hydras. Ravagers should come later into the game in order to face mech style and not as early as now. Another option is to switch hydra and roach position, but I don't like that one. Then liberators must get adjusted to this.
On February 09 2016 21:16 SpecKROELLchen wrote: cheddartoss. I cannot count the games protoss won because of warpprism sentry warpin at the ramp. Dt harass with warpprism was also a thing. And in midgame you often had a warpprism to harass terran. It was already fine in HotS and is now a bit stronger in combination with adepts and also because the defense is stronger with pylon overcharge and tanky adepts. But pickuprange... The warpprism already has an advantage compared to for example medivacdrops. You do just invest 200 minerals after the tech is done. If you send in a full medivac you invest more and you have to think about how much it will hurt my core army, am i going to be attacked etc. This is completely not the thing for warpprisms. you can decide just outside of the base if you want to fill it with units and then warpin and how many units you want to warpin at this moment or if you want to warp in at home to defend. The later the stage of the game the more units you can warpin. That can also be a thing for the other races. That is all fine and that is what i like about the warpprism. Each race has different drop potentials. But if you have the pickuprange it is a little bit too unforgiving.
It would be fine for me if other things of the protoss army were buffed instead and this one gets nerfed.
Sentry at the ramp is a gimmick which I hate very much and DT drop is a risky drop. Neither of the two are standard play, nor something you do every game. Terrans use drops every game, since they get Medivacs regardless, because of healing. The WP has needed lower drop risk since WoL, and the pickup range is just that. It's reducing risk of losing units and makes drops for Protoss more viable. It's the same as medivac boost. For me the pickup range and the Adept are the most exciting things about Protoss in LotV. Of course Terrans and Zerg hate playing against it. But guess what, I as a Protoss hate playing against WM drops, Libs sieging my mineral line, super early speedling drops and Roach/Ravager timings. Most things in this game are not fun, when you are on the receiving end. Just accept that and stop calling for nerfs where none are needed.
Is anyone else finding these forced neologisms somewhat funny and a bit cringeworthy? "Tankivacs", "Speedivacs"... did anyone ever used a term "Thorivacs" yet? Or "Doomdropivacs"? "Harassivacs" anyone?
What? I would trade Medivacs for Warp Prisms anyday. I would like to warp infinite amount of Marines and Marauders directly to your base and do all that just for risking 200 minerals that the dropship MAY get killed along the way. Warp Prism is actually so bad design that it really makes my head hurt. Sometimes you hear people bitching about "Why are you pulling your whole army to defend one Medivac?" That is true, why? But against Warp Prism you MUST bring your whole army because there is a whole army in your base. If Terran wants to drop 20 units it needs like 5 Medivacs. This is a risk for the terran player since if those get killed before the drop actually happens, you have just lost the game. If you were protoss however, you only lost 200 minerals. AT LEAST Warp Prism should cost some gas. Warp Prism is ultimately the best dropship in the game and design-wise, most retarded.
On February 09 2016 12:19 JackONeill wrote: Something that baffles me is how in the name of David Kim is the warp prism blink pickup still in the game? I don't mind it balance-wise, but GOD how stupid is it that you can overextend 5 range with a harass drop and still get safely into your dropship?
It's not different than speedvacs. Both features (pickup range and speed) serve the purpose of being able to do damage and get out of there with minimal loses.
That the is the purpose of warp prism speed upgrade. Pickup range buff is overkill and rewards poor play.
Pickup range allows for Protoss harass, which wasn't possible before, due to slow movement speed of Protoss units. If you remember, there was only WP harass in WoL/HotS in the late game with chargelots. Now, thanks to pickup range we see Protoss harass which is similar to medivac harass from Terran, which is a good thing, since it allows for more dynamic games, instead of turtlefest with Deathball vs Deathball. WP speed upgrade minimizes the risk of losing high cost units, like disruptors and HTs, but it does nothing for early game harass, because it comes too late.
On February 09 2016 12:42 JackONeill wrote: Speedivac is dumb in its own way, but at least you can't pickup from a safe distance without commiting the dropship. Even with the boost, you can't drop to close without loosing hitpoints. Not only with the prism can you do that, but half its healthpool regenerates AND with the speed it's like a permaboosted medivac, so I think my point stands...
And which point is that, that the Protoss dropship unit is different than Terran dropship unit? If you want to play an RTS game with different "skins" instead of truly different races, there are a number of other games out there. But if you want an RTS with asymmetric race design, then you have to accept that different races work differently and need units with different stats and features to be balanced.
You obviously have issues understanding the concept of risk/reward/ Being able to harass without risking anything is stupid. I'm not saying it's bad that the WP is different than the medivac, I'm saying it's terrible design that you can basically overcommit like hell and still be able to get away no problem. As a whole that's the main issue with protoss since WOL. Due to the high cost of options, everything was a high risk/reward thing. Go expo => fast DTs in PvT in WoL? If the guy has 3 turrets you're gonna be his bitch because you won't be ready for the stim/meds timing. To counterbalance that, blizzard introduced the overcharge, which allows protoss to open with agressive tech but still fall back to insanely strong base defense. However, they also introduced something called the oracle, which is a high cost/garanteed reward unit. It's a unit that allows you to end the game if the opponent isn't prepared, and perma scout with the revelation if he is. So this protoss dynamic which is "garanteed reward for high cost, while being safe and with no possibilty for the opponent to do anything but suffer it" is terrible, and the new warp prism is all about that. With the speed and a disruptor, you can waltz anywhere on the map, throw a shot, back in the WP even if you overcommitted like hell. Oh and even if you eat some damage, you have 100 hp that regen. So yeah, my point stands. The WP blink pickup is terrible in design, just like the tankivac that works the same way in a lesser extend in TvZ.
FFS stop bitching about the warp prism already. Yes it is really good, yes we understand you hate watching it used against your race and no it's not bad design-wise.
It needs to be better than a medivac at dropping stuff, a core unit for the terran race that you get tons of... because that thing also heals and can be pretty fast for free.
I'm sure the reason it doesn't cost gas is because toss is the race that relies on gas the most: 50 for each stalker, 100 for each sentry, immortal and phoenix, 150 for each disruptor, oracle and HT, 200 for each tempest and 300 for each archon.
If you think about it, it makes sense that a race with weak core units (except the new adept) has the strongest units in stuff like the MSC, probes and warp prism.
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
Compared to Terran it was not possible. Now it is on par with Terran drop harass and that is a good thing.
On February 09 2016 23:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
"Unlike Terran..."
Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
On February 09 2016 21:31 LSN wrote: The old problem remains:
We all want a mech/ tank buff
I do not think it's true. What is true is that there is indeed a vocal part of the Starcraft community which wants that, but there is also another part which does not believe that mech in Starcraft 2 can be anything else than a rather boring turtle fest and would prefer not risk ruining what is already an excellent game for an arbitrary unit composition that some people want to be viable.
So basically nerf oracle and nerf warp prisms. I'd like overlords carrying stuff and invulnerable nydus to be nerfed from zerg. Also ravagers and lurkers if we're at it. From terran speed from medivacs and Liberators. Am I doing this right?
On February 09 2016 23:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:48 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
Compared to Terran it was not possible. Now it is on par with Terran drop harass and that is a good thing.
On February 09 2016 23:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
"Unlike Terran..."
Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
Is that your sole response? No arguments, just "terran bias" and "just terran perceives". I main Zerg btw.
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
But that's a problem beyond the Warp Prism itself, proxy pylons are virtually the same thing in many instances, so it's more of a discussion about entire warp-in mechanic. For me it's a little too complicated to discuss straight-up about Warp Prism only since if we're talking about balance in higher-level games a lot of factors can come in, you can have Sensor Towers, Turrets, Liberators on patrol, terran can force warp-ins on Protoss so his base is protected or his army has less risk of losing in straight-up engagement etc.
Drops with two or more full Medivacs require much more firepower from Protoss to deal with while not plainly throwing away units (and I believe that if there are more than two of them risk of losing them is smaller, you can't blink under them to snipe them without throwing the Stalkers - and that's a big risk too on the Protoss side), so both Warp Prism and Medivac assaults require precautions and counter-measures put before the attack. I'm not playing depending entirely on Warp Prisms, but the builds that are Prism-centric have to be tailored around it I imagine. And therefore are scoutable. There has to be a price to pay for leaving bases undefended, otherwise we're playing in lanes like the other, more popular games...
On February 09 2016 23:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:48 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
Compared to Terran it was not possible. Now it is on par with Terran drop harass and that is a good thing.
On February 09 2016 23:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
"Unlike Terran..."
Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
I agree with that. I also think that it can be almost no risk to drop if terran is pushing with Liberators since you can be forced to stay outside of their Defender Mode range - often you need Stalkers to prevent Liberators from pushing too far and you also need Stalkers to shut down drops if you didn't go Phoenix route early on and managed to keep them in the game at the same time. And again, we can argue like that endlessly since you can always think of a counter-scenario. That only shows how deep the game is, haha.
Did I ever decide that I can freely engage a terran army straight-up when he's dropping me and lost a Medivac or two? Maybe only in the early-game, when playing against fast Mine/Marine drops. Or maybe I'm just stupidly bad
On February 09 2016 23:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:48 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
Compared to Terran it was not possible. Now it is on par with Terran drop harass and that is a good thing.
On February 09 2016 23:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
"Unlike Terran..."
Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
Is that your sole response? No arguments, just "terran bias" and "just terran perceives". I main Zerg btw.
With the current PvZ winrate even Idra would be ashamed of playing Zerg. And yet here you are maining Zerg and whining about WP and Protoss...
EDIT:
What do you exactly expect from this game? To be able to win no matter what?
On February 09 2016 23:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 23:16 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 23:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:48 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
Compared to Terran it was not possible. Now it is on par with Terran drop harass and that is a good thing.
On February 09 2016 23:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
"Unlike Terran..."
Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
Is that your sole response? No arguments, just "terran bias" and "just terran perceives". I main Zerg btw.
With the current PvZ winrate even Idra would be ashamed of playing Zerg. And yet here you are maining Zerg and whining about WP and Protoss...
lol okay guys, you heard it from cheddartoss, I need to apologise for playing my race. No bias there Seriously though, I am just here because you said something which is blatantly false.
On February 09 2016 13:37 CheddarToss wrote: Pickup range allows for Protoss harass, which wasn't possible before, due to slow movement speed of Protoss units.
I thought I'll add a bit more comparing warpprism with medivacs, but apparently being Zerg isn't impartial enough.
Edit: protosses seem to be just doing fine in GSL. But okay, I get it. you are just an angry small person.
On February 09 2016 23:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 23:16 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 23:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:48 CheddarToss wrote:
On February 09 2016 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you talking about cheddartoss. There was plenty of HotS warp prism harrass, especially with the speed upgrade. perhaps not in PvP but certainly in the other matchups. There reason there isn't as much deathball syndrome in LotV is because of the strength of adepts and the nerf of the collosus.
Point me to a vod with Protoss harass in HotS that resembles the harass in LotV.
And why are people calling for further nerfs to Protoss, when the race can hardly keep up as is, especially in PvZ?
I love how you went from how apparently Protoss harass wasn't possible before in Hots, to how Lotv protoss harrass isn't the same as Hots. Why does it have to resemble the absurdly powerful LotV harrass, just to prove that protoss harrass existed in HotS? Why ask for LotV harrass in HotS when the warp prism pickup range and adepts don't exist in sc2. It's like asking for speedivac widow mine drops in WoL. Going to be impossible since medivacs didn't have boost in WoL, and widow mines as a unit don't exist. Of course it will resemble drops in general, but it wouldn't resemble it exactly.
But what protoss harrass options existed in Hots? Theres the pheonix and oracle, both powerful harrass options which pro protosses have used well and frequently. There's the warp prism, which could repeatedly warp in an army as large as the number of warpgates you have repeatedly. Sentry drops was a thing in Hots.. Immortal drops was a thing in hotS. Plenty of games in Hots have been won from such harrass options. So it's utter bullshit to say that protoss harrass was not possible in HotS.
Compared to Terran it was not possible. Now it is on par with Terran drop harass and that is a good thing.
On February 09 2016 23:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 09 2016 22:20 aQuaSC wrote: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the statement that Warp Prism is high-reward no-risk unit.
It certainly isn't a low reward high risk unit. What else would you call a fast moving 200 mineral air unit that can warp in an army repeatedly? It's potential is extremely high, and it isn't a theoretical potential as there has been so many games where protoss won using the warp prism ability to warp in zealots ad infinitum till important tech structures or economy is dead. Is it no risk? No, but nothing is no risk in sc2, but it is very low risk. Unlike Terran who have to risk losing the army inside the medivacs before they can be dropped, if you lose the warp prism before you can warp in, you lose only the cost of the warp prism.
"Unlike Terran..."
Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
Is that your sole response? No arguments, just "terran bias" and "just terran perceives". I main Zerg btw.
With the current PvZ winrate even Idra would be ashamed of playing Zerg. And yet here you are maining Zerg and whining about WP and Protoss...
lol okay guys, you heard it from cheddartoss, I need to apologise for playing my race. No bias there Seriously though, I am just here because you said something which is blatantly false.
On February 09 2016 13:37 CheddarToss wrote: Pickup range allows for Protoss harass, which wasn't possible before, due to slow movement speed of Protoss units.
I thought I'll add a bit more comparing warpprism with medivacs, but apparently being Zerg isn't impartial enough.
Edit: protosses seem to be just doing fine in GSL. But okay, I get it. you are just an angry small person.
I seem to recall that ZvP never had such a low winrate in the history of SC2. And I also seem to recall the endless whining about Protoss since WoL release, often times totally misguided, just like now regarding the WP.
I guess some people can't be happy unless they can roflstomp better players of the race they despise with a simple a-move.
lol mmm is the main reason I stopped playing WoL ladder back in the day. Let's not forget the thor + raven bs. I believe charge was fixed sometime after that.
On February 09 2016 23:16 CheddarToss wrote: Only a Terran perceives dropping with boosted medivacs as "high risk". And who the hell sends an empty WP to the enemy base, only to warp in directly? Till the units get warped in, workers have long been pulled and the army is on its way to mop up your units. Why do you think people warp in 4 Adepts beforehand and drop them instead of warping them in once the WP has arrived at the enemy base? Your arguments make no sense from Protoss point of view.
Cheddar ... why ... You're better than this.
Non-Terrans hate the Medivac so much it's hilarious to me. It's fun for me to watch the spin. Watch, here are some fun examples:
(1) It's so ridiculous that Terran's think it's risky to shift+click on the mini map, then boost (for free) their Medivacs at the last, drop their bio, do guaranteed damage, while getting healed the whole time, then be able to boost out for free, meanwhile, I have to split my army up perfectly and cover2 multiple fronts.
(2) It's absurd that Terran's only viable unit composition in TvP requires the constant use of an ability that deals damage to itself, necessitating a 2-supply unit--that can't attack to then heal that damage back over time and can only ferry a limited amount of supply. It doesn't get a speed upgrade, just a temporary speed boost!
(3) The warp prism is a super fast gasless doom-drop machine, capable of ferrying units, powering buildings, and warping in a limitless number of gateway units for free--all while granting a passive Blink bonus to all nearby ground units. Kill the Warp Prism? Nice. They don't lose any of the potential supply, just the ability to warp in the supply at that location. It's essentially a risk-free custom-tailored doom drop.
See? So easy to spin. It's all about language.
Here's my beef with the Warp Prism (besides it looking a little too strong). It almost completely removes the proxy pylon dynamic, which I thought was a pretty cool one. Part of the TvP matchup was finding that probe. Man, finding that probe was a big deal! Now it's finding the speed WP ... which is impossible, because it's ultra fast. The passive Blink thing? I think that combined with the faster warp-in is problematic.
If warp prism cost a bit of gas and lost its range/ability to blink units i think it would be fine. Maybe units should warp in a little slower. It is definitely a little strong. I think the medivac is just fine as is.
TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
No difference in risk? Do you even read this thread? It has been said multiple times that it is much riskier for Terran to do (big) drops. And Protoss drops less in lategame? Please.
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
You have no clue what you're talking about....
The risk to Terran is 20-30 supply in those drops, every full medivac usually has 10 supply total. You are literally putting at risk a lot of supply that can potentially do nothing if the enemy is sitting there in their base.
Warp prism is 2 supply, 200 minerals. You do not have to ever commit to warping in anything, just the fact it's on the map means Protoss can have 10 gateways in your main at any point in the game. Not to mention if you fail warp-in the warp-ins cancel and you get the money back.
Do you see the difference? One is insane risk, the other is almost zero risk.
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
No difference in risk? Do you even read this thread? It has been said multiple times that it is much riskier for Terran to do (big) drops. And Protoss drops less in lategame? Please.
They don't though. Then again most lategame bases are accessible for harass without using a prism so that's not super relevant.
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
You have no clue what you're talking about....
The risk to Terran is 20-30 supply in those drops, every full medivac usually has 10 supply total. You are literally putting at risk a lot of supply that can potentially do nothing if the enemy is sitting there in their base.
Warp prism is 2 supply, 200 minerals. You do not have to ever commit to warping in anything, just the fact it's on the map means Protoss can have 10 gateways in your main at any point in the game. Not to mention if you fail warp-in the warp-ins cancel and you get the money back.
Do you see the difference? One is insane risk, the other is almost zero risk.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home. Terran units are far more mobile than Protoss units and have the ability to retreat. Protoss units cannot retreat vs Terran except with a Mothership core. So making units on the wrong side of the map can fuck you over whereas Terran can get home much faster to defend. Terran has non-stop unit production at their base, too, so naturally there are always reinforcements coming out to hold down the fort.
So, anything you drop as Terran, you can save. If you Warp in 10 Zealots and he's prepared, the most you can do is save 4.
They're 2 very different mechanics that have their pros and cons, guys. No need to get hung up on the exact differences.
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
You have no clue what you're talking about....
The risk to Terran is 20-30 supply in those drops, every full medivac usually has 10 supply total. You are literally putting at risk a lot of supply that can potentially do nothing if the enemy is sitting there in their base.
Warp prism is 2 supply, 200 minerals. You do not have to ever commit to warping in anything, just the fact it's on the map means Protoss can have 10 gateways in your main at any point in the game. Not to mention if you fail warp-in the warp-ins cancel and you get the money back.
Do you see the difference? One is insane risk, the other is almost zero risk.
Its pretty rare for a warpprism to be killed empty, usually there are also 10 supply of units in it, similar to how some medivacs end up with 0-4 supply in them after some harrasment,
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
You have no clue what you're talking about....
The risk to Terran is 20-30 supply in those drops, every full medivac usually has 10 supply total. You are literally putting at risk a lot of supply that can potentially do nothing if the enemy is sitting there in their base.
Warp prism is 2 supply, 200 minerals. You do not have to ever commit to warping in anything, just the fact it's on the map means Protoss can have 10 gateways in your main at any point in the game. Not to mention if you fail warp-in the warp-ins cancel and you get the money back.
Do you see the difference? One is insane risk, the other is almost zero risk.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home. Terran units are far more mobile than Protoss units and have the ability to retreat. Protoss units cannot retreat vs Terran except with a Mothership core. So making units on the wrong side of the map can fuck you over whereas Terran can get home much faster to defend. Terran has non-stop unit production at their base, too, so naturally there are always reinforcements coming out to hold down the fort.
So, anything you drop as Terran, you can save. If you Warp in 10 Zealots and he's prepared, the most you can do is save 4.
They're 2 very different mechanics that have their pros and cons, guys. No need to get hung up on the exact differences.
I guess the problem is, that even if your gateways are on cooldown an empty Prism is still a doom drop that can happen at any time for the enemy. Medivacs are more predictable, and sniping them before something happens gives alot of value. They can be empty. But you know how much to commit against it to be save.
I think the WoL Prism was more then fine. Fragile and fast. Required to much micro for the macro oriented play at high level though. LotV prism is insane, it's tanky and provides Blink to all units in a certain range. Its super fun to use. Shuttling up an army up a cliff is also super easy. I mean that worked in WoL already, but now you don't even need to know the map for it.
But Medivacs have some non micro battle value, which is pretty important in Sc2. So yeah same thing with different strength and weaknesses.
But just wanted to comment on removing siege tank pickup. Go ahead and give us hovertank upgrade. Or give them splash damage resistance.
On February 10 2016 01:51 CheddarToss wrote: TimeSpiral, there is no difference in risk between the WP and Medivac drops. Neither are high risk. Contrary to your last paragraph, speed is rarely researched (just like High Capacity Fuel Tanks for Medivacs...) because it comes too late for the crucial early harass timing and P drops less in later stages of the game, because of needing to defend Terran drops and Lib mineral line harass. In most cases Terran is facing a slow WP. And what do you mean with "faster warp-in"? Compared to lone pylon in LotV or compared to HotS warp-in?
You have no clue what you're talking about....
The risk to Terran is 20-30 supply in those drops, every full medivac usually has 10 supply total. You are literally putting at risk a lot of supply that can potentially do nothing if the enemy is sitting there in their base.
Warp prism is 2 supply, 200 minerals. You do not have to ever commit to warping in anything, just the fact it's on the map means Protoss can have 10 gateways in your main at any point in the game. Not to mention if you fail warp-in the warp-ins cancel and you get the money back.
Do you see the difference? One is insane risk, the other is almost zero risk.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home. Terran units are far more mobile than Protoss units and have the ability to retreat. Protoss units cannot retreat vs Terran except with a Mothership core. So making units on the wrong side of the map can fuck you over whereas Terran can get home much faster to defend. Terran has non-stop unit production at their base, too, so naturally there are always reinforcements coming out to hold down the fort.
So, anything you drop as Terran, you can save. If you Warp in 10 Zealots and he's prepared, the most you can do is save 4.
They're 2 very different mechanics that have their pros and cons, guys. No need to get hung up on the exact differences.
I guess the problem is, that even if your gateways are on cooldown an empty Prism is still a doom drop that can happen at any time for the enemy. Medivacs are more predictable, and sniping them before something happens gives alot of value. They can be empty. But you know how much to commit against it to be save.
I think the WoL Prism was more then fine. Fragile and fast. Required to much micro for the macro oriented play at high level though. LotV prism is insane, it's tanky and provides Blink to all units in a certain range. Its super fun to use. Shuttling up an army up a cliff is also super easy. I mean that worked in WoL already, but now you don't even need to know the map for it.
But Medivacs have some non micro battle value, which is pretty important in Sc2. So yeah same thing with different strength and weaknesses.
But just wanted to comment on removing siege tank pickup. Go ahead and give us hovertank upgrade. Or give them splash damage resistance.
Ok, but while you're doing all this cute elevator micro and blink micro you're sure as hell not macroing. And your opponent is massing more roaches/MMM.
It takes an incredible player to do these things AND also keep up on macro.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
It's less risk in certain ways and more in others.
If there's a counter attack, a Medivac with boost and bio are more mobile and are able to get back to help on defense.
A Warp Prism that's just warped in more units than it can carry is totally fucked.
They're not the same. They're not comparable, and this silly discussion really needs to end.
EDIT- Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can scan a whole screen to see if there is an opening before dropping. I'm not trying to say one is better or worse I'm just trying to show you that this argument is dumb.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
EDIT- Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can scan a whole screen to see if there is an opening before dropping. I'm not trying to say one is better or worse I'm just trying to show you that this argument is dumb.
FIXED IT: Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can spend 250-ish minerals, target a section of the map, to get a brief glimpse. This form of scouting produces an on-screen warning for their opponent. All the while, Terran needs to have all the supply committed and near the drop zone, ready to go. I'm not trying to say one is--oh wait, I should describe the other: It's not like we Toss players get a 1-supply permanently-cloaked speed-upgraded flying unit that scouts and detect, or completely supply-independent zero-risk hallucinated scouts that are super fast, or--you know--the best scout in the game: the oracle. We have the worst scouting the game (and by worst I mean best by far).
On February 11 2016 02:46 InfCereal wrote: This is the dumbest argument I have ever read in the history of the internet.
Why does it even matter
Because the warp prism in a 200 mineral, tier-2 arbiter. At least the arbiter runs out of energy for a while after warping in. Warpins and medivacs totally change the nature of the game compared to BW. There is no positional/strategic play in SC2 because every position is easily bypassed. Those units are hardly the only reason why, but they're a part of it.
On February 11 2016 02:46 InfCereal wrote: This is the dumbest argument I have ever read in the history of the internet.
Why does it even matter
Because the warp prism in a 200 mineral, tier-2 arbiter. At least the arbiter runs out of energy for a while after warping in. Warpins and medivacs totally change the nature of the game compared to BW. There is no positional/strategic play in SC2 because every position is easily bypassed. Those units are hardly the only reason why, but they're a part of it.
Warp ins are pretty bad but it's undeniably here to stay in its current form so let's move on.
On February 11 2016 02:46 InfCereal wrote: This is the dumbest argument I have ever read in the history of the internet.
Why does it even matter
Because the warp prism in a 200 mineral, tier-2 arbiter. At least the arbiter runs out of energy for a while after warping in. Warpins and medivacs totally change the nature of the game compared to BW. There is no positional/strategic play in SC2 because every position is easily bypassed. Those units are hardly the only reason why, but they're a part of it.
Warp ins are pretty bad but it's undeniably here to stay in its current form so let's move on.
NEVER SURRENDER
I don't know if blizzard would still redesign 'bigger things' now that there is no expansion left to sell, but if they do we still should try to make them listen. At the start of the beta blizzard said something like this "we want to make sc2 the best game it can be" , that's not possible with warpgates, no real high ground mechanic, the horrible looking pathing (sometimes gameplay is also about the looks) and other things. We have to try
On February 11 2016 02:46 InfCereal wrote: This is the dumbest argument I have ever read in the history of the internet.
Why does it even matter
Because the warp prism in a 200 mineral, tier-2 arbiter. At least the arbiter runs out of energy for a while after warping in. Warpins and medivacs totally change the nature of the game compared to BW. There is no positional/strategic play in SC2 because every position is easily bypassed. Those units are hardly the only reason why, but they're a part of it.
Warp ins are pretty bad but it's undeniably here to stay in its current form so let's move on.
NEVER SURRENDER
I don't know if blizzard would still redesign 'bigger things' now that there is no expansion left to sell, but if they do we still should try to make them listen. At the start of the beta blizzard said something like this "we want to make sc2 the best game it can be" , that's not possible with warpgates, no real high ground mechanic, the horrible looking pathing (sometimes gameplay is also about the looks) and other things. We have to try
I like the believe the people working on starcraft are still passionate about the game, so I think they would still be open to big changes. Moreso because there's no expansion>
At some point they're going to have to call the game done, and they should want it in its best state when they do that.
On February 11 2016 04:51 InfCereal wrote: I like the believe the people working on starcraft are still passionate about the game, so I think they would still be open to big changes. Moreso because there's no expansion>
At some point they're going to have to call the game done, and they should want it in its best state when they do that.
I hate to say it but I think the best "hope" for SC2 is mods like Starbow. For whatever reasons, they seem pretty married to all their bad decisions. Counter-Strike and MOBAs started out as mods and look at them now right?
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
EDIT- Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can scan a whole screen to see if there is an opening before dropping. I'm not trying to say one is better or worse I'm just trying to show you that this argument is dumb.
FIXED IT: Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can spend 250-ish minerals, target a section of the map, to get a brief glimpse. This form of scouting produces an on-screen warning for their opponent. All the while, Terran needs to have all the supply committed and near the drop zone, ready to go. I'm not trying to say one is--oh wait, I should describe the other: It's not like we Toss players get a 1-supply permanently-cloaked speed-upgraded flying unit that scouts and detect, or completely supply-independent zero-risk hallucinated scouts that are super fast, or--you know--the best scout in the game: the oracle. We have the worst scouting the game (and by worst I mean best by far).
p.s. Love you, Dino : )
Lol I mean if we're going to play THAT game....
Terran doesn't really SPEND 250 minerals.. it's more like they're choosing to forgo 250 free minerals that they owtherwise receive on cooldown every time they have enough energy
I wasn't trying to argue anything about scouting. I'm just saying that people will always find excused why something is imba by making a bad comparison to something else THEIR race doesn't do as well.
And come on, you go after me the one time I'm not actually complaining about balance!
On February 11 2016 02:46 InfCereal wrote: This is the dumbest argument I have ever read in the history of the internet.
Why does it even matter
Because the warp prism in a 200 mineral, tier-2 arbiter. At least the arbiter runs out of energy for a while after warping in. Warpins and medivacs totally change the nature of the game compared to BW. There is no positional/strategic play in SC2 because every position is easily bypassed. Those units are hardly the only reason why, but they're a part of it.
Warp ins are pretty bad but it's undeniably here to stay in its current form so let's move on.
Just saying they are going to stay doesn't mean these mechanics have to stay at the same strenght they currently are. And I personally don't see their design as bad. I think they were GREAT additions to the game, but they were terribliy implemented to the game. In by implemented, I mean as the power of this tactic is a bit too strong in comparison to the other tactics in the game (warp-in is probably a lot too strong and I would love to see a nerf to the mechanic itself).
On February 11 2016 04:51 InfCereal wrote: I like the believe the people working on starcraft are still passionate about the game, so I think they would still be open to big changes. Moreso because there's no expansion>
At some point they're going to have to call the game done, and they should want it in its best state when they do that.
I hate to say it but I think the best "hope" for SC2 is mods like Starbow. For whatever reasons, they seem pretty married to all their bad decisions. Counter-Strike and MOBAs started out as mods and look at them now right?
First off, of course the employees working on SC are passionate at the job. The question I worry about is if their structure allows the passion to make it through and enables them to make the change that "I see" as nesscary to remove the bad design choices. In that line of questioning, I doubt I'll see it. What ever their process is, they don't seem intent to 'want' to fix the bad decisions in the past.
As for mod 'Starbow' in particular. I have personally never cared for it. I can understand the nostalgia for BW because it was well designed game for its time, but the reason why I don't like Starbow is because instead of wanting to use the good of both games (SC2 & BW), they just want to make BW 2. It feels like to me, a lot people don't even attempt to incorporate SC2 new freatures, instead, tend to going to 'remove' this and just replace it with BW things. The only thing I usually see people only want are just the UI and unlimited section. But that's just what I precieve.
Note: even though I think SC2 have good ideas, I do think they are poorly implemented into the game and could use adjusting.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
EDIT- Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can scan a whole screen to see if there is an opening before dropping. I'm not trying to say one is better or worse I'm just trying to show you that this argument is dumb.
FIXED IT: Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can spend 250-ish minerals, target a section of the map, to get a brief glimpse. This form of scouting produces an on-screen warning for their opponent. All the while, Terran needs to have all the supply committed and near the drop zone, ready to go. I'm not trying to say one is--oh wait, I should describe the other: It's not like we Toss players get a 1-supply permanently-cloaked speed-upgraded flying unit that scouts and detect, or completely supply-independent zero-risk hallucinated scouts that are super fast, or--you know--the best scout in the game: the oracle. We have the worst scouting the game (and by worst I mean best by far).
p.s. Love you, Dino : )
Lol I mean if we're going to play THAT game....
Terran doesn't really SPEND 250 minerals.. it's more like they're choosing to forgo 250 free minerals that they owtherwise receive on cooldown every time they have enough energy
I wasn't trying to argue anything about scouting. I'm just saying that people will always find excused why something is imba by making a bad comparison to something else THEIR race doesn't do as well.
And come on, you go after me the one time I'm not actually complaining about balance!
There's not much of a difference in forgoing 250 minerals and spending 250 minerals except for the fact that it's not accumulated in the course of 90 seconds. 250 minerals is 250 minerals, no matter how you look at it.
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
EDIT- Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can scan a whole screen to see if there is an opening before dropping. I'm not trying to say one is better or worse I'm just trying to show you that this argument is dumb.
FIXED IT: Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can spend 250-ish minerals, target a section of the map, to get a brief glimpse. This form of scouting produces an on-screen warning for their opponent. All the while, Terran needs to have all the supply committed and near the drop zone, ready to go. I'm not trying to say one is--oh wait, I should describe the other: It's not like we Toss players get a 1-supply permanently-cloaked speed-upgraded flying unit that scouts and detect, or completely supply-independent zero-risk hallucinated scouts that are super fast, or--you know--the best scout in the game: the oracle. We have the worst scouting the game (and by worst I mean best by far).
p.s. Love you, Dino : )
Lol I mean if we're going to play THAT game....
Terran doesn't really SPEND 250 minerals.. it's more like they're choosing to forgo 250 free minerals that they owtherwise receive on cooldown every time they have enough energy
I wasn't trying to argue anything about scouting. I'm just saying that people will always find excused why something is imba by making a bad comparison to something else THEIR race doesn't do as well.
And come on, you go after me the one time I'm not actually complaining about balance!
You're a fun target, Dino. And I definitely don't think you want to play that game. I'll let it slide this time!
Warp Prisms require you to have free supply / gateways on cooldown.
If you don't make units at home because you want to warp in at their base, you put yourself at risk of not having enough units at home.
No one wants to be supply blocked.
Terran has to take units away from their army after already spending the time to produce them. Toss can make a choice, is there an easy opening for a warp in/drop? If not then warp in at home. One more point towards the fact its lower risk, you dont need to commit to it in the same way. Its simply less risk, and thats fine.
EDIT- Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can scan a whole screen to see if there is an opening before dropping. I'm not trying to say one is better or worse I'm just trying to show you that this argument is dumb.
FIXED IT: Also "is there an easy opening?" are you kidding me? Terran can spend 250-ish minerals, target a section of the map, to get a brief glimpse. This form of scouting produces an on-screen warning for their opponent. All the while, Terran needs to have all the supply committed and near the drop zone, ready to go. I'm not trying to say one is--oh wait, I should describe the other: It's not like we Toss players get a 1-supply permanently-cloaked speed-upgraded flying unit that scouts and detect, or completely supply-independent zero-risk hallucinated scouts that are super fast, or--you know--the best scout in the game: the oracle. We have the worst scouting the game (and by worst I mean best by far).
p.s. Love you, Dino : )
Lol I mean if we're going to play THAT game....
Terran doesn't really SPEND 250 minerals.. it's more like they're choosing to forgo 250 free minerals that they owtherwise receive on cooldown every time they have enough energy
I wasn't trying to argue anything about scouting. I'm just saying that people will always find excused why something is imba by making a bad comparison to something else THEIR race doesn't do as well.
And come on, you go after me the one time I'm not actually complaining about balance!
Yeah and when you start mining in the beginning with 8 workers instead of 12 you don't sacrifice ressources. You just forgo ressources that you would have otherwise for free
Hey guys, did you know that if you call down a mule, you don't actually gain the minerals because it is removed from your mineral field, so you just mine out faster. :D
Well I was mostly just joking about how Terran has an ability that gives you 250 minerals on cooldown :p
Like, oh no, we can't collect our free 250 minerals this go around because we instead decided to see the enemy's entire base without any units. How sad for Terran
On February 12 2016 03:24 DinoMight wrote: Well I was mostly just joking about how Terran has an ability that gives you 250 minerals on cooldown :p
Like, oh no, we can't collect our free 250 minerals this go around because we instead decided to see the enemy's entire base without any units. How sad for Terran
Terran is balanced around having the economy boost of mules. It's not like they get an advantage by constantly muling they need it to stay even.
On February 12 2016 03:24 DinoMight wrote: Well I was mostly just joking about how Terran has an ability that gives you 250 minerals on cooldown :p
Like, oh no, we can't collect our free 250 minerals this go around because we instead decided to see the enemy's entire base without any units. How sad for Terran
Terran is balanced around having the economy boost of mules. It's not like they get an advantage by constantly muling they need it to stay even.
And Protoss is balanced around weaker gateway units and the warp mechanic :p
That's always what's annoyed me a bit about people who don't really understand the game complaining about warp-ins. When a Protoss warps 10 Zealots into a Terran's base you get OMG IMBA IMBA IMBA. But a Terran on no workers using MULES and reactors to make 20 Marines at a time... HIS MACRO IS SO GOOD.
Note- I didn't mean to imply that you specifically don't know what you're talking about, as you clearly do.
On a side note..
I'm kind of the opinion that Liberator fucks up maps PvZ.... any base that is easy to defend vs Zerg is also incredibly easy to get Liberator sieged on.
Maybe against Terran we have to be out and about on the map more, and not let them siege at our base. But then I feel the Adept should walk a little faster by default and perhaps recall shouldn't be tied to the MsC (or the MsC should be a little faster (or maybe just accelerate faster)).
On February 12 2016 03:24 DinoMight wrote: Well I was mostly just joking about how Terran has an ability that gives you 250 minerals on cooldown :p
Like, oh no, we can't collect our free 250 minerals this go around because we instead decided to see the enemy's entire base without any units. How sad for Terran
Terran is balanced around having the economy boost of mules. It's not like they get an advantage by constantly muling they need it to stay even.
And Protoss is balanced around weaker gateway units and the warp mechanic :p
That's always what's annoyed me a bit about people who don't really understand the game complaining about warp-ins. When a Protoss warps 10 Zealots into a Terran's base you get OMG IMBA IMBA IMBA. But a Terran on no workers using MULES and reactors to make 20 Marines at a time... HIS MACRO IS SO GOOD.
Note- I didn't mean to imply that you specifically don't know what you're talking about, as you clearly do.
On a side note..
I'm kind of the opinion that Liberator fucks up maps PvZ.... any base that is easy to defend vs Zerg is also incredibly easy to get Liberator sieged on.
Maybe against Terran we have to be out and about on the map more, and not let them siege at our base. But then I feel the Adept should walk a little faster by default and perhaps recall shouldn't be tied to the MsC (or the MsC should be a little faster (or maybe just accelerate faster)).
Meh.
It's all about upgrades, composition, and engagement. It's not that Protoss gatway units are "weaker". Marines need combat shields, and stim, and medivacs, and then they're good. Marauders needs shells, stim, and medivacs, and Ghosts need cloak.
Adepts need glaives, stalkers need blink, zealots need charge, high templars need storm, DTs don't need an upgrade, neither do archons or Sentries. But to somehow suggest that Gateway units are weaker is just bizarre. They're not. It's all about upgrades, composition, and engagement. A gateway army can toast a MMM ball with almost zero losses in some cases, and the same thing can happen vice versa.
It's access to upgrades (i.e., when they come out) that had to be finely tweaked.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
More accurate statement would be that they are sometimes weak against terran and zerg and sometimes really super strong. Saying that they are weak because they might get destroyed in certain situations is like saying ultras are weak cause ghost kill them so easily.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
More accurate statement would be that they are sometimes weak against terran and zerg and sometimes really super strong. Saying that they are weak because they might get destroyed in certain situations is like saying ultras are weak cause ghost kill them so easily.
Under that definition no unit is ever weak. There's no such as a unit that is weak regardless of the situation.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
More accurate statement would be that they are sometimes weak against terran and zerg and sometimes really super strong. Saying that they are weak because they might get destroyed in certain situations is like saying ultras are weak cause ghost kill them so easily.
Under that definition no unit is ever weak. There's no such as a unit that is weak regardless of the situation.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
Why, Dino? Why?!
Units that can be built from the barracks: Marine, Marauder, Reaper, Ghost.
Units that can be built from the Gateway / Warpgate (or are directly derived): Zealot, Adept, Stalker, Sentry, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archon.
Gateway units fucking shrecktify barracks units in so many situations. Adepts are ridiculously strong in the early game and gliaves makes them meaty DPS units later on. Chargelots do guaranteed damage now and also mitigate DPS by forcing micro, the Stalker is a skill unit, the Sentry is a crowd control / DPS mitigating spellcaster, High Templar obviously has splash with Storm, Dark Templar is advanced late-game harass / early-game cheese, and the Archon is a front-line auto-healing super tank with splash damage ... I'm not saying barrack units are bad, or even much worse, but "Gateway is weak" is a fucking absurd argument.
It is just a fact that Gateway units are strong. It is part of the racial identity: slightly more expensive, slightly stronger. Why even bother arguing against this? It's because people think the Medivac comes from the barracks. Smh.
The "Gateway tech is late vs Barracks tech is early" myth - Nobody rushes Stim. Very few plays rush combat shields. Shells aren't even a thing anymore. Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game. Meanwhile, it's not uncommon to see Twilight openers with robos or with Stargate, it's practically standard!
I'm actually asking you to give it up, Dino. Just give it up. You're wrong, unless you're going to double-down and say that some Protoss players are opening Gateway and that's it. No robo, no Stargate. Nothing. Just Gateway. And then, for some reason, are taking fights versus Stimmed bio with Starport support out in the open. Lol. Please.
If you're going to compare an entire racial composition (i.e., bio with starport support) to one tech path for Protoss "Gateway" that's fine, but it's just a weird thing to do. But even then, Chargelot Archon HT with Stalker support can do reasonably well against MMM and you know it. Then if Ghosts come out it's pretty nice for Toss to have one of their other point-and-click AOE death spells : )
It's a pretty good match up right now, with maybe a few problems on both sides, but the balance leaning slightly in Protoss's favor. Dialing back the Marauder nerf is probably a good idea, especially if they're removing the tank again. A more meaningful Adept nerf, and I don't know if anything can be done about tempest rush on certain maps : /
Correct me if i'm wrong but, Protoss weapon and armor upgrades benefit all gateway units and robo units. If terran needs to implement some mech into their composition it will be at 0-0. That's another thing that bothered me about terran to be honest. People complain that terran players don't use a mixed composition, but in terms of upgrades you pretty much have to commit to either bio or mech. Further, armories cost 100 gas each, that's 100 gas you're not spending on upgrades or units, whereas a forge costs no gas.
At least this is how its always been, truth be told i haven't played lotv, the more i saw of it the less interested i got, which is sad because i love starcraft, but this game doesn't seem fun to me.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
More accurate statement would be that they are sometimes weak against terran and zerg and sometimes really super strong. Saying that they are weak because they might get destroyed in certain situations is like saying ultras are weak cause ghost kill them so easily.
Under that definition no unit is ever weak. There's no such as a unit that is weak regardless of the situation.
meet mr swarmhost
Swarm hosts are very good against things that don't fire back
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
Why, Dino? Why?!
Units that can be built from the barracks: Marine, Marauder, Reaper, Ghost.
Units that can be built from the Gateway / Warpgate (or are directly derived): Zealot, Adept, Stalker, Sentry, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archon.
Gateway units fucking shrecktify barracks units in so many situations. Adepts are ridiculously strong in the early game and gliaves makes them meaty DPS units later on. Chargelots do guaranteed damage now and also mitigate DPS by forcing micro, the Stalker is a skill unit, the Sentry is a crowd control / DPS mitigating spellcaster, High Templar obviously has splash with Storm, Dark Templar is advanced late-game harass / early-game cheese, and the Archon is a front-line auto-healing super tank with splash damage ... I'm not saying barrack units are bad, or even much worse, but "Gateway is weak" is a fucking absurd argument.
It is just a fact that Gateway units are strong. It is part of the racial identity: slightly more expensive, slightly stronger. Why even bother arguing against this? It's because people think the Medivac comes from the barracks. Smh.
The "Gateway tech is late vs Barracks tech is early" myth - Nobody rushes Stim. Very few plays rush combat shields. Shells aren't even a thing anymore. Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game. Meanwhile, it's not uncommon to see Twilight openers with robos or with Stargate, it's practically standard!
I'm actually asking you to give it up, Dino. Just give it up. You're wrong, unless you're going to double-down and say that some Protoss players are opening Gateway and that's it. No robo, no Stargate. Nothing. Just Gateway. And then, for some reason, are taking fights versus Stimmed bio with Starport support out in the open. Lol. Please.
If you're going to compare an entire racial composition (i.e., bio with starport support) to one tech path for Protoss "Gateway" that's fine, but it's just a weird thing to do. But even then, Chargelot Archon HT with Stalker support can do reasonably well against MMM and you know it. Then if Ghosts come out it's pretty nice for Toss to have one of their other point-and-click AOE death spells : )
It's a pretty good match up right now, with maybe a few problems on both sides, but the balance leaning slightly in Protoss's favor. Dialing back the Marauder nerf is probably a good idea, especially if they're removing the tank again. A more meaningful Adept nerf, and I don't know if anything can be done about tempest rush on certain maps : /
I completely agree with most of what you say. Just 1 disagreement among that..
Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game.
In LotV, medivacs are usually available in mere minutes. I would not call that "well in to mid-game".
Your overall point is still valid about the strength of the units. But medivacs are usually in production extremely early - pretty much as soon as most of the gateway units become available, medivacs are already in production.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
Why, Dino? Why?!
Units that can be built from the barracks: Marine, Marauder, Reaper, Ghost.
Units that can be built from the Gateway / Warpgate (or are directly derived): Zealot, Adept, Stalker, Sentry, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archon.
Gateway units fucking shrecktify barracks units in so many situations. Adepts are ridiculously strong in the early game and gliaves makes them meaty DPS units later on. Chargelots do guaranteed damage now and also mitigate DPS by forcing micro, the Stalker is a skill unit, the Sentry is a crowd control / DPS mitigating spellcaster, High Templar obviously has splash with Storm, Dark Templar is advanced late-game harass / early-game cheese, and the Archon is a front-line auto-healing super tank with splash damage ... I'm not saying barrack units are bad, or even much worse, but "Gateway is weak" is a fucking absurd argument.
It is just a fact that Gateway units are strong. It is part of the racial identity: slightly more expensive, slightly stronger. Why even bother arguing against this? It's because people think the Medivac comes from the barracks. Smh.
The "Gateway tech is late vs Barracks tech is early" myth - Nobody rushes Stim. Very few plays rush combat shields. Shells aren't even a thing anymore. Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game. Meanwhile, it's not uncommon to see Twilight openers with robos or with Stargate, it's practically standard!
I'm actually asking you to give it up, Dino. Just give it up. You're wrong, unless you're going to double-down and say that some Protoss players are opening Gateway and that's it. No robo, no Stargate. Nothing. Just Gateway. And then, for some reason, are taking fights versus Stimmed bio with Starport support out in the open. Lol. Please.
If you're going to compare an entire racial composition (i.e., bio with starport support) to one tech path for Protoss "Gateway" that's fine, but it's just a weird thing to do. But even then, Chargelot Archon HT with Stalker support can do reasonably well against MMM and you know it. Then if Ghosts come out it's pretty nice for Toss to have one of their other point-and-click AOE death spells : )
It's a pretty good match up right now, with maybe a few problems on both sides, but the balance leaning slightly in Protoss's favor. Dialing back the Marauder nerf is probably a good idea, especially if they're removing the tank again. A more meaningful Adept nerf, and I don't know if anything can be done about tempest rush on certain maps : /
I completely agree with most of what you say. Just 1 disagreement among that..
Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game.
In LotV, medivacs are usually available in mere minutes. I would not call that "well in to mid-game".
Your overall point is still valid about the strength of the units. But medivacs are usually in production extremely early - pretty much as soon as most of the gateway units become available, medivacs are already in production.
Fair. I guess we're all still learning what the "mid-game" is to some extent. And in this particular match up (TvP), you'll often have a third CC right around the time you're building medivacs. That feels mid-game-ish to me. The standard opener is reactor on the rax, and then you tech, and your first couple units from the startport are usually Liberators (because Stim isn't finished yet). Medivacs and Stim are even further delayed by the need to build a usually one cyclone. You could definitely skip the cyclone and the liberators and rush medivacs, but you won't have stim yet, and if you do, you probably won't have enough units to survive the potential 2-base attack from Toss.
I guess my overarching point was that in LotV, in TvP especially, stim and medivacs have been pushed back from their HotS timing because of the need for mass marine / cyclone to "not die" and then the extra CC to "not die and fall behind economically" which is a thing right now in TvP.
On February 12 2016 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How can protoss players still be repeating this gateway units are weak myth like a mantra?
Because the tech required to make gateway units good comes much later while stim/combat shields/concussive are all Barracks tech.
Additionally, MMM just moves around as one unit together. You can never fight MMM with just gateway units. You need storm, you need disruptors, you need Colossi.
So dropping 8 Zealots is not like dropping 2 medivacs full of MMM. The Medivacs, Marines, and Marauders together are a top class fighting unit. The gateway units that you're warping in solo (no splash, no archons, no energy on sentries) can't take MMM in a fight, regardless of upgrades, unless its in OVERWHELMING numbers.
Whether you're defending against a drop with a warpin or dropping a Terran player/warping in his base, you will always have the inferior army if there's just gateway units.
Gateway units alone are viable vs bio until stim finishes or in overwhelming numbers. That's about it.
This is why we refer to Gateway units as weak.
Note - this is not to say zealot warpins are bad. THey're great at killing workers and infrastructure when the Terran is out of position.I'm only talking about a heads up fight between MMM and bio. You can always rely on the Medivacs to be with the bio. You can't rely on all Protoss's advanced units to accompany drops or defensive warpins.
Why, Dino? Why?!
Units that can be built from the barracks: Marine, Marauder, Reaper, Ghost.
Units that can be built from the Gateway / Warpgate (or are directly derived): Zealot, Adept, Stalker, Sentry, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archon.
Gateway units fucking shrecktify barracks units in so many situations. Adepts are ridiculously strong in the early game and gliaves makes them meaty DPS units later on. Chargelots do guaranteed damage now and also mitigate DPS by forcing micro, the Stalker is a skill unit, the Sentry is a crowd control / DPS mitigating spellcaster, High Templar obviously has splash with Storm, Dark Templar is advanced late-game harass / early-game cheese, and the Archon is a front-line auto-healing super tank with splash damage ... I'm not saying barrack units are bad, or even much worse, but "Gateway is weak" is a fucking absurd argument.
It is just a fact that Gateway units are strong. It is part of the racial identity: slightly more expensive, slightly stronger. Why even bother arguing against this? It's because people think the Medivac comes from the barracks. Smh.
The "Gateway tech is late vs Barracks tech is early" myth - Nobody rushes Stim. Very few plays rush combat shields. Shells aren't even a thing anymore. Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game. Meanwhile, it's not uncommon to see Twilight openers with robos or with Stargate, it's practically standard!
I'm actually asking you to give it up, Dino. Just give it up. You're wrong, unless you're going to double-down and say that some Protoss players are opening Gateway and that's it. No robo, no Stargate. Nothing. Just Gateway. And then, for some reason, are taking fights versus Stimmed bio with Starport support out in the open. Lol. Please.
If you're going to compare an entire racial composition (i.e., bio with starport support) to one tech path for Protoss "Gateway" that's fine, but it's just a weird thing to do. But even then, Chargelot Archon HT with Stalker support can do reasonably well against MMM and you know it. Then if Ghosts come out it's pretty nice for Toss to have one of their other point-and-click AOE death spells : )
It's a pretty good match up right now, with maybe a few problems on both sides, but the balance leaning slightly in Protoss's favor. Dialing back the Marauder nerf is probably a good idea, especially if they're removing the tank again. A more meaningful Adept nerf, and I don't know if anything can be done about tempest rush on certain maps : /
I completely agree with most of what you say. Just 1 disagreement among that..
Plus, stim is actually useless unless you've teched to starport and started dumping gas into medivacs. This is well into the mid-game.
In LotV, medivacs are usually available in mere minutes. I would not call that "well in to mid-game".
Your overall point is still valid about the strength of the units. But medivacs are usually in production extremely early - pretty much as soon as most of the gateway units become available, medivacs are already in production.
Fair. I guess we're all still learning what the "mid-game" is to some extent. And in this particular match up (TvP), you'll often have a third CC right around the time you're building medivacs. That feels mid-game-ish to me. The standard opener is reactor on the rax, and then you tech, and your first couple units from the startport are usually Liberators (because Stim isn't finished yet). Medivacs and Stim are even further delayed by the need to build a usually one cyclone. You could definitely skip the cyclone and the liberators and rush medivacs, but you won't have stim yet, and if you do, you probably won't have enough units to survive the potential 2-base attack from Toss.
I guess my overarching point was that in LotV, in TvP especially, stim and medivacs have been pushed back from their HotS timing because of the need for mass marine / cyclone to "not die" and then the extra CC to "not die and fall behind economically" which is a thing right now in TvP.
Yep... As I stated your point is still valid.
It's just that the economy ramps up so fast in LotV, the lines between early and midgame have been blurred. Which imo, inadvertently causes many of the balance issues we're seeing in game these days. Your not really strategically trying to buy your time with your T1/T1.5 units for a few mins to reach the midgame tech anymore, it's basically already in process/production by the time your T1/1.5 tech is available. Not very much time to utilize the early game units, as by the time you get there production is nearly completed for your opponent.
Taking this in to consideration with your example, from a design perspective it doesn't really make sense that stim is not available until after liberator, which in theory should be much later tech. The later tech is available first (so therefore becomes priority), and then you need to play catch-up with the T1 tech to be able to assist the late tech, rather than a natural progression through the tech tree.
Gateway units ALONE are bad against MMM (that last M being MEDIVACS). That's what I've been saying. Unless you have overwhelming numbers, Zealots/Stalkers/Adepts/DTs/Sentries/Archons will never win a straight up fight against MMM.
And they shouldn't. You should need to build support units like Disruptors, Colossi, and Templar.
The issue is with the mobility of the support units. Medivacs are fast and fly. They can keep up with the bio. Disruptors and Templar are not very mobile. Also, they can't be warped in. So they can't always be with the gateway units.
So oftentimes fights happen when Gateway units need to face off against MMM without their supporting units. And in those cases, they get shrekt. That's where "gateway units are bad" comes from.
EDIT - also when Terran loses a fight they can boost away their medivacs, saving their vital support units. When Protoss loses a fight, the expensive support units are much harder to save due to their low mobility. So for the next fight you have MMM again against gateway units but with fewer support units or even Templar with no energy.
On February 17 2016 05:58 DinoMight wrote: I've never said Gateway units are outright bad.
Gateway units ALONE are bad against MMM (that last M being MEDIVACS). That's what I've been saying. Unless you have overwhelming numbers, Zealots/Stalkers/Adepts/DTs/Sentries/Archons will never win a straight up fight against MMM.
And they shouldn't. You should need to build support units like Disruptors, Colossi, and Templar.
The issue is with the mobility of the support units. Medivacs are fast and fly. They can keep up with the bio. Disruptors and Templar are not very mobile. Also, they can't be warped in. So they can't always be with the gateway units.
So oftentimes fights happen when Gateway units need to face off against MMM without their supporting units. And in those cases, they get shrekt. That's where "gateway units are bad" comes from.
EDIT - also when Terran loses a fight they can boost away their medivacs, saving their vital support units. When Protoss loses a fight, the expensive support units are much harder to save due to their low mobility. So for the next fight you have MMM again against gateway units but with fewer support units or even Templar with no energy.
If both have their critical upgrades (stim,cs, concusive vs charge,glaive,blink) I'd wouldn't really know if that would be the case, adepts with glaive deal with marines very well, blink stalkers can chase running medivacs (and this have been the case since HotS and even WoL, so don't tell me terrans can run risk free with all their stuff) archons to tank/splash and some guardian shield, wich is actually very good since marines only do 6 damage and marauders are affected twice by it.
It say gateway units have more than a good chance to deal with MMM very well, add storm/feed back and you could get a very strong army of pure gateway units.
On February 17 2016 05:58 DinoMight wrote: I've never said Gateway units are outright bad.
Gateway units ALONE are bad against MMM (that last M being MEDIVACS). That's what I've been saying. Unless you have overwhelming numbers, Zealots/Stalkers/Adepts/DTs/Sentries/Archons will never win a straight up fight against MMM.
And they shouldn't. You should need to build support units like Disruptors, Colossi, and Templar.
The issue is with the mobility of the support units. Medivacs are fast and fly. They can keep up with the bio. Disruptors and Templar are not very mobile. Also, they can't be warped in. So they can't always be with the gateway units.
So oftentimes fights happen when Gateway units need to face off against MMM without their supporting units. And in those cases, they get shrekt. That's where "gateway units are bad" comes from.
EDIT - also when Terran loses a fight they can boost away their medivacs, saving their vital support units. When Protoss loses a fight, the expensive support units are much harder to save due to their low mobility. So for the next fight you have MMM again against gateway units but with fewer support units or even Templar with no energy.
last time I checked high templars were produced from gateways/warpgates.
Templar are slow and don't spawn with enough energy to cast storm. So they're not available as part of a quick defensive/offensive warpin.
Also a pure gateway army can absolutely not fight a Terran bio based army. Not with Liberators and Widow Mines.
Not on even economic terms, at least. Blinking under Liberators = instant death for all your Stalkers. Adepts can't outrange Mines. It's just bad news.
Also (2) it's very rare that a fight happens where the Terran's entire Medivac count gets reset... much less rare than Protoss losing his entire army and support units...
On February 17 2016 07:32 DinoMight wrote: Sigh it's like you guys don't even read my posts.
Templar are slow and don't spawn with enough energy to cast storm. So they're not available as part of a quick defensive/offensive warpin.
Also a pure gateway army can absolutely not fight a Terran bio based army. Not with Liberators and Widow Mines.
Not on even economic terms, at least. Blinking under Liberators = instant death for all your Stalkers. Adepts can't outrange Mines. It's just bad news.
The discussion was never about that, you said a pure gateway army couldn't fight MMM in equal terms, nothing about mines/libs or about having the gateway army being instantly warped and usable.
On February 17 2016 05:58 DinoMight wrote: I've never said Gateway units are outright bad.
Gateway units ALONE are bad against MMM (that last M being MEDIVACS). That's what I've been saying. Unless you have overwhelming numbers, Zealots/Stalkers/Adepts/DTs/Sentries/Archons will never win a straight up fight against MMM.
And they shouldn't. You should need to build support units like Disruptors, Colossi, and Templar.
The issue is with the mobility of the support units. Medivacs are fast and fly. They can keep up with the bio. Disruptors and Templar are not very mobile. Also, they can't be warped in. So they can't always be with the gateway units.
So oftentimes fights happen when Gateway units need to face off against MMM without their supporting units. And in those cases, they get shrekt. That's where "gateway units are bad" comes from.
EDIT - also when Terran loses a fight they can boost away their medivacs, saving their vital support units. When Protoss loses a fight, the expensive support units are much harder to save due to their low mobility. So for the next fight you have MMM again against gateway units but with fewer support units or even Templar with no energy.
last time I checked high templars were produced from gateways/warpgates.
On February 17 2016 12:10 DinoMight wrote: The point about Liberators and Widow Mines was not the important part.
The part about all Protoss' support units dying in a fight but not the Medivacs is by far the more important one.
In theory pure gateway should not have to fight MMM but in practice it does because if Protoss ever loses a fight everything gets reset.
I've tested pure gateway vs MMM on the unit tester and if both sides have critical upgrades (glaive,stim,etc) a pure gateway army (zealot,stalker,adept, sentry) can defeat a MMM army pretty well, with varying results depending on compositions, but always on equal or close to equal supply/resources.
Go ahead and see for youself, I've tested many compositions and get the same results.
With adept terran can't fight cost effect vs right click gateway units without liberator whatever it win or lose outside liberator's zone. Supply never one side favor for terran anymore.
On February 17 2016 07:32 DinoMight wrote: Sigh it's like you guys don't even read my posts.
Templar are slow and don't spawn with enough energy to cast storm. So they're not available as part of a quick defensive/offensive warpin.
Also a pure gateway army can absolutely not fight a Terran bio based army. Not with Liberators and Widow Mines.
Not on even economic terms, at least. Blinking under Liberators = instant death for all your Stalkers. Adepts can't outrange Mines. It's just bad news.
It's because I already won the argument. It's a particularly robust myth that Gateway units are "weak" (implying, weaker than Bio play), and is even less true in LotV than it ever was in HotS or WoL. So every once in a while we have to explain it out in a thorough way.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xfCbbxH.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n1Je9ij.png)
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jqNALcf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/uXuxh.jpg)
Seriously though, I am just here because you said something which is blatantly false.
