|
On March 31 2017 11:14 kirayao wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 05:05 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup
The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
This is the most nonsense part. As the capital of the Protoss arsenal, carriers should and ought to be strong. The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units. Mass Phoenix could only be countered by mass Phoenix, and now BZ is still evading the fact it is Stalker should be better against air. Prompting Protoss to go Stargate when the opponent Protoss goes Stargate is the same as build a similar army. There is no difference in "You Carrier, I Carrier" or "You Tempest, I Tempest". At same time, the fore one seems to have more interesting! PLEASE, Stop playing with Tempests, it will only gives even more stale gameplay. I would rather like to see 100 Carrier PvP than any Tempest PvP play.
BLZ has been evading the fact that stalker is not an effective unit to deal with the "Golden Armada". What Protoss players have to accept is the fact that stalker is the only viable ground units in many scenarios, since the other ground unit that has some sort of anti-air effectiveness is the expansive Archon.
What will happen if tempest is buffed? Well, so other issues will emerge in the future because it is too OP against some units.
|
Thor AA buff: isn't it better to buff the Cyclone's AA?
Warpprism nerf: yes please! It's good pickup range added up with its "mass recall" ability have shown to be problematic in many games (yes, I'm biased here T_T)
Voidray change: I fear that this will make the Voidray even more bursty (which is already quite insane!) than it is right now!
Adept nerf: it's about time! (I'm sure many people feel that the adept's mobility is a tad-too-much right now)
Raven change: less damage, more duration, very happy!
Tempest change: if it's only changing the Tempest's damage against shielded capital ships, then I'm fine. If it's buffing the Tempest's damage against mechanical-capital ships (which include BCs), then I'm afraid this unit will become so dominant in the late game again in all matchups.
|
Please put in Goliaths already, no one builds Thors anyways.
|
On March 31 2017 11:35 WeddingEpisode wrote:
Please put in Goliaths already, no one builds Thors anyways.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 31 2017 11:28 Alienship wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 11:14 kirayao wrote:On March 31 2017 05:05 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup
The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
This is the most nonsense part. As the capital of the Protoss arsenal, carriers should and ought to be strong. The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units. Mass Phoenix could only be countered by mass Phoenix, and now BZ is still evading the fact it is Stalker should be better against air. Prompting Protoss to go Stargate when the opponent Protoss goes Stargate is the same as build a similar army. There is no difference in "You Carrier, I Carrier" or "You Tempest, I Tempest". At same time, the fore one seems to have more interesting! PLEASE, Stop playing with Tempests, it will only gives even more stale gameplay. I would rather like to see 100 Carrier PvP than any Tempest PvP play. BLZ has been evading the fact that stalker is not an effective unit to deal with the "Golden Armada". What Protoss players have to accept is the fact that stalker is the only viable ground units in many scenarios, since the other ground unit that has some sort of anti-air effectiveness is the expansive Archon. What will happen if tempest is buffed? Well, so other issues will emerge in the future because it is too OP against some units.
Actually, Stalker is not an effective unit to deal with any air units.
Anyone still using Stalker to counter drop? Use Stalker to counter mutas? Use Stalker to fight mass Phoenix?
No, you pylon the drop/muta/mass phoenix.
I could trade the power of photon overcharge for a more effective Stalker AA.
|
If many Goliaths were built, they're already of more effect than Thor given their speed and size and cost.
Am I right here people?
|
SC2 doesnt matter anymore BW remastered is out soon!!!!!!!
User was warned for this post
|
I hope what they plan to do is really effective in regulating the game meta. As far as I recall, after the launch of LotV, Protoss players have fewer and fewer options in building an efficient army. I don't see anything in the post indicating a buff on units other than nerfing adept and warp prism. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I only have as much faith in one thing as what is offered.
Watching Starcraft played in the same way for a long time can be boring. It is human nature, and I do understand this. What I don't understand is why they don't address the issue of unit / strategy effectiveness, but solely focus on variance. As long as there is only limited number of ways to play a game so that one can be even with the opponent or slightly advantageous, most of other alternatives, no matter how elaborately they are designed, will be cast away.
Well they have not mentioned any specifics yet, so I think it's a bit premature to be pessimistic. They are only outlining the broad strokes of what they are going to do and so far I am 100% supportive of their ideas. A stale meta helps nobody.
"In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition."
This would appear to be talking about buffing Tempests.
It's very difficult to judge how effective a unit is going to be merely by looking at its statistics. I would think that the best way to determine effectiveness is to let the players see what builds work for themselves. Right now the players have decided that mass Adepts+Phoenix works, Archon drops work, Skytoss works. That's about all that works, so I fully support shaking up the meta and seeing if we can't get something better than that.
|
PvZ:
Increase the adept shade vision but make it so that you can´t cancel the shade or at minimum push back the resonating glaves upgrade. Surprise that they did not talk about lategame PvZ which i think is actually imbalanced. Not sure if it would affect PvT but oracle revelation has to be nerfed. Protoss has the all seeing eye vs. Z which makes it almost impossible for a zerg to win in the late game. Good that they are thinking about some changes.
|
Since the Thor is mostly used for zoning out enemy flying units we think it would be good to buff that aspect of the unit to give it a more clear and defined role. However, it would be important to make sure that any changes don’t make the unit too much of an all-around unit;it should be something you build a few of for AA purposes and not to be the backbone of your army.
Oh so.. like the Goliath?
It is like Blizzard never understood the genius design of BW and why everything fit together.
|
On March 31 2017 12:05 CygNus X-1 wrote:
SC2 doesnt matter anymore BW remastered is out soon!!!!!!!
what the hell makes you think that people will play BW if they quit LoTV?
BW - remastered has been out for years. It's the same damn game. Nearly all of us tried BW before.
|
Can't say I'm surprised they don't address the maphack spell attached to the oracle, a unit that can kill off half a mineral line on its own and cast cloaked stasis  .
|
None of this makes any fcking sense. We are seeing too much air-play! Lets buff tempest! But whom am i kidding, tempest (and SH) were implemented for that purpose only. To be buffed and nerfed every half of the year since 2012.
Hello, blizzard!!!! Noone wants them in the game.
|
Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
|
I like tempests (I'm just a noob who likes its big ships :D) - I would like for Blizzard to find a way to tune them so that you want to produce a few of them (4-5 max) to improve your anti-air vs capital ships, but discourages you from massing them (>5).
Maybe buffing they could
- nerf the anti-ground attack
- buff the anti-air attack
- reduce the range significantly
- increase the mobility
I guess they would become sort of like the corruptor, I don't know if it's a good thing or not..
The main problem I personally have with tempests is that they have this huuuge attack range, which I guess it's a way to improve their anti-air (avoiding ground-to-air attacks from marines, hydra, etc. by staying far away) and they are quite slow.
I don't have enough experience to say how it should be done, but I would like to see protoss armies encorporate 4-5 tempests to respond to BL play, or BCs, but I agree that the huge tempests+mothership army is sometimes too much..
|
On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote:
Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
protoss much better than terran right now xd
|
Austria24422 Posts
On March 31 2017 16:51 Scarlett` wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote:
Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc protoss much better than terran right now xd
In what matchup?
|
On March 31 2017 16:48 VHbb wrote:
I like tempests (I'm just a noob who likes its big ships :D) - I would like for Blizzard to find a way to tune them so that you want to produce a few of them (4-5 max) to improve your anti-air vs capital ships, but discourages you from massing them (>5).
Maybe buffing they could
- nerf the anti-ground attack
- buff the anti-air attack
- reduce the range significantly
- increase the mobility
I guess they would become sort of like the corruptor, I don't know if it's a good thing or not..
The main problem I personally have with tempests is that they have this huuuge attack range, which I guess it's a way to improve their anti-air (avoiding ground-to-air attacks from marines, hydra, etc. by staying far away) and they are quite slow.
I don't have enough experience to say how it should be done, but I would like to see protoss armies encorporate 4-5 tempests to respond to BL play, or BCs, but I agree that the huge tempests+mothership army is sometimes too much..
I think that the problem is that this air army is really strong and when you ad HT there is no way to attack protoss without eating a lot of storms and getting your spell casters feedback because of revelation. By the way is mothership something that protoss really needs? It just gives more incentives to clump your army even more.
|
On March 31 2017 16:56 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 16:51 Scarlett` wrote:On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote:
Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc protoss much better than terran right now xd In what matchup?
pvt pvz ,..
|
No swarmhost fixes, disappointing patch as usual. Thor changes don't matter because every mech game vs competent Zerg is them seeing you go mech -> start massing swarmhost/buffed hydras.
I mean it's nice they finally might make thors able to trade vs carrier/tempest? Because I designed mod changes and nice_username implemented them into a mod over 1 year ago for increasing thor anti-air damage/splash via an upgrade, and i had people play test it and it allows you to play mass factory SC1 style mech because thors could beat/trade vs air forcing the games to be ground vs ground.
Problem is i do not believe for a second they will make the necessary anti-air changes to thors to allow for mass factory mech play styles.
And back to point A - none of it even matters if they don't fix swarmhost. Nerfing ravens without nerfing swarmhost/carriers is pretty ludicrous lol.
Also my thoughts on carriers in PvP/PvZ/PvT - carriers are very overpowered in every match-up, especially once you get high templar/archons with them.
Zerg has no way at all to beat mass carrier + archon/storm. Not even mass neural can beat it if the Protoss sees ur going for the mass infestor neurals. You just don't trade efficiently enough.
PvP end game is mass carriers because carriers beat everything in the game cost for cost, INCLUDING THEIR COUNTERS.
I think that's a huge issue with late game across all 3 races honestly. There is no counter to end game units. Swarmhost, ravens, BC, carrier, tempest...these units simply have no counters in the game. The only counter is making more of these units because they are all blatantly overpowered for their supply costs.
In SC1, there is always a counter because basic units can counter supreme units. Mass goliaths can counter carriers, and they are strong enough that you can go mass factories. I think all 3 races "super units" and end game units should be toned down.
Honestly, if you want my sincere feedback on swarmhosts, ravens, and carriers - swarmhosts need to be expensive as hell, and given the light tag so hellions and other units can chase them down. They need a massive move speed decrease, and also supply increase to 6.
Ravens should have supply increased to 3 or even 4 because the unit is a hyper scaling unit equivalent to Azir, Nasus, or Veigar in LoL. The longer you have ravens in the game, the stronger they get, and in SC2's case the more you make the stronger you get no matter what.
Carriers and swarmhost suffer the same. Carrier supply should be increased to 8 from 6. Supply increases on all these bullshit units will prevent them from being massed so heavily, or allow ground anti-air to more favorably counter these super units because you'll have more ground AA than they have bullshit mass air.
Those are just some of my thoughts. Late game units across all 3 races are too supply efficient and promote simply massing them. Anything that is energy based or time based - infestor, swarmhost, carrier, tempest, ravens, BC, etc. should have their supplies looked at and tweaked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
