|
On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them.
lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game.
It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. 
no need to call me salty 
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit...
|
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit...
You just said that they should remove it because it doesn't have a role. Now you're saying they should remove it because it _has_ a role, you just don't like it.
Seems like you just want the unit removed rather than having any sort of principled reason to do so.
|
On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. Show nested quote +It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit...
So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game?
|
|
|
On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game?
other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun.
|
Cyclone being reverted to a 4 supply unit with less health than a marauder and there's actually people that think that's fine lol.
Until we all see blizzard mention they are fixing swarmhosts, can't take anything they release for patch notes seriously.
|
On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun.
None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either.
|
i think the real crime here is the herc never came back since its announcment in 2015 ;-; it would have fixed all the swarm host and carrier and bio and protoss imbalance
|
Live Carriers are very strong. They can be countered in low numbers but are almost impossible to counter in higher numbers or with HT support.
Carriers on the test map are produced faster but interceptors slower. The interceptor production rate does not mean much because the faster produced Carriers can build the interceptors on route to the enemy base.
The hitpoint increase is 12.5% while the slower interceptor release rate only effect the first 2 seconds of a battle. For the rest of the battle all interceptors are out. So the battle effect of slower released interceptors will only be a few percent, but the increased hitpoint effect is 12.5% (plus there will be more Carriers, since they are produced faster).
So basically Blizzard managed to make an already very strong unit even stronger, and not only that, they managed to so while Protoss player still think that the Carrier got nerfed.
|
I'm ok with nerfing the cyclone (I'm terran) as I don't like their current use, but then something else has to be adjusted for the T v P. Otherwise T is too weak.
|
been playing a lot of games on KR vs ~5.5k terrans. gotta say that i think the new thor is too strong vs carriers/tempests. like, idc if they wanna change carriers and tempests and give protoss power in other areas(though they havent really balanced that part yet), but the fact that our end game unit is pretty ehh now, vs a unit that is lower tech and does even better than it did before is very confusing.
basically, right now, mass robo immortal archon/with harass/ms is a much better alternative late game for protoss than anything else due to how strong thor is vs massive.
im really kinda confused with what they're doing with protoss after the last 2 updates. @_@;;
|
On October 13 2018 12:44 -Kyo- wrote:
the new thor is too strong vs carriers/tempests.
I'm shocked.
btw Checked the "New" cylcone. I don't think that is right...
|
The best thing that could happen to this game is if mass Air was situational, not something you automatically do no matter what when the game reaches late game.
Like if your opponent starts to produce a lot of units that are supposed to counter mass air you need adjust your composition instead of just continuing massing air.
If these patches manages to achieve that I would say SC2 is better for it.
|
On October 13 2018 14:50 MockHamill wrote:
The best thing that could happen to this game is if mass Air was situational, not something you automatically do no matter what when the game reaches late game.
Like if your opponent starts to produce a lot of units that are supposed to counter mass air you need adjust your composition instead of just continuing massing air.
If these patches manages to achieve that I would say SC2 is better for it.
Well, right now it's more like... don't build air at all as protoss except for mothership.... cuz it's complete pooper vs some of the current T units.
|
Interceptors do 8 damage instead of 6 against Thors due to Thors losing one armor. That is 33.3% more damage. Carriers have 450 hit points instead of 400. That is 12.5% more hit points.
The interceptors are launched slower, but this only affects the first 2 seconds of the battle. Let’s estimate this to 5% worse for Carriers since battles lasts a lot longer than 2 seconds.
Carriers are (1.33 * 1.125 * 0.95)-1 = 42% better vs Thors compared to live.
But Thors fire 20% faster which means Thors are 20% better against Carriers.
So, Carriers are 42-20= 22% stronger vs Thors compared to live.
Granted, if you try to kill the interceptors instead of the Carriers the Carrier DPS will go down. But during all this Thors will take damage or die while Carrier loses 15 mineral units. Pre-patch it was always much better to try to focus down the Carriers instead of trying to kill the interceptors. Thor has also got their anti-air splash radius nerfed compared to live.
It is bad that there is no unit test map available with the patch changes so that we can verify the actual effect of the changes. It is hard to judge stuff like this in game, since the in game experience is more subjective and other factors (economy, player skill, upgrade differences etc.) will skew the results.
But if you do look at the actual math it seems that Carriers are stronger vs Thors compared to live version. Which seems like the opposite of what Blizzard tries to achieve when they talk of Thors as "giant killers" that should be stronger vs massive units but weaker vs swarms of smaller units.
|
On October 13 2018 23:32 MockHamill wrote:
Interceptors do 8 damage instead of 6 against Thors due to Thors losing one armor. That is 33.3% more damage. Carriers have 450 hit points instead of 400. That is 12.5% more hit points.
The interceptors are launched slower, but this only affects the first 2 seconds of the battle. Let’s estimate this to 5% worse for Carriers since battles lasts a lot longer than 2 seconds.
Carriers are (1.33 * 1.125 * 0.95)-1 = 42% better vs Thors compared to live.
But Thors fire 20% faster which means Thors are 20% better against Carriers.
So, Carriers are 42-20= 22% stronger vs Thors compared to live.
Granted, if you try to kill the interceptors instead of the Carriers the Carrier DPS will go down. But during all this Thors will take damage or die while Carrier loses 15 mineral units. Pre-patch it was always much better to try to focus down the Carriers instead of trying to kill the interceptors. Thor has also got their anti-air splash radius nerfed compared to live.
It is bad that there is no unit test map available with the patch changes so that we can verify the actual effect of the changes. It is hard to judge stuff like this in game, since the in game experience is more subjective and other factors (economy, player skill, upgrade differences etc.) will skew the results.
But if you do look at the actual math it seems that Carriers are stronger vs Thors compared to live version. Which seems like the opposite of what Blizzard tries to achieve when they talk of Thors as "giant killers" that should be stronger vs massive units but weaker vs swarms of smaller units.
ermm.. i dont think fire rate = 20% 'stronger' nor do i think adding or subtracting %s makes any real sense... @_@
edit: just so it's clear, your posts all seem to be relating to the strength of carriers, but one thing you're really not taking into account in real games is that leash attacking with carriers is much harder to do in sc2. it's very rare that u just A move carriers unless u have some huge terrain advantage, or you're fighting mass vikings and you're storming or something. So in the event you're re-leashing your carriers the lower release speed compounds their test-map ineffectiveness in terms of DPS(this is quite a real issue - slightly remedied with their slightly buffed leash time, but still sucks compared to upgrade); and of course, the reason this is important to thors now is because of their dmg/speed vs massive. so engaging and re-engaging carriers actually does quite a bit better now.
|
On October 12 2018 09:23 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun. None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either.
No terran players are making 4 cyclones for early defense against protoss. You build a bunker and a tank and you can hold any pathetic 2 base allin.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
|
On October 14 2018 14:06 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 09:23 Athenau wrote:On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun. None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either. No terran players are making 4 cyclones for early defense against protoss. You build a bunker and a tank and you can hold any pathetic 2 base allin. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
if your being hit by a proxy allin often you wont have the time to make a siege tank as terran. so making cyclones for these kinds of holds is fairly common, you almost always have a reactor rax so if you see the need you can swap your factory over to get out some cyclones to hold.
|
On October 13 2018 23:32 MockHamill wrote:
Interceptors do 8 damage instead of 6 against Thors due to Thors losing one armor. That is 33.3% more damage. Carriers have 450 hit points instead of 400. That is 12.5% more hit points.
The interceptors are launched slower, but this only affects the first 2 seconds of the battle. Let’s estimate this to 5% worse for Carriers since battles lasts a lot longer than 2 seconds.
Carriers are (1.33 * 1.125 * 0.95)-1 = 42% better vs Thors compared to live.
But Thors fire 20% faster which means Thors are 20% better against Carriers.
So, Carriers are 42-20= 22% stronger vs Thors compared to live.
Granted, if you try to kill the interceptors instead of the Carriers the Carrier DPS will go down. But during all this Thors will take damage or die while Carrier loses 15 mineral units. Pre-patch it was always much better to try to focus down the Carriers instead of trying to kill the interceptors. Thor has also got their anti-air splash radius nerfed compared to live.
It is bad that there is no unit test map available with the patch changes so that we can verify the actual effect of the changes. It is hard to judge stuff like this in game, since the in game experience is more subjective and other factors (economy, player skill, upgrade differences etc.) will skew the results.
But if you do look at the actual math it seems that Carriers are stronger vs Thors compared to live version. Which seems like the opposite of what Blizzard tries to achieve when they talk of Thors as "giant killers" that should be stronger vs massive units but weaker vs swarms of smaller units. I don't think that's a particularly mathematically honest way of analyzing carriers versus thors. You're abusing percentages pretty badly and manipulating numbers to look favourable to your arguments.
And you continue to completely ignore the impact of Gravitron Catapult, which completely changes how carriers can be used as a unit and is a big part of why they are so strong right now. Had you ever actually played protoss with a carrier composition to compare them with and without Gravitron Catapult, you would understand this. Having half of all interceptors hit in half a second allowed carriers to burst damage down units if focus fired. Blizzard themselves even said it was the main reason carriers were so strong. You could hit with hundreds of point of damage in half a second. Without Gravitron Catapult, that's no longer the case as the damage is significantly more spread out. Keep in mind that once out, interceptors have an attack cool down of 2.14. That's very slow, the same as a siege tank shoots in siege mode.
It's ridiculous to compare thors and carriers in a vacuum anyway since in real game scenarios, there will be other units from both sides factoring in. Throw in an anti-armour missile and a group of vikings targeting the carriers along side the thors and I imagine things will look quite different. Not to mention that after Gravitron Catapult is removed, it will be rare to see carriers without other air units along side to provide support since the carrier itself can no longer initiate fights in the way it can now.
|
On October 14 2018 14:06 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 09:23 Athenau wrote:On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun. None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either. No terran players are making 4 cyclones for early defense against protoss. You build a bunker and a tank and you can hold any pathetic 2 base allin. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Maru opened with 2 to 6 cyclones when he won GSL vs Classic.
Stop trying to push your narrative about removing the cyclone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
