|
On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
What surprised me, it takes one month to realize. That s why i was trying to make vids about stalkers, dude, i was so right. Now you have to look (i repeat) why stalkers is armoured, while it s a gateway unit (and considered like a fast unit with their blink ability ):
techlab => armored units
reactor => light units
gateway => light
robot => armored
zerg buildings => independency
philosophy and uniformity is important, now you know what i tried to say during one month.
|
On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities
- Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units
- Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade
- Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
|
|
|
On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics.
BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
|
On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
|
On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
|
On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
|
have they fixed the Cyclone brick bug? or can i still load up stuff in my Medivac and permanently disable the Cyclone firing at the unit I put in my Medivac?
|
On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
So a new core unit could benefit from 'cyclone anti air weapon' in order to help Protoss to aim medivacs - a more 'all around unit' compare to salkers which would need less micro and less expensive (If there s an issue with stalkers as a core unit (high gas cost / risk of snowballing))
Actually it s the void ray which have a bonus against armored (against air units)
PS: as Banshees and mutalisks are light units, it can be realy interesting (because the damage of this weapon will be able to kill medivacs and it wouldn t have worked if the weapon could counter more air units with 2 supply cost)
After patch 3.8.0 and Before Patch 4.7.1 a version of this weapon exists:
Lock On can now target air units and air structures only. Range is unchanged, and the ability now deals 160 damage over 14 seconds.
Removed auto-cast for the Lock On ability.
Supply cost decreased from 4 to 3.
Increased health from 120 to 180.
The Cyclone no longer requires a Tech Lab, and can now be built with a Reactor.
|
On November 01 2023 03:49 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc." The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
|
On November 02 2023 05:35 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 03:49 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc." The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010. then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
Zerg doesn't need any buffs in TvZ. The obvious answer to fixing TvP is to roll back some of the unjustified Protoss nerfs (disruptor, battery) instead of screwing up another match up for no good reason.
|
On November 02 2023 05:35 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 03:49 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc." The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010. then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T.
It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it.
If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue.
|
On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
Well MMM supported by ghosts is something that happens in late midgame. And then the ghost count increases and eventually libs enter the field.
Mass ghost+libs is definitely lategame, but it's a progression from bio+tank into ghost+tanks into ghost+libs+tanks and P just doesn't have a way to deal with ghost+tanks or ghost+tanks+libs other than fleet beacon tech and fleet beacon tech takes too long and is too expensive to build up (it's really strong if you get there however).
I think part of the patch goal was to lessen immediate ghost impact and strengthen the immediate impact of lategame stargate by making mothership and tempest less easy to pick off, which I think is a smart approach. I just don't think that's enough for a 60:40 matchup, but admittedly I haven't seen enough high lvl PvT to judge yet.
|
On November 03 2023 02:25 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. Well MMM supported by ghosts is something that happens in late midgame. And then the ghost count increases and eventually libs enter the field. Mass ghost+libs is definitely lategame, but it's a progression from bio+tank into ghost+tanks into ghost+libs+tanks and P just doesn't have a way to deal with ghost+tanks or ghost+tanks+libs other than fleet beacon tech and fleet beacon tech takes too long and is too expensive to build up (it's really strong if you get there however). I think part of the patch goal was to lessen immediate ghost impact and strengthen the immediate impact of lategame stargate by making mothership and tempest less easy to pick off, which I think is a smart approach. I just don't think that's enough for a 60:40 matchup, but admittedly I haven't seen enough high lvl PvT to judge yet.
Nerfing EMP radius should reduce the impact of MMM supported by ghosts only.
|
On November 03 2023 00:36 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 05:35 Decendos wrote:On November 01 2023 03:49 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote:
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc." The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010. then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP. That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T. It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it. If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue.
lots of pros die to it especially with the 2 rax reaper openings into fast 16 marine drop since it´s really easy for T to execute and really hard to miscalculate as Z with engaging too early, not enough queen support, bad surround etc. --> thats just 1 example of MMM medivacs being too strong (its not marines oder marauders).
if T is too weak after nerfing medivac healing rate or energy regen just buff T in another way. its not a "winrate" issue.
|
On November 03 2023 17:04 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 00:36 Pentarp wrote:On November 02 2023 05:35 Decendos wrote:On November 01 2023 03:49 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 17:21 Decendos wrote:On October 31 2023 13:08 Pentarp wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Archeon wrote:On October 28 2023 21:25 Vision_ wrote:On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote:On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
[quote]
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build.
Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard.
It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack.
Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage.
That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual. So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split). Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill) If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps. In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts. I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! ) - Restore old cyclones (for now) - Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?) I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core. You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals. It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse. Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change. Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans. definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings. Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc." The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010. then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP. That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T. It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it. If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue. lots of pros die to it especially with the 2 rax reaper openings into fast 16 marine drop since it´s really easy for T to execute and really hard to miscalculate as Z with engaging too early, not enough queen support, bad surround etc. --> thats just 1 example of MMM medivacs being too strong (its not marines oder marauders). if T is too weak after nerfing medivac healing rate or energy regen just buff T in another way. its not a "winrate" issue.
I m pretty sure that medivacs healing rate is overpowered, and i think you re right on this point, it s do-able and the risk to see gameplay unbalanced after this tweak is important. There s also marauders and colossus damage which can be clearly improved (10 + 10 to 12 + 8, 10 + 5 to 12 + 4). An easy way to balance after the heal nerf (from 4hp/s to 3hp/s) is to make shield bonus from +10 to +15. Then you can increase a very little bit the attack speed of glings to reduce the gap with adrealin glands (and btw restore +5 hp bonus of banelings upgrade).
Even if on the paper, marines hp buff looks big (from 55 to 60), you must remember that marines are only effective with stim so the real buff is more like " from 45 to 50", not impossible.
|
it looks like the baneling nerf is working out well.
|
For Terran bio, yes. Just like the disruptor nerf and the fungal nerf. So fun seeing MMM run over everything on ladder. Meanwhile zerg players in masters and GM continue to quit in droves like they have since 2020.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
As an annecdotal experience (i'm not master), My ladder games are now like 7 terrans,2 protoss and 1 zerg. (that's the last 10 games in my match history)
The ammount of terrans on ladder is absurd, and very very few zergs
|
i find playing Terran and Protoss more fun than Zerg. I'm not expecting a group of volunteers with a budget of $0 to fix that though.
I don't find many RTS games to be more fun than playing Zerg in SC2 though. So I'll stick with SC2.
During my ladder play I notice ~ 1/3 Zerg. So I guess someone likes it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
