|
On September 11 2011 09:35 craque wrote:
How about this:
The power field of friendly pylons increases shield capacity of nearby units. Like +15 or whatever is enough to give the defender an advantage but still breakable by a well micro'd or determined offense. The increase would just be in capacity, the unit would still need to stand in the field long enough for the shield recharge rate to fill it.
Or have the pylon power field remove the shield recharge delay.
Either of these would also provide some extra defense against drops and give another reason for having good pylon placement.
Except for making them OP when you proxy pylon in your enemy's base...
Just bring in shield battery. Seems to solve all these problems, no need to beat around the bush with all this creative but flawed suggestions.
|
On September 11 2011 02:40 SupItsG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 02:18 Belial88 wrote:
I never said Carrier/VR was OP, i said it was pretty much unstoppable in PvZ, .....doesn't that define imbalance?
I guess theoretically, it could be imbalanced, but practically, Protoss will always die before they get Carrier/VR unless they somehow managed to get a huge lead (in which case they would've won the game doing anything). You could also say Ultra/BL/Queen is imbalanced, or Mass Raven is imbalanced too, but they are just so damn impossible to get.
So on paper, they are imbalanced. But in any real game scenario? They are 'balanced' by how impossible it is to get, in how Zerg will always be able to overrun you with mass roaches or banelings, or be able to get their own 'imbalanced' composition of Ultra/Queen/BL/Infestor.
So no, it doesn't define imbalance. Imbalanced is something that even if the opponent knows you are doing, they cannot win against (which is similar to "a really good, solid build", but different in that it doesn't just autowin the game), and there are very possible ways Zerg can still win.
For example, on even bases, it would be imbalanced. But Zerg can very easily get expansions all over the map and just be extremely inefficient and suicide banelings and corrupters until you die.
Anyways, I'm sure many people are going to take this the wrong way. I'm not crying about imbalance or anything here, I'm just saying Carrier/VR is extremely strong in ZvP - if you can actually get it. Carriers are great units in SC2, it's just that this game is played much differently from BW. In BW, PvT was about mass siege tanks, and carriers are still one of the best ways to deal with extreme late game and a Terran going mass siege tank. But Terran don't make siege tanks in end-game PvT, so therefore there's not really a reason for Protoss to make carriers.
Just like, say, infestors. They are great units, but they suck to open with in ZvT. When Terran stops making siege tanks and being so drop heavy, and goes more bio heavy in late late game, Zerg will use infestors more (obviously I know some people are going to cry about the infestor here, but in ZvT, infestor opening is bad, that's why Destiny and MVPviOlet get trashed by top terrans who have actually seen infestor builds before
|
On September 11 2011 10:01 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 09:35 craque wrote:
How about this:
The power field of friendly pylons increases shield capacity of nearby units. Like +15 or whatever is enough to give the defender an advantage but still breakable by a well micro'd or determined offense. The increase would just be in capacity, the unit would still need to stand in the field long enough for the shield recharge rate to fill it.
Or have the pylon power field remove the shield recharge delay.
Either of these would also provide some extra defense against drops and give another reason for having good pylon placement.
Except for making them OP when you proxy pylon in your enemy's base... Just bring in shield battery. Seems to solve all these problems, no need to beat around the bush with all this creative but flawed suggestions.
For the situation you are describing, the attacking player would have to place his pylon on top of the defender's units and/or buildings. Then after the pylon finishes, warp in/walk in his units and then wait for them to recharge. Given that set of circumstances, I don't think it would be OP.
As for the shield battery, I agree that properly implemented it could also fix the problem, but if something along those lines were to be brought back I'd prefer it to actually repair the physical hp of the unit. Currently, protoss physical hp is the only hp in the game without some sort of repair mechanism. To me that seems more an archaic hold over from SC1 than a mechanic that must be preserved to maintain balance.
|
I just think anything that must be shut down by the 11-12 minute mark in order to NOT DIE is retarded especially if micro makes little difference.
I'll admit now that my micro isn't the best since I put more attention to macro, but I can see no way to micro around a Gateway army to snipe the range 9 Colossi in the back. Even with a flank, unless it's done perfectly, it's beyond difficult since the army in the front will get roasted for being weaker than it should be unless like I said you time it PERFECTLY and snipe the Colossi in the back as quickly as possible. I've long felt that out of the 3 Siege units (Siege Tank, Broodlord, and Colossus) that the Colossus is by far the most mobile and therefore the most deadly (imagine a Siege Tank that doesn't have a minimum range and doesn't have to siege in order to get it's incredible range, damage, and splash attack; imagine a Broodlord with significantly increased movement speed - that is what the Colossus is).
As a result, unless Protoss decides to NOT go for 2 base Colossus, it is completely on Terran to hit at that critical 10 minute timing. Any later than 11 minutes and your opponent will surely have Colossus range and maybe even 2 Colossi, far more than enough to roast what you will have by then. But you can't be guaranteed that your opponent WON'T go Colossi because you will often see a Robotics Facility for Observers. The could just as easily then go to Templar-based play, so in order to cover all your bases, you NEED to bring a Ghost or 2 and land a good EMP(s).
If you hit at the critical timing where Protoss has only 1 Colossus without range, you can snipe it and clear out a majority of his army. If the Protoss doesn't defend well, then the game SHOULD be over. If he defends really well, it wouldn't be too surprising if he kept his first Colossus. From that point, you NEED to go double Reactor Starports in order to keep up production so that you don't die to a Colossus timing attack. A single Reactored Starport isn't enough, especially with 2 Nexuses constantly Chrono Boosting the Colossus production.
So it's all on the Terran to aim to hit at that critical 10 minute mark so that he has a chance to try and even play the late game, while also defending all ins and retarded harass like 3 Gate VR and 2 base DTs.
And for Zerg, it's much the same issue. Colossi make Hydras nothing more than resource and supply eaters. Hydras need a movement speed buff and/or a HP buff (to 90, 95, 100, or 105). Mass Roaches can somewhat deal with it... But now you NEED Infestors and to use them to Neural Parasite the Colossi (guess what's going to be impossible to do next patch!). Obviously, getting Corruptors takes way too long unless you're REALLY good with your timings or somehow control the flow of the game really well to give yourself time to get that Spire up. Not only that, after you clear out the Colossi, the Protoss has a bunch of Gateway units and are warping more in on the way to your base, which Corruptors do absolutely nothing to help out against.
I feel like the Colossus should get a severe range reduction (9->7 or 7.5) or a severe movement speed nerf (so it basically becomes a super Reaver but also making it so the Colossus can't be attacked by air?). As if the rest of us (non-Protoss players) didn't have enough headaches dealing with the offensive power of Warp Gates alone...
|
On September 11 2011 11:02 RyLai wrote:
I just think anything that must be shut down by the 11-12 minute mark in order to NOT DIE is retarded especially if micro makes little difference.
I'll admit now that my micro isn't the best since I put more attention to macro, but I can see no way to micro around a Gateway army to snipe the range 9 Colossi in the back. Even with a flank, unless it's done perfectly, it's beyond difficult since the army in the front will get roasted for being weaker than it should be unless like I said you time it PERFECTLY and snipe the Colossi in the back as quickly as possible. I've long felt that out of the 3 Siege units (Siege Tank, Broodlord, and Colossus) that the Colossus is by far the most mobile and therefore the most deadly (imagine a Siege Tank that doesn't have a minimum range and doesn't have to siege in order to get it's incredible range, damage, and splash attack; imagine a Broodlord with significantly increased movement speed - that is what the Colossus is).
As a result, unless Protoss decides to NOT go for 2 base Colossus, it is completely on Terran to hit at that critical 10 minute timing. Any later than 11 minutes and your opponent will surely have Colossus range and maybe even 2 Colossi, far more than enough to roast what you will have by then. But you can't be guaranteed that your opponent WON'T go Colossi because you will often see a Robotics Facility for Observers. The could just as easily then go to Templar-based play, so in order to cover all your bases, you NEED to bring a Ghost or 2 and land a good EMP(s).
If you hit at the critical timing where Protoss has only 1 Colossus without range, you can snipe it and clear out a majority of his army. If the Protoss doesn't defend well, then the game SHOULD be over. If he defends really well, it wouldn't be too surprising if he kept his first Colossus. From that point, you NEED to go double Reactor Starports in order to keep up production so that you don't die to a Colossus timing attack. A single Reactored Starport isn't enough, especially with 2 Nexuses constantly Chrono Boosting the Colossus production.
So it's all on the Terran to aim to hit at that critical 10 minute mark so that he has a chance to try and even play the late game, while also defending all ins and retarded harass like 3 Gate VR and 2 base DTs.
And for Zerg, it's much the same issue. Colossi make Hydras nothing more than resource and supply eaters. Hydras need a movement speed buff and/or a HP buff (to 90, 95, 100, or 105). Mass Roaches can somewhat deal with it... But now you NEED Infestors and to use them to Neural Parasite the Colossi (guess what's going to be impossible to do next patch!). Obviously, getting Corruptors takes way too long unless you're REALLY good with your timings or somehow control the flow of the game really well to give yourself time to get that Spire up. Not only that, after you clear out the Colossi, the Protoss has a bunch of Gateway units and are warping more in on the way to your base, which Corruptors do absolutely nothing to help out against.
I feel like the Colossus should get a severe range reduction (9->7 or 7.5) or a severe movement speed nerf (so it basically becomes a super Reaver but also making it so the Colossus can't be attacked by air?). As if the rest of us (non-Protoss players) didn't have enough headaches dealing with the offensive power of Warp Gates alone...
So you are saying you can't beat a collossus timing of 11-12 minutes? Terran is fine, make vikings. This is a balance discussion not a I can't beat this cause I don't know what to do discussion.
|
On September 10 2011 08:53 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:47 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:46 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about  To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right? Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles. Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map. I always thought the main purpose of the mothership was blink-stalker harass? It seems a little too fragile/immobile to be good for those frontline battles that are so important. The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth.
Just because it's a joke now doesn't mean it needs to stay a joke. In fact, I'd say the prestige of the game as a whole suffers if underused units like the mothership and carrier aren't fixed to make them viable units in competitive play.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On September 11 2011 11:02 RyLai wrote:
I just think anything that must be shut down by the 11-12 minute mark in order to NOT DIE is retarded especially if micro makes little difference.
I'll admit now that my micro isn't the best since I put more attention to macro, but I can see no way to micro around a Gateway army to snipe the range 9 Colossi in the back. Even with a flank, unless it's done perfectly, it's beyond difficult since the army in the front will get roasted for being weaker than it should be unless like I said you time it PERFECTLY and snipe the Colossi in the back as quickly as possible. I've long felt that out of the 3 Siege units (Siege Tank, Broodlord, and Colossus) that the Colossus is by far the most mobile and therefore the most deadly (imagine a Siege Tank that doesn't have a minimum range and doesn't have to siege in order to get it's incredible range, damage, and splash attack; imagine a Broodlord with significantly increased movement speed - that is what the Colossus is).
As a result, unless Protoss decides to NOT go for 2 base Colossus, it is completely on Terran to hit at that critical 10 minute timing. Any later than 11 minutes and your opponent will surely have Colossus range and maybe even 2 Colossi, far more than enough to roast what you will have by then. But you can't be guaranteed that your opponent WON'T go Colossi because you will often see a Robotics Facility for Observers. The could just as easily then go to Templar-based play, so in order to cover all your bases, you NEED to bring a Ghost or 2 and land a good EMP(s).
If you hit at the critical timing where Protoss has only 1 Colossus without range, you can snipe it and clear out a majority of his army. If the Protoss doesn't defend well, then the game SHOULD be over. If he defends really well, it wouldn't be too surprising if he kept his first Colossus. From that point, you NEED to go double Reactor Starports in order to keep up production so that you don't die to a Colossus timing attack. A single Reactored Starport isn't enough, especially with 2 Nexuses constantly Chrono Boosting the Colossus production.
So it's all on the Terran to aim to hit at that critical 10 minute mark so that he has a chance to try and even play the late game, while also defending all ins and retarded harass like 3 Gate VR and 2 base DTs.
And for Zerg, it's much the same issue. Colossi make Hydras nothing more than resource and supply eaters. Hydras need a movement speed buff and/or a HP buff (to 90, 95, 100, or 105). Mass Roaches can somewhat deal with it... But now you NEED Infestors and to use them to Neural Parasite the Colossi (guess what's going to be impossible to do next patch!). Obviously, getting Corruptors takes way too long unless you're REALLY good with your timings or somehow control the flow of the game really well to give yourself time to get that Spire up. Not only that, after you clear out the Colossi, the Protoss has a bunch of Gateway units and are warping more in on the way to your base, which Corruptors do absolutely nothing to help out against.
I feel like the Colossus should get a severe range reduction (9->7 or 7.5) or a severe movement speed nerf (so it basically becomes a super Reaver but also making it so the Colossus can't be attacked by air?). As if the rest of us (non-Protoss players) didn't have enough headaches dealing with the offensive power of Warp Gates alone...
Well, just like all other siege units you shouldn't really attack directly into the collossi if you can help it. Even a small flank from the left makes a big difference since you can snipe the collosi with terran or distract it with zerglings. The less the unit attacks the front line main army you have the better chance you have of killing off the gateway units to be entirely honest.
Collossi are more of a turtle unit in the sense that you need to turtle to get it but once you hit a certain number you are safe to move about. And while they are mobile they aren't so mobile that they can return to and defend an undefended position easily. Counter attacks and flanks are very effective tactical options available which go beyond specific direct engagements.
We can say the same thing about infestor/broodlord. Protoss basically needs void rays and even they dont do well when they get fungal growthed and infested terrans are dropped underneath them. To kill the broodlords you need to time the void rays perfectly and even then get a flank or surprise the Zerg so that you dont get held in place by fungal only to die to the broodlings of the broodlord.
Attacking past the broodlords is the less stubborn way of dealing with broodlords and countering or trying to snipe hatcheries instead of engaging in a direct fight with units such as stalkers and even void rays in some situations. Sure the collosi are faster but leaving them alone or running around with them is just as ineffective as doing the same thing with tanks or broodlords.
|
On September 11 2011 11:02 RyLai wrote:
I just think anything that must be shut down by the 11-12 minute mark in order to NOT DIE is retarded especially if micro makes little difference.
I'll admit now that my micro isn't the best since I put more attention to macro, but I can see no way to micro around a Gateway army to snipe the range 9 Colossi in the back. Even with a flank, unless it's done perfectly, it's beyond difficult since the army in the front will get roasted for being weaker than it should be unless like I said you time it PERFECTLY and snipe the Colossi in the back as quickly as possible. I've long felt that out of the 3 Siege units (Siege Tank, Broodlord, and Colossus) that the Colossus is by far the most mobile and therefore the most deadly (imagine a Siege Tank that doesn't have a minimum range and doesn't have to siege in order to get it's incredible range, damage, and splash attack; imagine a Broodlord with significantly increased movement speed - that is what the Colossus is).
As a result, unless Protoss decides to NOT go for 2 base Colossus, it is completely on Terran to hit at that critical 10 minute timing. Any later than 11 minutes and your opponent will surely have Colossus range and maybe even 2 Colossi, far more than enough to roast what you will have by then. But you can't be guaranteed that your opponent WON'T go Colossi because you will often see a Robotics Facility for Observers. The could just as easily then go to Templar-based play, so in order to cover all your bases, you NEED to bring a Ghost or 2 and land a good EMP(s).
If you hit at the critical timing where Protoss has only 1 Colossus without range, you can snipe it and clear out a majority of his army. If the Protoss doesn't defend well, then the game SHOULD be over. If he defends really well, it wouldn't be too surprising if he kept his first Colossus. From that point, you NEED to go double Reactor Starports in order to keep up production so that you don't die to a Colossus timing attack. A single Reactored Starport isn't enough, especially with 2 Nexuses constantly Chrono Boosting the Colossus production.
So it's all on the Terran to aim to hit at that critical 10 minute mark so that he has a chance to try and even play the late game, while also defending all ins and retarded harass like 3 Gate VR and 2 base DTs.
And for Zerg, it's much the same issue. Colossi make Hydras nothing more than resource and supply eaters. Hydras need a movement speed buff and/or a HP buff (to 90, 95, 100, or 105). Mass Roaches can somewhat deal with it... But now you NEED Infestors and to use them to Neural Parasite the Colossi (guess what's going to be impossible to do next patch!). Obviously, getting Corruptors takes way too long unless you're REALLY good with your timings or somehow control the flow of the game really well to give yourself time to get that Spire up. Not only that, after you clear out the Colossi, the Protoss has a bunch of Gateway units and are warping more in on the way to your base, which Corruptors do absolutely nothing to help out against.
I feel like the Colossus should get a severe range reduction (9->7 or 7.5) or a severe movement speed nerf (so it basically becomes a super Reaver but also making it so the Colossus can't be attacked by air?). As if the rest of us (non-Protoss players) didn't have enough headaches dealing with the offensive power of Warp Gates alone...
So... Protoss are struggling in all of their matchups, against Terran in particular. They're getting universally destroyed by the 1/1/1 all-in, and even if they get into the mid and lategame, we see blanket EMPs absolutely demolish Protoss armies and end games instantly, all of this in the GSL. Protoss winrate in GSL August was 34% against Terran, and even less against Zerg. MC is in Code A.
And your proposed balance change is a huge nerf to the only aoe unit that managed to survive all the Protoss nerfs since release unscathed. Allow me to play the smallest violin in the world for your TvP woes.
|
^ In regards to above discussion about colossi:
I've never heard Terran complain about colossi. I also never pay attention to TvP, so whatever. But Colossi have nothing to do with 1-1-1, they come out too late for it. He's saying a late-game unit is imbalanced, and 1-1-1 is an early game issue. You're totally avoiding his point, he may have a valid point but saying "Colossi are fine! Protoss is dying to 6 pool every game, they need to be buffed!" is dodging the issue.
Your smallest violin comment also just makes you sound like a huge asshole. He made his QQ, in the Designated QQ thread. He wasn't an ass about it, and you can kindly tell him "Vikings own the shit out of colossi and you can put these t2 units on a reactor". But saying "Protoss late game is not imbalanced because Terran early game is imbalanced" is absurd.
As for Zerg, yes, that's the issue. We don't have vikings, we have corruptors. And when both people are at even supply at 80-100, when Colossi hit, Zerg has no counter to deal with. Zerg has to either get a huge macro lead with corruptor based counters, or use infestors. I would agree colossi are imbalanced. Right now Zerg can deal with these 2 base colossi timings, but it's damn hard and Protoss gets a macro lead early on, and when HT come out, Zerg is pretty fucked.
To the above post, colossi are faster and deadlier than siege tanks and broodlords (to Zerg), that's the problem. Even more, Zerg doesn't have an efficient counter to them. Infestors are great, but HT just nullify them way too easily. Baneling rain is great, but blink stalkers and stargate openings make it risky to go for. It's not the biggest imbalance in the game, but Zerg definitely has way too hard a time dealing with colossi based deathballs. Blizzard giving Zerg the infestor to counter it is a shitty band-aid on a major problem.
I appreciate that Blizzard isn't buffing Zerg drastically to deal with end-game ZvP, and the infestor buff was very innovative, but there does exist an issue of PvZ end game.
|
On September 11 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:
^ In regards to above discussion about colossi:
I've never heard Terran complain about colossi. I also never pay attention to TvP, so whatever. But Colossi have nothing to do with 1-1-1, they come out too late for it. He's saying a late-game unit is imbalanced, and 1-1-1 is an early game issue. You're totally avoiding his point, he may have a valid point but saying "Colossi are fine! Protoss is dying to 6 pool every game, they need to be buffed!" is dodging the issue.
Your smallest violin comment also just makes you sound like a huge asshole. He made his QQ, in the Designated QQ thread. He wasn't an ass about it, and you can kindly tell him "Vikings own the shit out of colossi and you can put these t2 units on a reactor". But saying "Protoss late game is not imbalanced because Terran early game is imbalanced" is absurd.
As for Zerg, yes, that's the issue. We don't have vikings, we have corruptors. And when both people are at even supply at 80-100, when Colossi hit, Zerg has no counter to deal with. Zerg has to either get a huge macro lead with corruptor based counters, or use infestors. I would agree colossi are imbalanced. Right now Zerg can deal with these 2 base colossi timings, but it's damn hard and Protoss gets a macro lead early on, and when HT come out, Zerg is pretty fucked.
To the above post, colossi are faster and deadlier than siege tanks and broodlords (to Zerg), that's the problem. Even more, Zerg doesn't have an efficient counter to them. Infestors are great, but HT just nullify them way too easily. Baneling rain is great, but blink stalkers and stargate openings make it risky to go for. It's not the biggest imbalance in the game, but Zerg definitely has way too hard a time dealing with colossi based deathballs. Blizzard giving Zerg the infestor to counter it is a shitty band-aid on a major problem.
I appreciate that Blizzard isn't buffing Zerg drastically to deal with end-game ZvP, and the infestor buff was very innovative, but there does exist an issue of PvZ end game.
If Blizzard announced they're removing the Colossus in HotS, and replacing it with something interesting, I'd be the first to cheer. The Colossus is a shit unit, it's basically a siege tank without all the good parts. It forces Zerg and Terran to have super specific counter units, and by extension makes things like Carriers unplayable. It's in the game because Dustin Browder thought the artwork looked cool. (as snide as this comment may seem, it's not that far off from the truth, by the way)
With all that said, complaining about it being too good right now, and this coming from a Terran player, is just full-blown denial. If there is a point at which you accept the fact that it's you that's the problem, and not the game, then that point as definitely arrived for people who have problems in TvP.
But anyway, here's some good advice: Just learn, let's say, 3 variations of the 1/1/1. Every TvP, choose one at random, execute, 80% winrate. I am not even joking.
By the way, weren't you the person who thought Zealot/Archon beats Roach/Hydra?
|
The whole tone of this thread seems strange to me. This is a balance thread, not a race advocacy thread. Our goal here is to create 50/50 ratios across the board. Right now Toss is being destroyed in TvP and ZvP and so 90% of the discussion should be about buffing toss without breaking the match ups.
Personally, I think casters are playing too critical of a role atm (HT/Infestor/Ghost). Id scale all of these units back big time in both cost and effectiveness so they serve as pure support. I dont see this as possible until HotS though, but it seems like a reasonable path for opening up niche roles for new units.
|
On September 11 2011 11:16 craque wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 08:53 Toadvine wrote:On September 10 2011 08:47 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:46 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right? Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles. Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map. I always thought the main purpose of the mothership was blink-stalker harass? It seems a little too fragile/immobile to be good for those frontline battles that are so important. The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth. Just because it's a joke now doesn't mean it needs to stay a joke. In fact, I'd say the prestige of the game as a whole suffers if underused units like the mothership and carrier aren't fixed to make them viable units in competitive play.
One word: Scout
Carriers aren't as useless as it was, and a mothership, now that it can't be NP'ed, should be a part of any super-late-game PvZ composition. Vortex can change the tide of a battle, and overseers are expensive. Also, if you get one, the Z has to commit to serious AA to kill it. Hell, just parking a mothership over an arbitrary expansion is worth it; the expansion is safe from counter-attacks and you have a get-out-of-jail-free card if the Z manages to outplay you and force you into an unfavorable battle.
|
On September 11 2011 11:56 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:
^ In regards to above discussion about colossi:
I've never heard Terran complain about colossi. I also never pay attention to TvP, so whatever. But Colossi have nothing to do with 1-1-1, they come out too late for it. He's saying a late-game unit is imbalanced, and 1-1-1 is an early game issue. You're totally avoiding his point, he may have a valid point but saying "Colossi are fine! Protoss is dying to 6 pool every game, they need to be buffed!" is dodging the issue.
Your smallest violin comment also just makes you sound like a huge asshole. He made his QQ, in the Designated QQ thread. He wasn't an ass about it, and you can kindly tell him "Vikings own the shit out of colossi and you can put these t2 units on a reactor". But saying "Protoss late game is not imbalanced because Terran early game is imbalanced" is absurd.
As for Zerg, yes, that's the issue. We don't have vikings, we have corruptors. And when both people are at even supply at 80-100, when Colossi hit, Zerg has no counter to deal with. Zerg has to either get a huge macro lead with corruptor based counters, or use infestors. I would agree colossi are imbalanced. Right now Zerg can deal with these 2 base colossi timings, but it's damn hard and Protoss gets a macro lead early on, and when HT come out, Zerg is pretty fucked.
To the above post, colossi are faster and deadlier than siege tanks and broodlords (to Zerg), that's the problem. Even more, Zerg doesn't have an efficient counter to them. Infestors are great, but HT just nullify them way too easily. Baneling rain is great, but blink stalkers and stargate openings make it risky to go for. It's not the biggest imbalance in the game, but Zerg definitely has way too hard a time dealing with colossi based deathballs. Blizzard giving Zerg the infestor to counter it is a shitty band-aid on a major problem.
I appreciate that Blizzard isn't buffing Zerg drastically to deal with end-game ZvP, and the infestor buff was very innovative, but there does exist an issue of PvZ end game. If Blizzard announced they're removing the Colossus in HotS, and replacing it with something interesting, I'd be the first to cheer. The Colossus is a shit unit, it's basically a siege tank without all the good parts. It forces Zerg and Terran to have super specific counter units, and by extension makes things like Carriers unplayable. It's in the game because Dustin Browder thought the artwork looked cool. (as snide as this comment may seem, it's not that far off from the truth, by the way) With all that said, complaining about it being too good right now, and this coming from a Terran player, is just full-blown denial. If there is a point at which you accept the fact that it's you that's the problem, and not the game, then that point as definitely arrived for people who have problems in TvP. But anyway, here's some good advice: Just learn, let's say, 3 variations of the 1/1/1. Every TvP, choose one at random, execute, 80% winrate. I am not even joking. By the way, weren't you the person who thought Zealot/Archon beats Roach/Hydra?
I'm not Terran, don't confuse me with every person you hate. I don't talk about TvP because neither are my race and the match-up is boring to watch.
And I'm the person who read the very popular guide made by a blue poster who said that archon/zealot owns roach/hydra. I'm also the Masters Zerg who knows that roach/hydra is worthless against zealot/archon in mid-late game. Now mass roach, that's 'okay' against it, it's not good in supply but it's okay for cost, but in midgame when supplies and the game are even, or in late game when robotech is added, pure mass roach is bad too.
But why are we even discussing this? Even if you disagree with a Master Zerg, and a blue poster Master Protoss, about how roach/hydra gets owned by chargelot/archon and that mass roach is bad too against it, no one is saying mass roach, roach/hydra, or zealot/archon is imbalanced, so this shouldn't even be discussed here. Aren't you the person who's bringing up ad hominems and red herring arguments?
The whole tone of this thread seems strange to me. This is a balance thread, not a race advocacy thread. Our goal here is to create 50/50 ratios across the board. Right now Toss is being destroyed in TvP and ZvP and so 90% of the discussion should be about buffing toss without breaking the match ups.
Personally, I think casters are playing too critical of a role atm (HT/Infestor/Ghost). Id scale all of these units back big time in both cost and effectiveness so they serve as pure support. I dont see this as possible until HotS though, but it seems like a reasonable path for opening up niche roles for new units.
I am not speaking about TvP, but the problems in ZvP are not because of balance. They are due to Zerg's discovering how to defeat FFE with a fast third. ZvP has been absolutely revolutionized, even if MoleTrap and DOA are unaware of it when casting. We never saw Zerg take fast thirds before, and even 3 months ago it was seen as impossible because Protoss could just react with 6 gate and a-move for the win. Everything changed in Losira vs Anypro, when that horrible Protoss did exactly that and Losira held it off.
We also never saw Zerg go for lair at 120 supply, but the Nestea/Losira fast third vs FFE build is causing Protoss to lose a lot recently. In all the GSL games, every Protoss who went FFE lost (except against Kryxi, who is just bad and he did not do it right at all, he made no drones and got a fast lair, and we all know that the choice is lair vs third, not both).
It's like when Protoss started winning a lot with 3 gate sentry expand from MC, and sentries becoming popular and totally dominating the match-up. A lot of Zerg cried imbalance - and actually, it may very well still be an imbalanced unit - but Protoss now prefer the greedier FFE. Which, as it turns out, Zerg can completely own.
Stargate play was also very popular, and now Zerg know how to scout for it and beat it. In this GSL, not a single third was cancelled, not a single base was killed, and nevermore than 1 queens or 5 drones lost. You can't say that about the past seasons. Now, Zerg have found a way to actually come out ahead against stargate, and take a lead against what many Protoss assumed was a safe opening, like a reaper from a 1 rax expand is safe and pretty much free. Stargate, as it turns out, is more like a cloaked banshee, and when it fails to do damage, you are very far behind.
There's also just a bunch of really shitty Protoss players in the GSL that never belonged there in the first place. Hongun, Anypro, San, VanVanth, are terrible Protoss players. If you want to say Protoss is imbalanced because of X reason, and taht's why they are underrepresented in the GSL, go for it, but there's no imbalance in ZvP in Protoss's favor.
What's more, is that every single GSL game was decided before infestor tech/lair tech. Every game was won because:
1. Protoss went FFE, Zerg took a fast third, and held it. Had a huge, huge macro advantage, and wins the game.
2. Leenock vs Alicia, a single game, on Metalopolis, and Alicia went DTs and did zero damage with them. Then he went blink stalkers, and Leenock had already went mass ling, that was pretty much a BO win and a poor choice by Alicia to do a super aggressive build and just hope that Leenock didn't blind counter it.
None of the games had colossi, and Zerg always won due to getting a fast third. That doesn't mean that colossi aren't imbalanced though, it just means that ZvP has some early game issues, which can be explained by:
1. the shitty Protoss players being matched up against great Zergs. There are plenty of bad Zergs (or at least not godly like DRG, Nestea, Losira, just like there is 4 godly Protoss in MC, Alicia, Puzzle, and Genius, and they all lost to Terran by the way) like Check and Kryxi but none of them faced the lower tier Protoss, they were all eliminated in ZvZ and ZvT.
2. The Zerg metagame, right now FFE is basically a BO loss against the new Nestea/Losira super fast third and 100+ supply lair, and stargate is, at least in this GSL, been basically an autoloss as well, with every Zerg (but kryix rofl) actually getting a 15-20 supply lead every time Protoss went stargate against them, as well as taking a third in spite of stargate.
|
On September 11 2011 12:14 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 11:56 Toadvine wrote:On September 11 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:
^ In regards to above discussion about colossi:
I've never heard Terran complain about colossi. I also never pay attention to TvP, so whatever. But Colossi have nothing to do with 1-1-1, they come out too late for it. He's saying a late-game unit is imbalanced, and 1-1-1 is an early game issue. You're totally avoiding his point, he may have a valid point but saying "Colossi are fine! Protoss is dying to 6 pool every game, they need to be buffed!" is dodging the issue.
Your smallest violin comment also just makes you sound like a huge asshole. He made his QQ, in the Designated QQ thread. He wasn't an ass about it, and you can kindly tell him "Vikings own the shit out of colossi and you can put these t2 units on a reactor". But saying "Protoss late game is not imbalanced because Terran early game is imbalanced" is absurd.
As for Zerg, yes, that's the issue. We don't have vikings, we have corruptors. And when both people are at even supply at 80-100, when Colossi hit, Zerg has no counter to deal with. Zerg has to either get a huge macro lead with corruptor based counters, or use infestors. I would agree colossi are imbalanced. Right now Zerg can deal with these 2 base colossi timings, but it's damn hard and Protoss gets a macro lead early on, and when HT come out, Zerg is pretty fucked.
To the above post, colossi are faster and deadlier than siege tanks and broodlords (to Zerg), that's the problem. Even more, Zerg doesn't have an efficient counter to them. Infestors are great, but HT just nullify them way too easily. Baneling rain is great, but blink stalkers and stargate openings make it risky to go for. It's not the biggest imbalance in the game, but Zerg definitely has way too hard a time dealing with colossi based deathballs. Blizzard giving Zerg the infestor to counter it is a shitty band-aid on a major problem.
I appreciate that Blizzard isn't buffing Zerg drastically to deal with end-game ZvP, and the infestor buff was very innovative, but there does exist an issue of PvZ end game. If Blizzard announced they're removing the Colossus in HotS, and replacing it with something interesting, I'd be the first to cheer. The Colossus is a shit unit, it's basically a siege tank without all the good parts. It forces Zerg and Terran to have super specific counter units, and by extension makes things like Carriers unplayable. It's in the game because Dustin Browder thought the artwork looked cool. (as snide as this comment may seem, it's not that far off from the truth, by the way) With all that said, complaining about it being too good right now, and this coming from a Terran player, is just full-blown denial. If there is a point at which you accept the fact that it's you that's the problem, and not the game, then that point as definitely arrived for people who have problems in TvP. But anyway, here's some good advice: Just learn, let's say, 3 variations of the 1/1/1. Every TvP, choose one at random, execute, 80% winrate. I am not even joking. By the way, weren't you the person who thought Zealot/Archon beats Roach/Hydra? I'm not Terran, don't confuse me with every person you hate. I don't talk about TvP because neither are my race and the match-up is boring to watch. And I'm the person who read the very popular guide made by a blue poster who said that archon/zealot owns roach/hydra. I'm also the Masters Zerg who knows that roach/hydra is worthless against zealot/archon in mid-late game. Now mass roach, that's 'okay' against it, it's not good in supply but it's okay for cost, but in midgame when supplies and the game are even, or in late game when robotech is added, pure mass roach is bad too. But why are we even discussing this? Even if you disagree with a Master Zerg, and a blue poster Master Protoss, about how roach/hydra gets owned by chargelot/archon and that mass roach is bad too against it, no one is saying mass roach, roach/hydra, or zealot/archon is imbalanced, so this shouldn't even be discussed here. Aren't you the person who's bringing up ad hominems and red herring arguments?
Sigh. I know who I'm responding to. You took issue with me being unpleasant to a Terran player proposing Colossus nerfs, and proposed that I should've just told him to make Vikings. So, I clarified my stance on Colossi, and gave even better advice - to all-in the Protoss and sidestep all the midgame problems that way. Sorry for being confusing.
And I'd love to read that guide. Maybe my Zealot/Archon is just bad. That would be nice actually, I often do that Stargate+Zealot harass, and that transitions nicely into Zealot/Archon, but sometimes I just die to a 2 base Roach/Hydra all-in after doing a ton of damage.
Anyway, if you really think I hate anyone in this thread, or on this forum, then you probably spend too much time on the Internet. I just have a character flaw - sometimes when I see something wrong, I can't help myself but to correct it.
On September 11 2011 12:14 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +
The whole tone of this thread seems strange to me. This is a balance thread, not a race advocacy thread. Our goal here is to create 50/50 ratios across the board. Right now Toss is being destroyed in TvP and ZvP and so 90% of the discussion should be about buffing toss without breaking the match ups.
Personally, I think casters are playing too critical of a role atm (HT/Infestor/Ghost). Id scale all of these units back big time in both cost and effectiveness so they serve as pure support. I dont see this as possible until HotS though, but it seems like a reasonable path for opening up niche roles for new units.
I am not speaking about TvP, but the problems in ZvP are not because of balance. They are due to Zerg's discovering how to defeat FFE with a fast third. ZvP has been absolutely revolutionized, even if MoleTrap and DOA are unaware of it when casting. We never saw Zerg take fast thirds before, and even 3 months ago it was seen as impossible because Protoss could just react with 6 gate and a-move for the win. Everything changed in Losira vs Anypro, when that horrible Protoss did exactly that and Losira held it off. We also never saw Zerg go for lair at 120 supply, but the Nestea/Losira fast third vs FFE build is causing Protoss to lose a lot recently. In all the GSL games, every Protoss who went FFE lost (except against Kryxi, who is just bad and he did not do it right at all, he made no drones and got a fast lair, and we all know that the choice is lair vs third, not both). It's like when Protoss started winning a lot with 3 gate sentry expand from MC, and sentries becoming popular and totally dominating the match-up. A lot of Zerg cried imbalance - and actually, it may very well still be an imbalanced unit - but Protoss now prefer the greedier FFE. Which, as it turns out, Zerg can completely own. Stargate play was also very popular, and now Zerg know how to scout for it and beat it. In this GSL, not a single third was cancelled, not a single base was killed, and nevermore than 1 queens or 5 drones lost. You can't say that about the past seasons. Now, Zerg have found a way to actually come out ahead against stargate, and take a lead against what many Protoss assumed was a safe opening, like a reaper from a 1 rax expand is safe and pretty much free. Stargate, as it turns out, is more like a cloaked banshee, and when it fails to do damage, you are very far behind. There's also just a bunch of really shitty Protoss players in the GSL that never belonged there in the first place. Hongun, Anypro, San, VanVanth, are terrible Protoss players. If you want to say Protoss is imbalanced because of X reason, and taht's why they are underrepresented in the GSL, go for it, but there's no imbalance in ZvP in Protoss's favor. What's more, is that every single GSL game was decided before infestor tech/lair tech. Every game was won because: 1. Protoss went FFE, Zerg took a fast third, and held it. Had a huge, huge macro advantage, and wins the game. 2. Leenock vs Alicia, a single game, on Metalopolis, and Alicia went DTs and did zero damage with them. Then he went blink stalkers, and Leenock had already went mass ling, that was pretty much a BO win and a poor choice by Alicia to do a super aggressive build and just hope that Leenock didn't blind counter it. None of the games had colossi, and Zerg always won due to getting a fast third. That doesn't mean that colossi aren't imbalanced though, it just means that ZvP has some early game issues, which can be explained by: 1. the shitty Protoss players being matched up against great Zergs. There are plenty of bad Zergs (or at least not godly like DRG, Nestea, Losira, just like there is 4 godly Protoss in MC, Alicia, Puzzle, and Genius, and they all lost to Terran by the way) like Check and Kryxi but none of them faced the lower tier Protoss, they were all eliminated in ZvZ and ZvT. 2. The Zerg metagame, right now FFE is basically a BO loss against the new Nestea/Losira super fast third and 100+ supply lair, and stargate is, at least in this GSL, been basically an autoloss as well, with every Zerg (but kryix rofl) actually getting a 15-20 supply lead every time Protoss went stargate against them, as well as taking a third in spite of stargate.
Just to straighten out a few things, MC and LosirA did play in the Up/Downs. MC did his 1 Gate FE into Stargate - you thought that was a good build, if I remember correctly? - and LosirA did exactly what he does against FFE, took a third at 5:00, and then didn't even let MC take a third. MC also lost to Check in the Up/Downs.
Alicia loses to Losira and Coca every time they play, so he's not that godly. Puzzle went 1-10 against Morrow, and also used to lose to Masters Zergs on NA ladder when he streamed. Genius has a terrible PvZ record in general - although he seems to be good at all-ining Losira, so there's that. On the other side, DRG's ZvP is easily his worst matchup, he even lost to Tester at MLG and played quite poorly in those games.
I find it kind of funny that you think San was terrible, because his PvZ was always very cool, he was one of the first players to make extensive use of Blink Stalkers, he would always harass a lot, and had an aversion to deathballs. I don't think he ever made a Colossus in a televised game. If anything, I'd look towards the NsHs Protosses for new ways of playing PvZ, they have some really cool ideas. And now Sage is in Code A, so if they don't get all-ind out by Terrans, maybe we'll see something interesting there.
|
On September 11 2011 12:13 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 11:16 craque wrote:On September 10 2011 08:53 Toadvine wrote:On September 10 2011 08:47 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:46 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 08:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 08:23 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it? Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research. Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair? So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever. The problem is that it makes it sort of impossible to use BC, mothership, carrier and archons. Sure, if you can neural colossi or thors, fine. Atleast there's a challenge there for both players. But the fact that cattlebruisers, mothership, carriers and archons can be neuraled makes those units nearly impossible to use against zerg, because they'll have infestors anyway, and using neural on them isn't really something the other player can prevent, except if he keeps those units behind his army, which defeats the point of having them. It doesn't create a situation where the zerg can use neural against bc/carrier/mothership/archon when those units come out, it creates a situation where the protoss or terran player doesn't get the units, because he know the zerg can easily neural them without him being able to do a lot to stop that. Hm. What if Neural Parasite could only effect land-based units that are either biological or mechanical? I mean, there certainly has to be a middle ground between "literally removing the option to ever make T3 unit X" and "basically useless" right? Yes, this would be a lot better. Nothing is wrong with using neural on colossi or thors, because that's something that the opponent can react to, leading to interesting micro battles. Neural, especially against mothership is silly. Making a mothership and using it in an attack against a zerg who has an infestor is worse than making a mothership and floating it to the edge of the map. I always thought the main purpose of the mothership was blink-stalker harass? It seems a little too fragile/immobile to be good for those frontline battles that are so important. The Mothership has no purpose in competitive play, it's there so the casual players can feel good when they make one. This is straight from Dustin Browder's mouth. Just because it's a joke now doesn't mean it needs to stay a joke. In fact, I'd say the prestige of the game as a whole suffers if underused units like the mothership and carrier aren't fixed to make them viable units in competitive play. One word: Scout Carriers aren't as useless as it was, and a mothership, now that it can't be NP'ed, should be a part of any super-late-game PvZ composition. Vortex can change the tide of a battle, and overseers are expensive. Also, if you get one, the Z has to commit to serious AA to kill it. Hell, just parking a mothership over an arbitrary expansion is worth it; the expansion is safe from counter-attacks and you have a get-out-of-jail-free card if the Z manages to outplay you and force you into an unfavorable battle.
i agree that motherships and maybe even carriers will see more use in PvZ. But you have to remember that overseers are not expensive anymore, they only cost 50 gas and morphs in 17 ingame seconds. They wouldn't leave zergs high and dry.
|
On September 11 2011 12:14 Belial88 wrote:
I am not speaking about TvP, but the problems in ZvP are not because of balance. They are due to Zerg's discovering how to defeat FFE with a fast third. ZvP has been absolutely revolutionized, even if MoleTrap and DOA are unaware of it when casting. We never saw Zerg take fast thirds before, and even 3 months ago it was seen as impossible because Protoss could just react with 6 gate and a-move for the win. Everything changed in Losira vs Anypro, when that horrible Protoss did exactly that and Losira held it off.
We also never saw Zerg go for lair at 120 supply, but the Nestea/Losira fast third vs FFE build is causing Protoss to lose a lot recently. In all the GSL games, every Protoss who went FFE lost (except against Kryxi, who is just bad and he did not do it right at all, he made no drones and got a fast lair, and we all know that the choice is lair vs third, not both).
It's like when Protoss started winning a lot with 3 gate sentry expand from MC, and sentries becoming popular and totally dominating the match-up. A lot of Zerg cried imbalance - and actually, it may very well still be an imbalanced unit - but Protoss now prefer the greedier FFE. Which, as it turns out, Zerg can completely own.
Let me get this straight: One reason Protosses have been losing in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup is because they are forge fast expanding, as opposed to utilizing a unit which very well be imbalanced: the sentry -- by doing a three gate sentry expand.
Now, considering the fast third late lair has been around months as a response to forge fast expand, could you please explain to me why the highest level professional gamers in the world have been unable to come to the stunningly simple conclusion a Zerg Masters player has been able come to?
Stargate play was also very popular, and now Zerg know how to scout for it and beat it. In this GSL, not a single third was cancelled, not a single base was killed, and nevermore than 1 queens or 5 drones lost. You can't say that about the past seasons. Now, Zerg have found a way to actually come out ahead against stargate, and take a lead against what many Protoss assumed was a safe opening, like a reaper from a 1 rax expand is safe and pretty much free. Stargate, as it turns out, is more like a cloaked banshee, and when it fails to do damage, you are very far behind.
So, the brilliant Masters level Zerg strategist has come to the brilliant conclusion that both forge fast expands and Stargate openers in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup are sub-optimal. I hate to be sarcastic, but you have to earnestly ask yourself why Protoss players opening forge fast expand and Stargate. If you can see weaknesses to a build, you need to understand that professional Protoss players also see those same weaknesses, yet choose to use it regardless. I want you to explain to me in detail while why the Protoss players chose the builds they did in the games they did. If you cannot, stop lecturing us.
There's also just a bunch of really shitty Protoss players in the GSL that never belonged there in the first place. Hongun, Anypro, San, VanVanth, are terrible Protoss players. If you want to say Protoss is imbalanced because of X reason, and taht's why they are underrepresented in the GSL, go for it, but there's no imbalance in ZvP in Protoss's favor.
Whenever you insult the players of a specific race, you show that you are a fool. With limited exceptions, the best Protoss players in the world are in the GSL. When you insult those players, you make yourself sound ridiculous. Yet, you do it again just a few sentences later:
1. the shitty Protoss players being matched up against great Zergs. There are plenty of bad Zergs (or at least not godly like DRG, Nestea, Losira, just like there is 4 godly Protoss in MC, Alicia, Puzzle, and Genius, and they all lost to Terran by the way) like Check and Kryxi but none of them faced the lower tier Protoss, they were all eliminated in ZvZ and ZvT.
Of course, you caveat that there are some 'Godly' Protoss who were unable to show us their glorious Protoss versus Zerg because they lost to Terran. And Alicia, of course, who had build order loss. But again, I'd put money down that you cannot explain why Alicia chose the build he did.
2. The Zerg metagame, right now FFE is basically a BO loss against the new Nestea/Losira super fast third and 100+ supply lair, and stargate is, at least in this GSL, been basically an autoloss as well, with every Zerg (but kryix rofl) actually getting a 15-20 supply lead every time Protoss went stargate against them, as well as taking a third in spite of stargate.
Wonderful. By the end of your post you've explained why forge fast expand, Stargate, and Dark Templars are horrible builds. So, apparently all Protoss should three gate expand every time. You say you are a masters Zerg. You should switch to Protoss. People constantly say Protoss players lack creativity, and with a dynamic mind like yours we'll be pumping out quality builds in no time!
Edit: By the way, you lied about when you edited your post about VoidRay Carrier. Don't think I didn't notice that, or that I forgot it as I wrote out this reply.
|
Lol that belial guy is getting owned hard.
As for me I hate how terrans can get an expo up right after they clear their natural because they build their second orbital inbase, and get benefits from extra mules that make it worth it even if they didnt expand.
|
Now, considering the fast third late lair has been around months as a response to forge fast expand, could you please explain to me why the highest level professional gamers in the world have been unable to come to the stunningly simple conclusion a Zerg Masters player has been able come to?
No, it hasn't been around for months. Show me a single replay where Zerg goes fast third and 100+ supply lair, because I know Nestea and Losira stayed on 2 base before last July.
Even if you disagree, you cannot deny that Zerg's have been absolutely crushing FFE play recently with super fast thirds. Call it whatever you want, but right now the Zerg metagame has figured out a way to handle FFE. Either Protoss will figure out a better way to make FFE work (like huk did vs nestea in the showmatches, by goin macro instead of harass), or Protoss will stop FFE.
This season the only FFE to win was MC vs Kryix, where MC did an all-in vs a sub-par Zerg who executed his build horribly (no drones, hydras, lair and fast third before 60 supply, wtf). It wasn't like Zerg made infestors every time, it wasn't that Zerg dropped every time, it was Zerg outplayed the opening and found a hole in that build.
So, the brilliant Masters level Zerg strategist has come to the brilliant conclusion that both forge fast expands and Stargate openers in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup are sub-optimal. I hate to be sarcastic, but you have to earnestly ask yourself why Protoss players opening forge fast expand and Stargate. If you can see weaknesses to a build, you need to understand that professional Protoss players also see those same weaknesses, yet choose to use it regardless. I want you to explain to me in detail while why the Protoss players chose the builds they did in the games they did. If you cannot, stop lecturing us.
I told you why. Zerg assumed that if Protoss went stargate, their third would be denied. And often times when they tried, it was. Only recently have we seen Zerg take thirds in spite of stargate, and the efficiency which Zerg has held stargate this season is unprecedented.
Whenever you insult the players of a specific race, you show that you are a fool. With limited exceptions, the best Protoss players in the world are in the GSL. When you insult those players, you make yourself sound ridiculous. Yet, you do it again just a few sentences later:
I didn't insult the race, I insulted players. There are extremely capable protoss players.
In fact, the number of godly Protoss, the complete lack of 'okay (by GSL standards) Protoss, and just high number of shitty Protoss, is much like Zerg. There's really only 2 good Zergs, 2-3 other Zergs showing great promise (but have flaws, leenock and DRG), and then a ton of shitty Zergs. I would say Protoss has more better players than Zerg does, we just have THE best player, and a close 2nd.
Of course, you caveat that there are some 'Godly' Protoss who were unable to show us their glorious Protoss versus Zerg because they lost to Terran. And Alicia, of course, who had build order loss. But again, I'd put money down that you cannot explain why Alicia chose the build he did.
MC showed us his glorious PvZ, he just didn't get matched up against Nestea or Losira or DRG or Leenock, really the only 'good' Zerg right now in the GSL. And Alicia went with blink as a follow up because he pretty much already lost the game already (DT opening did zero damage, and then Leenock was able to get his third). There wasn't really anything Alicia could've done when his DT's did absolutely zero damage, I'm sure he thought he would at least do something. He took a risk, and paid for it. He's a great protoss player, but Leenock is one of the few great Zergs as well.
Wonderful. By the end of your post you've explained why forge fast expand, Stargate, and Dark Templars are horrible builds. So, apparently all Protoss should three gate expand every time. You say you are a masters Zerg. You should switch to Protoss. People constantly say Protoss players lack creativity, and with a dynamic mind like yours we'll be pumping out quality builds in no time!
We see that when Protoss plays macro, they do extremely well in the GSL. That's why I say Protoss should go 3 gate sentry, or similar macro play. There were quite a few high level PvZs in the GSTL where Protoss went macro, and rolled Zerg. One example is Leenock vs... (forgot his name) on TalDarim, and Zerg was supposedly ahead in an unlosable position. But the Protoss simply macro'd on, and won.
Right now a lot of Protoss are playing risky, and doing builds they thought were safe. For fucks sake, if what I'm saying is so alien to you, tell me, did oGsInca play smart? Or did he play exactly as Idra would have put it?
By the way, you lied about when you edited your post about VoidRay Carrier. Don't think I didn't notice that, or that I forgot it as I wrote out this reply.
I didn't edit out shit, I added to the post. I don't know what you think I'm going back on, and I never said it was OP. I was merely replying to somenoe saying carriers were worthless, I replied saying they don't have a place because their use is to kill mass siege tanks in PvT (like popular in BW), and that Carrier/Void, which is ridiculously impossible to get, just liek Ultra/BL/Queen is unstoppable, once out, is pretty fucking unstoppable. I don't know what's so disagreeable about this, and I really don't give a shit, because I don't think Carrier/VR is a problem, I don't think it's imbalanced, it's a theorycraft build that's only good on paper.
Anyways, you can't deny that Protoss is taking a risk when going stargate or DT. If you claim that Protoss must always go some harass opening as such, then you might as well say "Zerg units kill Protoss too well" which is obviously ridiculous. Right now Protoss might as well be going 4 gate every game - it's risky, it could win, but if Zerg knows what's up, you lose. Protoss can simply play less risky, it's not that hard to figure out. They did very coin flip builds this season with stargate and DT, and the Zergs were prepared for it.
Insisting that Protoss must open stargate is like insisting Terran must open cloaked banshees. It's ridiculous, and only works when Zerg is surprised. If they know it's coming, the P will be behind, as we saw in literalyl every ZvP this season.
|
and why the hell are you even harping on about my statement on carrier? I never edited out shit, I added to a post immediately after posting it (check the post/edit times), and I could care less about it because I never said it was OP or cared about them anyways. Quit with the red herring, for all I care you can say your right I'm wrong about carriers (and what exactly do you disagree with me on about it?). I was responding to someone else.
|
On September 11 2011 10:01 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 09:35 craque wrote:
How about this:
The power field of friendly pylons increases shield capacity of nearby units. Like +15 or whatever is enough to give the defender an advantage but still breakable by a well micro'd or determined offense. The increase would just be in capacity, the unit would still need to stand in the field long enough for the shield recharge rate to fill it.
Or have the pylon power field remove the shield recharge delay.
Either of these would also provide some extra defense against drops and give another reason for having good pylon placement.
Except for making them OP when you proxy pylon in your enemy's base... Just bring in shield battery. Seems to solve all these problems, no need to beat around the bush with all this creative but flawed suggestions.
With the Shield battery the current "super fast shield regen" once you are out of combat would have to be tuned down a tad IMO or it might be too much, but personally I always loved them ... so bring them back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
