|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
The Good
Mothership Core
Practically the only good unit for protoss in HotS. So far I can only see use for two abilities - recall and purifier. Both have obvious uses, recall allows for aggression early game (and hence why I'm playing exclusively 3 gate zealot/sentry pressure expand in PvZ atm) while purifier allows you to defend situations which would otherwise be impossible. I haven't worked out when is the optimal time to build the mothership core, but it isn't as essential as the HotS preview videos made out.
Hi, I'm a Mothership Core and I'll be hanging around your base and stuff
I don't like how the mothership core moves at a snails pace. It doesn't make much sense for it to be this way. The mothership core is designed to be a unit which stays at home and gives you flexibility in defense/attack. Moving slowly doesn't really help that cause because it means it take a really long time to get between expos - making the mothership core stationary above a nexus and teleporting between nexii makes a lot more sense and gives the core a lot more utility.
Energize is just a gimmick ability. There isn't any real utility for it. Chrage a nexus? Since when has chronoboost been game breaking? Charge a sentry? lol who cares. Charge a templar? Maybe in a pinch. Charge an oracle? Good in theory (more on this). Really, the only thing you want to energize is a mothership itself, but that's impossible for obvious reasons.
All in all a nifty little unit, and a definite positive addition to the game.
Swarm Host
Kind of expected, but the swarm host has been an all around success for Blizzard. Okay, so the unit isn't exactly balanced at the moment. But it's creating all the right feeling within the game. You see the swarm hosts burrow in the distance and moments later swarms of locusts come charging at you. You know you need to get around them and attack the swarm hosts but how do you do it? The positional tension the unit creates is great. Its a unit that I absolutely hate coming up against in the early game, but I hate it for all the right reasons (unlike the warhound, more on that later).
The swarm host rush in action, it's surprisingly hard to stop 
Would a lurker be better? Yes, it would. The reason for that isn't that I'm a BW elitist, rather that the swarm host loses its utility in longer games. While I can't speak for ZvT, in ZvP once the Colossus count gets sufficiently high there is nothing that 123123123 swarm hosts can do because locusts just get vaporized in an instant. Then since the hosts are still on cool down, its just a matter of time before they are killed off. Lurkers have prolonged utility because they don't rely on a weak proxy to do damage, their spines aren't going anywhere until the lurker is killed whereas if the locusts die then the host is just waiting to die. Moreover, lurkers fulfill a defensive role significantly better than swarm hosts, which a more of an aggressive unit.
Perhaps this is a good thing, swarm hosts will have great utility in the early/mid game before the Zerg transitions out into hive tech. In any case, swarm hosts aren't lurkers, but they are a good approximation to the kind of tension they create. Definitely a unit to make the game more interesting.
Worker counts on town halls
Yes, this is a good thing. It's a utility which doesn't hinder strategy and rather creates indicators for players of all skill levels to use. Moreover, no more will you have 9 workers on gas because of a messed up rally. Yes this means that top level players won't have to box workers to count how many are at each base - but is that really a bad thing? Boxing workers is inaccurate and doesn't really add anything to strategy.
And don't worry, there are still things to do like this to get an edge at the top level. Like checking mineral counts to guess how long an opponent expansion has been up.
The Netrual
The Viper
I can't quite make up my mind about this unit. I haven't seen it in action enough yet. The abduct ability caused my very first "oh wow" moment of HotS - depicted below. However its other abilities (consume/blinding cloud) seems kinda dumb or at the very least, only useful in ZvT. Consume can only consume buildings and gives energy over time, which seems kind weird to me as well (eating a unit and instant energy would be much better).
Vipers in their prime; stealin dem colossi
The move depicted above is the viper abducting colossus before I can recall them with my mothership. But as the replay illustrates, abducting a Colossus from within the the recall spell doesn't cancel the recall on the unit. imo, it absolutely should. Recall should be changed to recalling all units within an area, rather than all the units targeted when the spell is cast - that way abduct will be able to cancel recall on abducted units. Small tweak, but big difference in spectator enjoyment.
Collapsible Rocks
Nice gimmick. Hopefully there is the ability to make the fallen rocks become invincible (just so map makers have the option of creating true reverse island maps). One kinda interesting thing is that if you kill the rocks, and there is a unit underneath, the rocks will deal 500 damage to whatever is there. I thought it might kill whatever is underneath it so I sniped a collapsible rock tower next to a hatch - but alas, only 500 hp damage.
My physics degree tells me that these rocks should do more damage
Battle Hellions
I don't really understand why this unit needs to exist. The form your hellions are in is basically decided in the following way:
- Am I attacking/defending? Battle Hellion
- Am I scouting/harassing? Regular Hellion
The battle hellion is quite effective as an attacker but I just wish it added something interesting to the game. The community proposed a number of cool ideas for the hellion (things like napalm trails come to mind) which are infinitely more interesting than the battle hellion and provide the same anti-zealot utility. I just don't get what happened They are neutral because they are good at what they do, and fulfill its intended role - but are incredibly boring.
Boring, but they do what the box says they do
Ultra Charge
I haven't seen this used yet, so I can't comment.
The Bad
Automine workers
Okay, I get the argument that for whatever technical reason you can't split workers as fast as the next guy. But this is a bad change for the following reasons:
- split isn't optimal, so you're better off doing it yourself
- making workers mine means any proxy gate strategy is delayed a bit (seconds count!)
As this impacts on strategy, this option shouldn't exist. And if it does, it should be off by default or lower league only. Every masters+ player should have this off anyway.
The Oracle
In its current form, the oracle is a bad unit. Firstly, entomb is just not worth the cost. At 150/200 (+150/150 for stargate) the oracle is already very expensive and a big investment moreover at 100 energy it takes forever to charge up. The net gain from an entomb (vs a good player) is so small that you just can't justify it's cost. The only time it shines is against a low apm player where you can entomb while they are distracted by something to get the full utility of the spell. Any ability that targets mining directly is going to be difficult to balance, and like the overseer (which is difficult to balance because it gives supply), entomb is just a gimmick ability which doesn't actually give the user any benefit. If entomb is changed so that it's easier to access (via decreased energy or oracle cost) then it quickly becomes a broken ability. I don't think the sweet spot exists for this spell - so it's got to go.
Conversely, the other two abilities from the oracle are really useful if it weren't for one thing (which I'll get to in a moment). Preordain is amazing at scoping out an entire enemy base or for use in conjunction with the tempest. In particular, getting a preordain off on a main base hatch often reveals all of the Zergs tech choices which is quite useful. Revelation is also pretty useful in keeping tabs on your enemies army - or providing detection in a pinch. Both revelation and preordain give good scouting options to the Protoss. Except, Protoss already have a good scout in the form of the observer!! Only in very niche situations can I see these abilities being more useful than having a regular observer.
In summary, the oracle shows incredible promise but fails to deliver on every count. It's prohibitively expensive and it's abilities are either under powered (entomb) or overlaps with existing abilities (preordain/revelation). It's a shame because the oracle had me really excited
Hydra Speed
Why? Just, why? Giving hydras speed doesn't increase their utility in any way and they still have many of the same weaknesses with the upgrade (hi colossus!). Giving the hydralisks an evolution into something more tanky, or an upgrade to increase HP/armor, hell, even an upgrade to split into two locusts upon death would give the hydralisk more utility than the speed upgrade.
Hydras doing the only thing they know how to do, die.
Yes we wanted faster hydras, but at Hive tech it's far too late and there are already way too many counters for them out at this stage of the game.
Widow Mine
Kinda stupid. They seem very difficult to use properly and seem far more suited to rare situations. Without turtle mech, I find it hard to see a real use for this unit but hey, it's early days so let's give it time. Still, in its current form it needs work - hence why it's in the bad column.
Immortals
What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals.
Immortals being crushed, not pictured; 4 immortals that died seconds before
Another thing that can't be intended is that widow mines do not trigger the immortals hardened shield. So if an immortal wanders into range of one of these the mine deals full damage to it (and subsequently, removes all of the immortals shield).
The result is that immortals suck against mech. Blizzard, please fix this.
The Ugly
The Warhound
Without doubt the worst addition to HotS by a landslide. The colossus is a bad an uninteresting unit, but at least it is fragile and needs protection. The warhound deals ridiculous damage against mechanical units (and really, most units in general), is really cheap and unlike the colossus, hardly needs any support what so ever. There are already threads to discuss how bad this unit is, so I won't add much.
In any case, the unit ticks all the boxes for a bad unit. It's uninteresting, it's over powered, and it's the exact wrong direction HotS should be going.
The Tempest
22 Range? Are you serious. The unit is a flying gimmick and while I love having a siege air unit with amazing range as Protoss, it just isn't a Battle cruiser or a Brood lord, it's just a gimmick. The ultimate Protoss starship should not be a harass unit for crying out loud.
BCs pretty much annihilate tempests - that's a yamato gun hitting the tempest btw
Okay aside from that, the Tempest isn't what Protoss need at the moment. The protoss need a versatile air unit capable of dealing with mech at the moment. Void rays don't cut it (and phoenix don't either). Something like the old Tempest (essentially a more accessible carrier but with some modifications to balance things) would be x10 as appreciated because then we'd actually have a versatile air force capable of dealing with mech (and thereby mitigating the OPness of the warhound.).
Please, go back to the drawing board and really think about what protoss need.
The Dark Shrine
Hugely disappointed that this is still a deadend tech tree giving only a niche unit. Surely Blizzard could come up with something to make it not so dead end? (Incidentally, DTs aren't terrible against mech ._.).
 
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent writeup, Plexa. I actually think there isn't much controversy over what's good/bad. Everyone is more or less negative on the warhound, so I can expect that to change. Tempest as well - I feel like they're just trying to bring back the namesakes from the SC2 alpha (Oracle was similar to an old protoss unit design, the dark carriers were originally known as Tempest).
I was, and still am, so bleh on the Oracle. Could you elaborate what you were excited about? Because the entombed ability is one of the most one dimensional and non-exciting "harass" spells in the game. It needs a huge rework IMO - I think there's huge potential for it to be a support caster.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Okay after reading this I will concede that the worker count thing is okay. But I still think it is ugly as all hell.
|
Great article!
I agree with a lot of what you said. I play P+Z, thinking about going fully Z for HotS. I really feel that the new Protoss units fill some specialty and gimmicky roles while the other races got standard units. Even if they balanced it out, it's a drastic change in playstyle that makes the race less fun for me. By giving T and Z standard units and not P, it feels like P is the weaker race, but I have to use the new units to harass the enemy down to my level. It's just my speculation atm, I'll be curious to see how everything plays out.
|
Awesome blog, i agree with most of it, but it is all well written and well thought out. 5 stars.
|
I agree with pretty much all your points.
I really hope its not to late to fix the game and that Blizzard is reading all this negative feedback.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 13:02 shindigs wrote:
Excellent writeup, Plexa. I actually think there isn't much controversy over what's good/bad. Everyone is more or less negative on the warhound, so I can expect that to change. Tempest as well - I feel like they're just trying to bring back the namesakes from the SC2 alpha (Oracle was similar to an old protoss unit design, the dark carriers were originally known as Tempest).
I was, and still am, so bleh on the Oracle. Could you elaborate what you were excited about? Because the entombed ability is one of the most one dimensional and non-exciting "harass" spells in the game. It needs a huge rework IMO - I think there's huge potential for it to be a support caster.
A mobile spell caster from the stargate sounds like it has potential. A unit designed to harass sounds like it has potential. Entomb is a spell which sounds like it should be good. All of these things make me excited for the oracle.
But then you start playing with it and start examining the reality of each of the spells. And then you're disappointed. Entomb, in reality, is impossible to balance correctly (as I said). And the other abilities have significant overlap (something blizzard tries to avoid, I thought?).
It feels like a unit that should be a lot better than it really is.
|
From what I've seen of the HotS beta streams this seems pretty accurate. I haven't seen hydras used, however I think you're understating the usefulness of a free buff. The way that you described how they should be just makes them sound like a roach that hits air with a bit more dps. Not that they wouldn't be good, but I don't think that's the right place for them.
|
|
|
Nice job Plexa. I can't run SC2 at all on my computer and haven't been able to get around to watching streams, so I really appreciate the analysis and write-up. Thanks! 
|
I really think that the swarm host costs too much supply. This coupled with all workers caught up in economy and the high supply cost of units in general is pretty damn bad.
Hydras really should be 1 supply. That or roaches. Same with tanks - and tanks should be un-nerfed back to one of the stages a year ago with more damage - we aren't on Steppes of War anymore. Also consider making them 2 supply as well.
My issues with the game are the economy and the high supply cost in general - I like most of the concepts except the warpound, lack of use for the viper, and the silliness of the mothership core (super unit in general).
Really happy with the CONCEPT of the swarm host, it just needs a lot of stat tweaking.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 13:19 Grobyc wrote:
From what I've seen of the HotS beta streams this seems pretty accurate. I haven't seen hydras used, however I think you're understating the usefulness of a free buff. The way that you described how they should be just makes them sound like a roach that hits air with a bit more dps. Not that they wouldn't be good, but I don't think that's the right place for them.
It isn't a free buff though? You have to research it and you can only research it once you get to hive tech. It just doesn't help with any problems that the hydra has since by hive tech hydras are largely irrelevant.
|
people have complained about the warhound being boring for over a year and blizzard hasn't done shit to make it cooler. I think most of these units show that they are more interested in making units that look cool aesthetically instead of actually creating cool new gameplay mechanics. Judging by how blizzard handled the beta for WoL (only changing things to "balance" the game, no changes to make the game more interesting) I doubt there will be any real changes to the game beyond some balance stuff at this point.
I was hoping HoTS would make SC2 more appealing to me but a lot of these units are just dumb (swarm host seems like the only neat unit to me). how fuck do you spend 2 years working on new units, taking in everything we learned about why some units in SC2/BW are boring and why some units in SC2/BW are exciting and then come up with the fucking warhound?
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo.
|
I'm confused. When you say 'mech', are you talking about tanks or warhound/thor/widow mine?
|
On easy mode worker counts:
The problem I still have:"there's still many things that a player has to check like mineral counts at your opponents expos to determine how long it has been up.".
Automating basic things that you should master to be a master only lowers the difficulty and 'so what' if it isn't as flashy as a colossus drop. It's way more important. It's a terrible choice to make the game easier.
Grobyc you probably haven't seen anyone use hydras in TvZ since early 2011. You know what tanks do to marines? They do the same thing to hydras. Only hydras are twice the price plus gas. Speed is irrelevant. Imagine BW + forcefields. There'd never be a lost reaver again. Hitting a hydra timing in ZvP without relying on a nydus is one of the most ballsy strategies you can really do. Two colossii and a couple of forcefields and you'll lose your army for nothing and almost certainly the game. It's that suicidal in ZvP.. so in ZvT when your opponent is pretty much assuredly going to get tanks your chance of success drops from 10% to 3%.
Plexa is absolutely right. Hydra speed is too little too late.
|
agree with most of this list.
I really like the widow mine though I wouldn't put it under bad. I think it's a really fun/positional unit that's fun to use.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo.
Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision.
On September 06 2012 13:48 LuckyFool wrote:
agree with most of this list.
I really like the widow mine though I wouldn't put it under bad. I think it's a really fun/positional unit that's fun to use.
It was pretty borderline for me. It just... didn't seem as useful as spider mines if yo know what i mean
|
See I like the idea of the tempest, the ability to create positional tension, but it pretty much means the death of any siege tank based mech in TvP. since the tempest will just site outside of siege tank range and slowly whittle away at the terran mech ball. Maybe if the range was decreased slightly to like 17-18 then we could see an interesting dance of vikings and stalkers or high templar and tempests at the edge of siege tank range.
I feel that it has potential in ZvP too since we will see a dance of vipers trying to abduct, this works on air yes?, the tempests while templar or stalkers try to keep them away, and trying to use corruptors to kill the abducted tempests. I just think that the range needs tweaking.
|
I actually disagree with a lot of your points, the only strong disagreement being swarm hosts. People have been trying to stick the guys right up against stuff to get the vipers into the fight as fast as possible, but with the upgrade they can travel a fairly significant distance before expiring.
Obviously dont stick them at max range because youll get 1 hit, but they can be safely used at a small distance from the bottom of a walled ramp, have a few buffer units in between and they are totally protected.
And colossus role over anything in 'sufficient numbers' kinda wierd to mention that
|
Well, I disagree 100% with you about immortals being bad against mech. Immortals are still good against mech. So are voids, though carriers would be ideal over the tempest.
A lot of protoss do not understand how to play against mech, and they only have 1 robo making immortals and then don't know what they're doing wrong. When you watch really good Protoss in wings of liberty vs mech they make mech look like tonka toys because of triple/quadruple robos pumping out mass immortals, along with mass, mass gateways for instant chargelot/archon reinforcements.
Immortals are cost effective even against warhounds when you target fire or get enough of them, then it comes down to the Terran needing ghost EMP to negate the shields and it then it reverses to warhounds being better obviously because of no shields.
As for the hydra...the speed really does improve it...but at hive tech? Yeah, what's the point of it being at hive?
I agree, like basically everyone else, that it's a boring 1A unit though (the warhound). Also void rays are only meant to skew the mech player's unit composition to force vikings/catch them off guard and kill a lot of units for free or stop pushes. Carriers > tempest tho imo you're right the 22 range is a gimmick.
Widow mine was pre-emptively nerfed before they released beta due to balance whine on the forums. They should put it back to the previous stats with better splash.
I agree with most of the other stuff ya said. Except battle hellions are pretty badass imo.
|
I agree with almost everything.
Widow mines I think have a lot of potential and I want to see them used a bit more... I think the problem atm is that the warhound is so strong/easy to use compared to the mine that there's little need for the mines. I do like the idea though.
Tempest I think is interesting because of the crazy range, but I feel it needs a lot of tweaking... it seems it'd be good to give it a + damage to something so it's not totally crap in straight up fights. Maybe +massive so it can pick off broods, colossi and thors slightly more effectively. I dunno, really.
Oracle I'm hoping will be tailored to be a kind of "stargate observer" to enable toss to open stargate or robo a little more freely... as such, I don't mind the similarities. But maybe something different could be done.
I feel like the starting worker-mining thing is a double edged sword... I don't mind having it because of the lag people have at the start, but I'd not like it to ever be equal to or better than good splitting. As such I'd like to see it guaranteed that it'll be worse than splitting correctly; it always must send to the "worst" mineral patch and mustn't split for you, just box and click.
I really don't know about the warhound; I don't really like it, and it feels too good for its cost.
My reaction overall to the beta is very positive; can't wait to use the swarm host. I think the issues with it late game can be hugely mitigated by good control and turning off auto-locust, so you can time waves of locusts manually.
|
Strangely enough, I'm seeing the Warhound being used by QXC in a very peculiar fashion: to shoot queens and tumors while forcing spines and lings. They're like a rich man's Stalker.
Of course, if David Kim didn't destroy TvZ, we'd still see hellions filling this role (they now escort his warhounds). And then we'd be left with this generic ground-to-ground unit that fills no real role, other than to cause unwarranted grief to Protoss players.
Hopefully, they'll learn that the old guys screaming about Brood War aren't being unreasonable, and realize that they need to build upon StarCraft, rather than reinvent the wheel.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 13:55 avilo wrote:
Well, I disagree 100% with you about immortals being bad against mech. Immortals are still good against mech. So are voids, though carriers would be ideal over the tempest.
A lot of protoss do not understand how to play against mech, and they only have 1 robo making immortals and then don't know what they're doing wrong. When you watch really good Protoss in wings of liberty vs mech they make mech look like tonka toys because of triple/quadruple robos pumping out mass immortals, along with mass, mass gateways for instant chargelot/archon reinforcements.
Immortals are cost effective even against warhounds when you target fire or get enough of them, then it comes down to the Terran needing ghost EMP to negate the shields and it then it reverses to warhounds being better obviously because of no shields. I've gone triple robo vs mech and still come out worse off. Warhounds destroy immortals because their haywire missiles don't activate the shields. Hence, Terrans don't even need ghosts to deactivate the shields!!!!! That's whats so messed up, immortals SHOULD kill mech, but they dont.
|
I think the intended purpose of the hydra speed upgrade is for late game scenarios where the Zerg still has a couple dozen Hydras left, and they need a speed buff to stay relevant with the rest of the lategame Zerg army. Giving the hydras the upgrade and letting them pay off part of their investment may be more desirable alternative than letting them be a poor use of supply. Another purpose may be to prevent autoloss when Protoss rushes Tempests and you don't have a spire since Tempests can kite slow hydras forever, but hydras still can't transcend cliffs, so I dunno. I still can't see this upgrade being standard though.
|
On September 06 2012 14:02 Chairman Ray wrote:
I think the intended purpose of the hydra speed upgrade is for late game scenarios where the Zerg still has a couple dozen Hydras left, and they need a speed buff to stay relevant with the rest of the lategame Zerg army. Giving the hydras the upgrade and letting them pay off part of their investment may be more desirable alternative than letting them be a poor use of supply. Another purpose may be to prevent autoloss when Protoss rushes Tempests and you don't have a spire since Tempests can kite slow hydras forever, but hydras still can't transcend cliffs, so I dunno. I still can't see this upgrade being standard though.
The interview I saw with David Kim implied hydra/viper tongue was going to be the new late game zerg. That hydra speed makes hydras instantly relevant vs any composition in combination with the viper.
|
On September 06 2012 14:02 Chairman Ray wrote:
I think the intended purpose of the hydra speed upgrade is for late game scenarios where the Zerg still has a couple dozen Hydras left, and they need a speed buff to stay relevant with the rest of the lategame Zerg army. Giving the hydras the upgrade and letting them pay off part of their investment may be more desirable alternative than letting them be a poor use of supply. Another purpose may be to prevent autoloss when Protoss rushes Tempests and you don't have a spire since Tempests can kite slow hydras forever, but hydras still can't transcend cliffs, so I dunno. I still can't see this upgrade being standard though.
Blizzard is probably afraid of roach/hydra/viper being too powerful in the mid-game vs Protoss (vipers + range-upgraded hydralisk focus-fire makes corruptors almost obsolete for anti-colossi purposes). It would be too much for too little too early in the game.
|
The in-game worker count is actually a bit misleading. Right now it shows the optimal saturation as 24 mineral-mining workers per base, which is 3 workers per patch. When playing around with it in-game, 24 workers on minerals definitely looked a bit oversaturated. On 3 bases with all gasses mining, we would need 90 workers (3 x 24 = 72 on minerals, 3 x 6 = 18 on gas) if we were to follow the in-game worker count exactly. That is definitely too many.
A player with knowledge of proper worker saturation can easily avoid this, in which case the actual worker counter is very useful. However, the low-level player is ironically hurt by this feature when he tries to follow the suggested optimal saturation exactly only to be oversaturated when he does achieve these suggested numbers.
|
Blizzard... *sigh*
I hope Terran meta doesn't turn into Battle Hellion + Warhound deathball. Fuck that will be boring.
To your point regarding Hydras, if they had an upgrade that improved their durability then suddenly Hydra deathballs too.
At least Valve recognized they should leave competitive game design to people who've actually created competitive games...
|
Yeah still upset with dark shrine
Don't worry guys thats in the next game
they can't give all their great idea out for hots zz
|
I agree with just about everything Plexa. About the only thing I disagree with is the Oracle and Entomb. I can see your point, but I think it'd be very easy to implement a way to balance it so that Entomb can be useful every now and again without it being game-breaking (perhaps by making it only possible to Entomb a mineral patch every 30 seconds or something - there could be a visual effect indicating which mineral patches have been recently entombed). I wish they still had stealth field, too.
|
Man the swarmhost and viper are so awesome. I really like them as units and hope swarmhost doesn't get nerfed to badly (idk doesn't seem op to me but I just have a feeling it's going to be nerfed, I don't have beta so maybe it is OP but looks so fun to use).
|
I'm starting to form a better opinion on HoTS now, but I'm still sticking with my main idea that a lot of things have to change. The Warhound for example...
|
On September 06 2012 14:26 blade55555 wrote:
Man the swarmhost and viper are so awesome. I really like them as units and hope swarmhost doesn't get nerfed to badly (idk doesn't seem op to me but I just have a feeling it's going to be nerfed, I don't have beta so maybe it is OP but looks so fun to use).
It's fragile in smaller numbers but if the opponent doesn't have ridiculous splash and you get a good mass you just can'st stop them :|
I think the mines are good, but I'm still spoiled from spider mines.
|
Great write up. I have hopes for the Tempest though, and I like that its uniqueness is through a fundamental attribute (range) rather than just piling on abilities/spells.
|
On September 06 2012 14:02 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:55 avilo wrote:
Well, I disagree 100% with you about immortals being bad against mech. Immortals are still good against mech. So are voids, though carriers would be ideal over the tempest.
A lot of protoss do not understand how to play against mech, and they only have 1 robo making immortals and then don't know what they're doing wrong. When you watch really good Protoss in wings of liberty vs mech they make mech look like tonka toys because of triple/quadruple robos pumping out mass immortals, along with mass, mass gateways for instant chargelot/archon reinforcements.
Immortals are cost effective even against warhounds when you target fire or get enough of them, then it comes down to the Terran needing ghost EMP to negate the shields and it then it reverses to warhounds being better obviously because of no shields. I've gone triple robo vs mech and still come out worse off. Warhounds destroy immortals because their haywire missiles don't activate the shields. Hence, Terrans don't even need ghosts to deactivate the shields!!!!! That's whats so messed up, immortals SHOULD kill mech, but they dont.
I did a lot, a lot of unit tests when the custom map was out with immortals vs warhounds specifically to test cost effectiveness of immortals against mech (and yes the stats were exactly the same along with everything else).
The immortals cost for cost were destroying warhounds quite easily with a lot leftover, regardless of the missile getting through shields because the immortal's damage output vs mech is so high. Combine this with collosus/other units, and then it gets trickier. Just as well as the Terran adding in ghosts it gets very tricky.
In a vacuum type of test I tested 200/200 immortal vs 200/200 warhound and the immortals came out way ahead with an incredible cost efficiency ratio.
I did the same test and added in only 2-4 ghosts with full energy for EMPs and suddenly the warhounds came out of the fight with huge cost efficiency and almost the exact reverse result of leftover units.
Now we add in other units to these compositions...along with an actual 1v1 game being played out...waaaaay too early to claim immortals are bad against mech. As far as I can tell they are just as good against mech as they are in WoL.
Of course that doesn't mean the warhound doesn't need a lot of work done in either design / balance. And I believe it's intended for the haywire missile to be able to get through immortal's shields because the immortal is such a hard counter to mech that blizzard decided they wanted a unit that would be able to help fight against the immortal from Terran mech that did not require having to get ghost EMP which requires a barracks + ghost academy + upgrade research + the ghost themselves.
|
Canada13386 Posts
On September 06 2012 13:03 heyoka wrote:
Okay after reading this I will concede that the worker count thing is okay. But I still think it is ugly as all hell.
Put it in the wireframe. Just like how it is on the gas right now. I would be happy.
As for the article, it sums up really well what I have been watching on streams. Wish I had beta
Part of the reason the warhound is so good?
It looks to me like the warhound uses its missiles IN ADDITION TO AND DURING its standard attack.
So if they have a standard DPS of 10 for example (idk the numbers) then in addition to the 10DPS for the duration of the missile attack while it is on Cooldown, you add another 20 dps for example.
This is what it looks like to me when I watch, but needs testing.
|
On September 06 2012 14:53 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:03 heyoka wrote:
Okay after reading this I will concede that the worker count thing is okay. But I still think it is ugly as all hell. Put it in the wireframe. Just like how it is on the gas right now. I would be happy. As for the article, it sums up really well what I have been watching on streams. Wish I had beta Part of the reason the warhound is so good? It looks to me like the warhound uses its missiles IN ADDITION TO AND DURING its standard attack. So if they have a standard DPS of 10 for example (idk the numbers) then in addition to the 10DPS for the duration of the missile attack while it is on Cooldown, you add another 20 dps for example. This is what it looks like to me when I watch, but needs testing.
Yeah. It's also really good because if gives you insane initial dps with higher range than stalker. So sentries and staklers and to a lesser degree immortals can die before they do damage. And it lets you poke in and out super efficiently.
|
for entomb it would be cool if instead of just blocking the mineral patches, it lowers the rate at which the workers gather minerals. So the standard is 5 minerals per trip, and we can reduce it to lets say 3? So now, the player can either continue to gather or choose to use some of his workers to attack the entomb fields so they can gather minerals back at the normal rate. 3 per trip may be too low or too high, but its a different idea right?
edit: i say this because as i was watching some zerg streams today, despite the protoss players using entomb ( i know we havent figured out the best way to use them ) but it seemed like a small annoyance and they just got ride of the entomb fields in just a few seconds. It doesnt feel like it can do the effect that we want it to in the early-mid game, unless ofc the other player does a huge ass mistake.
|
Canada13386 Posts
On September 06 2012 15:03 recklessfire wrote:
for entomb it would be cool if instead of just blocking the mineral patches, it lowers the rate at which the workers gather minerals. So the standard is 5 minerals per trip, and we can reduce it to lets say 3? So now, the player can either continue to gather or choose to use some of his workers to attack the entomb fields so they can gather minerals back at the normal rate. 3 per trip may be too low or too high, but its a different idea right?
edit: i say this because as i was watching some zerg streams today, despite the protoss players using entomb ( i know we havent figured out the best way to use them ) but it seemed like a small annoyance and they just got ride of the entomb fields in just a few seconds. It doesnt feel like it can do the effect that we want it to in the early-mid game, unless ofc the other player does a huge ass mistake.
So how does reducing mineral income instead of denying it help the issue of it being generally not very effective?
Entomb is stupid good vs low apm players, and terrible vs high apm players.
The other races have harass options that:
- force workers off the line (to avoid losing them)
- can base trade in the worst case scenario
- can kill workers for long term damage
- can kill supply depots/pylons
- can trade for army or economy
- can take out tech
Protoss can block mineral income for a small period of time at the obscenely high gas cost. Couple this with the fact it is useless in PvP (if an opponent opens twilight tech, the oracle does absolutely nothing to helping you defend) then I don't feel it is as good as people initially thought it was.
It seems like the design philosophy for protoss units was: Don't add to the deathball.
Realistically, protoss had a deathball in 2010 vs Zerg and after that its started to come down to unit control and composition. In PvT, PvZ, and PvP its less and less about just taking a bunch of stuff and attacking. In PvP its collossus wars but beneath this is economy management and positioning. No upgrades and bad position you lose, good ups terrible position, lose. Too late on the archons, or too early? Well theres a timing there or alternatively your economy floats 2k gas and no minerals for example.
Terran -- add to deathball.
Zerg - add positional units and support units.
In the interests of not giving protoss new attacking units (the only way to not add to deathball) we received:
- stupid high cost low damage harass unit
- high cost no damage "raid" unit
- defensive slow as hell caster with a well designed earlier recall spell.
My biggest problem with the tempest is the following: It looks like something that can force an engagement or a change in position. This is nice. But it seems like sinking that much cost, time and supply into the tempest makes its reach kind of like a long stick poking at a hornets nest. Even if you poke the nest and smash it to bits in one big swing (lots of tempests) you still need to deal with the hornets themselves and the stick is no good at that.
You know what would be crazy but fun to see even if only a few times? Entomb bubbles do a small amount of damage to any melee attacker that kills the bubble. Not a lot of damage, maybe 10 or 20 damage melee range AoE. This way using workers to kill the bubbles comes at a cost and forces the workers to pull as well as keeping some ranged units nearby to kill the bubbles. (its crazy i know but seems like it would be fun to play with  Its not entirely serious suggestion either btw don't freak out)
|
Yes Abduct works on air, but I think the range is too short, yesterday Stephano had to abduct lot of times a tempest in order to get it in range. I think abduct should gain at least +2 range to become REALLY useful. But hey it's gonna hard to balance, yeah.
|
Good stuff. From what I've been catching on streams I agree with most of your points.
Warhound was always a really lame unit and the new protoss additions appear to not add anything.
I hope Blizzard takes their time with the beta and goes back to the drawing board often.
|
On September 06 2012 13:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision.
it would have been a cool decision if protoss air units were better/cooler. like for example if going 2-base tempest was as good in any situation as going 2-base carrier can be in BW.
|
You say the tempest is bad, but you should maybe reserve judgement before watching White-Ra's stream. Perhaps they shouldn't be a 'capital ship', but the concept plays out pretty nicely due to the unique micro situations involved. Their practical range is usually only what they can see, and there are many opportunities to deny vision.
Agreed with you on most other points.
|
On September 06 2012 15:31 Ideas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:50 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision. it would have been a cool decision if protoss air units were better/cooler. like for example if going 2-base tempest was as good in any situation as going 2-base carrier can be in BW.
Good thing about the 2 -base carrier build in broodwar you can continue dragoon production and carrier at the same time .
|
Based on what I've seen about the widow mine it seems like it functions far better as a scourge-like unit than your standard positional-control spider mine. A few mines around your base in common paths for any harass that depends on a few units (dropship/banshee/oracle) and suddenly your opponent has to be very careful. In this regard they're kind of interesting, but it's hard to figure out a use for them otherwise.
|
On September 06 2012 13:18 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:02 shindigs wrote:
Excellent writeup, Plexa. I actually think there isn't much controversy over what's good/bad. Everyone is more or less negative on the warhound, so I can expect that to change. Tempest as well - I feel like they're just trying to bring back the namesakes from the SC2 alpha (Oracle was similar to an old protoss unit design, the dark carriers were originally known as Tempest).
I was, and still am, so bleh on the Oracle. Could you elaborate what you were excited about? Because the entombed ability is one of the most one dimensional and non-exciting "harass" spells in the game. It needs a huge rework IMO - I think there's huge potential for it to be a support caster. A mobile spell caster from the stargate sounds like it has potential. A unit designed to harass sounds like it has potential. Entomb is a spell which sounds like it should be good. All of these things make me excited for the oracle. But then you start playing with it and start examining the reality of each of the spells. And then you're disappointed. Entomb, in reality, is impossible to balance correctly (as I said). And the other abilities have significant overlap (something blizzard tries to avoid, I thought?). It feels like a unit that should be a lot better than it really is.
Could you comment on the Oracle losing its cloaking ability? I feel like thats the one thing that had me excited about Hots. It gave Protoss defensability and an amazing strategy which, I thought, was okay since other races got just as much toys and ways to deal with this kind of ability.
I know its pointless because Blizz has removed it for good, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. THAT would be an amazing addition to this lackluster unit.
|
I disagree completely with your opinion on the worker count display, and honestly it's kind of weird to hear it from a guy who has been around since deep in the BW days.
You say that the indicators don't hinder strategy, only makes make things more convenient for all levels. The thing is, SC2 isn't purely a strategy game; it's strategy mixed with mechanics, and worker management is a fundamental part of macromanagement. It might be something comparatively small to say, actually building workers all throughout the game, but just building workers without having the presence of mind and situational awareness to monitor your shit (without being told your exact numbers) is just one aspect of it all. Simply put, if you don't have the mental dexterity to keep up with your stuff, you are faltering in your macro and ought to pay the consequences. It's another thing that separates the good from the bad.
Also, your claim that boxing workers is inaccurate is blatantly false. Eyeballing worker saturation might be inaccurate, but boxing workers is pretty precise if you ask me.
From the HotS that I've watched, everything else you're saying seems to be right on point (though I have yet to see hydra speed actually used).
|
nice to see some insight from you!
regarding the mine vs immortal thingy: having one immortal kill 10 mines with its shields alone seems a bit much, but i do not know what a good change would be.
|
10387 Posts
a unit designed purely for harass is stupid .. Reaper was designed to be a harass unit, and look how it turned out -_- Oracle should have some sort of army/offensive utility instead of some dumb entomb spell
|
Good post, Plexa. Agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to the Oracle and Tempest. *shudder*
|
@zeromus
i was thinking that if the opponent is about to or is getting attacked by a player who is using the oracle, the opponent must now decide whether to keep his guys on minerals to continue gathering resources to defend, or take the time and stop resource gathering (assuming he is using his workers to attack the entomb, because he needs his army units ready to defend) and break the entomb. There should be some kind of threshold on whether which choice would be correct and should differ with the strength and timing of the attack so it doesnt have to be a singular choice in which you should ALWAYS break the entomb even if your getting attacked.
hopefully that made sense...kinda but i do agree on all your points. Entomb would still be pretty ineffective vs high apm players. I dont blame blizzard for giving us such units because our current deathball is pretty damn good. Colossus splash with storm splash is so amazing, I do see why they would have such a difficult time adding in another attacking unit.
The oracles's scouting abilities really do overlap with observers, and hell phoenixes are still pretty good scouts out of stargate tech. So really the only "new" ability is entomb, so just fucking phoenix with entomb, bam really good unit now.
|
Canada11310 Posts
On September 06 2012 16:35 ArvickHero wrote:
a unit designed purely for harass is stupid .. Reaper was designed to be a harass unit, and look how it turned out -_- Oracle should have some sort of army/offensive utility instead of some dumb entomb spell
Yeah, I've always felt that it was way too niche. Truly good harass units are much more versatile, being able to defend or attack or support the main army (Shuttle-reaver). It really doesn't look like it adds much micro/ interesting play either. Sort an on/off deal. If the air is clear, you get the harass off in a couple clicks, if it isn't clear run away or die. I don't think it's something than can properly balanced- too good and it shuts down mining too much. Too bad and it's never made. Because it's so niche, that dividing line between useful and not is so very narrow. I could be missing something because Artosis seemed rather taken with the idea, but I'm not sure why.
|
hydra speed actually seems pretty good to be honest, it gives a much stronger remax than just pure roach, could hit before colossus number get high again or even can just abduct the colossus out to snipe them off
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Widow mines are undoubtably a bit weak right now, but are you putting them in the bad section because they're a bad unit, or because you don't like the design? Cause it seems like a pretty fun unit, and I like the fact that it ignores immortal armour and can hit air. It sort of fills some holes mech has, it just seems to need a buff to actually have utility.
|
I agree on mostly everything, except I would put the spider mine in neutral/good. It shows promise for the future, and it's probably one of the only units that will be used in new - unintended ways.
You could for example fake-push the enemies poking units into mines.
Does picking up with a dropship work? Could be fun..
Picking up units that drag mines and clearing fields. Imagine a stalker and a WP clearing mines all around, would look sick.
But only if spider mines would be something used a lot, which I can't see in it's current form. I would honestly give them to a reaper, it's fast it's a raiding unit..it resembles the vulture the most.
|
Excellent write-up I agree on almost every count, I really hope Blizzard is reading this.
|
I disagree with:
Window Mine - Best unit of HotS so far. It is exactly what terran needed, a positional unit to protect the siege tanks from getting raped by immortals and zealots.
Hydralisk - The speed attack is great, it makes it a fast fragile unit, so skill is required. If the hydras HP is increased it will become an a-move unit. The main problem here is the no skill colossus.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 17:37 Andr3 wrote:
I agree on mostly everything, except I would put the spider mine in neutral/good. It shows promise for the future, and it's probably one of the only units that will be used in new - unintended ways.
You could for example fake-push the enemies poking units into mines.
Does picking up with a dropship work? Could be fun..
Picking up units that drag mines and clearing fields. Imagine a stalker and a WP clearing mines all around, would look sick.
But only if spider mines would be something used a lot, which I can't see in it's current form. I would honestly give them to a reaper, it's fast it's a raiding unit..it resembles the vulture the most. There's virtually no dragging mines around - they move really quickly and instantly blow up. Their splash damage is really poor - only 35 - whereas the unit that gets targetted gets dealt 160. If there were more drag potential or ways that it could be useful I'd be more enthusiastic about the unit. I've been watching thorzains stream while I've been doing other things (gotta work out how to beat warhound/marine timing attack t_t) and he doesn't like the mine either, in his words
"I don't see what it can do that a tank can't"
On September 06 2012 16:23 Bobo_XIII wrote:
I disagree completely with your opinion on the worker count display, and honestly it's kind of weird to hear it from a guy who has been around since deep in the BW days.
You say that the indicators don't hinder strategy, only makes make things more convenient for all levels. The thing is, SC2 isn't purely a strategy game; it's strategy mixed with mechanics, and worker management is a fundamental part of macromanagement. It might be something comparatively small to say, actually building workers all throughout the game, but just building workers without having the presence of mind and situational awareness to monitor your shit (without being told your exact numbers) is just one aspect of it all. Simply put, if you don't have the mental dexterity to keep up with your stuff, you are faltering in your macro and ought to pay the consequences. It's another thing that separates the good from the bad. I agree that worker management is a vital part of the game, but what this indicator brings to the table is a quick fact about the number of workers at each base. What you do with this fact is up to you. Are you trying to hit a precise 40 probe 6gate timing attack? How many workers should you be maynarding to you natural at any given time? This information allows you to make those decisions in a more accurate way. Does it lower the skill ceiling? A bit, but in the case the payoff is more accurate builds and better execution of whatever it is you are planning to do ay every level.
Also, your claim that boxing workers is inaccurate is blatantly false. Eyeballing worker saturation might be inaccurate, but boxing workers is pretty precise if you ask me. Boxing workers can be inaccurate because more often that not you pick up workers mining gas - which is kinda annoying (and position dependent). Moreover, boxing three bases quickly can lead to a variation of up to 10 workers (in my experience anyway).
On September 06 2012 15:44 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:18 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:02 shindigs wrote:
Excellent writeup, Plexa. I actually think there isn't much controversy over what's good/bad. Everyone is more or less negative on the warhound, so I can expect that to change. Tempest as well - I feel like they're just trying to bring back the namesakes from the SC2 alpha (Oracle was similar to an old protoss unit design, the dark carriers were originally known as Tempest).
I was, and still am, so bleh on the Oracle. Could you elaborate what you were excited about? Because the entombed ability is one of the most one dimensional and non-exciting "harass" spells in the game. It needs a huge rework IMO - I think there's huge potential for it to be a support caster. A mobile spell caster from the stargate sounds like it has potential. A unit designed to harass sounds like it has potential. Entomb is a spell which sounds like it should be good. All of these things make me excited for the oracle. But then you start playing with it and start examining the reality of each of the spells. And then you're disappointed. Entomb, in reality, is impossible to balance correctly (as I said). And the other abilities have significant overlap (something blizzard tries to avoid, I thought?). It feels like a unit that should be a lot better than it really is. Could you comment on the Oracle losing its cloaking ability? I feel like thats the one thing that had me excited about Hots. It gave Protoss defensability and an amazing strategy which, I thought, was okay since other races got just as much toys and ways to deal with this kind of ability. I know its pointless because Blizz has removed it for good, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. THAT would be an amazing addition to this lackluster unit.
Oracle cloaking could easily go the way of imbalanced, but hey, so is the warhound? But seriously, it would give the oracle a great deal of utility and probably would be balanced if it were implemented right now with say, 125 energy cost. Since the oracle is so fragile and expensive it would balance out really nicely. Point being, cloak brings something really interesting to game play and can be balanced given time. I'm sad that its gone, and I hope it comes back.
On September 06 2012 17:18 ETisME wrote:
hydra speed actually seems pretty good to be honest, it gives a much stronger remax than just pure roach, could hit before colossus number get high again or even can just abduct the colossus out to snipe them off
I'm not sure if its a stronger remax (I guess time will tell) but I doubt you will want to be remaxing on roaches or hydras by hive tech aren't broods more attractive? or infestors?
On September 06 2012 17:36 MCDayC wrote:
Widow mines are undoubtably a bit weak right now, but are you putting them in the bad section because they're a bad unit, or because you don't like the design? Cause it seems like a pretty fun unit, and I like the fact that it ignores immortal armour and can hit air. It sort of fills some holes mech has, it just seems to need a buff to actually have utility.
I like the concept behind the unit, I'm not a fan of the execution for reasons I've stated in this post and the OP.
|
United States1719 Posts
chances of getting HotS went from 0 to -1, not because the game looks terrible but largely due to how little certain units the large majority of fans thought would be boring/gimmicky have changed.
thanks for the great write-up, 5 stars. no stars for you blizzard.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Ah, so you'd agree that the widow mine at least has potential in its current form, but just doesn't feel substantial enough right now?
So basically the inverse of the war hound?
|
by your description of the oracle i take it you now know how terrans feel when people ask them to get ravens?(takes forever to get energy and cost 200 gas)
i agree with your points on the tempest tho, it gets horribly crushed by vikings when the costs are equal when carriers would have a much better chance trading efficently with them.
|
Agree with everything apart from the mine being "bad". It might not be balanced in the right way right now, but the design is great. IMO it costs to much and is to supply heavy but this is easy to fix, if they want to.
Mech looks like shit at this point. The worhoud is not a SC unit let alone a mech unit...like rotinegg said though, Blizzard will not make any major changes, like they've proved it in WOL with the Colossus, no matter how big the community outcry.
Unless something extraordinary happens like Blizzard listnening to the community, HOTS is not for me.
|
So just to be clear, tempest completely replaces carrier? No tempest AND carrier?
|
I wasn't particularly planning on playing HotS before, but this solidified my decision. Thanks for the great write-up Plexa.
|
Right from the get-go I was skeptical about the Oracle. That stupid line: "There's fifty ways for a worker to die in SC2, we have a unit that doesn't kill them but still can harass". Didn't sit well with me from the beginning. From what I've seen it's completely useless, good blog.
|
i absolutely agree on tempest. the almighty protoss, the f***ing firstborn cant have tempest as their flagship. they really should have worked on carrier
|
the problem with the worker count thing is not that is makes the game easier but that it
1. looks ugly, and
2. this is only the first step. it wont stop. the full screen will be filled with stupid tabs and numbers.
oh, you dont know how many units you are producing right now? every player has a production tab on his screen. you want to know how many stalkers and zealots you have? you dont have to count anymore, your unit count will be shown right in the middle of your scrren. whats your income? its shown at the top right of your screen. you want to know your amount of production facilities? never count again, the last free screen fill be filled by this number.
thats the future, the whole game will just be numbers.
|
I'm quite sure I won't get the game when it comes out.
Pretty sure as well that If they don't do a complete rework of protoss in the last expansion,the game is going to die within that year.
|
I saw ForGG using mines effectively.
He rushed with some MM early game and was planting mines at the opponents ramp while getting free shots on the nexus. He would run the mines right next to the protoss units and detonate them. Both him and his opponent were lol'ing at how much damage the mines were doing.
IMO, swarm host is lame. I don't understand how people like it so much. Seems hard to balance and is yawn-worthy.
|
Nice inside look into beta, i've been watching streams since i dont have any beta, and observing stuff tells me the same story.
ould a lurker be better? Yes, it would. The reason for that isn't that I'm a BW elitist, rather that the swarm host loses its utility in longer games. While I can't speak for ZvT, in ZvP once the Colossus count gets sufficiently high there is nothing that 123123123 swarm hosts can do because locusts just get vaporized in an instant. Then since the hosts are still on cool down, its just a matter of time before they are killed off. Lurkers have prolonged utility because they don't rely on a weak proxy to do damage, their spines aren't going anywhere until the lurker is killed whereas if the locusts die then the host is just waiting to die. Moreover, lurkers fulfill a defensive role significantly better than swarm hosts, which a more of an aggressive unit.
I agree, while swarm host is nice in mid game, it adds nothing to late game. I really hope, they put lurkers back. Zerg needs the defense they provide , and more late game utility .
|
Watching streams, I've found the #1 reason why I think Warhounds are great against immortals - they can kite them. Warhounds are SIGNIFICANTLY faster than immortals, and haywire missiles are basically tailor-made for kiting, with a long CD (for an attack) and high damage. I especially remember watching Gretorp playing chargelot/archon/immortal against Drewbie on NASL's channel - during mid-game engagements, Gretorp's immortals didn't get to fire at all, while his zealots only got hits in when charging (still slower than warhounds with charge upgrade) and the archons didn't get shots off either since the zealots blocked them. And once the zealots died and it was time to retreat, the immortals got completely demolished since they're so much slower than warhounds. In a straight up a-move vs a-move the immortal might do fine, but if there's any room to kite, warhounds seem really good against them.
Also, I saw a lot of protoss loving energize early-game, being able to chrono both probes and any and all upgrades continuously, and still having some energy spare for production in emergency situations.
|
Bisutopia19190 Posts
Great write up.
Did you forget to talk about Battlecruiser boost or was that taken out?
|
United States33135 Posts
widow mine seems like something to wait on
it's a very APM intensive unit with a lot of versatility
people used to think vultures suck for like two years, I think we'll be learning a lot more about these mines with time.
|
Idea for the Dark shrine, have it open up another unit in a different building, and allow it to research amulet for templar. I mean, that would make the building useful at least
|
ZvZ swarm host wars, i love dem
|
Only thing I really disagree with is the speed hydra, it seemed to really make the hydra much more of an interesting hit and run unit (I saw Ret and Sheth use them quite succesfully vs Protoss). In combination with Vipers they might even deal with Colossi okay.
|
I'd like to see the carrier retained in some form, It feels like it needs something to happen to the other races to make it work. BC is great against siege lines, end game Z and end game P with ghosts; it's a unit which has really thrived in the latter parts of WoL. Could the carrier do the same? maybe... I mean if T meched then the Carrier could potentially be awesome.
|
Agree with all except the widow mine, I would put that in the good section. It is easily the most fun unit, has massive utility, and with creativity they can do anything. Like putting them behind mineral patches on the high ground: they leap to the workers to harass from above. or defending YOUR mineral line from things like muta harass.
|
You know plexa,
It's really sad when we see Blizzard dumbdown the abilities and new units to the point they act so similarly to their Brood War counterparts. -_-
It's almost, keyword here is almost, as if they were repackaging Brood War.
|
Nice write-up. My thoughts:
1) typo on "Neutral"
2) I would put the Widow Mine as neutral for now. I think we will see it used a lot more efficiently as players experiment with them more. (side note: has anyone tried to drop Widow Mines into a mineral line? Even if they react before it burrows it will force detection before you can send your workers back.....or sacrifice one or two to detonate them? just thinking outloud here)
3) I would put the Viper in the good category. Abduct is really strong vs mech if you go roach/viper and its great vs Collosis as you said. The other abilities have potential. I dont mind the energy drain spell, with a little attention you can drain from a Hatch/Extractor and if you have extra Queens available you can transfuse if the HP gets too low/you need more energy
I also watched Sheth use Blinding Cloud in ZvZ to hold a ramp with ling/ultra vs roaches so maybe there is potential for more uses than ZvT (although the enemy did keep A-moving up the ramp for some reason..)
Good read Plexa!
|
blinding cloud seems like it will only be used in zvz. it is 100% useless in zvp and seems designed solely to force terran to go mech vs Z (along with all the mech buffs in hots). I mean maybe bio will still be really viable in tvz and then vipers will be a lot more interesting to see, but if not then vipers are a 1-spell unit (also wtf neural parasite serves the exact same function but sucks usually). I would like to see them buff blinding cloud to work vs mechanical units. oh well.
|
good blog i agree more or less with all of what you say
i am atm happy about automining because i get a big lag at the start of every game ^^
protoss being so awful in hots might actually turn me away from SC2 altogether
|
I find it a bit funny you complain about the Warhound being boring and the next sentence about Tempest being gimmicky. So what do you want exactly?
To me, gimmicks are often pretty cool. How gimmicky are hydras, roaches, marauders, corruptors or zealots? And how many people consider these units to be cool? Exactly. Units with just different values on hp/damage/speed/attack speed but nothing which make them stand out are pretty boring.
On the other hand, consider
Tanks ("gimmicky" range, siege mode, terrible without)
Banelings (bane bombs, bane rain, or just blowing up an army of marines in seconds)
Phoenix (cant do much of anything without their "gimmicky" lift)
Ghost (nukes are like the definition of gimmicky, emp maybe too)
Templers (storm)
Hellions (super fast and super good at killing workers, bad at most other things)
Are these units interesting and cool? I think most players would say yes. I think it becomes a much more interesting game with more gimmicks. All races should have their unique and (without context) overpowered abilities but together they should be attempted to be balanced. Take a moment to consider what the community would have thought if Blizzard decided to add flying buildings to Terran today and that before in both SC1 and SC2 it wouldnt have existed. How would the community react to that? Wouldnt that be an awfully gimmicky addition according to people? It probably would. Yet since its been there forever, we're absolutely fine with it, even though its gimmicky.
I think we should give the Tempest some time. Its gimmicky, and thats good. It has the chance to create very unique and interesting situations as an air siege unit, just as tanks do as a ground siege unit. On topic of the warhound I dont have much of an opinion, but even though its boring (agreed) it might be a needed role for mech to work out. We'll see.
|
On September 07 2012 00:51 Kreb wrote:
I find it a bit funny you complain about the Warhound being boring and the next sentence about Tempest being gimmicky. So what do you want exactly?
It's not complicated
The warhound has no interesting abilities and is too useful = boring
The tempest has interesting abilities but is not useful = gimmicky
|
On September 07 2012 01:32 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:51 Kreb wrote:
I find it a bit funny you complain about the Warhound being boring and the next sentence about Tempest being gimmicky. So what do you want exactly? It's not complicated The warhound has no interesting abilities and is too useful = boring The tempest has interesting abilities but is not useful = gimmicky
Tempest doesn't even have interesting abilities, it's just got massive fucking range.
I'll be damned if a Protoss ever makes one of those unless he's up like 3 bases and was going to win anyways.
|
Hehe so now Blizzard's even making workers auto-mine from the start of the game? They should issue a reasonable move command to your first overlord too I think
|
On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
people have complained about the warhound being boring for over a year and blizzard hasn't done shit to make it cooler. I think most of these units show that they are more interested in making units that look cool aesthetically instead of actually creating cool new gameplay mechanics. Judging by how blizzard handled the beta for WoL (only changing things to "balance" the game, no changes to make the game more interesting) I doubt there will be any real changes to the game beyond some balance stuff at this point.
I was hoping HoTS would make SC2 more appealing to me but a lot of these units are just dumb (swarm host seems like the only neat unit to me). how fuck do you spend 2 years working on new units, taking in everything we learned about why some units in SC2/BW are boring and why some units in SC2/BW are exciting and then come up with the fucking warhound?
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo.
Think about it this way though, maybe the warhound isnt supposed to be interesting instead its the unit that Terran needs to be able to mech, and if T can start meching in TvP than that MU will be 102019029301239x more interesting than the current meta game. Obviously the warhound is way to strong now, but once its nerfed a bit it should be able to help Terrans go mech which will make the game more interesting.
|
On September 07 2012 01:34 pigmanbear wrote:Hehe so now Blizzard's even making workers auto-mine from the start of the game? They should issue a reasonable move command to your first overlord too I think
Soon they will add tick a button on your gates to allow them to autoproduce units whenever a gate is idle.... and then in the last LotV patch they will remove minerals and gas altogether, requiring you to capture and maintain resource towers.
|
On September 07 2012 01:45 XXXSmOke wrote:
Think about it this way though, maybe the warhound isnt supposed to be interesting instead its the unit that Terran needs to be able to mech, and if T can start meching in TvP than that MU will be 102019029301239x more interesting than the current meta game. Obviously the warhound is way to strong now, but once its nerfed a bit it should be able to help Terrans go mech which will make the game more interesting.
I think they're going about making mech viable the wrong way though. Optimally, imo, mech and bio would have different strengths and weaknesses; mech being slower but more powerful with bio being weaker but more mobile. Right now, with the Battle Hellion and the Warhound, they are making mech very mobile, seemingly eliminating the nead for slow, positional play with tanks.
I'm happy Blizzard are trying to make Factory-play more viable, but the mech we are getting with the new HOTS-units is not as different from going bio as it could (and imo should) be.
|
On September 07 2012 01:50 RaZorwire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 01:45 XXXSmOke wrote:
Think about it this way though, maybe the warhound isnt supposed to be interesting instead its the unit that Terran needs to be able to mech, and if T can start meching in TvP than that MU will be 102019029301239x more interesting than the current meta game. Obviously the warhound is way to strong now, but once its nerfed a bit it should be able to help Terrans go mech which will make the game more interesting.
I think they're going about making mech viable the wrong way though. Optimally, imo, mech and bio would have different strengths and weaknesses; mech being slower but more powerful with bio being weaker but more mobile. Right now, with the Battle Hellion and the Warhound, they are making mech very mobile, seemingly eliminating the nead for slow, positional play with tanks. I'm happy Blizzard are trying to make Factory-play more viable, but the mech we are getting with the new HOTS-units is not as different from going bio as it could (and imo should) be.
exactly. the warhound is boring because it functions exactly the same as bio units (except even slower/beefier). what's the point of making "mech" viable if you're just doing that by making it exactly the same as having a bio army?
|
i like the new maps/tile sets a lot too, otherwise i agree with you mostly.. although i'll admit i'm a BW fanboy and that they should just put mines on hellions already, even if they're weaker versions! i also don't like the swarm host, i don't find it useful in any situation really unless it's a rush (i find it's suprisingly a lot like how reapers were at the begining of the WoL beta). vipers are my favorite addition so far.
|
|
|
On September 07 2012 01:45 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
people have complained about the warhound being boring for over a year and blizzard hasn't done shit to make it cooler. I think most of these units show that they are more interested in making units that look cool aesthetically instead of actually creating cool new gameplay mechanics. Judging by how blizzard handled the beta for WoL (only changing things to "balance" the game, no changes to make the game more interesting) I doubt there will be any real changes to the game beyond some balance stuff at this point.
I was hoping HoTS would make SC2 more appealing to me but a lot of these units are just dumb (swarm host seems like the only neat unit to me). how fuck do you spend 2 years working on new units, taking in everything we learned about why some units in SC2/BW are boring and why some units in SC2/BW are exciting and then come up with the fucking warhound?
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Think about it this way though, maybe the warhound isnt supposed to be interesting instead its the unit that Terran needs to be able to mech, and if T can start meching in TvP than that MU will be 102019029301239x more interesting than the current meta game. Obviously the warhound is way to strong now, but once its nerfed a bit it should be able to help Terrans go mech which will make the game more interesting.
you don't understand anything. think again.
|
What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals.
... what?
I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work.
OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again.
Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech.
And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds?
I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them?
|
On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals. ... what? I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work. OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again. Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech. And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds? I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them?
they don't want to be accused of defaulting to that BW TvP looked like
|
On September 07 2012 02:37 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals. ... what? I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work. OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again. Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech. And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds? I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them? they don't want to be accused of defaulting to that BW TvP looked like
They could do that by removing Siege Tanks; that's my point. They clearly don't like them, so take them out already and replace it with something they do like.
Blizzard should stop building around units that they don't want in the game.
|
On September 07 2012 02:45 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:37 Endymion wrote:On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals. ... what? I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work. OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again. Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech. And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds? I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them? they don't want to be accused of defaulting to that BW TvP looked like They could do that by removing Siege Tanks; that's my point. They clearly don't like them, so take them out already and replace it with something they do like. Blizzard should stop building around units that they don't want in the game.
1) Tanks are the identity of Terran.
2) They are the perfect example of great unit design, the option of removing tanks should never be considered.
3) If Blizzard takes out the tank, there is no hope for mech play because you can't get a mech-ier unit than the tank.
4) The tank has been fucked by Blizzard since Beta, through direct nerfs and indirect means like horribly designed units such as the immortal.
|
I still cant agree with the worker numbers at the base. Counting workers is a very high level skill and to see it just removed like that crushes me.
|
Mech just looks like MMM now, sans medivacs.
|
Great writeup. Summarizes everything that has been said so far and some. If blizzard admits for once they made a mistake and change these units then things will be good but blizzard have never done this in the past. So I am not building up hope for the future also. Be prepared to see the warhound and Tempest in the final product.
BTW for whatever its worth you should also post in battle.net forums and once done everyone who posted here agreeing should post there also.
I think now is the time for the community, including tournaments, to rally behind a modified HOTS mod that implements these changes since I think the starcraft community can make a better multiplayer than blizzard themselves.
On September 07 2012 03:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Mech just looks like MMM now, sans medivacs.
Mech has medivacs....they are called scvs and terran players just love pulling scvs off the line.
|
On September 06 2012 14:45 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 14:02 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:55 avilo wrote:
Well, I disagree 100% with you about immortals being bad against mech. Immortals are still good against mech. So are voids, though carriers would be ideal over the tempest.
A lot of protoss do not understand how to play against mech, and they only have 1 robo making immortals and then don't know what they're doing wrong. When you watch really good Protoss in wings of liberty vs mech they make mech look like tonka toys because of triple/quadruple robos pumping out mass immortals, along with mass, mass gateways for instant chargelot/archon reinforcements.
Immortals are cost effective even against warhounds when you target fire or get enough of them, then it comes down to the Terran needing ghost EMP to negate the shields and it then it reverses to warhounds being better obviously because of no shields. I've gone triple robo vs mech and still come out worse off. Warhounds destroy immortals because their haywire missiles don't activate the shields. Hence, Terrans don't even need ghosts to deactivate the shields!!!!! That's whats so messed up, immortals SHOULD kill mech, but they dont. I did a lot, a lot of unit tests when the custom map was out with immortals vs warhounds specifically to test cost effectiveness of immortals against mech (and yes the stats were exactly the same along with everything else). The immortals cost for cost were destroying warhounds quite easily with a lot leftover, regardless of the missile getting through shields because the immortal's damage output vs mech is so high. Combine this with collosus/other units, and then it gets trickier. Just as well as the Terran adding in ghosts it gets very tricky. In a vacuum type of test I tested 200/200 immortal vs 200/200 warhound and the immortals came out way ahead with an incredible cost efficiency ratio. I did the same test and added in only 2-4 ghosts with full energy for EMPs and suddenly the warhounds came out of the fight with huge cost efficiency and almost the exact reverse result of leftover units. Now we add in other units to these compositions...along with an actual 1v1 game being played out...waaaaay too early to claim immortals are bad against mech. As far as I can tell they are just as good against mech as they are in WoL. Of course that doesn't mean the warhound doesn't need a lot of work done in either design / balance. And I believe it's intended for the haywire missile to be able to get through immortal's shields because the immortal is such a hard counter to mech that blizzard decided they wanted a unit that would be able to help fight against the immortal from Terran mech that did not require having to get ghost EMP which requires a barracks + ghost academy + upgrade research + the ghost themselves.
Your idea of a test was 200/200 vs 200/200 Immortals vs Warhounds? Like that means anything?
Anyway, it's pretty clear every post you'll ever make will be of the whiny Terran variety. I read a post where you said that Blizzard was ANTI-TERRAN. ffs
|
|
|
Meh, splash damage in SC2 is a lot harder to balance than in BW because there is a lot more clumping. Pretty sure D browder & co spent months and months balancing the baneling, because its just so difficult to get it into that sweet spot of not too much, not too little. So as far as game design, I think that swarm host > lurker, even though the lurker was way cooler
|
Now now, the real question for me is
Do you need to buy HoTS to get LoTV just as WoL is needed for HoTS?
I think I might skip this expansion and hope for next one unless the real game looks decent. As of right now, Beta looks fucked up.
|
On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals. ... what? I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work. OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again. Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech. And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds? I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them?
I'm half joking when i say that come the next expansion they might remove them, or at least change them to be 6 supply, no siege animation...like a Terran Colossus. When this will be anounced, Browder will say "we can't keep a unit in the game just because it's cool...it's not used anymore..."
|
On September 06 2012 18:05 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 16:23 Bobo_XIII wrote:
I disagree completely with your opinion on the worker count display, and honestly it's kind of weird to hear it from a guy who has been around since deep in the BW days.
You say that the indicators don't hinder strategy, only makes make things more convenient for all levels. The thing is, SC2 isn't purely a strategy game; it's strategy mixed with mechanics, and worker management is a fundamental part of macromanagement. It might be something comparatively small to say, actually building workers all throughout the game, but just building workers without having the presence of mind and situational awareness to monitor your shit (without being told your exact numbers) is just one aspect of it all. Simply put, if you don't have the mental dexterity to keep up with your stuff, you are faltering in your macro and ought to pay the consequences. It's another thing that separates the good from the bad. I agree that worker management is a vital part of the game, but what this indicator brings to the table is a quick fact about the number of workers at each base. What you do with this fact is up to you. Are you trying to hit a precise 40 probe 6gate timing attack? How many workers should you be maynarding to you natural at any given time? This information allows you to make those decisions in a more accurate way. Does it lower the skill ceiling? A bit, but in the case the payoff is more accurate builds and better execution of whatever it is you are planning to do ay every level.
These facts you talk about that the indicator gives you are the same things you get when you actively and manually keep track of your worker allocation, only that information is automatically processed and essentially announced to you in HotS. It's a big deal, because macro is being made even more less demanding than it already is (let's not kid ourselves, macro in SC2 is already pretty easy). This is a critical skill that honestly even a lot of GM players fuck up pretty often (on NA at least), and now that field is being leveled.
I can understand the desire to see or perform more fluid and perfect play, but much of the magic of SC2 is the difficulty in executing things correctly. It's the mastery of the sum of all these taxing actions in conjunction with appropriate decision making that makes SC2 so attractive. Sacrificing standards and work required for good play in the name of convenience is going down the 'path of the casual,' if you ask me.
On September 06 2012 18:05 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 16:23 Bobo_XIII wrote:Also, your claim that boxing workers is inaccurate is blatantly false. Eyeballing worker saturation might be inaccurate, but boxing workers is pretty precise if you ask me. Boxing workers can be inaccurate because more often that not you pick up workers mining gas - which is kinda annoying (and position dependent). Moreover, boxing three bases quickly can lead to a variation of up to 10 workers (in my experience anyway).
There are methods to the madness in boxing workers to get counts. Honestly, it just sounds like you haven't got it down, because it's a fairly straight-forward task and there isn't any reason why you should be counting extra workers or being thrown off by geyser workers.
|
Took this seriously until i've read the immortal part, because having 1 unit that counters whole strategy and makes it impossible to use is godlike idea.
|
Blizzard don't have the mental capacity to make SC2 into a real game (and worthy of it's name). They're a group of limited, average individuals.
This community has given so many good ideas, and Blizzard continues to implement the extremely bad and boring choices.
|
Nice writeup, I feel similarly to most of your opinions.
|
On September 07 2012 04:27 Bobo_XIII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:05 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 16:23 Bobo_XIII wrote:
I disagree completely with your opinion on the worker count display, and honestly it's kind of weird to hear it from a guy who has been around since deep in the BW days.
You say that the indicators don't hinder strategy, only makes make things more convenient for all levels. The thing is, SC2 isn't purely a strategy game; it's strategy mixed with mechanics, and worker management is a fundamental part of macromanagement. It might be something comparatively small to say, actually building workers all throughout the game, but just building workers without having the presence of mind and situational awareness to monitor your shit (without being told your exact numbers) is just one aspect of it all. Simply put, if you don't have the mental dexterity to keep up with your stuff, you are faltering in your macro and ought to pay the consequences. It's another thing that separates the good from the bad. I agree that worker management is a vital part of the game, but what this indicator brings to the table is a quick fact about the number of workers at each base. What you do with this fact is up to you. Are you trying to hit a precise 40 probe 6gate timing attack? How many workers should you be maynarding to you natural at any given time? This information allows you to make those decisions in a more accurate way. Does it lower the skill ceiling? A bit, but in the case the payoff is more accurate builds and better execution of whatever it is you are planning to do ay every level. These facts you talk about that the indicator gives you are the same things you get when you actively and manually keep track of your worker allocation, only that information is automatically processed and essentially announced to you in HotS. It's a big deal, because macro is being made even more less demanding than it already is (let's not kid ourselves, macro in SC2 is already pretty easy). This is a critical skill that honestly even a lot of GM players fuck up pretty often (on NA at least), and now that field is being leveled. I can understand the desire to see or perform more fluid and perfect play, but much of the magic of SC2 is the difficulty in executing things correctly. It's the mastery of the sum of all these taxing actions in conjunction with appropriate decision making that makes SC2 so attractive. Sacrificing standards and work required for good play in the name of convenience is going down the 'path of the casual,' if you ask me. Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:05 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 16:23 Bobo_XIII wrote:Also, your claim that boxing workers is inaccurate is blatantly false. Eyeballing worker saturation might be inaccurate, but boxing workers is pretty precise if you ask me. Boxing workers can be inaccurate because more often that not you pick up workers mining gas - which is kinda annoying (and position dependent). Moreover, boxing three bases quickly can lead to a variation of up to 10 workers (in my experience anyway). There are methods to the madness in boxing workers to get counts. Honestly, it just sounds like you haven't got it down, because it's a fairly straight-forward task and there isn't any reason why you should be counting extra workers or being thrown off by geyser workers.
There's so many ways to improve the depth of the game that arguing about whether or not you get a worker count on town hall is a hell of a waste of time.
Units whose effectiveness are amplified by positioning and micro, 6m1g maps, units that work better in small packs opposed to deathballs, etc. Seriously there are so many worse ways that Blizzard has fucked up SC2 that arguing about being able to count your workers is a fucking joke and you should feel bad for continuing the discussion.
On September 07 2012 04:00 BreakfastBurrito wrote:Meh, splash damage in SC2 is a lot harder to balance than in BW because there is a lot more clumping. Pretty sure D browder & co spent months and months balancing the baneling, because its just so difficult to get it into that sweet spot of not too much, not too little. So as far as game design, I think that swarm host > lurker, even though the lurker was way cooler
Honestly that's only because they *had* to implement their new movement technology (something fluid, iirc?) that allows for the clumping, with no regard for how it affected game design. Seeing a blob of marines move as essentially a single unit is so dumb. If units could just be more spread out by default, I honestly think games would look way more interesting as AoE spells could be much more powerful.
|
|
|
On September 07 2012 05:01 how2TL wrote:
There's so many ways to improve the depth of the game that arguing about whether or not you get a worker count on town hall is a hell of a waste of time.
Units whose effectiveness are amplified by positioning and micro, 6m1g maps, units that work better in small packs opposed to deathballs, etc. Seriously there are so many worse ways that Blizzard has fucked up SC2 that arguing about being able to count your workers is a fucking joke and you should feel bad for continuing the discussion.
I've never understood that type of reasoning at all. The fact that there are big problems is no reason to ignore the small problems.
And if you don't like discussing worker count displays, you could always just leave the discussion...
|
it's good that immortal don't counter mech, or we will go back again to boring bio-ball...
|
On September 07 2012 05:11 RaZorwire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:01 how2TL wrote:
There's so many ways to improve the depth of the game that arguing about whether or not you get a worker count on town hall is a hell of a waste of time.
Units whose effectiveness are amplified by positioning and micro, 6m1g maps, units that work better in small packs opposed to deathballs, etc. Seriously there are so many worse ways that Blizzard has fucked up SC2 that arguing about being able to count your workers is a fucking joke and you should feel bad for continuing the discussion.
I've never understood that type of reasoning at all. The fact that there are big problems is no reason to ignore the small problems. And if you don't like discussing worker count displays, you could always just leave the discussion...
Because you're acting like worker counts will significantly affect pro play and make it worse. And I'm saying the effect will be very miniscule. And then relative to the changes that have actually made the game worse, it's essentially nothing. Why is this the breaking point?
So yeah there's a very good reason this small problem should barely be considered.
|
On September 07 2012 05:15 Garmer wrote:
it's good that immortal don't counter mech, or we will go back again to boring bio-ball...
now terran uses a boring "mech" ball instead that functions exactly the same as a bio-ball but is slightly slower and has slightly more health.
|
I am really nervous that Blizzard are going to leave the Warhound in the game. It's such a terrible unit at the moment... you're so right in that it ticks all the "bad unit" boxes. As a Protoss player the Immortal is the only thing I can build to counter early Marauder aggression; imagine trying to hold off Warhounds when they can ignore hardened shell? And aren't Stalkers considered armoured too? Sounds like there's nothing that counters it.
100% agree about the Tempest too. The Carrier is actually not far off being great, it just needs some tweaks to make it more situational and not as prohibitively expensive/slow to build. I think I've won every FFA I've ever played with my friends simply using mass Carrier; they are pretty OP but at the same time impossible to amass in big enough numbers on the ladder/in pro matches.
Up until recently I would have faith that Blizzard would listen to the community and so what's right, but after Diablo 3 I'm really quite nervous.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 23:24 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Agree with all except the widow mine, I would put that in the good section. It is easily the most fun unit, has massive utility, and with creativity they can do anything. Like putting them behind mineral patches on the high ground: they leap to the workers to harass from above. or defending YOUR mineral line from things like muta harass.
Great utility is misleading.
- 160 damage to one unit okay thats pretty good
- 35 splash, well that eliminates worker raids (unless you have two mines, even then i dont think the radius is that big)
- 35 splash also means vs mutas its not so good
- very difficult to drag so can't do cool stuff with it
- very difficult to defuse without setting it off (might be a good thing? I'm not sure of its activation range but it looks like 4 or 5)
|
This type of post is why opinions should be held back unless everyone has had a chance to play the game and people with a wide variety of skill levels have had the opportunity to fully assess the true nature of these issues.
|
I'm still intrigued about the tempest but unfortunately of the few streams I've watched so far I have yet to see it being used. Aside from harassment, has it been used for other purposes like defending your own bases or sieging enemy bases? Does it synergize well with the protoss deathball? I feel like the range on the Tempest is so extreme for a Starcraft game that somebody out there can come up with a neat role for the Tempest that no other unit can replicate.
|
I more or less agree with everything in this blog. I do though think Widow Mines have potential if turtle mech starts working out (through a fixed Warhound obviously).
|
On September 07 2012 05:25 Ideas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:15 Garmer wrote:
it's good that immortal don't counter mech, or we will go back again to boring bio-ball... now terran uses a boring "mech" ball instead that functions exactly the same as a bio-ball but is slightly slower and has slightly more health.
this is only blizzard fault
|
On September 06 2012 13:03 heyoka wrote:
Okay after reading this I will concede that the worker count thing is okay. But I still think it is ugly as all hell.
They should put it on the bottom like where you could see the number of workers on gas before. Def ugly. Makes game cluttered. No where as ugly as the warhound though hahha
|
I agree with everything except for the showing of workers on each base. The problem is not that it doesn't help strategy, the problem is that it makes macro easier (where in SC2 it is already an easy thing). The majority of people I see want a challenging game in terms of macro AND strategy.
|
Having been watching White-Ra's stream...i have to say I am really warming up to the tempest. Yes, it is a terrible "capital ship", and is useless in straight up fights, but used as a support group of 5 or so, they are awesome, imo. They don't do enough damage for their 22 range to be op, but their 22 range also means you can pick and poke almost indefinitely, so it creates great tension and makes stalemates remain active. I actually think it would be better for them to have a laser like the void ray that does the same net dps over time, as this would make them feel like much more of a "siege unit" than a harassment unit.
|
Great writeup. Thanks for that.
Just one thing I do not agree with:
On September 06 2012 12:34 Plexa wrote:
The result is that immortals suck against mech. Blizzard, please fix this.
No Blizzard, don't you dare "fixing"/changing it! Finally it is possible to play mech vs P. Ever since Thors have energy and therefor it can be killed/weakened with Feedback, playing mech was very... suicidal?
I do agree that Warhounds are at the moment overpowered but for the love of... please let us play vs P with something else then MMMG all day long. Let us play mech! Warhound cannot be killed with Feedback and by Immortals - I love it!
|
Some of the stuff you said makes sense, but I disagree with a lot
So far, the battle hellion seems like a retarded idea. Like you said, it's boring. But that 'boring' thing far outweighs the positives. Battle Hellion + Warhound is making Mech into Bio, but minus all the good stuff about bio (IE, drops, splits, awesome kiting, etc.)
Meanwhile, I really like the energize ability. It's a new macro mechanic that involves thought. Not only does it increase the mechanical skillcap, it allows for lots of cool plays that we haven't even thought of yet. imagine a storm timing attack based off the energize timing on the templar, or something.
Like you, I really love the swarm host. I think it provides a lot of aggressive potential to mid game zerg. It'll make vZ games way more fun, helping to remove the garbage infestor broodlord style that all Z games end up reaching.
I'm very unhappy with the display things/ez mode, but I'm hesitant to discuss it because Blizz has said that chances are they're not going into the game.
I like the oracle's detection/scouting, helps you delay robo a bit longer, while i feel entomb is just gimmicky. Like others have said, you shouldn't make units with such pre planned niches
Hydra speed seems awesome. Hydras do such great dps, now with speed, you'll be able to use them more micro intensively, almost like marines, but not as multipurpose
Widow mine seems legit tbh. Maybe buff the splash and nerf the single target, but then it seems a bit like a giant burrowed baneling. I'm definitely a fan though, I feel like it's a move towards smart, positional play
Also tempest is dumb
the rest I pretty much agree with you
|
I don't agree with absolutely everything, but definitely you make some really interesting points.
Great writeup, +1
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 07 2012 06:32 aRyuujin wrote:
Meanwhile, I really like the energize ability. It's a new macro mechanic that involves thought. Not only does it increase the mechanical skillcap, it allows for lots of cool plays that we haven't even thought of yet. imagine a storm timing attack based off the energize timing on the templar, or something. And then you realise that 'storm timing attacks' don't exist because of their incredible cost. It's a super niche spell that won't see competitive use outside of maybe 1 or 2 games (out of 1000s).
Hydra speed seems awesome. Hydras do such great dps, now with speed, you'll be able to use them more micro intensively, almost like marines, but not as multipurpose But you're essentially getting an upgrade for expensive marines at hive tech. It's far too late. Maybe if you pushed it to lair tech it would be a lot better. Push the swarm host to hive tech and give hydras speed, but buff hosts in return. I could be down for that.
Widow mine seems legit tbh. Maybe buff the splash and nerf the single target, but then it seems a bit like a giant burrowed baneling. I'm definitely a fan though, I feel like it's a move towards smart, positional play I'll be writing up some BRs today which illustrate that no, widow mines actually suck atm.
Had a game against white-ra earlier using a purifier timing push, worked amazingly well. Doesn't bode well for the moving mothership core.
|
Energize is just a gimmick ability. There isn't any real utility for it. Chrage a nexus?
This quote triggered me to write this post aside from an otherwise great OP i felt quote had some flaws. First off the initial spelling mistake takes away your sincerity and the content seems so dismissive. After watching several protoss streams I've noticed that energize does have utility. Powering the under powered oracle's entomb ability to regain energy and continue the harassment even more. It should work with phoenix too but I've never seen it and so it's only theorycrafting. One thing that it's really useful is against terran when your warping a couple of high templars to instant cause terror over the terran army with storms.
|
You are way too confident in your own conclusions. The beta has barely been out for 2 days. Look for the positive not the negative.
|
I don't understand your train of thought on why Entomb is hard to balance. Why would reducing the cost of Oracles be imbalanced? Hellions are dirt cheap. They are great at harassment. Harassment that is potentially game ending, as seen numerous times on the pro level.
On September 06 2012 13:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision.
But it was the same way in BW with no detection on the stargate, yet BW is universally loved. The real problem isn't the lack of detection, it is that stargate units are badly designed in general. The only time a stargate opening is seen in pro level play is simply used as a transition in PvZ, but really that has more to do with zerg's horrendous lack of AA early game than anything else. IMO the Phoenix should be the de-facto air-to-air unit, and the VR should be air-to-ground.
I think the Oracle, when looking at it in a vacuum seems pretty good, but on the stargate? Phoenix can already harass and scout pretty well. I think they should really look at fleshing out the Stargate to give Protoss some more options in the mid and late game.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 07 2012 07:29 archonOOid wrote:Show nested quote +Energize is just a gimmick ability. There isn't any real utility for it. Chrage a nexus? This quote triggered me to write this post aside from an otherwise great OP i felt quote had some flaws. First off the initial spelling mistake takes away your sincerity and the content seems so dismissive. After watching several protoss streams I've noticed that energize does have utility. Powering the under powered oracle's entomb ability to regain energy and continue the harassment even more. It should work with phoenix too but I've never seen it and so it's only theorycrafting. One thing that it's really useful is against terran when your warping a couple of high templars to instant cause terror over the terran army with storms.
Yes energize/entomb combo works but its not really effective. Oracles are too expensive to justify it's spell The entomb/energize combo at lower levels will be really powerful, but at higher levels its just an annoyance. If you're not killing workers you're not doing any meaningful damage, its just a stall.
On September 07 2012 07:30 FortuneSyn wrote:
You are way too confident in your own conclusions. The beta has barely been out for 2 days. Look for the positive not the negative.
Good things are good, and have been stated as such. Bad things are bad and need attention. It's a beta, and the quicker we get rid of the stupid stuff the better (else it'll make it through to release.. and honestly it looks like most of this stuff will go through unless there is a large vocal reaction).
On September 07 2012 07:43 Skyro wrote:I don't understand your train of thought on why Entomb is hard to balance. Why would reducing the cost of Oracles be imbalanced? Hellions are dirt cheap. They are great at harassment. Harassment that is potentially game ending, as seen numerous times on the pro level. Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:50 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision. But it was the same way in BW with no detection on the stargate, yet BW is universally loved. The real problem isn't the lack of detection, it is that stargate units are badly designed in general. The only time a stargate opening is seen in pro level play is simply used as a transition in PvZ, but really that has more to do with zerg's horrendous lack of AA early game than anything else. IMO the Phoenix should be the de-facto air-to-air unit, and the VR should be air-to-ground. I think the Oracle, when looking at it in a vacuum seems pretty good, but on the stargate? Phoenix can already harass and scout pretty well. I think they should really look at fleshing out the Stargate to give Protoss some more options in the mid and late game.
Hellions kill workers, oracles disrupt mining. That's the fundamental difference, and the reason oracles are hard to balance.
But yeah, Stargate units REALLY suck. I really want the VR/Tempest to go (phoenix is okay in my book) and get some real air units in there.
|
On September 07 2012 05:59 red4ce wrote:
I'm still intrigued about the tempest but unfortunately of the few streams I've watched so far I have yet to see it being used. Aside from harassment, has it been used for other purposes like defending your own bases or sieging enemy bases? Does it synergize well with the protoss deathball? I feel like the range on the Tempest is so extreme for a Starcraft game that somebody out there can come up with a neat role for the Tempest that no other unit can replicate.
In PvZ late game the only answer to Brood Lords is getting a good vortex off with a Mothership. I think the Tempest could be re-worked solely as an anti-Brood Lord weapon because vortex is very hit-or-miss, and a good Zerg player will neural your Mothership half the time anyway.
|
United States10089 Posts
great read! agree with most points!
|
Hrm... there are also a bunch of units from Zerg who have an expiry timer now. What if the Oracle had an ability which fast-forwarded the expiry timer on all broodlings/locusts/infested terran? Could give a Protoss the chance to deal with Brood Lords without vortex.
|
Very well done I really like the work that went into this, I can really tell that you spent quite a bit of time on this.
|
this makes me very sad to read, not having played hots.
i didnt expect anything else but i hoped for more
|
|
|
I think this is how most people feel about HOTS. I wonder if the warhound is going to be nerfed or simply removed, because if it gets nerfed it's probably just going to end up being a Terran roach. And once the races start to look symmetrical like that I might as well go back to games like C&C Generals.
|
On September 07 2012 02:50 fabiano wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:45 NicolBolas wrote:On September 07 2012 02:37 Endymion wrote:On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals. ... what? I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work. OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again. Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech. And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds? I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them? they don't want to be accused of defaulting to that BW TvP looked like They could do that by removing Siege Tanks; that's my point. They clearly don't like them, so take them out already and replace it with something they do like. Blizzard should stop building around units that they don't want in the game. 1) Tanks are the identity of Terran. 2) They are the perfect example of great unit design, the option of removing tanks should never be considered. 3) If Blizzard takes out the tank, there is no hope for mech play because you can't get a mech-ier unit than the tank. 4) The tank has been fucked by Blizzard since Beta, through direct nerfs and indirect means like horribly designed units such as the immortal.
1 and 4 don't go together. It's obvious that Blizzard simply doesn't like Siege Tanks and that style of play. Keeping them in just drives them to create units like the Immortal and the Warhound. If someone doesn't like something, and yet they are "forced" in some way to keep it around, then their dislike of that something is going to be plainly visible. And that's going to make the product worse overall.
SC2 would be better if they'd just removed STs back in SC2's development. Not because Siege Tanks are bad, but because Blizzard clearly doesn't want them around and only keeps them there because people believe in #1. If they'd taken them out, we could get them to make the game that Blizzard wants to make, instead of this horrible hybrid between the game they want and the game the fans want.
At least that way, whatever we get would be pure and not this horrible compromise half-state state where STs are in the game, but so are crap units that exist solely to work around them.
On September 07 2012 05:11 RaZorwire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:01 how2TL wrote:
There's so many ways to improve the depth of the game that arguing about whether or not you get a worker count on town hall is a hell of a waste of time.
Units whose effectiveness are amplified by positioning and micro, 6m1g maps, units that work better in small packs opposed to deathballs, etc. Seriously there are so many worse ways that Blizzard has fucked up SC2 that arguing about being able to count your workers is a fucking joke and you should feel bad for continuing the discussion.
I've never understood that type of reasoning at all. The fact that there are big problems is no reason to ignore the small problems. And if you don't like discussing worker count displays, you could always just leave the discussion...
True, small problems are still problems. However, if we solved the big problems, then the minor issue of workers and such would be effectively irrelevant.
Or to put it another way, if Blizzard added more skill-based stuff to compensate for the lower worker macro, then that would still be a good thing. We could effectively ignore the lack of worker macro.
It's like this. If SC2 has 60% of the skill ceiling that SC1 has, changing the worker stuff would only raise that to maybe 62%. Better, certainly. But if you could change something that increased it to 85%, that +2% is looking rather insignificant by comparison, yes?
|
Fantastic write up and I agree across the board. As a protoss player I am extremely displeased with the additions to my race. This seems more like an alpha than a beta, not a lot of thought was put into the depth of these additions.
It seems to me blizzard sat down at a table and said, "Ok guys, what seems like it would be cool?"
...
"Sure, lets throw this stuff in and see what happens!"
|
Great article
On September 07 2012 08:40 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:50 fabiano wrote:On September 07 2012 02:45 NicolBolas wrote:On September 07 2012 02:37 Endymion wrote:On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:What are these guys doing here? Well, immortals suck vs mech. And if there were an anti-mech unit you'd expect it to be immortals. In particular, Warhounds stomp all over immortals which makes no sense what so ever. Upon closer examination I realised that the haywire missile does 30 damage across three rockets - i.e. 10 damage each rocket which isn't sufficient to trigger the immortals hardened shield. The result? Warhounds crush immortals. ... what? I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work. OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again. Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech. And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds? I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them? they don't want to be accused of defaulting to that BW TvP looked like They could do that by removing Siege Tanks; that's my point. They clearly don't like them, so take them out already and replace it with something they do like. Blizzard should stop building around units that they don't want in the game. 1) Tanks are the identity of Terran. 2) They are the perfect example of great unit design, the option of removing tanks should never be considered. 3) If Blizzard takes out the tank, there is no hope for mech play because you can't get a mech-ier unit than the tank. 4) The tank has been fucked by Blizzard since Beta, through direct nerfs and indirect means like horribly designed units such as the immortal. 1 and 4 don't go together. It's obvious that Blizzard simply doesn't like Siege Tanks and that style of play. Keeping them in just drives them to create units like the Immortal and the Warhound. If someone doesn't like something, and yet they are "forced" in some way to keep it around, then their dislike of that something is going to be plainly visible. And that's going to make the product worse overall. SC2 would be better if they'd just removed STs back in SC2's development. Not because Siege Tanks are bad, but because Blizzard clearly doesn't want them around and only keeps them there because people believe in #1. If they'd taken them out, we could get them to make the game that Blizzard wants to make, instead of this horrible hybrid between the game they want and the game the fans want. At least that way, whatever we get would be pure and not this horrible compromise half-state state where STs are in the game, but so are crap units that exist solely to work around them. Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:11 RaZorwire wrote:On September 07 2012 05:01 how2TL wrote:
There's so many ways to improve the depth of the game that arguing about whether or not you get a worker count on town hall is a hell of a waste of time.
Units whose effectiveness are amplified by positioning and micro, 6m1g maps, units that work better in small packs opposed to deathballs, etc. Seriously there are so many worse ways that Blizzard has fucked up SC2 that arguing about being able to count your workers is a fucking joke and you should feel bad for continuing the discussion.
I've never understood that type of reasoning at all. The fact that there are big problems is no reason to ignore the small problems. And if you don't like discussing worker count displays, you could always just leave the discussion... True, small problems are still problems. However, if we solved the big problems, then the minor issue of workers and such would be effectively irrelevant. Or to put it another way, if Blizzard added more skill-based stuff to compensate for the lower worker macro, then that would still be a good thing. We could effectively ignore the lack of worker macro. It's like this. If SC2 has 60% of the skill ceiling that SC1 has, changing the worker stuff would only raise that to maybe 62%. Better, certainly. But if you could change something that increased it to 85%, that +2% is looking rather insignificant by comparison, yes?
Its kinda sad how many GSL's and TvZs Browder has watched only to create more counters to the siege tank. TvZ and TvT, the only matchups where tanks are commonplace, and also the most (imo only) interesting matchups, yet somehow Browder still doesn't like tanks.
Blizzard inventions like the Colossus, Xel Naga watchtowers, Immortal, have completely ruined the watchability of the game, yet for some reason, the blame still lies on the siege tank ("stale tank lines" - Browder), which everyone knows is actually what is the saving grace of SC2 right now.
Dakim thinks a-move wins are cool, because he probably saw Flash a-move his army into Jaedong and win 3 times in a row with 14CC into goofy all-ins. Honestly they were the most underwhelming and disappointing finals I've ever watched, Flash ruined every single grand finals for me, except maybe the first. Not taking anything away from his strategic genius however. Now in SC2, you don't even need to take excessive risk to do that, which is the only thing that made Flash's wins interesting.
If we didn't have siege tanks, TvT would look a lot more like PvP, with 200/200 balls of marines and marauders just smashing into each other into GG.
|
I agree 100% with everything written.
Saddest thing for me is how predictable most of these disappointments were from the start. There are just too many "role-specific" niche units. Even worse, a lot of these units have niche abilities. (Entomb in particular is so unimaginative it's just embarrassing).
|
A couple of things...
Many of the spells or units you are calling bad, you are calling bad for reasons I can't even comprehend. Let me give you some examples:
You say that the Mothership Core's energize is really something a player would only want to use on a Mothership. You noted that it would be useless on chronoboost because 'since when has chronoboost been gamebreaking?' First of all - what the fuck does chrono being 'gamebreaking' or not have to do with anything? Second of all, can you really not imagine a build that uses energize on Nexi to get more chronoboost out to hit a faster timing with an upgrade that you can get faster than the opponent might have thought you could, etc - just generally hitting any timing faster or coming up with a new timing that you coudln't do without so much chrono. You also tallk about 'lol who cares' for energizing a sentry. I imagine it wouldn't be common but you do realize, I hope, that sometimes Toss' lose games because they dont have enough forcefields. I'm not saying its the most important thing ever but you keep brushing aside things like they're a joke.
Another, and simpler, thing you said that is absurd is that giving Hydras speed does not 'increase their utility in any way.' Just quickly I can point out one way it does increase their utility - it increases their mobility......... How can you say that something moving faster doesn't give it more utility or help with any of their weaknesses? Casters are constantly saying 'Don't forget - when you engage with Hydra's, you can't run away because they're so slow.' Allow me to reiterate - 'because they're so slow.' You did go on to say that it only helps at hive (as a hive upgrade), at which point in the game Hydras are 'largely irrelevant.' I'd agree with you that in the current metagame Hydras are largely irrelevant during Hive tech. But in HotS, as I'm sure you know, Hydras can move faster. This introduces new utility in the form of *mobility* which might make them relevant in hive tech. Lastly about hydras - you talk about them still getting owned by Colossi. I totally agree its stupid the speed doesn't help them deal with their most significant counter from Protoss - similarly I find it annoying that the Mothership Core, when turned into a Mothership, will still be susceptible to Vikings. (You see I added the bit about the Mothership so that you would know I was being sarcastic about the Hydra/Colossus).
What made me feel it was necessary to respond, and why I hope at least a couple people bother to read this, is that alot of your original post is just theorycrafting ways in which new HotS stuff won't work, when you could just as easily be theorycrafting how the exact same units and spells WILL work - consider what I said on energizing Nexi to chronoboost more and hit a new or unexpected timing. With that in mind, your post becomes nothing but unproductive - inspiring other people who have [also] not thought about these things properly - much less tested them thoroughly - to take up your opinions.
The point is - you're an admin here. If you're going to make a post like this, put in some major disclaimers or at least imply that you THINK this isn't good for that reason, or that that isn't good for this reason, rather than stating it as though it were fact. Note the difference here: Your post is neither productive nor well thought out. -versus- I think your post is neither productive nor well thought out. Don't you think the second one is more appropriate?
|
Re: The Good
Mothership Core - it was 13 range with hefty damage when docked to a nexus, and 7 range with reduced damage as a drifting cloud. I looked to this as something that would finally allow pvp to more safely permit fast expand builds and reduce volatility, following tvt and zvz. Purify hasn't been shown to enable this, but I think that could be corrected if reduced in cost to 50 energy. Furthermore, Mass Recall, at 150 energy, is so prohibitively cost that if you use the core for any other reason, you won't have recall available for venturing out for a long time. So right now, I disagree that this should be listed among "the good," but am hopeful it can be adjusted to belong there.
Swarm Host - I'm fine with your appraisal. Same with worker counts.
Re: The Neutral
The Viper - I like this unit a lot more now that I've had a chance to see it in action, and I don't think its interaction with Recall to be a reason to keep it below "the good." I am fine with blinding cloud not affecting protoss - that is energy that it can put to use pulling colossi or immortals over forcefield walls and into harm's way anyway.
I like strategic map deformation, and feelings about not getting cheap town hall kills doesn't mitigate this, so I'd also list this in "the good." Battle Hellions are something that haven't been well-explored by this point, and I have no strong feelings about them, so I agree with their placement in "the neutral." Same with Ultra Charge.
Re: The Bad
Automine workers - three points of contention. First and second are simple "come on, really?" responses to your bulleted points, but the third has to do with helping Starcraft 2 grow. Having recently reread Gheed's amusing tales of the Bronze league, anything that makes the game more accessible to people without Starcraft backgrounds can only be a good thing. I'd put this right alongside the (toggle-able) newbified command card, where it explains right-clicking versus a-clicking, and say they're good ideas.
The Oracle - for the most part, spot-on, although I think that Revelation is a crucial addition to Protoss... but not at 200 gas.
Hydra Speed - Dimaga seemed to be getting some use out of that, in combination with Swarm Hosts, and I agree that putting it in Lair is unnecessary, but it seems like most of the lamentation regarding Hydras is that their role in the game has been usurped by Roaches, leaving them as niche/specialist units. I'm not a romantic, in that sense, so I'd put this among "the neutral."
Widow Mine - right now it's utterly outcompeted by the warhound to get a good grasp on how it'll shape the game, so I will simply reserve judgment on them.
Immortals - I will take your stance a step further and say you were kind in listing it in "the bad," because they get such a raw deal against the new factory units. At their cost, in the immortal words of Dr. Evil (pun intended), "throw me a frickin' bone here!"
Re: The Ugly
Total agreement, and I don't know how Blizzard will salvage the situation - but at least regarding the warhound, David Kim has recently posted that they're aware problems exist.
|
On September 07 2012 10:55 idkfa wrote:
Re: The Ugly
Total agreement, and I don't know how Blizzard will salvage the situation - but at least regarding the warhound, David Kim has recently posted that they're aware problems exist.
Why doesn't that fill me with confidence? First, the problems with the Warhound were seen even by people who never played HotS. Oh, people just said, "wait until HotS before you complain." Well guess what? Everyone said it was a boring, A-move unit before HotS, and everyone says it's a boring A-move unit now.
Sometimes you don't need to play it to know that crap is crap.
So if Blizzard has had this unit in the game for months, how is it that it has survived as long as it has? Again, this is not a new problem. If they needed us to tell them that their boring A-move unit is a boring A-move unit, then they've got more serious problems than the Warhound.
Second, the fact that Blizzard recognizes a problem is only the beginning. Remember: the Warhound is in the game because Blizzard "recognized" that people want to be able to Mech in TvP.
So they gave us a big Marauder. Thus missing the whole Goddamn point of Mech.
Now personally, I dislike Mech play. I hated it in SC1, and I hate it now. But if Blizzard is going to encourage and endorse it, it can't just be "Factory units"; it needs to be its own individual style of play. And the MarauderWarhound ain't it.
This goes back to the whole "moving shot" fiasco, where people were asking for patrol/hold-position micro and got the Phoenix ability to move and shoot. Blizzard thought they were giving us what we wanted, but they didn't.
So the fact that David Kim acknowledges a problem with a unit is not exactly filling me with confidence that it will be fixed well.
|
On September 07 2012 11:26 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 10:55 idkfa wrote:
Re: The Ugly
Total agreement, and I don't know how Blizzard will salvage the situation - but at least regarding the warhound, David Kim has recently posted that they're aware problems exist. Why doesn't that fill me with confidence? First, the problems with the Warhound were seen even by people who never played HotS. Oh, people just said, "wait until HotS before you complain." Well guess what? Everyone said it was a boring, A-move unit before HotS, and everyone says it's a boring A-move unit now. Sometimes you don't need to play it to know that crap is crap. So if Blizzard has had this unit in the game for months, how is it that it has survived as long as it has? Again, this is not a new problem. If they needed us to tell them that their boring A-move unit is a boring A-move unit, then they've got more serious problems than the Warhound. Second, the fact that Blizzard recognizes a problem is only the beginning. Remember: the Warhound is in the game because Blizzard "recognized" that people want to be able to Mech in TvP. So they gave us a big Marauder. Thus missing the whole Goddamn point of Mech. Now personally, I dislike Mech play. I hated it in SC1, and I hate it now. But if Blizzard is going to encourage and endorse it, it can't just be "Factory units"; it needs to be its own individual style of play. And the MarauderWarhound ain't it. This goes back to the whole "moving shot" fiasco, where people were asking for patrol/hold-position micro and got the Phoenix ability to move and shoot. Blizzard thought they were giving us what we wanted, but they didn't. So the fact that David Kim acknowledges a problem with a unit is not exactly filling me with confidence that it will be fixed well.
I made a comment earlier in this thread - they're unfit to make the game.
This is like having a grand vision and asking a monkey to make it happen. They can't even understand why we want what we want!
We say we want more mech dynamics in the game (meaning putting heavy emphasis on positional play, decision making etc), and they give us more 'robots' ffs!
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 07 2012 10:37 SuPerFlyTNT wrote:
A couple of things...
Many of the spells or units you are calling bad, you are calling bad for reasons I can't even comprehend. Let me give you some examples:
You say that the Mothership Core's energize is really something a player would only want to use on a Mothership. You noted that it would be useless on chronoboost because 'since when has chronoboost been gamebreaking?' First of all - what the fuck does chrono being 'gamebreaking' or not have to do with anything? Second of all, can you really not imagine a build that uses energize on Nexi to get more chronoboost out to hit a faster timing with an upgrade that you can get faster than the opponent might have thought you could, etc - just generally hitting any timing faster or coming up with a new timing that you coudln't do without so much chrono. I played around with energise to get quicker upgrades. Yeah that can work, but you sacrifice any ability to be aggressive and/or defend with purifier. Not an ideal situation, I think the spell slot could be used in a better way. At the moment energise is like supply drop at the OC - theoretically has some use but in practice you'll always be going for purifier/recall.
You also tallk about 'lol who cares' for energizing a sentry. I imagine it wouldn't be common but you do realize, I hope, that sometimes Toss' lose games because they dont have enough forcefields. I'm not saying its the most important thing ever but you keep brushing aside things like they're a joke. Sounds like a situation where I'd rather have purifier
Another, and simpler, thing you said that is absurd is that giving Hydras speed does not 'increase their utility in any way.' Just quickly I can point out one way it does increase their utility - it increases their mobility......... How can you say that something moving faster doesn't give it more utility or help with any of their weaknesses? Casters are constantly saying 'Don't forget - when you engage with Hydra's, you can't run away because they're so slow.' Allow me to reiterate - 'because they're so slow.' You did go on to say that it only helps at hive (as a hive upgrade), at which point in the game Hydras are 'largely irrelevant.' I'd agree with you that in the current metagame Hydras are largely irrelevant during Hive tech. But in HotS, as I'm sure you know, Hydras can move faster. This introduces new utility in the form of *mobility* which might make them relevant in hive tech. Lastly about hydras - you talk about them still getting owned by Colossi. I totally agree its stupid the speed doesn't help them deal with their most significant counter from Protoss - similarly I find it annoying that the Mothership Core, when turned into a Mothership, will still be susceptible to Vikings. (You see I added the bit about the Mothership so that you would know I was being sarcastic about the Hydra/Colossus). Yup I stand by hydra speed being pointless, at least as far as PvZ is concerned. I'm not convinced that the upgrade is absolutely necessary to add into the game. Viper/Hydra together mitigate a lot of the problems hydras have and turn them into real danger units. Viper/Hydra wreck colossus so bad without careful engagements, its actually kinda cool because it makes the Colossus more micro intensive (and in a future blog I will be upgrading vipers from neutral to good for this reason).
What made me feel it was necessary to respond, and why I hope at least a couple people bother to read this, is that alot of your original post is just theorycrafting ways in which new HotS stuff won't work, when you could just as easily be theorycrafting how the exact same units and spells WILL work - consider what I said on energizing Nexi to chronoboost more and hit a new or unexpected timing. With that in mind, your post becomes nothing but unproductive - inspiring other people who have [also] not thought about these things properly - much less tested them thoroughly - to take up your opinions. These were my impressions from playing the game after two days, sure its not a thorough test but its good enough for me to feel out what things are working and what things are not working. Since writing this, my opinion on Vipers has changed for the better, mines for the better (for their utility in TvZ), warhound/tempest stay exactly the same and if not, worse.
The point is - you're an admin here. If you're going to make a post like this, put in some major disclaimers or at least imply that you THINK this isn't good for that reason, or that that isn't good for this reason, rather than stating it as though it were fact. Note the difference here: Your post is neither productive nor well thought out. -versus- I think your post is neither productive nor well thought out. Don't you think the second one is more appropriate? Thanks for the feedback I guess?
On September 07 2012 10:55 idkfa wrote:
Re: The Neutral
The Viper - I like this unit a lot more now that I've had a chance to see it in action, and I don't think its interaction with Recall to be a reason to keep it below "the good." I am fine with blinding cloud not affecting protoss - that is energy that it can put to use pulling colossi or immortals over forcefield walls and into harm's way anyway. Yup, I like them more now and would upgrade their status.
Re: The Bad
Automine workers - three points of contention. First and second are simple "come on, really?" responses to your bulleted points, but the third has to do with helping Starcraft 2 grow. Having recently reread Gheed's amusing tales of the Bronze league, anything that makes the game more accessible to people without Starcraft backgrounds can only be a good thing. I'd put this right alongside the (toggle-able) newbified command card, where it explains right-clicking versus a-clicking, and say they're good ideas. I don't really think auto-mine is going to help anyone in bronze, they have far bigger problems and reasons why they lose games. Things like "training mode" which helps build units or something would be beneficial to bronze (and I guess make it more fun for them??) at the expense of most of the mechanics in SC2 and arguably to the dismay of the rest of the sc2 community. My point is, bronzies need much more automation than just auto-mine to have any real impact.
Hydra Speed - Dimaga seemed to be getting some use out of that, in combination with Swarm Hosts, and I agree that putting it in Lair is unnecessary, but it seems like most of the lamentation regarding Hydras is that their role in the game has been usurped by Roaches, leaving them as niche/specialist units. I'm not a romantic, in that sense, so I'd put this among "the neutral." I'm open to changing my mind about it, but I still can't see a good reason why it is in the game - particularly when abduct + hydra is soooo strong right now.
|
On September 06 2012 13:32 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:19 Grobyc wrote:
From what I've seen of the HotS beta streams this seems pretty accurate. I haven't seen hydras used, however I think you're understating the usefulness of a free buff. The way that you described how they should be just makes them sound like a roach that hits air with a bit more dps. Not that they wouldn't be good, but I don't think that's the right place for them. It isn't a free buff though? You have to research it and you can only research it once you get to hive tech. It just doesn't help with any problems that the hydra has since by hive tech hydras are largely irrelevant.
Well I meant free in regards to having to trade it for another attribute of the hydra such as dps. Once you have hive the actual upgrade cost isn't even a big deal anyway. Sure hydras may not be used much now, but they might have some kind of use with the new HotS units. I don't think we can rule that at this point.
|
On September 08 2012 01:10 Grobyc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:32 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:19 Grobyc wrote:
From what I've seen of the HotS beta streams this seems pretty accurate. I haven't seen hydras used, however I think you're understating the usefulness of a free buff. The way that you described how they should be just makes them sound like a roach that hits air with a bit more dps. Not that they wouldn't be good, but I don't think that's the right place for them. It isn't a free buff though? You have to research it and you can only research it once you get to hive tech. It just doesn't help with any problems that the hydra has since by hive tech hydras are largely irrelevant. Well I meant free in regards to having to trade it for another attribute of the hydra such as dps. Once you have hive the actual upgrade cost isn't even a big deal anyway. Sure hydras may not be used much now, but they might have some kind of use with the new HotS units. I don't think we can rule that at this point.
Abduct is the primary thing that may enable it. (Although it remains to be seen.)
|
Cool write-up, thank you for taking the time to do it.
I agree with a lot of what you have said here. While some units are in need of some reevaluation or serious attention, a few others, such as the Swarm Host, are managing to create exactly the right kind of "feelings" or situations within a game. Personally, I am cautiously optimistic about the direction of HOTS. That having been said, I disagree with the Mothership Core being put in the "good" category.
It is not that the unit isn't "creating the right feelings" or "isn't good enough" or anything of that sort. I love the idea of the Mothership Core and the role it serves, but I feel the unit will be forever limited and restricted from its true potential so long as it is tied down by the existence of and its relationship to its "counterpart", the Mothership itself. Nobody likes the Mothership, and Blizzard themselves have removed it before in prior HOTS builds, but I fear that the "success" of the Mothership Core (or the success of its concept) will encourage them to keep the unit and deter them from doing what ultimately needs to be done: removing the Mothership. It is a unit that not only by its very nature as a unique unit encourages deathball play, but serves little purpose other than filling a hole in later game Protoss play (a hole that Blizzard is already working on fixing with the Tempest (in theory), making it even more pointless).
Personally I would love to see them turn the Mothership Core into a non-unique unit (finally ridding us of the Mothership, which simply does not belong in Starcraft) and experiment with Recall more. A "Defense Core", or some other appropriately titled non-unique Mothership Core would not only be infinitely easier to balance but could be a significantly more versatile and interesting unit as well. As far as Recall is concerned, exploring different models for the spell, such as making the spell cheaper but target a smaller area, does nothing but create further options with the unit. Even if an alternate Recall costed half of the current Mass Recall in energy and recalled half of the current Mass Recall area, a plethora of alternate gameplay options could be opened up (especially in a non-unique Mothership Core model) whilst keeping the original gameplay options the spell introduces in place. As it stands, Mass Recall on the Mothership Core provides exactly what Protoss needs come HOTS, but due to its expensive energy cost and therefore limited nature the spell only encourages a very particular type of use.
I believe one of the units on your "bad" list, the Oracle, also has the potential to become something truly great. I've written a rather long and detailed analysis of the unit and its spells (past, present, and future) and propose some solutions therein towards molding it into a more fulfilling unit. I highly recommend reading it if the design of the Oracle is a point of concern for you. (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=366714)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/hotsd13.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/swarmhost.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/viper.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/collapserock.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/hotsd16.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/speedhydra.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/hots14.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/tempest.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/HotS/Day_1/tempestalpha.jpg)
