|
On March 15 2011 02:42 Zanez.smarty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 02:29 Enervate wrote:
I disagree with this whole labeling gateway units as UP and colossi as OP methodology. You can't expect low tech units to have the same effectiveness as high tech units. I hear this argument a lot, but I couldn't disagree more. High Tier units are wonderful for support, and some raw power, but the bread and butter are usually lower end ones. Example would be Marines, Marauders and Helions, or Roaches, Hydras and Lings. They are capable of packing a punch on their own, and become brutally painful when the are mixed with higher end support units (Medivacs, Thors, Tanks, Infestors, Banelings, Mutalisks). Protoss is borderline unplayable without their high end support units, because their bread and butter units (Zealot, Stalker) have such low damage output. They need the high tech units just to survive, rather than to amplify their effectiveness. This is why you end up seeing 5+ cols in a death ball. Currently, it feels that the Colossus aren't the support... The Stalkers are.
This is a good way of thinking about it. When terrans and zergs were pumping vikings and corruptors because they could bypass fighting the ground army, protoss threw in phoenix and void rays to act as an air meatshield for colossus (albeit with good damage) and zealot/stalker meat on ground. So much is emphasized on protecting the Colossus, while everything can go to shit.
WG tech is really tricky to deal with. It's ability to reinforce and negate the defender's advantage (and put the protoss a production cycle ahead) makes it the strongest build in PvP, and maps aren't going to change anything of that sort. If PvP makes it past the 7 minute mark, Colossus becomes the no.1 priority because the colossus is SO good against ground. Stronger gateway units and weaker colossus would help PvP diverge a little bit.
The observer is tricky, because while it's a specific T2 way of accessing detection, the other races don't have the same scouting capability, which makes the observer a little bit better in this regard. Banshee builds should still be viable, but they'd be eradicated if obs could be made at a nexus.
I think Archons could be our ally to give Protoss more options. If they were considered massive units, they would be able to give off some good damage to a terran army because they would not be slowed. They'd have the same damage, same range, but be able to close in and get a few hits in as opposed to melting right away. Then, things like making DTs into archons after an opponent has shut them down makes the tech tree a little bit more viable in the late game, and warped in HTs, while without insta-storm, can still feedback (incredibly useful v. terran bio. OMG SO GOOD), and form into a pretty powerful unit in a short amount of time.
Those are my two cents. I hate the colossus with a passion.
Edit: additionally, great OP. I like the discussion, it's been much more constructive than 80% of the strategy forum.
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
I really think this is a great answer to a lot of things. It would make it a choice as to whether or not to research warp gate, and how many warp gates vs how many gateways you want.
A protoss could decide to not research it, and pump units at a little faster rate. This nerfs 4gate, but not overall production, and even helps for defending early game.
Then later in the game protoss can choose to morph warp gates to continue with the harassment options, either dt, ht, a group of zealots or whatever.
Overall:
-Increase defensive capability
-Reduces 4gate aggression
-Makes gateway/warpgate a strategical choice
Maybe there is something I am not considering, but this really does feel like it is a great idea.
|
While I generally agree with your statements about the colossi, and the general weakness of stalker/zealot against stim & roach/hydra, I find immortals + good forcefields/GS can easily take down MM or roach hydra without issue. In fact, I hardly ever rely on colossi in PvZ or PvT lately (ill add them later if the z isn't making corr or the terran gets emp, but I use immortal/HT as my backbone units the majority of the time to avoid losing the game when my colossi die.)
|
Excellent post, very well articulated. It really hits to the crux of the issue in a very well argued/articulated way and is so damn relevant.
I had to cross-post it to the b.net forums. I provided a link to this thread as well as credit to the author.
|
Removing the warp gate would be a very bad idea that would further P's decent into stale, boring play.
It can't be considered OP when the trade off is you have to take your eyes off the battle to begin your reinforcement, as to where T and Z can keep their eyes on the battle and select hotkey & press corresponding hotkey to build more units from all structure(s)... The protoss can and does get many units sniped because of the inability to micro units while looking away from the battle.
Maybe warp gate could be tweaked to some degree to change 4 gate timings as PvP is too one dimensional right now. But, removal of the warpgate all together or an extreme nerf would just take a major cornerstone away from Protoss and the entire game would have to be re balanced around that. All of this is my opinion ofcourse 
|
Some great ideas, well thought out. I still think Templar builds will be viable after the patch, people will just have to use them properly.
|
On March 15 2011 02:42 Zanez.smarty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 02:29 Enervate wrote:
I disagree with this whole labeling gateway units as UP and colossi as OP methodology. You can't expect low tech units to have the same effectiveness as high tech units. I hear this argument a lot, but I couldn't disagree more. High Tier units are wonderful for support, and some raw power, but the bread and butter are usually lower end ones. Example would be Marines, Marauders and Helions, or Roaches, Hydras and Lings. They are capable of packing a punch on their own, and become brutally painful when the are mixed with higher end support units (Medivacs, Thors, Tanks, Infestors, Banelings, Mutalisks). Protoss is borderline unplayable without their high end support units, because their bread and butter units (Zealot, Stalker) have such low damage output. They need the high tech units just to survive, rather than to amplify their effectiveness. This is why you end up seeing 5+ cols in a death ball. Currently, it feels that the Colossus aren't the support... The Stalkers are.
I just don't think pure stalker zealot should be viable, and I don't think pure marines should be viable either. High tech units should be capped by their production while low-tech units should be capped by their effectiveness. Also, I don't think there is ever a situation in which you need more a huge amount of colossi unless it's pvp, and you actually reach a point of diminishing returns (for matchups other than pvp).
On March 15 2011 02:47 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 02:29 Enervate wrote:
I disagree with this whole labeling gateway units as UP and colossi as OP methodology. You can't expect low tech units to have the same effectiveness as high tech units. You can say there is a problem with this, or you can say that there is a problem with other races using low-tech units throughout the entire game.
In BW, each race in each matchup revolved around a high-tech unit mixed in with a lot of low-tech units. PvZ was templar/archon. ZvT was defiler/ultra. TvP/Z was science vessel. PvT was arbiter. These units were all game-changing. Possibly the only complaint I can see against the colossus in comparison with these is that the colossus is easier to use. But pretty much everything is easier to do in SC2, so I don't think difficulty of use is a large consideration factoring in to game design. Well, notice most of those are actually spellcasters as opposed to simply "i have an attack and kill" units? Colossus has nothing special, just a retardedly strong attack. Defiler used spells such as plague for damage, and dark swarm for support casting. Science vessel was also a caster, that didn't just A move but irradiated Zerg to death or EMP'd toss. Arbiters weren't as crucial as you make them sound to be, yeah, you're at a massive disadvantage without them, but plenty of toss were able to go pure Zealot/Goon til near the lategame and crush opposition when they finally needed arbiters or carriers (although they could get templar as well, which was quite common until the last year or so). Archons are the only unit you mentioned that are a straight up damage dealer, and at least they were uber short range damage dealers that took "bonus" (full) damage from everything everything unlike Colossus which sits in the back dealing crazy DPS. It's like a Siege tank with shorter range but doesn't have to siege up. No real unique mechanic about the unit, besides the cliff walking and being able to be shot by air. But that doesn't affect too much on how it's used in battle (it's simply still A-moved, just make sure not to be sniped by vikings).
I agree. But I don't think that means the colossi is overpowered. I think it's poor game design, but I don't see how it leads to imbalance or claims of OP, when the unit still has hard counters since it can't shoot air. It's not like you can only make colossi and produce it no matter what the situation and still win. People claimed toss was the easiest race to play in BW as well, with all of the 1a2a3a jokes. I don't think people actually thought toss was imba, though.
My point is that a more legitimate argument against colossi is that it's boring to watch or use, not because it's unstoppable.
|
On March 15 2011 03:02 SyN_FiR3 wrote:Maybe warp gate could be tweaked to some degree to change 4 gate timings as PvP is too one dimensional right now. But, removal of the warpgate all together or an extreme nerf would just take a major cornerstone away from Protoss and the entire game would have to be re balanced around that. All of this is my opinion ofcourse
PvP is 2dimensional, but this has nothing to do with warpgate, and everything to do with the collosus, as OP points out.
There are counters to the 4gate, i.e. 3stalker build, adelscott's build on closer positions, etc, which make it reasonably dynamic in the early game, but it generally converges on depending upon collosi.
|
On March 15 2011 02:59 caradoc wrote:
Excellent post, very well articulated. It really hits to the crux of the issue in a very well argued/articulated way and is so damn relevant.
I had to cross-post it to the b.net forums. I provided a link to this thread as well as credit to the author.
Thanks! OP is Thrasymachus on NA :D
Someone pointed out that I made a mistake in the OP. Colossi never did sustained ST damage in beta, it was ALPHA when they changed that. My bad.
|
On March 15 2011 02:53 Striding Strider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 01:09 freetgy wrote:
Put Warpgates into Twilight Council -> delays the 4 Gate Pushes and any aggressive cheese builds that are build around warpgates. I LOVE this idea. Obviously gateway production times would need to be adjusted as you said, but it would make for a nice transition over the course of a game to go from gateways > warpgates. Right now everyone rushes into warpgates which begs the question why are gateways even there?
Didn't Blizzard explicitly state that they wanted Protoss to use Warpgates exclusively and the only reason there is an upgrade is because of the 4 warpgate attack?
It's the same thing with Marauders. Their weapon is a concussive shell. That's the way Blizzard wanted it, but they realized it needed to be delayed a little bit so they tacked on an upgrade.
Warpgates absolutely complicate the issue, for sure, but they will not be removed. I like the idea of certain units being available via Warpgates, and certain units requiring a gateway. But wouldn't this massively screw up the lore?
For instance: living entities must walk from a Gateway; Zealot, HT, and DT.
Robotic units must be warped in: Stalker and Sentry.
|
Gateway units with the TC upgrades and forge upgrades are actually really decent. It seems like this post is geared towards PvT and not PvZ, but quickly I'll just say that Zealots suck in PvZ after the early game and forcefield is part of the reason for that. It leads to a mineral dump problem and the need for a 3rd base. Think about it, Protoss' best PvZ mineral dump is cannons. If you dont build a shitload of cannons then you have to build zealots and expanding again isnt always on option. With all those minerals invested in static defense its much harder to push out so you kind of have to turtle in the midgame to get the deathball while you wait for gas to accumulate. Anyways moving away from PvZ.
Now having said TC + forge upgrade on zealot/stalkers is good I have to backtrack and say they dont work with forcefield that well the way they are being used now. Just as in PvZ. You forcefield a wall of units back only to send zealots in to melee the blocked units. The obvious problem here is the zealots get shreaded at the same speed as though forcefield wasn't there because the back units can still hit them. One possible tactic to combat this could be making a double wall of forcefields. I haven't seen this done very much, but it seems like a good idea if you can pull it off.
It does suck that colossus feel so essential, but think about how limited ZvT is for the zerg as well. The comps that work for Z are very very narrow. The big challenges for both P and Z against T boils down to how strong the marine is... marines make AoE essential and limit your options in the mid-game. You can nerf AoE into the ground, but if you're going to do that, you will need to make up for it by making adjustments to the units that are demanding the AoE. It can be argued that toss needs aoe for hydras as well but to me it goes back to how bad zealots are in the MU. If zealots weren't so bad protoss could actually apply pressure without quite as much fear of getting overrun midgame. As it stands, turtling is rewarded.
|
@zanez, thanks, I edited the post on B.net to reflect this.
|
On March 15 2011 03:06 Enervate wrote:
I just don't think pure stalker zealot should be viable, and I don't think pure marines should be viable either.
And yet marines and marauders can be ?
|
Oh I should also clarify that I think half of those changes would break the game from the original post. Observers are fine where they are.. such a powerful unit SHOULD have an opportunity cost greater than just halting probe production.
|
I agree with them for the most part, with exception to this:
Give Carriers and Interceptors some base armor on their shields,
Give Carriers some base armor on their shields,
Give Carriers some base armor on their shields,
I'm just a terran player, but I have to say.... don't they already have shield armour... (I think, they did in beta anywho)
|
On March 15 2011 00:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 23:46 Philip2110 wrote:On March 14 2011 22:29 nihlon wrote:I was expecting pictures when I clicked this thread. I'm dissapointed. On March 14 2011 19:56 B.I.G. wrote:
i think your right about the balance among stages.. toss being pretty impotent in t1 but strong lategame (i dont really think OP but whatever) while terran and zerg seem to be able to win even lategame with only t1 and some t2 units How has zerg stronger t1 than protoss? speed roach > gateway units Do blink stalkers and chargelots deal with speed roaches? That was one way I compensated back when I played P. It's not really fair to give one unit a t2 upgrade and not the other.
no they die
|
Really like the discussion going on in here.
Here is an idea that is built upon what people have said already.
Have warp-gate come out later. Make it an upgrade out of the nexus when either stargate, robo or council come out.
Have warp-gate cooldown increase, so gateways are actually useful.
Warp-Gate research time increased as well.
What I like with this is that it forces a Protoss to choose how many warpgates he wants depending on his style. Does he want to be more of a sit back and macro ? Make gateways. Are you a more mobile and harass type player ? Make more warps for warpin dts and zealots on the go. Warp gates will come out late enough that it should not hurt an already existing part of the game AND it creates a dynamic between the two gates not yet seen.
Zerg - Has to choose to drone or make units.
Terran - Has to choose add-ons and swap.
Protoss - Has to choose how many warp gates needed without killing their army macro.
There is also the possibility of having some units only makeable from the warpgate. Obs or immortals ? Just make the cool-down even longer when a tier 2 unit is warped in.
All this makes the warp-gate a more emergency/harass/mobility based ability than what it is now.
This will most likely will force a slight tweek on Protoss gateway units.
|
United States1697 Posts
On March 15 2011 03:21 ShadowLegacy wrote:
Really like the discussion going on in here.
Here is an idea that is built upon what people have said already.
Have warp-gate come out later. Make it an upgrade out of the nexus when either stargate, robo or council come out.
Have warp-gate cooldown increase, so gateways are actually useful.
Warp-Gate research time increased as well.
What I like with this is that it forces a Protoss to choose how many warpgates he wants depending on his style. Does he want to be more of a sit back and macro ? Make gateways. Are you a more mobile and harass type player ? Make more warps for warpin dts and zealots on the go. Warp gates will come out late enough that it should not hurt an already existing part of the game AND it creates a dynamic between the two gates not yet seen.
There is also the possibility of having some units only makeable from the warpgate. Obs or immortals ? Just make the cool-down even longer when a tier 2 unit is warped in.
All this makes the warp-gate a more emergency/harass/mobility based ability than what it is now.
This will most likely will force a slight tweek on Protoss gateway units.
Dude, do you have any idea what increasing warp gate cooldown and research times would do to P? Its already hard enough to hold certain timing pushes from Z and T with the current warp gate research timings. It will become utterly impossible to hold these timing pushes and expanding early will become almost impossible.
|
On March 15 2011 03:25 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 03:21 ShadowLegacy wrote:
Really like the discussion going on in here.
Here is an idea that is built upon what people have said already.
Have warp-gate come out later. Make it an upgrade out of the nexus when either stargate, robo or council come out.
Have warp-gate cooldown increase, so gateways are actually useful.
Warp-Gate research time increased as well.
What I like with this is that it forces a Protoss to choose how many warpgates he wants depending on his style. Does he want to be more of a sit back and macro ? Make gateways. Are you a more mobile and harass type player ? Make more warps for warpin dts and zealots on the go. Warp gates will come out late enough that it should not hurt an already existing part of the game AND it creates a dynamic between the two gates not yet seen.
There is also the possibility of having some units only makeable from the warpgate. Obs or immortals ? Just make the cool-down even longer when a tier 2 unit is warped in.
All this makes the warp-gate a more emergency/harass/mobility based ability than what it is now.
This will most likely will force a slight tweek on Protoss gateway units. Dude, do you have any idea what increasing warp gate cooldown and research times would do to P? Its already hard enough to hold certain timing pushes from Z and T with the current warp gate research timings. It will become utterly impossible to hold these timing pushes and expanding early will become almost impossible.
Read on, I point out that gateway tweeks will be needed. I am a Protoss user so I know what this entails.
|
On March 14 2011 20:43 hmunkey wrote:
I feel like KA shouldn't be removed, but it shouldn't give Protosses instant storms either. It seems a bit unfair that Protoss can survive attacks that would normally demolish them even if they're unprepared simply because they can warp in multiple instant high damage AOE spells at any location on the map. Maybe if the upgrade costed less and gave just under the necessary amount of energy things would look pretty fair.
.
I know this post was early in the thread but i just wanted to throw my 2cents in, yes protoss should be slightly punished for been unprepared but i think warping in slow units at the back of the base/pulling army back is a good enough punishment, its not necessarily hard to shift que up multiple drops and hit 3 places at once, it requires more effort to defend than attack so you cant really say protoss get away too easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
