|
Alright, I am going to need to go off on a bit of a rant here, because it seems there is a lot of misinformation about Protoss, the KA change, Colossi and their builds.
I play Protoss exclusively, watch streams, read strategies and keep a close eye on the pro-gaming scene. I have written a guide or two in my day, and I consider myself pretty well versed in the game.
First, I will get this out of the way before people start freaking out. I don't mind the KA change in the next patch. While I don't believe KA was too powerful, I DO think that it allowed the Protoss race to accomplish something that was probably unintended by the developers: It allowed them to directly convert Vespene Gas into damage on demand. There was little skill involved, and no race had an even comparable ability. I am not here to discuss the suggested change (+15 energy or increased regen speed, etc), but rather here to discuss an issue with the Protoss Race that the removal of KA will amplify.
The problem I refer to is, of course, the Colossus. The Colossus is considered by many to be OP, simply because of it's nature... it is an a-move unit that does incredible splash damage with minimal micro or baby-sitting. Compare it to it's old counterpart, the Reaver, that required babysitting with shuttles, it was vulnerable and was able to create some wonderful and creative plays. It's ease of use and it's incredible power has brought it to the point where it is almost b-lined in just about every game. Virtually every game requires Colossi to be acquired relatively quickly, and to be pushed out for just about the whole game, while Stalkers and occasionally Zealots are used for no purpose other than to keep shots off the Colossi.
However Zealots and Stalkers themselves are good for little else in the late game. In SC1, Zealots and Goons were able to be used well into the late game, because they complemented each other so well. They were able to eat a lot of hits, as well as pack a punch of damage. In SC2, Zealots and Stalkers alone are useless. Unless they have backup of Colossus, HT or sometimes Void Rays, they are nothing but cannon fodder, and melt to almost any force a person can throw at them. Stalkers were supposed to replace Dragoons, but they gave up some of the range and firepower in exchange for increased mobility; a factor that doesn't affect play in giant 'ball vs ball' games. Zealots were capable of packing a punch in BW, but in SC2, even with Charge, Zealots get obliterated by Hydras, Roaches, MM&M and Helions. before they can do any damage. Gateway builds are now obsolete, and require "hero" units, otherwise they get rolled all over. Because these units are so damn weak, they require a unit that is so damn powerful to balance out the Protoss forces, and in almost all cases, this unit is the Colossus. This makes it difficult to nerf the Colossus.
So would it make sense to nerf the Colossus in exchange for Gateway unit buffs? Well no, as it turns out. Gateway units are tricky to buff for two reasons: 4 Gate and Force Field. 4 Gate is an extremely powerful build as it is, and so, any power increase to Zealots and Stalkers (no matter how small) could, and would, throw the build way out of balance. Force Field makes Gateway units powerful enough in the early game (by blocking retreats and splitting armies) to survive. It would be extremely difficult for Protoss to manage in the early game without Sentries, and a buff to Gateway units could be too powerful. However Sentries and Force Field are not enough to swing Zealots and Stalkers into a position of power in the late game, unless they are backed up by Colossi or sometimes HT.
It would seem that the only way to buff Zealots and Stalkers would need to be through Charge and Blink. These two abilities in their current state are unable to provide Gateway builds with any significant firepower in the late game. Blink becomes used as a harass tool, and a way of allowing Stalkers to occasionally frontload some damage or take some extra hits, but Charge is difficult to use effectively as much more than a timing attack, because Zealots die so quickly to stim and roaches or hydras in the late game.
Since Zealots and Stalkers do such little damage, Colossi need to do so much. Since Cols do so much damage, they are weak and can't take many hits, and are vulnerable to air, but Stalkers are good at that, and hit air. These facts lead to a painful conclusion: The Colossus/Stalker Death Ball. You can mix other things in it, like HT or Void Rays, but when it comes down to it, the Colossus and Stalkers are core... with Colossus being the bottom line.
This comes down to Protoss being imbalanced at different times in the game. Early game (past the 4 gate) they tend to be too weak. They need to abuse Force Field on their ramps or block off retreat paths in order to defend, and rarely are they able to push. But in the late game, they are rolling in T3 power, throwing the balance in the other direction, often making them too powerful.
This is of course, leading to a very important point... Options. Since the Protoss Death Ball is so damn powerful, Protoss players are forced to use it in just about every game. Every build transitions to Colossus at some point so that the Death Ball can be acquired. This leads to predictable and boring games. Wouldn't it be nice to see some late game Protoss plays involving Carriers, Chargelot flanks, and Archon play, Rather than just Death Ball every time?
Another potential build that is often disregarded are Gateway centric builds. These involve Gateway units, including the HT. But there are problems with the build in general. I already mentioned how Zealots and Stalkers are weak in the mid-late game. While Charge and Blink increase this lifespan to a degree, they cannot be reliably used for long. This means that it is important to get HT and Storm/KA before Zealots and Stalkers begin to fail and FF stops being effective. This is a very small window at best, and leaves the Protoss vulnerable to timing attacks. Another issue with the Gateway build is that it lacks detection, forcing a Robotics Facility... and once you are there, you may as well go all the way and get Colossi.
The loss of KA makes this option even less desirable than it already was, pushing yet more people into the already overused Colossus builds. It seems what is happening more and more, is that Protoss are being forced to play the same game (or a very similar one) every time. Terran and Zerg have several options into the late game that are used in a variety of ways and gotten in a variety of orders. Not all may be viable, but since Beta the game has shifted to and away from numerous builds, while the Protoss has simply evolved more efficient ways of using the exact same unit. Zerg use: Roach-Hydra-Infestor, Ling-Baneling-Muta, Broodlord-Hydra, etc... Terran can use: Bioball, Marine-tank, Marine-Mech, Heavy Mech, Heavy Air, etc... Protoss can use: Stalker Colossus, Blink Stalker Colossus, Voidray Colossus, Colossus HT... All colossus centric, leading to a similar Death Ball.
I have a few suggestions. I won't go into too many specifics or numbers, because specifics tend to cause balance issues, and I am no mathematician, but plz, bear with me. I am more trying to get across the ideas, rather than the specific buffs.
1. Colossus Nerfed. Simple. I am not sure how this would be done exactly, but they should be changed in some way. The Protoss need to stop relying on it as the core of every single build. Potentially reducing their AoE (in beta [EDIT] Alpha [/edit], they used to do strong sustained single target damage. 2. Charge readjusted to allow Zealots to put out some firepower before dieing. My suggestion would be for Charging Zealots to get an armor bonus, or a chance for ranged units to miss them, and/or adding a substantial cleave to the first hit after charging. This would allow Zealots to reach their targets without getting melted. But more importantly, it would allow for a little AoE to exist before HT or Cols. This would add micro to the game on both sides (spreads and specific targets) 3. Observers come available from the Nexus upon the construction of Robotics Facility, Stargate or Twilight Council. Zerg and Terran access to mobile detection (scan and overseer) becomes available at T2 regardless of the build you choose. Observers coming from the Robotics Facility is similar to Zerg having Overseer upgrade available when you build a Spire. It is only available if you work with a specific tech tree. This reduces the ability to have "build order defeats", that arise simply because you chose to go for early blink when a cloaked Banshee flies into your base. 4. Force Field costs 75 Energy, but Sentries spawn with 75 energy. This would give force field a longer pseudo-cooldown, but doesn't prevent you from warping in a Sentry for emergency defense. It also makes Force Field require more thought to use effectively, and makes it so baiting force fields is more effective. It also allows for Guardian Shield to be used on an emergency summon to boost Zealot and Stalker performance on defense. 5. Give Carriers and Interceptors some base armor on their shields, and make it so Interceptors do not get trapped in Vortex. Carriers are rarely used, because they are vulnerable to focus fire and interceptors are weak enough to be picked off. If you compare them to the Battlecruiser, the Carrier's ONLY advantage is it's speed. If it had some armor on it's shields it would make Carriers slightly more appealing. Also, a Mothership with Carriers is risky, because if you Vortex anywhere nearby, ALL your interceptors could be sucked into the Vortex. This makes them nothing more than sitting ducks, and unable attack and to take advantage of your own Vortex.
Long, I know :S Here are some basic points.
1. KA removal is necessary, but unpopular because it forces Protoss players into the already overused Colossus builds. 2. Protoss is balanced around UP gateway units and the OP Colossus, making them weak in early game and strong in late game. 3. Because of this, Protoss has very few options in late game play. Other builds have some problems that need addressing so we have more options.
Thoughts?
|
I love everything about this post. It admits the nature of the Colossus, which I as a Protoss user am perfectly willing to admit is too strong, but is also truthful in pointing out that the Protoss army needs the Colossus in order to deal with many things, because past a certain army size, gateway units rapidly lose efficiency.
I particularly liked your suggestion for adding a bonus to Charge, either a defensive bonus after using it (damage reduction) or an offensive bonus (cleave).
|
I agree with alot of what you said. But i think its still to early to make any of these bigger changes to the Protoss race. Lets atleast first have a month of patch 1.3, trying it out.
I know some fear that the Collosi will be used even more often then it already is, but I'm not sure about that since I've seen quite alot of other strategies lately.
One thing to note tho is that the 2 Forge Chronoboost build getting 2/2 and then attacking seems to be quite effective. Toss atleast has the ability to get upgrades the fastest going for them...
Sure Terran can go for 2 Ebays, but they can't chronoboost them out, making for a time window where the gateway units become much stronger against bio.
|
It doesn't seem to me like it will be used any more or less because of the KA change. It's not like anyone was foregoing colossi for HT. Usually, HT's just came after the fact to help clear up some bioballs. Good suggestions, I like your #4 sentry suggestion very much as well.
|
very interesting read and I agree with you on all points, but I don't know if the changes you suggest would really balance out protoss even still. All these new mechanics and units are so cool but damn do they introduce so many problems. Warping in units is a neat feature but because of it the gateway units have to suck. Colossi is a cool unit, can walk over cliffs and has two laser beams that deal splash yet it's safe to say that it has to be used in every match up. I really don't know what blizzard can do but they have to do something that's for sure.
|
Agree with what you said, but thing is, I almost never use colossi except in PvP. Reason is I don't like colossi and I do robo build to throw off zerg to make corruptors. My core build, most of the time, is blink+HT+immortal. By removing KA, it pretty much kills my build, which requires a bit skill (Blinking, target firing roaches with immortal and HT storm. This upgrade is making me switch to colossi build ...
|
Here is my problem with Colossus:
PvP: Stalker + Colossus death ball. War of the Worlds, Col vs Col. Yeah you can 4gate, yea you can get Blink or Void Rays, but almost invariably PvP turns into Col vs Col, best position wins. Forcefield means nothing here.
PvZ: Stalker + Colossus death ball. You can add Void Rays, or try to use Templar, but skipping Colossus (vs any ground-based build) is borderline suicidal. You can hold off with Gateway units for a while, but eventually the Zerg is able to produce so much stuff that you NEED the Col to deal with it!
PvT: Stalker + Colossus death ball. You can add in HT, maybe, in the late game. Maybe. But in the meantime, you need to get Colossus to hold off any bio push that comes before the 15 minute mark. Sure you can use Sentries to buy your Gateway army some time, but as soon as Medivacs are out, you better have Col ready to even the score.
So that means in all 3 match-ups, Protoss is looking to get the exact same army, which makes for bland and boring game play, both for the player and potential viewers.
The removal of KA, however justified, just furthers this issue. Playing BW for a while got me into the habit of keeping and HT or 2 at each expansion vs Zerg. It was a different dynamic then, but I certainly felt like bringing HTs with my army wasn't such a damn hindrance. In SC2, with the oh-so-common ball vs ball army fights, you can seriously give yourself a handicap trying to move your army and protect HT at the same time.
What KA offers right now is the ability to replace an expensive unit and get use out of it. Templars aren't durable, they don't regen energy any faster than other casters, and really are the kamakazis of the Protoss arsenal. You can morph them after use (or EMP), but at least for me, they tend to get merked while morphing before the Archon can do anything.
I'm sure players will adapt and find ways to make HT more usable, but the burden of protecting them is the real problem here. Compared to the other choice (Colossus), it's a no-brainer.
TL;DR: Protoss is pigeon-holed into pretty much 1 build, in all match-ups.
Suggestions:
- Make Psi Storm deal bonus damage to Shields (PvP buff!) - Decrease the morph time of Archons - Make Warp Prisms more durable so that you can use them all game to set up flanks with Zealots, warp in Sentries to cut off retreats etc
|
I try to stay as far as I can from a death ball, I have tried many things , dropping, gateway double forge and it is never enough.. I have tried phoenix play into zealot charge lifting there most dmging units... it forces me to go colossi no matter wat I want to do. I agree 100% with this post... maybe even buffing our upgrades just a lil so our units dont die so damn fast to stim / hydra and make the double forge a bit more useful so we can use our gateway units in late game. I dont know the nexus idea building the obs is a good idea I like that.
|
On March 14 2011 16:45 Zanez.smarty wrote: 3. Observers come available from the Nexus upon the construction of Robotics Facility, Stargate or Twilight Council. Zerg and Terran access to mobile detection (scan and overseer) becomes available at T2 regardless of the build you choose. Observers coming from the Robotics Facility is similar to Zerg having Overseer upgrade available when you build a Spire. It is only available if you work with a specific tech tree. This reduces the ability to have "build order defeats", that arise simply because you chose to go for early blink when a cloaked Banshee flies into your base. Thoughts? I agree that this is something BLizzard should think about. I made a post solely about this problem back in the days the Terrans did nothing but rush cloaked banshees. It really narrows your BO when you always have to put that robo first no matter what.
I think you should also address the pheonix. It is a very strong harass unit and should get a nerf somewhere, but in the same time a small buff to balance it out again. Maybe 50% less damage on lifted units and a hp buff? Or lifting costs more energy... I don't know.
But the pheonix is going to break the game soon, I have this feeling.
|
Rather than adding in entirely new effects on charge/blink, there is another possible way to make gateway units better later on in the game: make weapon/armour upgrades have a larger effect on them. Current 3/x zealots do 22 damage per attack. Zealots with 8+2(x2) damage would be dealing 28, making them substantially scarier. Stalkers with 3/x upgrades at the moment do 13 damage (17 vs armoured). With, say, 10+2 damage and 4+1 bonus damage vs. armoured, they would do 16 (23 vs armoured). Armour upgrades are tricker to handle, since giving +2 armour per up would be kinda ridiculous (especially on units that already have base armour), but perhaps they could gain a slight HP buff with each upgrade, like that Protoss tech you can get in the campaign. It'd go against the standard weapon/armour upgrade system, but Starcraft races have always been asymmetrical. The only problem I can see occuring from this would be some nasty +x/+y timing pushes, using chronoboost to get out what would currently be 2/2 units very early on in the game, but numbers can be fiddled with if those end up being overpowered.
|
As a Protoss player, I agree with most if not all of the Original Post. I think Colosus are the real problem with every match up for Protoss for the exact reasons you stated. On the 5 suggestions in particular:
1) I think Colossi should still retain their splash impact, as they are one of only two (HT) splash-attackers for the Protoss. However reducing perhaps the AoE (so damages less targets at a time at max range) might be a good way to nerf. I do agree with it needing some sort of slight debuff. 2) The guarenteed hit on charge I think will be a useful buff. What I would prefer to see honestly is for charge to be as useful in retreat as it is in attack. That way it might encourage protoss to branch off a collection of stalkers and zealots as a small attacking force in the same way marine + maruder break off as a small force to do damage. 3) This I like. Even if I go stargate builds, I tend to add in a robo because I find the observer essential. Trying to work with hallucionation more, but the observer is so useful. Still, perhaps not a necessary change? 4) I think perhaps a Sentry energy upgrade for +25 would be nice. It would be a worthwhile investment, almost regardless of cost. I think they are the only spellcaster in the game (well now HT as well) without a +25 energy upgrade? Correct me if I'm mistaken... 5) I think the carriers might be fine to be honest. Do like the "interceptors dont get caught in vortex" concept at least, but don't particularly think the armour is a necessity. As it is there is a certain mass of carriers that becomes very difficult to break, but I think carrier builds are often overlooked due to the combination of build time and power of void rays.
But yes, agree with Original Post. Some sort of update to the internal balance of the protoss tech tree would be good with actual particular focus on the collosus.
|
I'm not sure your suggestions would balance out. Even with a(nother) buff to charge, nerfing forcefields and colossus would be pretty devestating.
The forcefield buff would weaken protoss ability to hold ramps in the early game and severely weaken the ability to hold the usual timing attacks that could hit when protoss wants to get up their expansion. I can't imagine holding my expansion against an aggressive zerg or terran if each sentry was limited to two forcefields. Further it would weaken the ability of protoss to move out on the map all game long. This is a huge problem a lot of players already have, particularly against zerg.
Any colossus nerf would leave protoss effectively dealing too little damage. And with your suggested forcefield nerf it would be a tall order to win any engagement in a reasonable manner. Colossi deal damage fast and they die fast. Colossus-based armies are already extremely vulnerable to mass-marauder/mass roach armies.
The fact of the matter is the 'deathballs' that protoss get up against zerg and terran are basically one of the only ways to fight cost-effectively against swarms of ling/roach/hydra or MMM. You simply can't engage with a decent ball of enemy units without it. Especially against zerg who is probably the only of the two races who is actually having any issues with it (if terrans are bored of playing against colossus believe me I am extremely frustrated about always playing MMM), but the matchup requires that protoss have better synergies at higher supply to be balanced as long as protoss is stuck with a) weak initital armies, b) a weaker economy c) the most gas heavy army.
Obviously there are issues. Issues at lower supply where protoss is having troubles and issues in 200/200 battles where protoss unit retention is too good. But the solutions are not outlined in this thread IMO. Its a far more complicated problem thanks to warpgates and forcefields necessitating weak yet expensive gateway units.
The proposed carrier change would be welcome against terran, but would require an unreasonable buff to be worthwhile against zerg (where corruptors are incredibly good counters).
|
Nice ideas, but making so many changes at this stage of the game's life (we're what, half way to HoTS now?) is too late, and would be too punishing on Protoss players who would essentially need to relearn how to play the race [even if the result ends up more balanced, it's a disadvantage for months].
I think, keep it simple. Make upgrades more powerful for Gateway units, and make them less powerful for the colossus. If zealots got say +2 (stalkers maybe even +3) per upgrade instead of +1, and colossus got +1 instead of +2, and maybe a health and/or shield size upgrade for zealots, and even a +1 range upgrade to stalkers, and they'd become stronger in the mid/late game without strengthening the 4 gate. To ensure the stalker doesn't get too powerful, maybe double the cooldown time on blink.
Maybe an archon buff too, if the goal is to make all three trees equally represented. And yep, do something about the carrier! It's not that it's "weak", but it just takes forever to build and, once there, it's got no micro options. It's really hard to look at the carrier and choose it over pumping more colossi, regardless of what the opponent composition is.
|
Some valid points are made in the OP, but under the assumption that colossi are necessary. In my opinion, this is only true once the game gets into the >2 bases or 200/200 army phase. Protoss has so many viable options early game and mid-game that players opt to cast aside beside they feel like they'll eventually want to tech to colossi for the deathball. I've seen plenty of deadly early builds (that aren't 4 gates) involving an early stargate for phoenix/voids (equally effective), or tossing in some immortals (mainly vZ or vP) to tank sick damage.
tl;dr: There are numerous other builds that a protoss can implement that are just as deadly as the late game deathball (that aren't 4gate). This still doesn't address the KA issue, but let's not skip ahead to late-game-only theory and say that colossi are an absolute necessity in every matchup.
|
I do agree that the current Protoss is a stale race. All games will usually end up in a Stalker/Sentry/Colossus death ball with some void rays added in later.
Protoss T1 units are not strong by themselves. Zealots are slow and can be kited by ranged units. They hit decently hard for their cost but the fact that they are melee makes them hard to actually hit things until charge. And by the time you have charge your zealots will get a couple hits off before melting away to the opponent's huge army. Stalkers are fast but they have one of the worst dps in the game.
Protoss is balanced mainly around Force Fields. Good force fields can split up armies, cut off retreat paths so the Zealots can wail at their enemies (although while splitting an army such as roaches or marines, the zealots can still be shot and are killed anyway), and block chokes so reinforcements cannot come to help.
Protoss T1 work well in a small, balanced force of zeal/stalker/sentries, such as 4 gate or 3 gate pressure. Later in the game, with the huge balls of units they face, they do not even get the chance to do damage. Zealots are built just to die and Stalkers do not deal damage fast enough. Against terran who go heavy bio or zerg, they have no way to deal with mass numbers other than colossi or templar. People generally go Colossi because they are easy to use, they do a lot of damage, and are hard to kill once you get the range. Only when enemies make their anti-air (Vikings/Corruptors/Void Rays) do Protoss switch to adding in some High Templar. Heavy Stargate play like Carriers or Void Rays see little play because of their inability to area of effect damage.
Going back to T1, adding buffs or nerfs to them is tricky, because as mentioned, they work differently in early game with 4 gate than late game, plus they are still dependant on sentries to be effective. As Ezekyle mentioned, you can tinker with upgrades to make them more effective late game. Stalkers only get 1 point per upgrade which is the worst scaling of any unit. Giving them 1 point (+1 armored) would help them survive later game against things they supposedly are effective against like Roaches and other armored units.
Colossi are difficult to touch because Protoss are so heavily reliant on them to survive. Give them too big a nerf and Protoss will get run over by masses of t1 units. Buff them too much and Protoss will be too strong. I imagine developers are scared to do anything with them for this reason. I would like to see other tech trees given the attention they deserve and Protoss not pigeon-hold into going Robotics facility every matchup.
|
I've seen somes protoss use a stalker immortal templars mix against Z pretty effectively, and stargate build ain't bad either. ( even if VoidRay are like the second lamest unit in the game after colossus =d )
|
Italy12246 Posts
That is exactly what i think about p, well written (plat p). While we are there, i would also add "make archons massive" in the potential changes.
|
Gateway units are good enough, what exactly is wrong about them ? Stalker get demolished by marauders, but gateway + forcefield can take a heavy bio army.
The only thing I see is that zealot just lack some HP and die too fast late game.
And I don't think the Colossi needs a nerf, but it needs to change drastically. The whole unit design is flawed : a unit that negate any ground unit and that get hard countered by any flying unit.
|
On March 14 2011 18:34 Noocta wrote: I've seen somes protoss use a stalker immortal templars mix against Z pretty effectively, and stargate build ain't bad either. ( even if VoidRay are like the second lamest unit in the game after colossus =d )
Templar builds will become non-existent after the KA removal.
|
So the problem is that massed gateway units become really inefficient really fast, as compared to say MMM or Roaches. You could buff the gateway units in the lategame somehow, but then I'm perfectly fine with protoss being a race more oriented toward higher tech as opposed to powerful basic units.
If you don't buff the gateway units then it looks like the best (if not easiest) option is trying to balance each tech path. That way you can go robotics and have observers, drop options, immortals and then ultimately your big splashy "power" unit in colossus. If you go twilight council you get mass upgrades for your gateway units, dark templar harass options and high templar as your "power" unit. If you go Stargate you get the option of phoenix harass, void rays, and ultimately carriers as your "power" unit.
Now people obviously still do get things like twilight council for upgrades and stargates for phoenix and void rays but ultimately you need a solid DPS unit to back-up your zealot/stalkers and these are colossi, high templar and carriers. Carriers straight up suck since, while strong, they're insanely expensive and take 2 minutes each. High Templar were getting popular in PvT but as soon as that happened they got whacked with a nerf, meaning while still useful they'll never overtake the colossus.
So after all is said and done why wouldn't you choose to build colossi every time? you need to back up your gateway units and it simply does it far better than anything else you can. Perhaps we buff gateways late-game so they don't need the help, maybe the answer is a direct buff to carriers, maybe its a direct nerf to colossi and just force protoss to play as the underpowered race for a while until we adapt (hell, zergs served their time, albeit with a fair bit of whining ).
|
Yes and no. I understand that the colossus overshadows many other units, but I like it that way. The colossus is something to be feared, and that makes it a very spectacular unit. The gateway units are underrated. You can't say sentries are underpowered, and there are new fast double forge builds that make gateway units deadly. Blink stalkers are still very powerful, and chargelots are getting a nice buff. Of course gate units are not as potent as MMM, but they're not weak by any means. I've been playing around with Templar without insta-storm, and surprisingly, it's not particularly missed. Drops are harder to deal with for sure, but aside from that, Templar are still a powerful unit.
|
On March 14 2011 18:44 WhiteDog wrote: Gateway units are good enough, what exactly is wrong about them ? Stalker get demolished by marauders, but gateway + forcefield can take a heavy bio army.
They can take a heavy bio army in small numbers - yeah that is true. But once it gets to the size of maybe 20 units, stimmed marines and marauders just rip through gateway units. I can't tell you how frustating it was to me in the beginning to actually macro better than a terran but not get Colossi out in time and lose to the way more cost efficient Terran bio ball.
|
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
|
I would split my opinion here. I really think in pvz the collossus is too strong. Corrupters only in huge numbers can deal with 5+ collossi. And if z builds that many corrupters my warpgate units will overrun him. So from this point of view sure it should get nerfed slightly.
But like the OP mentions in PvT you just need the colossi to be that strong because if not you can`t hold a bio push with stim etc. it just feeld unrealistic how gateway unit sucks against stimmed bio units. So for that scenario collusus needs it splash and its damage. And added to this point my late game against t was always zealot/immortal/ht. With KA now removed i kinda feel like i won`t do this transition anymore and just will hope that my colossi won`t get sniped by vikings before the real engagement starts.
As last thing i really really love your idea with the observer going to the nexus and you "just" have to build one of our higher tech buildings. I told my buddies so often that we are forced into one tech tree just to be safe against DT/Banshee/Burrowed Roaches. No other race is forced to go one tech path just to get detection.
|
There's one more thing. You could also buff the upgrades on the gateway units, making them not OP in early game, but also not UP later on. That accompanied by colossus nerf, would give P more room for experiment.
|
Agree with everything you said, its a shame that this is how protoss work but i really doubt blizzard are going to change anything
|
Removal of KA is not necessary. What is necessary is balancing of HT. Be it reducing starting energy of KA to 15, 12 or some other way, removing KA is going from overpowered to underpowered. Yes, there is a fine line of balance, and if in the late game it is let's say 55% in favor of Protoss, if and only if, they go HT with KA, then now for sure it will be smaller than 50%, and even if making EMP only reduce 100 energy may make it close to 50% it won't change the fact that favor lategame will now be at side of terran.
Forcefields costing 75 energy i think could make them too weak for their cost. 100 gas is not cheap, and forcefields, specially in these new open maps, need to be used in quantity to have effect or armies just go around them. Still, this one is debatable.
Also agree with the carriers, specially now that battlecruisers got a ridiculous speed buff (needed but the speed increase they gave it is too much imo). Still it won't change the fact that they are so hard to get, and only rarely will we see them.
|
"Its" doesn't have an apostrophe when used to denote possession. "It's" solely means "it is".
|
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.
It would reward scouting, preparation and forward thinking, and it would allow their opponent to strategically pick targets knowing they have a small window before the storms hit. As it stands, late-late game PvT seems like a serious uphill battle.
And honestly, I think FF costing a little more wouldn't hurt, but it would have to be balanced in such a way that Protoss could still defend against Zerg all-ins and whatnot in the very early stages of the game where FFs are vital.
|
I understand the concept and point behind this post, but it just seems a little, well pointless.
Is there anything wrong with having strong and weak points during the length of the game? Yes, protoss are weak pre- and post-4gate, but so is zerg before they get their FE expansion up, and so is terran when they go MMM or mech and haven't got a critical amount of tanks/MM up.
You talk about zealot/stalker being useless late game, when at the moment there is an increasing popularity of double upgrade builds, which zealots benefit from massively, stalkers less so. And I think it's a bit silly to call the blink upgrade anything but a massive upgrade as well - it leads to so much more than 'a harass tool, and a way of allowing Stalkers to occasionally frontload some damage or take some extra hits'. And charge is also nothing but a huge upgrade, which is actually being buffed in 1.3, something everyone seems to forget about.
Zealot - Charging Zealots will now hit fleeing targets at least once.
This looks to be a big buff against MM especially.
As far as unit diversity (especially T3) in the late game goes, I'll concede that the colossi seems to be becoming an almost compulsory unit to have in your army. I will not agree however, that you don't see enough of the other T3 units, carriers and archons, let alone mothership which it's not even uncommon to get in the late game anymore.
I feel like my post has kind of lost direction now. Bah. I feel like the OP is not a whine, but it can't help come across as a little whiney. I KNOW IT'S NOT. Just consider that protoss use of colossus isn't the only unit composition that players are forced into - I haven't seen a pro level ZvP where the Z has won with ling-muta since people discovered the 6 WG push. And you very infrequently see ZvT where the Z doesn't go ling-muta-bling. Hopefully the infestor change in the next patch will help move the focus of the Z matchups away from the deathball situation that it seems to be in now.
I hope I don't offend, I just think protoss is in a good place at the moment, and probably will be even with the KA change. I realise that being forced into using one unit in all matchups isn't ideal, but that's a huge part of the game - forcing unit compositions. Sure, terran has an incredible diversity of units to use, but that's part of the race that they have to learn also - finding the right unit composition. Also bear in mind that having lots of unit diversity does not necessarily equal having lots of strategic diversity.
Gonna end with a mollifying ' '
|
If observers were to be built at the nexus, they shouldnt be cloaked. You would have to get a robo if you wanted the cloaked version. I also think if the collosus were to be nerfed, you would have to buff the immortal somewhat. Give it a range upgrade or something so they cant just be target fired down by marauders whilst they are in front of a gateway ball
|
On March 14 2011 19:10 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 18:44 WhiteDog wrote: Gateway units are good enough, what exactly is wrong about them ? Stalker get demolished by marauders, but gateway + forcefield can take a heavy bio army.
They can take a heavy bio army in small numbers - yeah that is true. But once it gets to the size of maybe 20 units, stimmed marines and marauders just rip through gateway units. I can't tell you how frustating it was to me in the beginning to actually macro better than a terran but not get Colossi out in time and lose to the way more cost efficient Terran bio ball. I have seen tyler going for heavy upgraded gateway army against bioball, he did that to Jinro recently and crushed him. You have not taste frustration until you have seen your 200/200 hydra roach army getting destroyed by a 150 food colossi stalker army without killing one unit. That's how SC2 is, hard counter.
And about observer in nexus : bad idea, that would make toss scouting ability imba (it's already way better than zerg & terran).
|
Best way to nerf the colossus is a move speed reduction imo. This makes it so: 1) takes more skill to use (potentially need warp prisms for moving around quickly) 2) clearer distinction between colo and HT tech 3) same combat effectiveness but worse map control/counterattack ability
With the trend towards bigger maps this will have an even greater impact.
|
On March 14 2011 22:09 Moja wrote: Best way to nerf the colossus is a move speed reduction imo. This makes it so: 1) takes more skill to use (potentially need warp prisms for moving around quickly) 2) clearer distinction between colo and HT tech 3) same combat effectiveness but worse map control/counterattack ability
With the trend towards bigger maps this will have an even greater impact.
great points and concisely articulated. +reputation to you sir
|
You cannot just change the impact of upgrades on gateway units without disrupting very basic unit-upgrade dynamics. I'm specifically talking about the Zergling-Zealot relation where zealots kill Zerglings with 3 hits when the attack upgrade of the Zealot is on the same level as the armor upgrade of the Zergling and as long as the Zealot has more attack upgrades he kills the Zergling in 2 hits. Now if you make the Zealot stronger Zerglings become entirely useless as soon as Protoss starts upgrading which is really bad because the effectiveness of Zerglings can already be significantly reduced by Force Fields.
In my opinion a lot of the problems come with the fact that units ball up and are easy to micro because of that. So I think reducing the movement speed of the Colossus could help out a lot because you need to be more careful when moving your ball around and it gives Zerg and Terran more time to react and set up flanks. Also i believe this could help out PvP for the same reasons.
To touch on your other suggestions: 2. Charge is getting a buff so let's see how this will help. 3. I don't agree with this. Observers are incredibly powerful. They are permanently invisible so they can permanently watch an area for only 25/75 and with their speed upgrade they are as fast as a worker. If your build is an autoloss to Cloak Banshee steal a gas like many people do when 3gate expanding in PvT. That way you have more time to see if Banshees are coming and get your Robo up. It makes the game more interesting because mindgames get more involved. Also a Robo is always useful to have for emergency Immortals or Warp Prism play. I would not change the Protoss detection thing. 4. I'm not sure about this one. It would effectively reduce the numbers of Force Fields from 4 to 2 per sentry. This means PvZ sentry expand would become considerably weaker and make it much harder for Protoss to fast expand. Protoss needs those extra forcefields. I could be biased because I'm a Protoss player but I don't think it should be changed now. 5. Well, Carriers have the highest DPS in the game but their cost especially with interceptors and build time even with chronoboost...I don't know they are strong but almost impossible to tech to. Maybe it would help to increase their mineral cost but make the interceptors untargetable.
Also I think it's wrong to just remove Khaydarin Amulet without trying to tweak the numbers.
I got some more ideas: I) An expensive Sentry upgrade which increases the effectiveness of Guardian Shield. So Zealot/Stalker stand a better chance against MMM and Roach/Hydra in the mid/lategame. II) Increase range of Immortals to 6 to get them in line with Stalkers and Marauders. I think it's disgusting that Immortals have less range than Stalkers/Marauders because of Blink and Conc Shell. Yea, I know about Force Fields but you cannot really replenish sentries later in the game which are obvious targets for hit-and-run tactics or suicide squads which have the sole purpose of sniping sentries. III) Increase range of Archons to 3 to make them more viable. IV) Reducing the energy cost of Hallucinations in conjunction with increasing the cost and/or build time of the Colossus. It would make the Death Ball itself stronger but the acquisition of it harder.
|
I'm judging from the OP that he's never used the fast 3/3 double forge build considering how he belittles gateway units a few times and mentions how weak they are when fast 3/3 double forge gateway units with high templar is incredibly strong.
|
Players still don't understand how strong protoss is. Best 1-base aggression to punish greedy builds, forcefields, instant reinforcement anywhere on the map which can also be used for harrassment (dts,hts, warp prisms), most cost effective units late game, strongest units in terms of food. Mobility (in terms of small groups warp-ins), firepower of units, macro mechanics, this race just has unlimited potential.
The reason why protoss is so strong mid-late game is not colossus or hts, its the underlying issue that most people don't see, strongest tech switches. Ability and strength of tech switch relies mainly on 2 things - upgrades and build-up cost (building of infrastructures). Heavy stalkers/zealots, immortals, colossus/hts, all of them requires different unit responses from the opponent, and all of them share the same upgrades. The remaining units, phoenixes and VRs (with the exception of carriers) do not even require upgrades for their usual purposes. Just imagine the strength of zerg and terran, if terran's mech&bio and zerg's melee&ranged share the same upgrades. Protoss only need to build gateways that can produce so many different type of units, compare that to terran's raxes and facts that requires reactors/tech-lab for maximum efficiency for different type of units. Protoss "mech" army are so expensive (yet strong), they only requires 1-2 robo/stargates in 2 bases which implies low build-up costs. Protoss also has the strongest macro mechanics in CONTEXT of protoss. Chronoboost allows faster production of probes to keep up with zerg and terran economy, while allowing to chronoboost upgrades (that actually affects 80% of their units) and boost production of their robo and stargates units (this further reduces their build-up costs). This is why you see protosses going for all the techs in certain games, even though they cannot support all the production yet, but they can use them so effectively when the situation calls for it. You don't see that in terran or zerg games (unless zerg is so ahead). Protoss can easily transition to another tech without losing strength, zerg can tech switch but their upgrades will fall behind, terran.... well with the exception of hellions that only need blue flame upgrade. (seriously terran players should start to learn how to complement their bio army with blue flame hellions to fight zealots heavy army)
For units, i honestly feel sentries should be nerfed somehow without losing their early game usage, either by increasing starting energy and energy of forcefield together, or by reducing their maximum energy. I am actually ok with colossus and warp in hts, but not with chargelots. Chargelots are just too cost effective as a mineral dump when used together with colossus and hts. Colossus are really fragile units that will make or break the game with micro, most importantly they need to be supported by gateway units. Hts alone are not really a threat without zealots. Notice sc vs san games carefully, sc actually get owned by chargelots not hts. His ghosts and micro can actually handle hts without zealot support with more cost effectiveness (shown in certain situations). Chargelots not only can tank, they also restrict the army too much for good storms. They are also too good against mech right now. (like i said earlier, terran players need to complement BF hellions into their army, their damage are so ridiculous against light, so time will tell if chargelots are actually balanced). Lastly for phoenixes, few phoenixes actually thrash few mutas in terms of harrassment ability lol, they are just too good with protoss' tech switches, so if that get sorted out it should be fine.
Edit: They can always buff sentries energy regeneration to balance it out.
|
i agree with a lot of your points. as a protoss player, i fucking hate the collosus. not because i dont enjoy/can't use em effectively, but rather the warcraft 3 heroish feel they emanate. gateway units are in a definete need of a buff, but there is a way to do so while not making 4 warpgate imba. something like reducing the build time when making units out of gateways, and subsequently increasing warpgate build time/cost. that way, players don't have to rush for warpgate (vs t or z) and in pvp, a defensive protoss has a large timing window to defend comfortably (but would still be punished when trying to be overly greedy with tech). they give up an offensive advange of warping in units at their opponents base, while obtaining a defensive advantage of being able to make units slightly faster. And maybe increasing the time it takes for a gateway to turn into a warpgate (to like 30 second or something). That way, protoss' wont mindlessly turn all their gateways into warpgates asap. There would be some strategic decision making involved. Do i turn all my gateways into warpgates now? Half of em? Should i turn em back into gateways to boost my production? This (along with chrono boost to speed up transformation time) would lead to very specific and calculated pushes and chrono boost usage depending on what role you wish to pursue (aggresive warpgater, or defensive techer). However, i believe its too late for them to signficantly change the warpgate at this point, but maybe we'll see something in the future.
|
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?
|
Srsly why is "KA removal is necessary"? Ghost doing 1k instant dmg to toss army is more crucial.
|
I'd rather see a 4gate nerf and stalker and zealot buff
|
On March 14 2011 22:29 nihlon wrote:I was expecting pictures when I clicked this thread. I'm dissapointed. Show nested quote +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? roaches are cost effective against zlots/sentries (lololol) and are decent against stalkers assuming proper micro/ling support. They also cost 75/25 and can be made at a ridiculous pace. There's a reason why in pvz, we have to go into sharking mode, because we cannot directly confront zerg's army unless they've been drone whoring like mad or we're doing something ridiculously all-in ish.
|
Very, very well written OP. There are a lot of really good points made, both there and in the ensuing discussion. A few things are getting a little swept under the rug, however, so I feel it's important to highlight them:
Forcefields can be used to amplify the effective strength of Gateway units quite considerably. Players like MC have shown time and time again how good use of Forcefield can allow Gateway units to be quite devastating well past the time a 4 Gate shows up. Any discussion on making Gateway units stronger needs to consider carefully how Sentries will affect the change. I think the suggestion to increase Sentry starting energy and Forcefield's cost both to 75 in conjunction with Gateway units that are stronger in their own right is a good one, but regardless, it's an area to watch.
Likewise, aggressive upgrading can make Gateway units quite deadly for a significant amount of time. A number of players (Tyler in particular comes to mind) have shown some great examples of how powerful a fast double Forge build can be, especially with easy access to the Twilight Council for Charge/Blink. I'd be extremely concerned about the implications of making a timing like that significantly stronger. Again, this isn't to say "this is a terrible idea", just something to keep in mind when talking about re-balancing something as fundamental as T1 units.
|
I have to disagree with one of your Points about how Gateway units are underpowered. This I feel is just not true. Example 4 warpgate. Your gateway units are great early and early mid game its when you get into late game that you need the AoE units like HTs and colossus.
|
On March 14 2011 16:45 Zanez.smarty wrote:Alright, I am going to need to go off on a bit of a rant here, because it seems there is a lot of misinformation about Protoss, the KA change, Colossi and their builds. + Show Spoiler + I play Protoss exclusively, watch streams, read strategies and keep a close eye on the pro-gaming scene. I have written a guide or two in my day, and I consider myself pretty well versed in the game.
First, I will get this out of the way before people start freaking out. I don't mind the KA change in the next patch. While I don't believe KA was too powerful, I DO think that it allowed the Protoss race to accomplish something that was probably unintended by the developers: It allowed them to directly convert Vespene Gas into damage on demand. There was little skill involved, and no race had an even comparable ability. I am not here to discuss the suggested change (+15 energy or increased regen speed, etc), but rather here to discuss an issue with the Protoss Race that the removal of KA will amplify.
The problem I refer to is, of course, the Colossus. The Colossus is considered by many to be OP, simply because of it's nature... it is an a-move unit that does incredible splash damage with minimal micro or baby-sitting. Compare it to it's old counterpart, the Reaver, that required babysitting with shuttles, it was vulnerable and was able to create some wonderful and creative plays. It's ease of use and it's incredible power has brought it to the point where it is almost b-lined in just about every game. Virtually every game requires Colossi to be acquired relatively quickly, and to be pushed out for just about the whole game, while Stalkers and occasionally Zealots are used for no purpose other than to keep shots off the Colossi.
However Zealots and Stalkers themselves are good for little else in the late game. In SC1, Zealots and Goons were able to be used well into the late game, because they complemented each other so well. They were able to eat a lot of hits, as well as pack a punch of damage. In SC2, Zealots and Stalkers alone are useless. Unless they have backup of Colossus, HT or sometimes Void Rays, they are nothing but cannon fodder, and melt to almost any force a person can throw at them. Stalkers were supposed to replace Dragoons, but they gave up some of the range and firepower in exchange for increased mobility; a factor that doesn't affect play in giant 'ball vs ball' games. Zealots were capable of packing a punch in BW, but in SC2, even with Charge, Zealots get obliterated by Hydras, Roaches, MM&M and Helions. before they can do any damage. Gateway builds are now obsolete, and require "hero" units, otherwise they get rolled all over. Because these units are so damn weak, they require a unit that is so damn powerful to balance out the Protoss forces, and in almost all cases, this unit is the Colossus. This makes it difficult to nerf the Colossus.
So would it make sense to nerf the Colossus in exchange for Gateway unit buffs? Well no, as it turns out. Gateway units are tricky to buff for two reasons: 4 Gate and Force Field. 4 Gate is an extremely powerful build as it is, and so, any power increase to Zealots and Stalkers (no matter how small) could, and would, throw the build way out of balance. Force Field makes Gateway units powerful enough in the early game (by blocking retreats and splitting armies) to survive. It would be extremely difficult for Protoss to manage in the early game without Sentries, and a buff to Gateway units could be too powerful. However Sentries and Force Field are not enough to swing Zealots and Stalkers into a position of power in the late game, unless they are backed up by Colossi or sometimes HT.
It would seem that the only way to buff Zealots and Stalkers would need to be through Charge and Blink. These two abilities in their current state are unable to provide Gateway builds with any significant firepower in the late game. Blink becomes used as a harass tool, and a way of allowing Stalkers to occasionally frontload some damage or take some extra hits, but Charge is difficult to use effectively as much more than a timing attack, because Zealots die so quickly to stim and roaches or hydras in the late game.
Since Zealots and Stalkers do such little damage, Colossi need to do so much. Since Cols do so much damage, they are weak and can't take many hits, and are vulnerable to air, but Stalkers are good at that, and hit air. These facts lead to a painful conclusion: The Colossus/Stalker Death Ball. You can mix other things in it, like HT or Void Rays, but when it comes down to it, the Colossus and Stalkers are core... with Colossus being the bottom line.
This comes down to Protoss being imbalanced at different times in the game. Early game (past the 4 gate) they tend to be too weak. They need to abuse Force Field on their ramps or block off retreat paths in order to defend, and rarely are they able to push. But in the late game, they are rolling in T3 power, throwing the balance in the other direction, often making them too powerful.
This is of course, leading to a very important point... Options. Since the Protoss Death Ball is so damn powerful, Protoss players are forced to use it in just about every game. Every build transitions to Colossus at some point so that the Death Ball can be acquired. This leads to predictable and boring games. Wouldn't it be nice to see some late game Protoss plays involving Carriers, Chargelot flanks, and Archon play, Rather than just Death Ball every time?
Another potential build that is often disregarded are Gateway centric builds. These involve Gateway units, including the HT. But there are problems with the build in general. I already mentioned how Zealots and Stalkers are weak in the mid-late game. While Charge and Blink increase this lifespan to a degree, they cannot be reliably used for long. This means that it is important to get HT and Storm/KA before Zealots and Stalkers begin to fail and FF stops being effective. This is a very small window at best, and leaves the Protoss vulnerable to timing attacks. Another issue with the Gateway build is that it lacks detection, forcing a Robotics Facility... and once you are there, you may as well go all the way and get Colossi.
The loss of KA makes this option even less desirable than it already was, pushing yet more people into the already overused Colossus builds. It seems what is happening more and more, is that Protoss are being forced to play the same game (or a very similar one) every time. Terran and Zerg have several options into the late game that are used in a variety of ways and gotten in a variety of orders. Not all may be viable, but since Beta the game has shifted to and away from numerous builds, while the Protoss has simply evolved more efficient ways of using the exact same unit. Zerg use: Roach-Hydra-Infestor, Ling-Baneling-Muta, Broodlord-Hydra, etc... Terran can use: Bioball, Marine-tank, Marine-Mech, Heavy Mech, Heavy Air, etc... Protoss can use: Stalker Colossus, Blink Stalker Colossus, Voidray Colossus, Colossus HT... All colossus centric, leading to a similar Death Ball.
I have a few suggestions. I won't go into too many specifics or numbers, because specifics tend to cause balance issues, and I am no mathematician, but plz, bear with me. I am more trying to get across the ideas, rather than the specific buffs.
1. Colossus Nerfed. Simple. I am not sure how this would be done exactly, but they should be changed in some way. The Protoss need to stop relying on it as the core of every single build. Potentially reducing their AoE (in beta, they used to do strong sustained single target damage. 2. Charge readjusted to allow Zealots to put out some firepower before dieing. My suggestion would be for Charging Zealots to get an armor bonus, or a chance for ranged units to miss them, and/or adding a substantial cleave to the first hit after charging. This would allow Zealots to reach their targets without getting melted. But more importantly, it would allow for a little AoE to exist before HT or Cols. This would add micro to the game on both sides (spreads and specific targets) 3. Observers come available from the Nexus upon the construction of Robotics Facility, Stargate or Twilight Council. Zerg and Terran access to mobile detection (scan and overseer) becomes available at T2 regardless of the build you choose. Observers coming from the Robotics Facility is similar to Zerg having Overseer upgrade available when you build a Spire. It is only available if you work with a specific tech tree. This reduces the ability to have "build order defeats", that arise simply because you chose to go for early blink when a cloaked Banshee flies into your base. 4. Force Field costs 75 Energy, but Sentries spawn with 75 energy. This would give force field a longer pseudo-cooldown, but doesn't prevent you from warping in a Sentry for emergency defense. It also makes Force Field require more thought to use effectively, and makes it so baiting force fields is more effective. It also allows for Guardian Shield to be used on an emergency summon to boost Zealot and Stalker performance on defense. 5. Give Carriers and Interceptors some base armor on their shields, and make it so Interceptors do not get trapped in Vortex. Carriers are rarely used, because they are vulnerable to focus fire and interceptors are weak enough to be picked off. If you compare them to the Battlecruiser, the Carrier's ONLY advantage is it's speed. If it had some armor on it's shields it would make Carriers slightly more appealing. Also, a Mothership with Carriers is risky, because if you Vortex anywhere nearby, ALL your interceptors could be sucked into the Vortex. This makes them nothing more than sitting ducks, and unable attack and to take advantage of your own Vortex. Long, I know :S + Show Spoiler +Here are some basic points.
1. KA removal is necessary, but unpopular because it forces Protoss players into the already overused Colossus builds. 2. Protoss is balanced around UP gateway units and the OP Colossus, making them weak in early game and strong in late game. 3. Because of this, Protoss has very few options in late game play. Other builds have some problems that need addressing so we have more options. Thoughts?
You spent a lot of time and energy on this post and deserve a well thought out response.
I'm not a game designer, nor do I work for Blizzard. I'm not qualified to offer any serious buff/nerf ideas. But in response to your proposed changes, I will give you a patron's opinion.
1. RE: Colossus - + Show Spoiler +The Battlecruiser's ground damage was nerfed because 'once there was a critical mass there was just no way to fight them on the ground.' Now granted, the BC has an air attack too, but we're seeing a similar situation with Colossus. 4+ Colossus and you win as long as you can solve the "kill Viking/Corrupter/Muta" problem which Protoss seem to be extremely capable of with Stargates.
Nerf Idea: Is it really just as simple as nerfing it's ground damage versus a certain armor class?
2. RE: Charge - + Show Spoiler +I'm not sure why people think Charge is UP. It turns the Zealot into a 150HP Speedling that attacks twice per hit for 16 damage. It may not be incredible while charging into a wall of machine guns, but it works just fine in other scenarios (Tank killer). I say we wait and see what this Patch 1.3 "free hit" buff does for them.
3. RE: Observer -> Nexus - NO! + Show Spoiler +I'm really hesitant to mess with the observer. It is really strong. If anyone gets caught without sufficient detection they die. The OC, in early game, is not a sufficient method of detection. If that is all you have a DT rush or Cloaked Banshee rush can kill you. The Overseer is lair-tech and is relatively expensive. There is still a timing window to kill Zerg. The Robotics facility is a super structure.
The observer is remarkably inexpensive and really, really powerful. But, if Blizzard determines that Protoss's mobile detection is too weak, or too vulnerable, let the Hallucinated observer detect but make its energy cost higher, like max sentry energy.
4: RE: Force Fields -+ Show Spoiler + This is also another tricky area. It allows Protoss to survive in early game without massing units, but lets admit it, it is the best for this purpose. A bunker will die to mass units (even with repair, because of FF) and a Zerg will die without mass units. A Protoss can still die to mass units with FF if he misses his FF's or gets caught 'not looking.'
They are super strong both defensively, and offensively, but do require good micro to be effective. The offensive ramp blocking is something that needs looking at though, imo.
5. RE: Carrier - + Show Spoiler +I say leave the carriers alone. Protoss already has air superiority with the Stargate. Carriers do not need a buff, imo. Phoniex are better than Vikings AND Mutas (a flying counter to Muta in both speed and firepower?! Holy cow that is awesome. And they are spellcasters. Yeah, I say we leave the Carrier alone.
SIDE NOTE: + Show Spoiler +I'm really glad they fixed Vortex. That spell was so broken.
|
I full agree with your post. I do think one of the biggest problems is the observer being in the robo facility. No matter what build you do you are nearly always forced to go robo for 200/100. Then you have 2 options, pay an additional 200/200 for colossus or start teching for high templars which costs 3 times that amount or 4 times that amount if you want the amulet aswell. I think if the observer could be built from the nexus it makes other builds more accessible since you save the 200/100 from not building the robo. Your sentry change is really good aswell imo.
|
Dude, your thing with the Colossi is a almost like what I have with marines (I play Terran). They are extremely necessary for the Terran. They have a lot of DPS and they've got stim. I know, I know. They are completely different units and have different roles, but my point is that they are necessary in every match.
TvP: marines and tanks. TvT: marines and tanks. TvZ: guess what? marines and tanks.
Ok. That's a generalization. Of course, you can [and may need to] make other unit combinations, but this one is the most powerful generic combo I've ever seen. Against some combinations (like stalker+colossi), you just need to add other units (like vikings) and that's it.
My point is: your cry for the Protoss' stall is not alone, and not for them alone. I don't know the state of the Zerg, but Terran's army is pretty much the same in every match (a little differences here and there, but it's almost the same). Apparentely, the whole game is in stall (as GSL has shown me).
|
I think that Protoss early game is weak, but if we had someway to incorporate cannons into early game, We would be fine. For example, a terran whos going 1-1-1 can put 2 bunkers at the front and be safe from any early pressure if he pulls off to repair, but then once his banshee rush fails, or whatever, he can salvage the bunkers and get the full amount back. making static defense..not static.
I think that cannons should have a damage decrease, but give us the ability to move them, somehow. maybe after the cybernetic's core cannons can move, or somthing. Nothing early game, we don't want cannon rushing to be more effective. I would like to see someway for us to move cannons around. It would make early game more survivable.
|
I'm a 3300 master league Terran. I agree with the points the OP is making. Buffing gateway units but nerfing collosus would make the game way more interesting and balanced. It would allow for more creative and skillful play , and take away the A moving nature the deathball tends to get bcuz of collosus. But the question of 4 gate is still a real problem imo. I dunno , the curent state of protoss is sad. It seems it's inevitable that fixing 1 thing would break the other and vice versa. Maybe a bigger warp gate research time to push back the 4 gate timing attack? That would seem the only reasonable solution atm ,if gateway units would get buffed.
|
Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved.
|
I think many of these problems would be resolved if they just got rid of warpgates. It just creates so many problems.
If you got rid of warpgates ...
Templar nerf would be unnecessary Stalkers could be more powerful Colossi could be less powerful (atm balanced because of weaker gateway units) Marauders could be less powerful Immortals could come out of gateways Warp prisms (would be just shuttles now) would have more hp Dark Shrine could warp in faster
PvP would be more interesting PvT would be more interesting Mech builds would be more viable, due to much weaker protoss early game.
Races will be easier to balance with maps. At the moment, long rush distance just makes 4 warp gate more obnoxious and will be used more often (Robo and Stargate builds would be too weak in comparison). Due to warpgate you can't "balance" PvP with bigger maps, it will still be the same or worse, and so you will continue to have really uninteresting pvp. The bigger the map, the more powerful warpgate gets.
|
On March 14 2011 22:29 nihlon wrote:I was expecting pictures when I clicked this thread. I'm dissapointed. Show nested quote +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
|
On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. the archon buffs are intersting, but no way in hell would anyone get two upgrades just for a single unit. if you combine both into a single upgrade, that would be better. however, blizzard has stated multiple times that they merely want the archon to serve a very specific niche of giving hts another use after their energy is used up, instead of a more staple role in bw (esp in pvz).
|
On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. I think Passive constnat stuffs are boring something like this, Archon Auto-Cast Ability Psionic Surge Cast when The Archon attacks, causes Archon's movement speed to increase, removes Fungal Growth and Concussive Shell effect, and increase attack range by 1. for 10 seconds/ This effect will stack up to 3 times and will refresh itself.
this way it keeps the Archon interesting and you try to keep the buff up throughout battle. or even make it attack your own units so that Archons can shake free of Slow effects. or go into battle with the buff stacked.
on another note Archons that are merging can be pushed around already though
|
Well written post, you bring up good points and make some interesting suggestions.
I feel like buffing gateway units is probably a decent solution, it just needs to be balanced with warpgate research (the research takes longer, has an additional tech requirement, etc.) From the first time I played Protoss I thought the warpgate mechanic was a bit strange... there's no tradeoff to having gateways and the research is literally the first thing you get in the game. Going further, I think the Collosus needs a change that make it viable/nonviable depending on map factors,which would cause the other two tech paths to be used. As a siege unit some strategy should be required to use it effectively, not just a required reaction.
So in general I guess: Nerf Collosi, nerf warpgate, buff gateway/gateway units.
|
zeal/stalks being undepowered again goes back to the point where tons of protoss were feeling back during the roach buff patch where roach gets +2 atk per upgrade while stalks only get +1 atk per upgrade. if you want to buff zeal/stalks, make ground upgrades stronger
|
On March 14 2011 23:52 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. I think Passive constnat stuffs are boring something like this, Archon Auto-Cast Ability Psionic Surge Cast when The Archon attacks, causes Archon's movement speed to increase, removes Fungal Growth and Concussive Shell effect, and increase attack range by 1. for 10 seconds/ This effect will stack up to 3 times and will refresh itself. this way it keeps the Archon interesting and you try to keep the buff up throughout battle. or even make it attack your own units so that Archons can shake free of Slow effects. or go into battle with the buff stacked. on another note Archons that are merging can be pushed around already though lol wc3 much? -___-
On March 15 2011 00:03 b_unnies wrote: zeal/stalks being undepowered again goes back to the point where tons of protoss were feeling back during the roach buff patch where roach gets +2 atk per upgrade while stalks only get +1 atk per upgrade. if you want to buff zeal/stalks, make ground upgrades stronger i think blizzard's reasoning for this is that zealots get +2 per upgrade, dts and immortals get +5 (and carriers +16). stalkers aren't meant to have a dps role.
|
I like your post, its nicely thought through. I switched to random so that I didnt have to play as protoss every game, it is rather 1 dimensional.
For what it's worth I feel that almost every aspect of starcraft 2 could be fixed with the removal or reduction of Colossus range and the reintroduction of Hydra speed or by leaving the game alone entirely ^^
|
On March 14 2011 23:46 Philip2110 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
What you and every other thread on TL are discussing is not game balance but army balance.
Imagine the game to be perfectly balanced using this logic, so that at any point in the game the ball of each race can beat the ball of every other race. What would this lead to? Every game would become a PvP, where eventually one huge engament will give the win to the player who was lucky enough to have the better position.
The way to "fix" the colossus imo is not by addressing the colossus itself, rather how protoss can sit on 2 or 3 bases and get an invincible army with the other races not being able to do anything about it. This can be done in a number of different ways, that can range from (off the top of my head) increasing the supply cap to giving other races more viable midgame harassment options to decreasing the amount of resources at each expansion. I'd like to see these kind of ideas discussed and tried rather than having every interesting unit in the game be slowly nerfed to death.
|
On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved.
Gateway unlocking forge is a HORRIBLE idea. There will be no more FFE, and defending against a 6-7 pool will become a nightmare. If you cannot scout a canon rush, you deserve to lose. Honestly, a small degree of cheese is not a bad thing to have in games.
|
On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved.
you would also eliminate forge expand so protoss gets even more stale.
|
On March 15 2011 00:19 dragonblade369 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. Gateway unlocking forge is a HORRIBLE idea. There will be no more FFE, and defending against a 6-7 pool will become a nightmare. If you cannot scout a canon rush, you deserve to lose. Honestly, a small degree of cheese is not a bad thing to have in games.
Yeah, I agree with this.
|
While I agree the KA is very powerful i think a nerf to it wouldve been more justified, maybe 10 less energy or so. Removing it is too much IMO, cuz now it takes way too long to get a storm out when you need it and if they get ghosts than you really have to protect your templar for too long to be useful. Collosi is very strong but once they get a large AA count, collosi is less useful and gateway units get tons weaker as the game goes on compared to other units and their upgrades. If gateway units did get a buff than they would be to strong early game IMO, so it just becomes a big mess by buffing/nerfing a unit.
|
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements 2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate 3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings 4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come: 1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade) 2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
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.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
|
It's all in the Warpgate. The entire design of Protoss follows directly from what Warpgates necessitate and allow. The OP identified the 4gate as a possible problem, but that's just a specific timing taking advantage of the mechanics of Warpgates. Even if you push the upgrade back into the midgame, by increasing research time or making it require additional Tech, you'd still have 2 base Warpgate timing attacks with the new and improved gateway units. Imo, the way it is now is inherently unbalanced, and restricts gameplay in a lot of ways, both for Protoss and their opponents. The KA removal is just another Warpgate nerf by proxy.
As for the Sentry problem, I really think that the only time Sentries feel too strong, is if they're allowed to gather energy for 5 minutes, and then 6 Sentries can suddenly throw down 20 Forcefields, allowing complete control of space. If Zealots and Stalkers were buffed, I think it would be reasonable to put a short cooldown on FF (15 seconds perhaps?), and maybe add a Sentry energy upgrade to the TC. This would also add a new layer of strategy to designing your unit composition, because one would effectively only have as many FFs on the field simulatenously, as they have Sentries.
On March 15 2011 00:16 dementrio wrote: What you and every other thread on TL are discussing is not game balance but army balance.
Imagine the game to be perfectly balanced using this logic, so that at any point in the game the ball of each race can beat the ball of every other race. What would this lead to? Every game would become a PvP, where eventually one huge engament will give the win to the player who was lucky enough to have the better position.
The way to "fix" the colossus imo is not by addressing the colossus itself, rather how protoss can sit on 2 or 3 bases and get an invincible army with the other races not being able to do anything about it. This can be done in a number of different ways, that can range from (off the top of my head) increasing the supply cap to giving other races more viable midgame harassment options to decreasing the amount of resources at each expansion. I'd like to see these kind of ideas discussed and tried rather than having every interesting unit in the game be slowly nerfed to death.
Actually, they're not discussing army balance per se, but rather core unit balance. In BW, a core unit ball of any race could win against a similar ball of any other race, and it worked out just fine. Not having relatively evenly matched core units is a recipe for volatile gameplay, imo.
Also, the Colossus is not an interesting unit at all, and the game would really not lose much if it had simply been removed and replaced with something else.
|
I can't really comment on whether the Colossus itself is overpowered or not. I also don't mind Toss being a race that relies on a "Power" unit. My problem as a Protoss player is that one of the three trees power unit is the obvious choice.
Templar are much more difficult to use, and will be made worse if the nerf goes through, and Carriers are impossible to get. I think all three tech choices should be made viable before we start messing with the colossus.
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote: The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements 2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate 3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings 4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come: 1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade) 2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
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.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I think instead of doing all those changes, just give warpgate some limitation to stop the efficiency of 4-gates. For example, re-introduce the dark pylon. The first pylon you build is a dark pylon. Any additional dark pylon can be morphed after the warp-gate tech for a price and a good amount of time. This will delay a 4-gate push significantly while giving warp prism and late-gate toss more possibilities.
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote: The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements 2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate 3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings 4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come: 1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade) 2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
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.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
Man, seriously, i couldn't agree more! Blizzard should be looking at the state of P in general (not only PvP) and question themselves if warpgates are indeed the reason for that damn boring Colossi unit and try to fix it in HOTS, because they will never touch the whole thing in a patch.
|
On March 15 2011 00:41 dragonblade369 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote: The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements 2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate 3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings 4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come: 1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade) 2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
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.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I think instead of doing all those changes, just give warpgate some limitation to stop the efficiency of 4-gates. For example, re-introduce the dark pylon. The first pylon you build is a dark pylon. Any additional dark pylon can be morphed after the warp-gate tech for a price and a good amount of time. This will delay a 4-gate push significantly while giving warp prism and late-gate toss more possibilities.
Could you explain what the Dark Pylon is? Is there a Light Pylon?
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote: The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements 2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate 3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings 4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come: 1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade) 2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
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.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I agree with this post entirely. There are obviously a lot of problems with the game right now, with Protoss specifically, but i think that huge, drastic changes such as removing complete upgrades (see amulet) or tech trees is a terrible idea. Removing things from the game is the last thing you want to do if you want to create a game with depth and a variety. At this point, anything more than messing with numbers is a poor choice. We shouldn't need to get any more extreme than the fixes suggested by this post.
|
Could you explain what the Dark Pylon is? Is there a Light Pylon?
The dark pylon is something that protoss had in the alpha version of the game that servers as the macro mechanism of protoss. I just used it for the name's sake. What i meant is that only a special pylon can warp-in units. The first pylon you build can warp-in units, and any additional one you want has to be morphed from a normal pylon after the warp-gate tech is done.
|
On March 14 2011 22:16 Ravomat wrote: 5. Well, Carriers have the highest DPS in the game but their cost especially with interceptors and build time even with chronoboost...I don't know they are strong but almost impossible to tech to. Maybe it would help to increase their mineral cost but make the interceptors untargetable. Carriers have a dps of 26.6666667. They do have the highest burst damage in the game, at 80, but their dps in an extended fight is terrible for their cost. They also lose a horrific 16 damage per volley for each point of natural armor the target has and per level of armor the target has over the Protoss player's Air Attack level.
On the subject of the original post, one thing you forgot to mention is guardian shield. The unit stats for Protoss seem to be designed under the assumption that every fight will take place with the entire Protoss army under guardian shield.
To get Protoss away from Colossus tech probably isn't possible. Nerfing Colossi would require buffing other things. First off, it's impossible to buff gateway units without nerfing warpgates in some way. Even if warpgates weren't nerfed, if stalkers are buffed to the point where they can beat marauders 1v1, Terrans will be forced to camp on one base behind bunkers in fear of 2 gate chronoboosted stalker attacks. If gateway units aren't buffed enough, there are currently timing attacks that Protoss players hold off with the extra round of units warped in when warpgate tech finishes. Delaying this would make those timing attacks too strong. Good luck with that. Second, Colossi are currently Protoss's most versatile unit. They're the best choice for dealing with Roaches, Hydralisks, and Zerglings from Zerg and Marines, Marauders, and Hellions from Terran. Buffing other units to help fill in for a weakened Colossus would probably require buffing some combination of 2 or 3 units, probably the Zealot and the Stalker and/or the Immortal. Just buffing the Zealot would only help with Marines and Zerglings, and maybe Hydralisks depending on the exact buff. Buffing Stalkers and/or Immortals leaves the Protoss player tremendously open to a Hydra/Ling tech switch from Zerg.
Honestly, I believe that the problem isn't that the Colossus is too strong, but that it's too versatile. However, it's also the best unit Protoss has (and pretty much the only cost effective one) against any ground units except Thors, Ultralisks, and possibly siege tanks. One possible solution might be to move some of the Colossus's damage to a bonus to light units and buff the Immortal make it a properly effective choice against armored units. Why buff the Immortal? It's currently on side of cost effective against Marauders and Hellions, but only barely. As it's produced from the Robotics Facility, it's not something that Protoss can effectively build their entire army out of in the fashion that Zerg and Terran can with Roaches and Marauders. Thus, it's a support unit. But, when the main body of the army is Zealots, Stalkers, and Sentries and they aren't cost effective, a barely cost effective support unit isn't really worth it. This is compounded by the Immortal's short range. It's incredibly easy to focus fire and destroy.
|
On March 15 2011 00:45 ander wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote: The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements 2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate 3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings 4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come: 1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade) 2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
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.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I agree with this post entirely. There are obviously a lot of problems with the game right now, with Protoss specifically, but i think that huge, drastic changes such as removing complete upgrades (see amulet) or tech trees is a terrible idea. Removing things from the game is the last thing you want to do if you want to create a game with depth and a variety. At this point, anything more than messing with numbers is a poor choice. We shouldn't need to get any more extreme than the fixes suggested by this post.
I second that. The thing is, playing vs P is like deja vu almost every game, they can't be missing that and even though i am a Terran player which has been burnt by the amulet a number of times, i think the removal is a terrible idea.
|
What if warpgate tech increased unit build times instead? That would add a tradeoff and different tactics and choices. (Remove the zealot build time nerf for normal gates too, proxy really is easy as fuck to stop). Warpgates are indeed the root of P imbalance and it must be nerfed if us Protoss want games that test our skill, not our knowledge of BOs and timing pushes. (this would also make the option of turning warpgates back into gateways have a fucking purpose.)
|
On March 15 2011 00:06 da_head wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 23:52 Blasterion wrote:On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon - Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells - An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4. - Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. I think Passive constnat stuffs are boring something like this, Archon Auto-Cast Ability Psionic Surge Cast when The Archon attacks, causes Archon's movement speed to increase, removes Fungal Growth and Concussive Shell effect, and increase attack range by 1. for 10 seconds/ This effect will stack up to 3 times and will refresh itself. this way it keeps the Archon interesting and you try to keep the buff up throughout battle. or even make it attack your own units so that Archons can shake free of Slow effects. or go into battle with the buff stacked. on another note Archons that are merging can be pushed around already though lol wc3 much? -___- Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 00:03 b_unnies wrote: zeal/stalks being undepowered again goes back to the point where tons of protoss were feeling back during the roach buff patch where roach gets +2 atk per upgrade while stalks only get +1 atk per upgrade. if you want to buff zeal/stalks, make ground upgrades stronger i think blizzard's reasoning for this is that zealots get +2 per upgrade, dts and immortals get +5 (and carriers +16). stalkers aren't meant to have a dps role. What's so bad about WC3 =P, It's a interesting concept, makes it more micro/skill oriented. and can be used in very different ways =) it leads to dynamic game play in a way
|
On March 15 2011 00:41 dragonblade369 wrote:
I think instead of doing all those changes, just give warpgate some limitation to stop the efficiency of 4-gates. For example, re-introduce the dark pylon. The first pylon you build is a dark pylon. Any additional dark pylon can be morphed after the warp-gate tech for a price and a good amount of time. This will delay a 4-gate push significantly while giving warp prism and late-gate toss more possibilities.
But that only solves one aspect (3) of the whole issue, which includes:
1) The imbalance of power between protoss core units (zealot stalker and sentry (kinda)) and their support units/abilities (colossi, immortal, storm, forcefield). This also includes the toss deathball effect in the lategame.
2) mobility vs power (sacrificing power for mobility). If you read my post i propose sacrificing production for mobility rather than mobility for power and instead make warpgates harder to acquire and maintain.
If the 4 warpgate effect still takes place, then they could try a few things, like increase the warp-in time of units to 8-10 seconds, or make the conversion from warpgate to gateway take longer so that there is a distinct timing window to scout/attack.
3) Protoss rushes/cheese, specifically 4 warpgate pushes
Warpgates are tricky because they violate one of the core traditions of RTS, which is that units must travel from their base to the war. They should have expected major problems and been ready to deal with them in beta.
edit:
@Kyadytim: Colossi are versatile for the obvious reason that they are long ranged, do splash damge and have a large unmodified attack. If you strengthen the core protoss army, then you can minimize or change their damage, their range, their move/attack speed so that they arent so powerful against everything and therefore less versatile as well.
Immortals are a great unit, but they live in the colossus's shadow: they are slow, short ranged and expensive, and although they are trucks and deal amazing damage, colossi do it better in almost every respect, especially to lots of cheap units like lings/marines which the immortal sucks against. And especially in a deathball.
I think it is actually in a decent place compared to the more damning colossus vs warpgate unit discrepancy. It has powerful strengths and glaring weaknesses. The colossi has more powerful strengths and one glaring weakness that is fairly easily overcome. The immortal will always be useful, simply for its raw DPS vs armored and amazing tanking ability. I doubt it will be overused.
|
I agree completely as a 2k diamond toss, I really wish that collosus would be nerfed for PvP, as it is the reason everybody 4gates, and if you have 1 less collosus or worst positioning you lose, plain and simple
|
Really like the OP. Very good suggestions hope people think about implementing a few of them especially the observer one
|
i get sad faced with these threads, ppl hate on and nit pick everything.
Gateway unlock forge? worst idea ive heard ever How many more nerfs we need for you people to be happy???
Other than 4gate, toss needs to tech to win, otherwise it will be a slow painful death for them they need the sentry to block off the early game, rauder concussion rush, or even 6 roach rush, 6-7 pool is extremely effective vP.
Everyone just wants to get 200/200 army and win, unfortunately the races are designed differently Protoss units rely on each other, zergs units are effective with swarming (making army's really fast) and terran units are extremely cost effective.
I do agree collossi is overused, but P needs to go robo because of observers.
Wargate tech isnt "op", Terran has EASY macro capabilities, and zerg can make there army's extremely fast, whats the problem ???
With the rate of the HUGE amounts of these kinda threads, there will be no upgrades, everything will be nerfed to shit, the game will be boring as hell (which it kinda is right now) Amulet nerf (if it happens) will totally make templar tech unviable (for the time being)
I think people need to think of ways to beat it, instead of complaining about every little thing, its tiring reading this stuff (and i read it cuz i like TL)
|
there is an easy solution to all this
1. Put Warpgates into Twilight Council -> delays the 4 Gate Pushes and any aggressive cheese builds that are build around warpgates.
2. Put Charge&Blink into Cybernetics Core, so gateway units like T1 units of Zerg and Terran can be upgraded to some strengh this would help Gateway units alot. (would still need to be balanced of course, but without Warpgates this is easily possible!)
Both Zerg and Terran T1 Unit gain alot of strengh early upgrades. (Speed,Stim,Shells)
If Charge & Blink are accessible alot earlier, it would give Protoss the ability to compete and also give the ability use micro. (both upgrades are the most important upgrades in the whole Protoss Arsenal but they can't be get safely, because of detection issues) Putting them into Core would fix this issue, while opening Protoss the ability to chose their techpath cause they aren't forced into Colossus route after getting Robotics for Detection.
For that to work consistently they only would need to adjust Gateway Production Times so it doesn't get imbalanced. (right now a P playing on Gateways will always lose because it takes way to long to build units with gateways, that why warpgates need to be rushed in PvP!)
Warpgate in such a game would only give Protoss more mobility in midgame/lategame and not in early game anymore which would balance every matchup to the better i think.
this would also make Forcefields not such a big liability so Sentrys & other T3 Units can be balanced way easier than like it is right now.
Protoss right now has absolute crap Gateway Army (which is only viable earlygame because of 4 Gate) going into midgame without Charge/Blink Gateway Armys suck hard. With it they are barely able to compete in midgame at least but going into Mid/late they would still T3 units which could be transitioned way alot more stable.
Protoss Gameplay is so easy predict these days. either fast gateway pressure (detection doesn't matter then) or rush to Colossus (because Detection is on that route)
every other build is very unsafe (detection) to various gameplays and almost always a buildorder coinflip.
|
On March 14 2011 23:46 Philip2110 wrote:Show nested quote +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
Speed roach is t2, actually.
|
^People are suggesting to nerf some things, and buff others.
|
On March 15 2011 01:09 freetgy wrote: there is an easy solution to all this
1. Put Warpgates into Twilight Council -> delays the 4 Gate Pushes and any aggressive cheese builds that are build around warpgates.
2. Put Charge&Blink into Cybernetics Core, so gateway units like T1 units of Zerg and Terran can be upgraded to some strengh this would help Gateway units alot. Both Zerg and Terran T1 Unit gain alot of strengh by stronger standard armys (after upgrades) If Charge & Blink are accessible alot earlier, it would give Protoss the ability to compete and also give the ability to micro. (both upgrades are the most important upgrades in the whole Protoss Arsenal but they can't be get safely, because of detection issues)
For that to work consistently they only would need to adjust Gateway Production Times so it doesn't get imbalanced. (right now a P playing on Gateways will always lose because it takes way to long to build units with gateways, that why warpgates need to be rushed in PvP!)
Warpgate in such a game would only give Protoss more mobility in midgame/lategame and not in early game anymore which would balance every matchup to the better i think.
this would also make Forcefields not such a big liability so Sentrys & other T3 Units can be balanced way easier than like it is right now.
If you put the warpgate tech on the twilight council, youre just favoring that over other tech trees. Its creating a similar problem to the observer problem, whereby one tech tree has something that the player needs. Think about a toss trying to get warpgates AND observer: thats a LOT of gas and two completely different techs. Similarly, if you want a voidray in there too, its even worse.
If you put the warpgate on the core the way it is, any protoss strategy can access it. The catch should be its cost/research time, and other drawbacks, like the one you hint at about making it take longer for warpgates to produce than gateways.
I agree that warpgates should be pushed back to a less volatile part of the game or if they are to be rushed, a high gas cost will eat into your sentry/stalker count. It should be a tough decision on warpgate research timing, not a no-brainer 50/50 upgrade.
Furthermore, by buffing gateway units and nerfing warpgates, you can create some interesting mechanics with PvT and PvZ where (for example), terran has to turtle with bunkers until stim/conc shell are out, then they have an infantry advantage. Then toss is a bit behind until charge/blink come out balancing it out again. Upgrades should matter, and their timing should matter too.
|
I really like the discussion that was created here. Some good points made (and some bad ones).
I see some discussion on a few things: 1. Double Forge upgrades. This is an odd one, because it shows to me that a few people have missed the point. I have been experimenting with double forge upgrades with Chronoboost for a long time... a lot longer than the pros have been using it (let me dispell the myth that I "hate" gateway units. I love them... I hate the Colossus). Granted, their mechanics are better than mine, and their timings almost certainly are, but none-the-less, what kind of builds are Double Forge Upgrade builds? They are timing attacks... Attacks that take advantage of an upgrade before your opponent can counter them. Now don't get me wrong, they are solid attacks, especially when combined with Guardian Shield and HT. What it seems to me is that since this is a relatively young build, it is a build that takes advantage of non-preparation. If someone churns out double Evo Chamber/Engineering Bay, and keeps the upgrades coming, then the window in which you have the upgrade advantage tends to close quickly... The culprit are Marines and Roach/Hydra, that take far more advantage of upgrades than Stalker/Zealot anyway. What happens when they catch up in upgrades (the late game... where the real problem is)? Well then Gateway are useless again. Towards the late game, Gateway are good for nothing but taking hits off the units that deal damage. This is a problem. Double Forge Upgrade builds are timing attacks that increase the window of time before Gateway units are useless again, buying time to get to Cols and sometimes HT. The problem is not the Gateway units are useless the whole game, but that Gateway units are useless the late game.
2. Warpgates This is very interesting discussion. I didn't miss the concept of Warpgates, but I didn't figure that it was possible to change this anymore. I had an idea a while back to allow for some units to be produced ONLY from Gateways and others from warpgates. This would encourage people to switch back and forth for different effects, and have half in gateways and half in warpgates. I dislike the idea that there is essentially NO disadvantage to having a Warpgate over a Gateway, and I think it would warrent some discussion.
3. The idea that Gateway units are fine as is, and I want to buff the 4 gate. If you think that is the purpose of the OP, go read it again. If there is a buff to Zealots and Stalkers it would need to accompany either a nerf to force field or a nerf to 4 gate.
4. Force Fields I understand people feel that you cannot live without force field now. But don't you think it is kind of cheesy? Warp in 3 Sentries and you have essentially an eternally blocked ramp (assuming you are vigilant with placing them). You don't even need any other units. Terran can build walls, but they need to use Supply Depots, so they need units to defend them. Zerg need to use their armies. Protoss can just warp in 3 Sentries. I would like to see Protoss able to hold off early assaults with their units rather than some cheesy ability that does nothing but say "Nah, i'm scared to fight you, so stay out there until I'm ready."
5. Some people still hung up on the specifics of my balance suggestions. I thought I made it clear in the OP. What is important is NOT the specifics, but the idea. Cols nerfed in SOME way. This would obviously never occur without buffs in other ways, specifically gateway units. Charge readjusted. What I am suggesting here is the idea that Charge/Blink/Twilight Council could be used to buff gateway units. Making them too strong in the early game is bad, so make them stronger later, through upgrades Obs from the nexus. Again, while I think this would be a good option, my suggestion is more to show people what the Obs (or lack of Obs) is doing to builds. It pushes Col builds into the "ONLY right choice" category, slowing down other builds. If this can be lessened to some degree... (I like the idea of it coming out of nexus non-cloaked, so it can be used defensively against DT/Roach/Banshee) Force Field. I don't like that EVERY battlefield can be turned Protoss Favored with 4 full energy Sentries. Into the lategame this becomes a little obnoxious IMO. As you approach 6-7 Sentries, baiting forcefields becomes useless, because "OH LOOK, I CAN MAKE MORE". I would like to see force field slowed down somewhat. The suggestion I made is one of many MANY possible options. Carriers are underused. I would like to see them make an appearance again. The only change that I believe is warranted without any discussion is the "Interceptors do not get sucked into your own vortex" change. It is stupid that casting a Vortex near a carrier destroys it's firepower...
|
On March 15 2011 01:20 Knee_of_Justice wrote: If you put the warpgate tech on the twilight council, youre just favoring that over other tech trees. Its creating a similar problem to the observer problem, whereby one tech tree has something that the player needs. Think about a toss trying to get warpgates AND observer: thats a LOT of gas and two completely different techs. Similarly, if you want a voidray in there too, its even worse.
Yeah but the thing is right now Protoss has to get Warpgates or he will lose every game. In my idea Warpgates would be a midgame option (TC), but not an something necessary to survive earlygame. This also fixes the big problem early game that warpgates negate defenders advantage. (which is a really bad thing) Warpgate still would have that issue in mid/late but in mid/late the additional production cycle wouldn't make that much of a difference because the game is on a lot higher Production Values and players have the options to scout and react. This would help PvP alot obviously. This would balance PvT alot would fix the overpoweredness of M&M while also making them safe since there are no early Warpgate rushes. Obviously PvZ would be alot more balanced too cause then the strong lategame options as the OP describes can be nerfed to something more balanced. Attack/Defense Upgrades would play an equal role for each race then too.
|
zealot stalker are just badasses once their upgrades are out, just like in sc1, useless before their upgrades were out. You always wanted goon range asap, and zealot speed was the moment were they finally could fight against the units that destroyed them. Also weapon/armor upgrades made them terrible strong, which is the same way in sc2. For me they feel stronger than in bw, especially with the new spellcaster in addition. And the colossi is just a nice way to force air to air units, so your pure gateway follow up has an easy moment. (yeah most people go colossi to only force those corrupters or vikings have a bit of time until charge or blink is done and then simply win the ground fight)
So like the reaver its a unit that gives you the time to make your gateway army strong as hell.
But unlike sc1 where you microed your reaver most of the time, gave him targets and everything. You know have to micro your other part, let some zealots charge at something, blink your stalkers somewhere, use guardian shield put a few force fields make some halluzinations after you blink sniped the detection.
So for me the game just got more awesome, as you won't see a single unit microed good, but you see a complete army microing around, while the opponent is busy trying to snipe those artillery and try to avoid their key shots, while you try to defend it.
only thing i would change maybe, is slow their aspd down a lil and move in some weak beam animation pointing at the targeted unit for maybe 0.2 seconds before having its full charge and make land their hit, so the opponent has a little reaction time to save a few units from the damage. But i guess the problems only starts with 5+ colossi as they just destroy any max range concave and if you move units in closer they get autotargeted by the oppenent and die without making some colossi shots go down wrongly.
So to add a lil spice it could also be a nice idea to make the colossi an inverted old carrier. (where the shields should be good against ground units only) and make the shields only effectiv against air units, while ground units will have it easier to snipe them (its hard to reach them so its no real nerf, just that people will ahve to take more care and can't overrun a tank line with a few colossi. Or fall to some burrowed roaches etc.
so like a wise dwarf said if you can't chop of their heads, chop of their legs first and then chop of their heads.
|
I'm not sure how I feel about the "delay the Warpgate" ideas. The problem really isn't limited to the early game. Just look at KA Templar, that's what happens when you let powerful units be deployed almost instantly anywhere on the map, and it's a markedly late-game issue. If you make Zealots and Stalkers good, this is going to manifest itself in one way or the other eventually, I feel.
I'm also not sure whether increasing production rate is going to be sufficient drawback. Lategame, a gas-restricted Protoss could just throw down additional gateways, turn them all into warpgates, and circumvent the drawback just by spending some minerals.
I really think there needs to be some mechanical limit on the Warpgate that makes these types of situations impossible. Making stuff warp-in slower, making it a lot more involved to set up a "warp-in area", we really need a hard restriction on mobility, imo. Or just scrap it and let us use gateways, that's fine too.
On March 15 2011 01:33 FeyFey wrote:+ Show Spoiler +zealot stalker are just badasses once their upgrades are out, just like in sc1, useless before their upgrades were out. You always wanted goon range asap, and zealot speed was the moment were they finally could fight against the units that destroyed them. Also weapon/armor upgrades made them terrible strong, which is the same way in sc2. For me they feel stronger than in bw, especially with the new spellcaster in addition. And the colossi is just a nice way to force air to air units, so your pure gateway follow up has an easy moment. (yeah most people go colossi to only force those corrupters or vikings have a bit of time until charge or blink is done and then simply win the ground fight)
So like the reaver its a unit that gives you the time to make your gateway army strong as hell.
.But unlike sc1 where you microed your reaver most of the time, gave him targets and everything. You know have to micro your other part, let some zealots charge at something, blink your stalkers somewhere, use guardian shield put a few force fields make some halluzinations after you blink sniped the detection
So for me the game just got more awesome, as you won't see a single unit microed good, but you see a complete army microing around, while the opponent is busy trying to snipe those artillery and try to avoid their key shots, while you try to defend it.
only thing i would change maybe, is slow their aspd down a lil and move in some weak beam animation pointing at the targeted unit for maybe 0.2 seconds before having its full charge and make land their hit, so the opponent has a little reaction time to save a few units from the damage. But i guess the problems only starts with 5+ colossi as they just destroy any max range concave and if you move units in closer they get autotargeted by the oppenent and die without making some colossi shots go down wrongly.
So to add a lil spice it could also be a nice idea to make the colossi an inverted old carrier. (where the shields should be good against ground units only) and make the shields only effectiv against air units, while ground units will have it easier to snipe them (its hard to reach them so its no real nerf, just that people will ahve to take more care and can't overrun a tank line with a few colossi. Or fall to some burrowed roaches etc.
so like a wise dwarf said if you can't chop of their heads, chop of their legs first and then chop of their heads.
Stalkers aren't nearly as good as Dragoons, and they scale horribly with upgrades. Zealots are actually slightly worse in a variety of ways - it's more the new collision and pathing allowing huge ranged balls to form, that makes them significantly worse.
|
On March 15 2011 02:14 Toadvine wrote:
Stalkers aren't nearly as good as Dragoons, and they scale horribly with upgrades. Zealots are actually slightly worse in a variety of ways - it's more the new collision and pathing allowing huge ranged balls to form, that makes them significantly worse.
I agree this is part of the problem. I feel that if the Cleave was added in on Charge, it would make Zealots better because it would encourage unit splits, decreasing the power of compact ranged balls
|
Fantastic post, excellent points. I feel like Collossus could have a range/speed decrease, making them more marauder-snipeable.
|
Warpgates and blink is just too much mobility, wich forced blizzard to nerf gate units. Blink alone is enough mobility for me.
|
Zealot/Goon as a combo in PvZ was actually an awful combination without support, crackling/ultra or just pure crackling both utterly PWNDIZZLED Zealot/Goon like no other. You needed either reavers, high temps, or archons, or some combination of.
|
Wow what an amazing read I'm impressed. This wasn't just some silly rant this was well thought out and all of it made perfect sense. Kudos to you sir
|
On March 15 2011 02:21 FabledIntegral wrote: Zealot/Goon as a combo in PvZ was actually an awful combination without support, crackling/ultra or just pure crackling both utterly PWNDIZZLED Zealot/Goon like no other. You needed either reavers, high temps, or archons, or some combination of. this is true. the only matchup where you could win with pure zlot/goon was pvt.
|
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.
|
How about nerfing warp gates by making the cooldown variable depending on the distance from nexus? There will be of course some threshold in which the cool down will be set and after that the distance from base will come into place. In that way they can buff the gateway units a bit and nerf the 4-gate.
|
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.
|
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).
|
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. Currently, it feels that the Colossus aren't the support... The Stalkers are.
That's what pains me a lot, and that's whats hurting the game involving protoss the most. Protoss has some small timing windows, where they can deal massiv damage with their gate units / early robo units (colossus / immortal) / stargate (phoenixe / void-rays), thanks to warp-in reinforcements.
But if you miss those, all you can do is basically camp in your base and try not to fall to much behind, because you can't leave your base until you got a sufficient numbers of colossus to deal the damage while your gateway units are support your colossus (in tvp zealot blocking, stalker shooting vikings / zvp stalker firing corrupter, sentries force fielding)
As a protoss player myself (3600master), i'm often time to scared to move out unless i got 200/200 and many colossus, because if i trade armies, i won't have enough support for my colossus. And that's not how the game should be, protoss nearly became like terran mech was in bw. Unmobil, stalling for reaching the critical mass, and then push out and try to overhelm everything with insane cost efficiency.
I would love if protoss to gains some accessable harassment units, that aren't a dead tech tree (dts, phoenixes) or extremely late in the tech (storm drop)
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
I think you missed the point. He feels this would provide a benefit to the game as a whole. It would need to be balanced of course, by increasing the effect of Gateway units, Sentries or SOMETHING, but throwing Warpgates later could benefit the game by removing reliance on 4 gate builds, making the defenders advantage last longer, make other builds more desired, etc etc.
|
Observer change is a definite no. Make a forge and a cannon.
|
On March 15 2011 03:10 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 02:53 Striding Strider wrote: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.
I'm not suggesting (or agreeing) that Warpgates should be removed or that only certain units should only be avaliable from one structure then the other.. misquote or what?
|
On March 15 2011 03:31 lkjewq wrote: Observer change is a definite no. Make a forge and a cannon.
I assume this is directed to my suggestion ?
IF it is here is the reasoning I used:
Putting a higher importance on gateway units to go with the warp-gate changes, and concidering some tech choices to get the observer it might be tangible to drop it in the warp-gate with a major time penatly for warping in that emergency obs. Which in turns hurts your units production early on because A) Gateway units will be more important B) Taking up a warp-gate that could more efficiently build units or be a gateway.
All just speculation of course.
|
the day we dont have to use colossus, will be a good day
|
On March 15 2011 03:31 lkjewq wrote: Observer change is a definite no. Make a forge and a cannon. Yes except zerg and terran can get by without making an evo chamber or an e-bay if they are teching at a reasonable rate(have Lair and Orbital command.).
|
Zurich15265 Posts
Please no balance threads on TL.
|
|
|
|