|
On April 04 2015 02:26 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 02:25 kaluro wrote:On April 04 2015 02:23 The_Templar wrote:
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades. Nowhere does it state that upgrade damage increase has been reduced. You also can't go any lower than +1 (and also +1 vs armored). So they will be weaker against ultralisks but much stronger against any other target once they have 3/3. I don't have the beta, but I'm assuming the new marauder has 2 shots of 10 damage each against armor. Do upgrades increase both of these shots by two damage each?
No. upgrades will add +1 to his normal shot and +1 to his armored shot.
But then that is multiplied by 2, since he attacks twice - get it? 
So +1+1 = 2*2 = 4 damage per attack upgrade.
But it also means armor counts twice, so -2 damage per armor upgrade, +4 per attack upgrade.
|
But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point.
Protoss still invests into tech in the early game (robo/twilight/stargate) as they pay up front but first feel the effect later on.
By reducing the cost of those facilities, toss is actually buffed in the early game (but not in terms of big Warpgate all ins ofc).
Early game aggression will now be more foccused on Immortal drops, stargate harass (okay Oracle also need big changes here) and hopefully the Adept has a place here once it gets changed properly.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On April 04 2015 02:28 kaluro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 02:26 The_Templar wrote:On April 04 2015 02:25 kaluro wrote:On April 04 2015 02:23 The_Templar wrote:
That depends on whether a marauder gets +1 attack or +2 attack against armored units with upgrades. Nowhere does it state that upgrade damage increase has been reduced. You also can't go any lower than +1 (and also +1 vs armored). So they will be weaker against ultralisks but much stronger against any other target once they have 3/3. I don't have the beta, but I'm assuming the new marauder has 2 shots of 10 damage each against armor. Do upgrades increase both of these shots by two damage each? No. upgrades will add +1 to his normal shot and +1 to his armored shot. But then that is multiplied by 2, since he attacks twice - get it? So +1+1 = 2*2 = 4 damage per attack upgrade. But it also means armor counts twice, so -2 damage per armor upgrade, +4 per attack upgrade.
OK, in that case you're right. I know full well what you meant, by the way >.>
|
On April 04 2015 02:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. Protoss still invests into tech in the early game (robo/twilight/stargate) as they pay up front but first feel the effect later on. By reducing the cost of those facilities, toss is actually buffed in the early game (but not in terms of big Warpgate all ins ofc). Early game aggression will now be more foccused on Immortal drops, stargate harass (okay Oracle also need big changes here) and hopefully the Adept has a place here once it gets changed properly.
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy, and while terran and zerg have later mules / queens, I think that for zerg especially this matters less.
Anyway, I don't think it's good if a race can have no map control and simply has to use harassment "gimmicks" to maintain any sort of presence. Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV. Furthermore, the potential of warp gate is not yet spent by the time you have access to immortals, so I think that giving cheaper access to the robotics facility is quite similar to simply buffing early game economy. I don't see the difference between the two in terms of all-in potential. Furthermore, you can't make adepts work for the early game (because it will be yet another unit that has to defend passively) if protoss does not have the economy to make sufficiently many of them to be aggressive.
(I suppose I should hold off judgment on adepts until I actually see them in action :p )
I think generally parity is a good thing, to have all races equally strong in all major phases of the game (during a phase you can have various timings of course).
|
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
|
On April 04 2015 02:46 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 02:31 Hider wrote:But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. Protoss still invests into tech in the early game (robo/twilight/stargate) as they pay up front but first feel the effect later on. By reducing the cost of those facilities, toss is actually buffed in the early game (but not in terms of big Warpgate all ins ofc). Early game aggression will now be more foccused on Immortal drops, stargate harass (okay Oracle also need big changes here) and hopefully the Adept has a place here once it gets changed properly. Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy, and while terran and zerg have later mules / queens, I think that for zerg especially this matters less. Anyway, I don't think it's good if a race can have no map control and simply has to use harassment "gimmicks" to maintain any sort of presence. Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV. Furthermore, the potential of warp gate is not yet spent by the time you have access to immortals, so I think that giving cheaper access to the robotics facility is quite similar to simply buffing early game economy. I don't see the difference between the two in terms of all-in potential. Furthermore, you can't make adepts work for the early game (because it will be yet another unit that has to defend passively) if protoss does not have the economy to make sufficiently many of them to be aggressive. (I suppose I should hold off judgment on adepts until I actually see them in action :p ) I think generally parity is a good thing, to have all races equally strong in all major phases of the game (during a phase you can have various timings of course). I don't think the 57 energy is very relevent because this energy we used on probes probably over 95% of the games
fwiw the only way I managed to make adepts work is either quick 2 gate and cheesing with them, or 2 base all in with 8 gates and mass adepts/sentry which works exclusively if zerg has no roaches at all (hydras/lings/swarmhosts)
|
On April 04 2015 02:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
I think what he's getting at is that by the time your 12th worker finishes you have generally just spent your second chronoboost, and that's the point where protoss begins to gain a worker advantage on their opponent. Since OC and Queens don't come into play until later, he's arguing that starting at 12 workers disadvantages protoss in non mirrors without effecting zerg or terran's macro mechanics in any way.
Need to see numbers to know if it really matters, though, and I suck at math.
Edit: But the theory is, protoss would need to start with an extra worker for all things to be truly equal at that point. I'm not 100% sure about is how many drones zerg can/should have at that point assuming they haven't built a pool or extractor before 12 supply. Against terran it is, at least on paper, a disadvantage.
|
On April 04 2015 03:05 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 02:54 Hider wrote:
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
? I think what he's getting at is that by the time your 12th worker finishes you have generally just spent your second chronoboost, and that's the point where protoss begins to gain a worker advantage on their opponent. Since OC and Queens don't come into play until later, he's arguing that starting at 12 workers disadvantages protoss in non mirrors without effecting zerg or terran's macro mechanics in any way. Need to see numbers to know if it really matters, though, and I suck at math.
Oh I didn't even think about that, that's right since the other races starts with same amount of workers lol, puts us behind compared to before
|
Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV.
Those were nerfs to protoss both offensively and defensively. I think protoss was already problematic in HOTS, and I want to make it easier for protoss to go out on the map and secure expos, do light pressure/harass, while making it harder for them to do all ins.
The only way to do that is to force them to rely more on the core roots classic RTS principals: You pay for a unit, you wait XX seconds, and then your unit comes out of your base.
Warp-in and teleport stuff can be awesome, but not if it is used as a tool to kill your enemy imo. Warpgate units should primiarily be support or harass-units or have some type of AA-focussed role. But they shouldn't be very good at winning engagements by them selves.
This is why I don't agree with the "buff warpgate army"-solution or anything that directly or indirectly contributes to stronger warpgate compositions.
Anyway, I don't think it's good if a race can have no map control and simply has to use harassment "gimmicks" to maintain any sort of presence.
But you don't accomplish this by outright buffing protoss (that just brings them back to how they were in HOTS). Imo you accomplish this by buffing their core army efficiency, while nerfing the all-in potential of the core army.
To accomplish that, the percentage of the army that comes from Robo facilities (classical RTS production) must be increased. Immortals therefore must get a role that closer matches that of the Dragoon from BW. With a 150/50 Robo facility, you can afford 2-3 Robo's in the midgame and hence you rely less on warpgates.
That frees up the role of warpgate units in the midgame, so they are less about winning engagements by them selves, but more about supporting the Immortal (Stalker vs AA, Sentry spellcaster, zealot meatshield, HT damagedealer - broadly speaking) and ofc harassing.
FYI, I am not satifised with just changing the cost of the Robo. Imo people won't like having to build more Immortals as the unit isn't very interesting. Therefore it absolutely needs to be made more mobile and responsive in order to reward more micro.
|
8751 Posts
On April 04 2015 02:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
not entirely true because the most popular opening build by far for all three matchups is to use energy on chronoboosts for probe production. i think a more accurate way to explain the disadvantage protoss incurs is by comparing with terran and showing that it takes us longer to get a worker lead now and when we do it's less significant. by the time terran builds an orbital, which halts scv production, the missing scv production is less impactful. whereas protoss loses an opportunity to get a significant worker lead through chronoboosts. we used to have 13+ probes when terran had 12 scv's but now it's 12 and 12. and terran lost mining time from using scv's to make buildings (first supply depot and rax) was a bigger hit to their economy when they started with only 6 because they were building those things when they had fewer scv's. so there are several ways that protoss comes out behind. im sure blizzard is at least somewhat aware that these things would happen and didn't bother to make any direct adjustments, but rather planned to make balancing changes based on what's best for design, not to make things more parallel. but for people who are finding protoss to be somewhat mysteriously (as well as obviously) shit in this patch, these things provide some understanding
|
On April 04 2015 02:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Btw, for chronoboost, because of the new economy protoss loses out on 57 nexus energy,
?
well, because you start with 6 more workers, workers have 17 seconds build time, energy regenerates at 0.5625 per second, so that's the math
I'm just parroting something iaguz said, btw, he thought it was significant :p
|
well it is kinda significant but still a minor issue, right now all those nerfs protoss makes it almost unwinnable, at least definitely impossible to go 50/50 with someone of a similar skill level, I'm still really unsure of what blizzard was thinking about when they did that, I felt they should have buffed all 3 races and then adjust, now it's just confusing lol
|
On April 04 2015 02:21 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 01:59 Hider wrote:We have stalkers for that And the Stalker is already a core-unit as well. So per definition (regardless of which solution you prefer) adept is gonna be in competion with the Stalker. When it comes to deciding on -unit roles, the first thing you have to ask your self is: How can we add fun and unique micro/multitasking into the game? Once you discovered that, you try to create roles based on that, and that is likely to require some tweaks to the other protoss units as well.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?).
Imo everything that buffs protoss timing/attacks is a nono (and that includes changes in macromechanics). Only way to buff them is to alow protoss to tech cheaper and get more Immortals (and yes Colossus/Disruptors) out easier as well. But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. They get a quick boost in the mid-game with your proposed immortal change, or a bit later in the game with the new disruptor and warp prism without taking your example change into account. But they're still confined to more or less passively defending early game. I don't know if that's necessary with the new warp gate mechanics. Note that in HotS protoss has energy for chronoboost by the 12 worker mark, which is not there in LotV. I think giving bonus energy at the start at least establishes parity with HotS and even more early game protoss buffs should be at least experimented with now that warp gate is so much weaker. ( pending the actual nexus starting energy in LotV, let me check a stream :p indeed it is 0 )
Honestly, I wish they would just go ahead and make Warp Gate cooldown twice (or 33% more, or whatever) of what it currently is and remove the damage units take on warp in again. Move Warp Gate to Twilight Council, and move the Adept cleave thingy to Cyber Core. This can make Adepts even more useful early game, really solidifies Warp Gate as more of a mid game offensive option, AND provides a reason to keep using Gateways. I've never really been a fan of the idea that you just automatically have to get Warp Gate ASAP and never use Gateways again, tbh. I much prefer the idea of using Warp Gates for a quick reinforcement one, maybe two times during an attack, while leaving Gateways as the "macro" option.
edit: Maybe if you do it this way, and you put the macro emphasis on the Gateway, you can shave a few seconds off build times of Gateway units? Might make some early proxy zealot/stalker play a little too strong, but honestly I think those early cheeses might be dead for LotV
|
Canada13427 Posts
The impact of starting workers really does feel somewhat significant, but without doing some analysis, math and testing we can't nail it down. Luckily its something we are looking into so eventually we will have some hard numbers to look at.
To others in the beta - how do the 750 mineral patch minerals feel? I've got mixed feelings myself but don't really know how I feel since only three maps currently have the correct LotV mineral patches implemented.
|
On April 04 2015 03:07 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + Note that aside from warp gate, both forcefield and time warp contribute to protoss all-in potential and both of those received (indirect) nerfs in LotV. Those were nerfs to protoss both offensively and defensively. I think protoss was already problematic in HOTS, and I want to make it easier for protoss to go out on the map and secure expos, do light pressure/harass, while making it harder for them to do all ins.
It might be difficult to qualify several of those statements. I don't know if the introduction of the ravager is more significant for offensive or defensive use of the sentry. A similar question exists for the new parameters of warp-in. Time warp is used virtually exclusively offensively, mothership core energy being reserved for photon overcharge for defensive applications. So the potential is at least there for protoss to be much weaker offensively than defensively compared to before. My personal judgment is that this is, in fact, the case, but it would be nice to hear from pro-gamers.
|
im not even sure how protoss is supposed to deal with ravagers/roach, besides going skytoss, holding just a solid mass roach build was already not that easy, you had to forcefield properly, without forcefield it's just a massacre lol
|
On April 04 2015 03:38 ZeromuS wrote:
The impact of starting workers really does feel somewhat significant, but without doing some analysis, math and testing we can't nail it down. Luckily its something we are looking into so eventually we will have some hard numbers to look at.
To others in the beta - how do the 750 mineral patch minerals feel? I've got mixed feelings myself but don't really know how I feel since only three maps currently have the correct LotV mineral patches implemented.
I like the idea of this faster economy + need to expand quicker, but...I don't know. I'd almost rather they just cut all mineral patches by an even amount. Half your patches running out faster just feels really odd. Then again, I guess part of the reason they did this is because running out of half your mineral patches faster also reduces mining efficiency of each base after a while.
|
On April 04 2015 03:31 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 02:21 Grumbels wrote:On April 04 2015 01:59 Hider wrote:We have stalkers for that And the Stalker is already a core-unit as well. So per definition (regardless of which solution you prefer) adept is gonna be in competion with the Stalker. When it comes to deciding on -unit roles, the first thing you have to ask your self is: How can we add fun and unique micro/multitasking into the game? Once you discovered that, you try to create roles based on that, and that is likely to require some tweaks to the other protoss units as well.
When I watch protoss play it seems like they're too far behind on economy somehow, as if that isn't tuned correctly with the new changes. I don't know if Blizzard will bother with this, but they could easily tweak protoss to have more chronoboost at the start, or for zerg to have less larva at the start (afaik zerg starts with more larva while protoss still starts with a nexus with 0 energy?).
Imo everything that buffs protoss timing/attacks is a nono (and that includes changes in macromechanics). Only way to buff them is to alow protoss to tech cheaper and get more Immortals (and yes Colossus/Disruptors) out easier as well. But then you're resigning yourself to this idea of protoss being weaker in the early game, because warp gate is most impactful at that point. They get a quick boost in the mid-game with your proposed immortal change, or a bit later in the game with the new disruptor and warp prism without taking your example change into account. But they're still confined to more or less passively defending early game. I don't know if that's necessary with the new warp gate mechanics. Note that in HotS protoss has energy for chronoboost by the 12 worker mark, which is not there in LotV. I think giving bonus energy at the start at least establishes parity with HotS and even more early game protoss buffs should be at least experimented with now that warp gate is so much weaker. ( pending the actual nexus starting energy in LotV, let me check a stream :p indeed it is 0 ) Honestly, I wish they would just go ahead and make Warp Gate cooldown twice (or 33% more, or whatever) of what it currently is and remove the damage units take on warp in again. Move Warp Gate to Twilight Council, and move the Adept cleave thingy to Cyber Core. This can make Adepts even more useful early game, really solidifies Warp Gate as more of a mid game offensive option, AND provides a reason to keep using Gateways. I've never really been a fan of the idea that you just automatically have to get Warp Gate ASAP and never use Gateways again, tbh. I much prefer the idea of using Warp Gates for a quick reinforcement one, maybe two times during an attack, while leaving Gateways as the "macro" option. edit: Maybe if you do it this way, and you put the macro emphasis on the Gateway, you can shave a few seconds off build times of Gateway units? Might make some early proxy zealot/stalker play a little too strong, but honestly I think those early cheeses might be dead for LotV
I wouldn't mind to have Warpgate at later tech and maybe ading some extra secons for building units, but you have to give Protoss a solid early game.
The only real problem, the curse of Potoss early game, is Chronoboost. Gateway is all balanced around the chronoboost mechanic being available from the start, making gateway-based play unplayable due to long build times for balance reasons. That was caused by the removal of the obelisk back in woL alpha. (The Obleisk contained Chronoboost + a mining boost ability, but was removed since it has virtually no numerical limitation other than cost). Protoss has very poor early game design, being balanced around the Nexus cannon and gaining echonomical advantage, which ends being a 2base turtle mostly. However, as the game progresses, the production disadvantage is quite evident, so a big production buff is introduced via Warpgate. This means that Warpgate has be available quite early in the game for obvious needs.
That's why in midgame our actual Warpgate is quite balanced in terms of production but at the same time is very very strong in terms of utility by the time it hits the field.
The solution is quite simple, is making and rebalancing the ability to perform in the way it should be: only in terms of utility only. Protoss needs Gateway production to be able to compete with larvas and reactors. S some fair way to get acccess to their macro mechsnic as the othr races do. 150mins, mid build time, instead of having the macrobooster from the start. Either as terrans do via base upgrade, or by reintroducing the Obelisk or something similar somehow. It's as simple as delaying Chronoboost in the same way that other macroboosters are. With that, you can shorten Gateway build times.
Once the production is stable, we could focus on balancing the Warpgate mechanic in terms of utility, as it wouldn't have a production component.
Once we fix early game, we should focus on a mid-lategame Warpgate. I think that it is not bad to have Warpgtes as permanent structural upgrade if its delayed enough in terms of cost and requirements. Terrans have reactors and zergs have injects and build few buildinds, and that is mostly permanent through the game. That, +some production nerf, would be more than enough.
You would not focus heavily on getting Warpgate if it costs 200/200 at twilight level because you have better things to get, otherwise you are delaying heavily your production and tech to gain only in terms of utility for Gateway units. Delaying things is a good way to balance utility upgrades, since you have to split your income between structural tech, upgrades and army, and you are against the clock: this is an RTS.
|
does lotv have a unit tester?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
