EPTOn April 20 2015 16:01 lpunatic wrote:
I could imagine some fun times if they kept friendly fire :p
I could imagine some fun times if they kept friendly fire :p
Oh man I would love that haha. That would be hilarious.
The state of Protoss in LotV - Page 5
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
Oh man I would love that haha. That would be hilarious. | ||
|
Bepo
6 Posts
| ||
|
SAFenix
Canada439 Posts
| ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey779 Posts
On April 25 2015 14:58 SAFenix wrote: Honestly I would LOVE it if they removed Warpgate, added the speed -> cyber charge -> twilight change someone pointed out and buff/Nerf the immortal such that it can be massed. The adept being stronger to fight Zerglings would probably be needed as well. Warpgate is a cool and unique mechanic. Why would you remove it instead try to make it work better? What's the point of another boring barracks? | ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
What ive notice with protoss is that they are always late to the party with figuring their race out, massive moves only seem to come after a tournie when somone does something, but the other 2 races have this shit all ready to go. Just sayin, just try to work it out, ive seen 6 protoss lotv games yesterday and ur still doingfucking immortal all ins and blink stalkers before going into carriers. There was one game with gretorp and he did some really good shit with adepts. | ||
|
xyzz
567 Posts
| ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1slvn9k The Protoss part: Pokebunny wrote an article about simplicity of units http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/31yyyo/with_lotv_inspiring_a_lot_of_new_ideas_its/ , and I agree with what he said 100%. The more they keep adding spell casters to the game, the more we have to babysit our units. Although I am all for spell casters being in the game, I do not believe there should be so many at every stage in the game. This is particularly a problem with protoss in LOTV, being sentry/phoenix/templar/disruptor/oracle/etc. I believe one of the biggest arguable hated units is the sentry, and Blizzard hasn't took any initiative towards it yet other then creating a unit that can destroy forcefields? The sentry is not only hard to use for beginners, but is also one of the most key units to surviving, and when it works it creates for one sided engagements at the lower level. This unit simply just makes people rage, I really think Starcraft would be a much better game without forcefield, and I was really hoping their would be more initiative to reworking the sentry. Thoughts? So I really think the bold part is important. Forcefields are frustrating, playing versus Protoss can be very frustrating, playing as Protoss as well. Forcefields are so hit or miss, they can decide a game. I think an ability that's so important and makes players rage so hard at the same time is very bad. I am a Zerg and hate Protoss  . Now why is that? I win way more versus Protoss than versus Terran on the ladder and I don't think toss is OP, but when I lose vs Terran I'm not as frustrated as when I lose vs Protoss. I don't think I was born with a hate for Protoss either, so it's the design of the race that is at fault.The race is very reliant on warpgate, forcefields and splash damage. All can end a game instantly whether it's win or loss, hit or miss. Protoss wins often look very cheap, because Protoss has to rely on forcefields, surprising the opponent and lots of splash. The games don't appear to be as straight up or honest, as a good tvz for example. That's why I feel very sorry for Protoss players, because often their wins don't get as much recognition as zerg or terran player wins. I think that has to change in LotV and I don't think Blizzard is doing enough. They introduced more splash damage and are already going back on warpgate nerfs. Instead what I would like to see are Warpgate nerfs, Gateway build time buffs and Gateway unit buffs. Give the Zealots more HP, make the stalker better at fighting lings/mutas/bio, it's actually a very cool unit. If not make Immortals a core unit, make it massable, change it accordingly. Do something about the Sentry! At least they are still working on the Adept. There is also one specific idea with Forcefields I had for years, that I really think might be good. Give Forcefields a certain amount of HP or Shield and let them be attackable. This would give the opponent a chance to do something against them and would be fair alongside gateway unit buffs. There could even be an upgrade to increase the HP. Just don't make the other player feel helpless against them. Also the disruptor should be less extreme, right now it's another another hit or miss unit :/. Make it do way less damage (maybe just enough to oneshot marines?), cheaper and the cooldown on the ability smaller, maybe less supply too. tl;dr: Protoss needs a lot of work and should be less reliable on forcefields, warpgate and splash damage. These things make other people rage at the race and playing protoss very hit or miss. Overall I hope Protoss can be a more straight up race that doesn't have to rely on surprising the opponent, forcefields or the ultimate death ball. Keep Warpgate nerfs, buff Gateway units, Gateway unit build time and change force fields. Make Protoss look less devious, make it that their wins don't seem so cheap. Thanks for reading . | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
We've been asking for it for five years, Blizzard. Just give us our fucking Reaver back. If Zerg can have the Lurker, we can have the Reaver. | ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On April 29 2015 03:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: Replace the Disruptor with the fucking Reaver. We've been asking for it for five years, Blizzard. Just give us our fucking Reaver back. If Zerg can have the Lurker, we can have the Reaver. It's pretty clear they'd rather stumble around cluelessly with more shit unit ideas than admit they made a mistake. They fucked with a winning formula too much and instead of Coca-Cola now we get cat piss. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 29 2015 02:30 Musicus wrote: So I really think the bold part is important. Forcefields are frustrating, playing versus Protoss can be very frustrating, playing as Protoss as well. Forcefields are so hit or miss, they can decide a game. I think an ability that's so important and makes players rage so hard at the same time is very bad. I am a Zerg and hate Protoss . Now why is that? I win way more versus Protoss than versus Terran on the ladder and I don't think toss is OP, but when I lose vs Terran I'm not as frustrated as when I lose vs Protoss. I don't think I was born with a hate for Protoss either, so it's the design of the race that is at fault.The race is very reliant on warpgate, forcefields and splash damage. All can end a game instantly whether it's win or loss, hit or miss. Protoss wins often look very cheap, because Protoss has to rely on forcefields, surprising the opponent and lots of splash. The games don't appear to be as straight up or honest, as a good tvz for example. That's why I feel very sorry for Protoss players, because often their wins don't get as much recognition as zerg or terran player wins. I think that has to change in LotV and I don't think Blizzard is doing enough. They introduced more splash damage and are already going back on warpgate nerfs. Instead what I would like to see are Warpgate nerfs, Gateway build time buffs and Gateway unit buffs. Give the Zealots more HP, make the stalker better at fighting lings/mutas/bio, it's actually a very cool unit. If not make Immortals a core unit, make it massable, change it accordingly. Do something about the Sentry! At least they are still working on the Adept. There is also one specific idea with Forcefields I had for years, that I really think might be good. Give Forcefields a certain amount of HP or Shield and let them be attackable. This would give the opponent a chance to do something against them and would be fair alongside gateway unit buffs. There could even be an upgrade to increase the HP. Just don't make the other player feel helpless against them. Also the disruptor should be less extreme, right now it's another another hit or miss unit :/. Make it do way less damage (maybe just enough to oneshot marines?), cheaper and the cooldown on the ability smaller, maybe less supply too. tl;dr: Protoss needs a lot of work and should be less reliable on forcefields, warpgate and splash damage. These things make other people rage at the race and playing protoss very hit or miss. Overall I hope Protoss can be a more straight up race that doesn't have to rely on surprising the opponent, forcefields or the ultimate death ball. Keep Warpgate nerfs, buff Gateway units, Gateway unit build time and change force fields. Make Protoss look less devious, make it that their wins don't seem so cheap. Thanks for reading .Well, I agree with you in some parts. IMAO the Sentry design is quite prone to being improved, and should have been improved long ago. It is a masseable caster, which means that you have to mass or at least a decent number of very vulnerable units to try to achieve some effect with them. IMAO, sentries should be more singular units, like infestors are. You shouldn't build a big number of them. Or at least, they should have another type of unit shape. They move slow, become exposed easily, and are very fragile. Just like High Templars, but with a more basic approach, having a low base attack and being very . They should have some type of mechanical barriers to be used, or a more interesting design, like morphing when using Guardian Shield, or casting that over a unit. They are support caseter units and shouldn't be so massed. Instead, they should be micro intensive units trying to get good flanks or/and kitings, just like Infestors, HT's, Vipers and, to some extent, Ghosts are. Sentries should be like Infestors I think. A smaller mass that you want to keep spread and controled. Not a mass that you look at and say, "shit, do I have enough forcefields?". Of course, moving towards a more expensive and less masseable iteration of the Sentry would open a lot of space to buff Gateway units in some aspects, the gateway production, or the Sentry itself to be more interesting and versatile and rewarding. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On April 29 2015 04:22 JCoto wrote: Well, I agree with you in some parts. IMAO the Sentry design is quite prone to being improved, and should have been improved long ago. It is a masseable caster, which means that you have to mass or at least a decent number of very vulnerable units to try to achieve some effect with them. IMAO, sentries should be more singular units, like infestors are. You shouldn't build a big number of them. Or at least, they should have another type of unit shape. They move slow, become exposed easily, and are very fragile. Just like High Templars, but with a more basic approach, having a low base attack and being very . They should have some type of mechanical barriers to be used, or a more interesting design, like morphing when using Guardian Shield, or casting that over a unit. They are support caseter units and shouldn't be so massed. Instead, they should be micro intensive units trying to get good flanks or/and kitings, just like Infestors, HT's, Vipers and, to some extent, Ghosts are. Sentries should be like Infestors I think. A smaller mass that you want to keep spread and controled. Not a mass that you look at and say, "shit, do I have enough forcefields?". Of course, moving towards a more expensive and less masseable iteration of the Sentry would open a lot of space to buff Gateway units in some aspects, the gateway production, or the Sentry itself to be more interesting and versatile and rewarding. Very good point, seeing 14 or so sentries always feel wrong indeed. Should be more special. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 29 2015 04:33 Musicus wrote: Very good point, seeing 14 or so sentries always feel wrong indeed. Should be more special. The early game is very mineral focused for protoss. All buildings cost only minerals, probes and zealots cost only minerals. It's only stalkers that require some gas usage, but it's quite limited at 125:50. That's why if not for the sentry you would delay taking geysers a lot, but since sentries are so useful you can get them essentially for cheap, since the mineral income isn't that strongly affected by taking geysers. And since they're the only useful way to invest gas at some points (because teching is mineral intensive too and you might want to get economy up first) you can end up with 14 sentries. Forcefield is a spell that becomes stronger when you have more sentries, and sentries are ideally suited to the early game since they can gather energy during parts of the game that aren't combat intensive, so that's another reason to get a lot of them. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 29 2015 04:22 JCoto wrote: Well, I agree with you in some parts. IMAO the Sentry design is quite prone to being improved, and should have been improved long ago. It is a masseable caster, which means that you have to mass or at least a decent number of very vulnerable units to try to achieve some effect with them. IMAO, sentries should be more singular units, like infestors are. You shouldn't build a big number of them. Or at least, they should have another type of unit shape. They move slow, become exposed easily, and are very fragile. Just like High Templars, but with a more basic approach, having a low base attack and being very . They should have some type of mechanical barriers to be used, or a more interesting design, like morphing when using Guardian Shield, or casting that over a unit. They are support caseter units and shouldn't be so massed. Instead, they should be micro intensive units trying to get good flanks or/and kitings, just like Infestors, HT's, Vipers and, to some extent, Ghosts are. Sentries should be like Infestors I think. A smaller mass that you want to keep spread and controled. Not a mass that you look at and say, "shit, do I have enough forcefields?". Of course, moving towards a more expensive and less masseable iteration of the Sentry would open a lot of space to buff Gateway units in some aspects, the gateway production, or the Sentry itself to be more interesting and versatile and rewarding. I've thought before it'd be cool if they were a mobile shield battery of some sort. In the end the sentry is more of a symptom than a problem, though. As long as warpgate is the primary production mechanic for protoss, something like the sentry has to be there. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 29 2015 04:43 Grumbels wrote: The early game is very mineral focused for protoss. All buildings cost only minerals, probes and zealots cost only minerals. It's only stalkers that require some gas usage, but it's quite limited at 125:50. That's why if not for the sentry you would delay taking geysers a lot, but since sentries are so useful you can get them essentially for cheap, since the mineral income isn't that strongly affected by taking geysers. And since they're the only useful way to invest gas at some points (because teching is mineral intensive too and you might want to get economy up first) you can end up with 14 sentries. Forcefield is a spell that becomes stronger when you have more sentries, and sentries are ideally suited to the early game since they can gather energy during parts of the game that aren't combat intensive, so that's another reason to get a lot of them. Well, what you've stated is only partially true. Gas is considered to be the limitating resource. The normal income ratio (full saturated bases) is 3:1 (around 680mins:224 gas), and almost all tech uses 1:1 - 3:2 gas ratios. So teching is relatively gas intensive too. That's a reason why you get big delays on double robo/double-triple stargate setups on 2 base, not only considering time. Any unit that goes around 2:1 cost is usually considered a relative gas drain, specially before 3 bases since you also want to invest in upgrades, which take a lot of gas. Needing almost always full gas saturation when going Gateway army in the early-midgame is also very questionable though. Also considering the new econ model, minerals are going to be easier to float, so it's not like we should worry about "mineral intensive" setups. IMAO Sentries would be interesting to be tested at Twilight tech, with a slight cost increase and strong revamps to the unit. Sure Protoss can afford going for early Twilight by cutting 1 sentry out of the build. Consider that I was proposing is to delay a bit the Sentry, and increase a bit their costs to effectively buff them. They are very very fragile, move slow, and have poor damage, because they are balanced to be a very early game caster that overcomes the weaknesses of Gateway units and also the weak early game production. The only other race that has that kind of early-midgame caster is Terran, which has gosts, but are too costly and inneficient to be effective in the early game, since they took EMP (a lategame spell) and were balanced around that. If we push the unit to a higher tech level with slightly more cost we could have a very improved version of what a hybrid caster means. If not, we're given Deathball cannonfodder, since you have to rely on a mass of sentries capable of having a big mass of Forcefields to overcome the weaknesses of Stalkers and Zealots, and also the common numerical inferiority and cost efficiency of Protoss units. As someone has said before, the Sentry is a symptom of the design weaknesses of Protoss army, and a relatively decent response to that symptoms . In short, the Sentry could be more interesting as a more autonomous unit, it it weren't attached to that army weakenesses. It should also be more micro-rewarding For example, the Disruptor is a decent example of non-deathball design, even if it could be really improved since how it is balanced (high risk/ high damage) is quite discusable. And now that the Gateway army is going to have a relatively cost efficient fighter oriented to counter one of the big weaknesses of the gateway army, I think that the Sentry needs a review. Because the Adept is going to be kept trash if the same types of tactics perstist exactly the same, since the Adept, once it gets a good direction, has a ton of potential. Protoss simply needs a marine-like infantry with decent DPS to increase their efficiency a lot and move out of the Deathball, being able to win skirmishes with the right units, just like MarineMarauder drops do, and that's what the Adept is potentially going to become. Cost-efficiency in relatively low numbers, relative shit when going deathball because of AoE or range limitations (like bio). Sentries also need a rework to be out of the Deathball. They aren't a bad spot at all in my opinion, but we might need them to be reworked to make room for buffing gateway units a bit. And they have potential to do it, specially with a mobility improvement and some rework on how they work at casting abilities or move while attacking. For example, guardian shield is nice, but because the AI and having an attack mechanic, or the simple moves of simple micro, all that makes Sentries move out and become exposed. It is also a wasted opportunity to offer some micro shinegans or tricks, and removes control from the player. Reading old posts, I think that OneGoal's approach to the Sentry was quite brained, even if I don't like it. IMAO the sentrie is anchored to a "pre-High templar support caster" and a very defensive-oriented design, while it could be more than that. And they weren't like that in past builds of SC2. It had like 3 or 4 different design, being an air-to-to ground support, a pure caster, an early game core unit that added DPS and small AOE, and the defensive support we have now. If you lurk into the developement history of Starcraft 2, specially around the Sentry and the Ghost, you can see what I'm talking about. | ||
| ||
