|
Mexico2170 Posts
Hello everyone, today I want to talk about the current state of Protoss in Legacy of the Void. I wanted to bring this to your attention because right now, it feels as if although Blizzard is doing pretty big changes, they aren't doing other, necessary changes, and so, Protoss is stuck in between of something great and something terrible.
First, as some of you have pointed out before, the new economy is a straight up nerf to the Protoss race, this is because Protoss is the race that has the hardest time to expand. Some of the reasons that make it hard in HotS are the following.
-Protoss mid game is comparatively weak to the other races.
-Protoss units in general aren't very mobile, and so, moving them to protect different expansions is a problem.
-Protoss can warp in to defend expansion, but Gateway units are relatively weak alone, and can't defend anything on their own. Furthermore, while they are being warped in they slowly gain health, instead of appearing with full health. This makes it so instead of having to deal 100 damage to kill a warping zealot you may need to deal 20, or 30 or more, depending on how much time has passed since it started to warp in.
-Mother ship core is a good defending tool, but again, it is fairly slow. You can position it between your 2nd and third, for example, but as you add more and more bases, its hard to defend. Also, while being very strong on the early game, since the damage doesn't scale, it is very weak, and negligible, on the late game.
This are just some examples, now, lets see how LotV fixes, or not, those problems:
-Protoss mid game while going robo received a considerable buff with the addition of the disruptor. However, Protoss mid game also received some nerfs, like the new immortal. Add to that the existence of the ravager, and overall, I'd say that the mid game Protoss macro game, received a nerf.
-Protoss units in general aren't very mobile still. The adept is a great mobile addition I think, however with its current stats it isn't a really good core unit.
-Protoss warp in units now receive more damage. While this nerfs nasty all ins, it also nerfs Protoss ability to defend and secure expansions.
-Mothership core is still very strong on the early game, and early mid. But it still very weak on the lategame, and considering the speeded up early game, the time of usefulness of the nexus cannon is considerably reduced.
Furthermore, Protoss is the race that suffers the most when losing an expansion. Not only does its units are the most expensive, and they have a more difficult time securing that expansions than the other races, but the great and mighty chronoboost, as useful as it is, it is actually the worst macro mechanic of the 3 when it comes to pure economy, making it harder for Protoss to maintain or recover it's income as fast as the other races can.
If we analyse this, and the other changes made to the Protoss race, we can see that Blizzard intentions are to reduce the effectiveness of Protoss All ins, while at the same time reducing the hard counters and abusable abilities. This is awesome, but it seems like they forgot something.
By nerfing the immortal for example, sure, you remove a hard counter, thats good for the game, but you also "break" the balance that existed in certain match ups, and so, you must give something in return. But they didn't.
By creating a counterplay to the Sentry and ForceFields, sure, you remove abusable strategies and some turtle, however, you must give something in return to make it balanced. But they didn't.
The only case where they did gave Protoss something to compensate for a nerf, its in the case of the Colossus and Disruptor, however, this puts the Colossus in a weird place.
The disruptor deals way more damage, and faster than a Colossus, however, the Colossus brings a more reliable way to bring AoE Damage to your Army. This is similar to the HT-Archon interaction. The high templar in general brings more damage, but since your opponent can dodge the storms/use EMP to drain energy, the Archons bring a more reliable way to deal Splash damage, while at the same time bring more "tankiness" to your army. This is good design. Making you take decisions depending on what you want to achieve.
There is a problem with this though, that goes way back to the time the Colossus way unveiled.
When Blizzard showed the colossus, and people got to play it, one of its main "features" was that it could be targeted by both Air, and ground. One of the problems with this though, is that if you were playing with Colossi, and then for some reason wanted to switch to, Carriers for example, the opponent already had the unit it needed to counter it in the game.
This problem not only still exist in LotV, but it is amplified. In TvP for example, if the game starts as Bio, and when you got your Disruptors and Colossi, and the Terran is forced to Switch into mech, and So, you switch to Stargate, well, if they didn't suicide their Vikings, they already have a counter to your Air army. This can be tweaked with numbers of course, to make it fairly balanced, however, the design problem is there.
But what happens with the Disruptor? Well, if you don't want it to be a glorified baneling, you need some way to make it survive after the explosion. The way to save it right now is either to kill everything, or use a warp prism. Now, think about that for a second. What unit counters the warp prism? The same units that counters the tier 3 of both the Robo, and the Stargate.
This is alleviated a little by the increased pick up range, but again, it is a problem that's bound to have consequences sooner or later.
This makes it so there is only one path left for protoss to go, the Templars, This is a great unit against Zerg, however let's remember that Templar Archive is still very vulnerable to widow mines and EMP.
In my opinion, on PvZ, Protoss will have a very hard time securing expansions, "forcing" them to all in again. On TvP in my opinion, all the chances will lead to the same old playstyle we have had since Wings of Liberty: Robo-Into templar.
TL;DR Protoss weaknesses are extrapolated by this new economy. Protoss midgame and mobility are fairly weak, and not only Blizzard didn't buff them, but by nerfing his All-Ins and Hard counters, they nerfed his ability to expand even more.
There will still be problem though, since Protoss is designed to not be that mobile, and not expand that much, while Zerg for example, is designed to do the opposite, making this expansion a straight up buff to zerg, and a nerf to Protoss. I don't have a way to fix that, but if you have any ideas, feel free to share them.
While all of what I said above, and what I'll say down below, has consequences to the balance, what I want to focus on is on the design of the game. Numbers, and balances changes can be adjusted later, bad design? Never.
My suggestions:
I spoilered them because the point of the thread is to discuss the current state of the Protoss, and not my suggestions, Feel free to discuss them and make some of your own, but remember what the thread is intended for.
+ Show Spoiler +-The tempest, the warp prism, the Carrier, and the Colossus, are mostly countered by the same units, this needs to change. My suggestion is: Remember the Alpha Wings of liberty Tempest? That unit looked like a DT carrier, and one of its features was that it had a protective shield that reduced the damage taken from ground units. My suggestion is to give this ability to one of this units, to help reduce the fact that 1 unit can hard counted the entire Tier 3 of Protoss.
-About the weak gateway units. We all have heard that the gateway units are weak, and if we remove the sentry we should buff them. But there are problems with that.
First of all, the sentry wasn't removed, I guess you could say the FF was "kinda" removed vs Zerg when Ravagers hit the map, however, they still exist, and they still are pretty useful on the 3 match ups. In my opinion, buffing gateway units would be a mistake, since this would only increase the strength of things like the Blink all in vs terran, and other types of All ins, here are my suggestions:
-Buff the adept: In my opinion, two changes need to happen to make it a good core unit: Increase its health, and make it so you decide when to teleport him, and not the "7 second" rule we have right now.
-Give the Stalker two different attacks. One for Air and one for ground. The ground one is the same. The air one is just 2-3 points better than the ground one. I'd manage it as a passive "The Stalked deals increased damage to air targets" This will help against the units that counter the Tempest, Colossus, Warp Prism and Carriers, but shouldn't be that big of an increased attack to not make Stalkers hard counter them.
This will also help against mutalisk. Since the game will focus on expanding, and there are fewer resources per base, high mobile harass units like the mutalisk will be very good against Protoss. As we all know, mutalisk force you into Phoenix, and while this interaction kinda works right now on HotS, with more bases I fear that Mutalisk will deal too much damage before you can complete the transition. This would help alleviate the problem.
As you can see, I'm not proposing buffs to the Zealot, since it is very immobile, and is good at what he does. What a Protoss would want in this expansion is a buff to their high mobility units.
-Nerf the immortal, and reduce its cost and build time. Make it so its more masseable sort of like a dragoon that still comes from the robo. (I didn't play BW). This change is needed to help the Protoss have a stronger mid game while not buffing the Stalker against ground, which due to its mobility and blink, could lead to very strong all ins.
-Buff the mothership core in the late game. Let it teletransport between nexus for free like the in the HotS Beta, Let the damage of the nexus cannon scale a little.
|
I actually don't see the reason of why 'improving' the Zealot is not an option. They could really help on lessening the problems you listed here. Now, I am not advocating buffing up numbers for the Zealot but rather, making their upgrade Charge much more accessible and earlier (for example, moving it to the cybernetic core).
A change like this won't make Protoss suddenly mobile, but it does give them more flexibly with what they can do. I find that Zealots are actually good at engagements since they are the cheapest units the Protoss has and deal rather good DPS. And because Zealots with Charge are actually decent against every first tier unit (zergling, roach, hydralisk, marine, maraduar, stalker, immortal) in the game, they could actually fight head with the other races early on, so the player can then invest their gas into higher tech. Though, I would still suspect there would be Stalkers/Adepts to support them in those engagements.
I mean, when I think about it, I think it could work as the Zealot could act as the linchpin early on as Protoss decides to invest heavily on one of the three tech paths after Cybercore. Twlight for better Stalker/Adept play (more quick and harass option), Robotics for Immortal/Warp Prism play (heavy ground force), and Stargate for air play.
This is just a thought, and not designed to fix every problem. Even if this would go through, I would still say, Adepts should be tweaked to be more useful, a Disruptor should be tweaked so Protoss aren't heavily reliant on them and that they aren't so All-or-Nothing, or that Stalkers could become better at stopping air harass.
|
In my opinion, the warpgate change is contradictory with the "expand like a madman" approach they want to use for LotV. I don't see the point of that nerf honestly if you're not going to give gateway units a bit more mobility early on.
|
The whole design of LotV is a joke, but that's ok for Blizzard. I'll explain why.
I know you hate BW, but we shouldn't ignore good ideas from there. First, lurker outranges colossus. That's bad because colossus replaces reaver, and there has to be some kind of anti-lurker unit, especially when you're under siege since you can't 1a with stalkers. Disruptor? Nope, if zerg spreads lurkers like siege tanks, then that doesn't work.
Lurkers vs terran. Zerg can position lurkers around map like they're mines, and terran will waste a lot of scan and walk into traps, etc. This was reasonably countered by science vessels as they were air detection units with irradiation. Now, who goes ravens anyway? It didn't happen in WoL and HotS with bio style. There has to be some good reason to always get a raven when you play TvZ. Not just for detection but also some nice spell.
Viper seems to be not well thought unit. It's like the new infestor. Abduct, irradiate spell, blinding cloud, consume ability. Who wouldn't use that? Too much power into one unit.
Also how about a new protoss unit? E.g. 2 dark templars into dark archon for maelstrom. There's no anti-muta unit for protoss other than phoenixes. There has to be a ground unit as well. Not everyone wants and has the time to transition to air only to be trolled by 10-15 mutas into ground army again.
Edit: Ok, maelstrom + disruptor would be imba, but you see what I mean. There's no good ground unit vs mutalisks.
|
you could always spit charge into 2 upgrades, the speed aspect of it to cybercore and the charge aspect of it still at twilight
That way zealots could deal with kiting a little better from terrans bio and zerg roaches
|
Darkness your post is kind of lol. Protoss can deal with mutalisks just fine or in HOTS they would be struggling versus zergs (hint they don't).
LOTV is a great design (could do a better economy change of course), but they do need to buff protoss to compensate. Right now Protoss is definitely UP, once they buff toss to compensate all will be good, it will just be awhile most likely before it gets done right.
|
On April 13 2015 02:42 Clear World wrote:
I actually don't see the reason of why 'improving' the Zealot is not an option. They could really help on lessening the problems you listed here. Now, I am not advocating buffing up numbers for the Zealot but rather, making their upgrade Charge much more accessible and earlier (for example, moving it to the cybernetic core).
A change like this won't make Protoss suddenly mobile, but it does give them more flexibly with what they can do. I find that Zealots are actually good at engagements since they are the cheapest units the Protoss has and deal rather good DPS. And because Zealots with Charge are actually decent against every first tier unit (zergling, roach, hydralisk, marine, maraduar, stalker, immortal) in the game, they could actually fight head with the other races early on, so the player can then invest their gas into higher tech. Though, I would still suspect there would be Stalkers/Adepts to support them in those engagements.
I mean, when I think about it, I think it could work as the Zealot could act as the linchpin early on as Protoss decides to invest heavily on one of the three tech paths after Cybercore. Twlight for better Stalker/Adept play (more quick and harass option), Robotics for Immortal/Warp Prism play (heavy ground force), and Stargate for air play.
This is just a thought, and not designed to fix every problem. Even if this would go through, I would still say, Adepts should be tweaked to be more useful, a Disruptor should be tweaked so Protoss aren't heavily reliant on them and that they aren't so All-or-Nothing, or that Stalkers could become better at stopping air harass.
I'd be on board with this if charge was somehow modified to require more micro and have more room for micro, because as it is now, zealots are basically a-move units with some surround micro and a few splits against mines. If they are a core unit then they should be more microable.
|
we can deal with mutalisks in HOTS because viper doesn't have the irradiate spell to fuck over all the phoenixes though, I mean moving ur irradiated phoenix out of the pack is an option but the damage is so quick it still does massive damage in a very short time, especially if there would be more than 1 viper
even now without viper, the corruptors are so much better since they can snipe buildings that just playing vs mutas/corruptor would be much harder than it used to be
|
Every time I hear Protoss complain about their status in LotV, I remember HotS beta, and how they complained through the entire thing that they were broken and terrible, only to dominate for the next 2 years once the game went live.
|
They didn't replace what they removed because they didn't know what they removed.
Blizz needs to take a long look at the roach / marauder / sentry dynamic before they start tearing shit up.
On April 13 2015 03:10 [PkF] Wire wrote:
In my opinion, the warpgate change is contradictory with the "expand like a madman" approach they want to use for LotV. I don't see the point of that nerf honestly if you're not going to give gateway units a bit more mobility early on.
It's because warpgates in general are bullshit and people don't like how they affect the game. The change itself wasn't exactly what was needed, though, and Blizz neglected to consider what would have to be changed to compensate for it.
|
I'd hope they take a look at the economy first and then adjust Protoss where needed. But there are some design changes I'd love to see regardless to give protoss a little more mobility and less balance around gimmicks.
I'd like to see an Immortal adjustment to be a little cheaper, lower build time, a bit faster (like stalker speed), damage point lowered/removed and have a little weaker stats vs armored + a little less HP.
Basically make it more of a unit that can run around on the map and microed back - especially in combination with the barrier. Maybe make barrier autocast upon shield depletion or first hit (first one being the "optimal solution", the second one being the "you can abuse it as an opponent" solution).
Zealot legs instead of charge would also be quite a nice buff for Protoss mobility. Even if you don't like BW-solutions just for the sake of them being a BW-solution, it just makes sense to make Protoss more mobile and harassoriented instead of the half-assed speed buff + charge only triggering in combat.
Adepts, I don't like their ability too much. Don't see a reason why it cannot be a "boring" unit just with a good antilight attack (or just in general a good attack, maybe with only a small +vs light bonus similar to stalkers with their small +vs armor bonus), reasonable mobility (without the shade) and nice microability - hence some buffed stats compared to now. Maybe give it some passive ability instead of the shade thing, e.g. a 3 second phase shift upon receiving lethal damage, therefore giving you the chance to still safe the unit and making opponents target switch.
Also the disruptor shouldn't be invulnerable in its Purification-mode, that just takes away from the opponent counteracting it and forces it to be overly expensive and eventually balanced around all-or-nothing.
Here is just a counteridea to that: I would like to have its shields buffed incredibly to say 250 (from 100). Upon exploding it loses all its shields and deals 1damage per shield lost. Thereby the opponent is encourage to split but also targetfire the disruptor with the rest of his units. You couldn't run with one disruptor into a whole army and blow all up, but it would still be great for harassment and smaller groups of units and in combats with a lot going on the splitting alone can make it payoff.
Also add a passive ability that when the disruptor is not in purification nova mode it recharges like 10shields per second and drop its gas costs a bit. --> it would encourage more interaction and counterplay, but also make the protoss less dependend on "getting that one big hit", because the cost would be lower.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
What I completely don't understand now is that you can build a starport (a necessary and useful building), attach a tech lab (can be reused with a barracks or a factory), and you've got yourself a flying (!) unit that is quite fast, medium ranged, invisible at will, has decent HP and is notoriously good vs workers. But you still need a completely useless and expensive dark shrine to build a goddamn DT that is ground, melee, less durable and more expensive. Why was dark shrine needed in the first place is beyond me, but it looks even more forced now with the banshee changes. Move DTs to templar archives maybe?
|
On April 13 2015 05:27 BluzMan wrote:
What I completely don't understand now is that you can build a starport (a necessary and useful building), attach a tech lab (can be reused with a barracks or a factory), and you've got yourself a flying (!) unit that is quite fast, medium ranged, invisible at will, has decent HP and is notoriously good vs workers. But you still need a completely useless and expensive dark shrine to build a goddamn DT that is ground, melee, less durable and more expensive. Why was dark shrine needed in the first place is beyond me, but it looks even more forced now with the banshee changes. Move DTs to templar archives maybe?
I think it was to compensate for the addition of warp gates / warp prisms, the removal of Overlord detection, and the decision to have Scanner Sweep energy compete with MULE energy. Also, if your opponent is already prepared, you can immediately morph it into an Archon, instead of a caster that requires special research, lots of energy buildup, and specific targets to be effective.
I don't think the cheese tower needs to be in LotV though, with the turret / spore buffs and oracles / ravagers.
|
When the beta went live I took a long look at the patchnotes for the initial beta build. All I could come up with was "so they are just nerfing Protoss across the board, in every aspect of the game... Am I missing something?".
But as it turned out it's not me who is missing something, it was their dev team that seemed to forgot some basics of the Protoss race. I'm not going to talk about how or why the economic changes are really bad for Protoss because it's fairly obvious even to people who don't play that race. What I found astonishing where these things:
-The changes to the oracle are a pretty severe nerf to the mobile detection of Stargate openings since the detection of the oracle is now a spell cast on a single location instead of turning the oracle into a detector and keeping its mobility... which makes it fairly useless against more than a single cloaked unit. That in itself would already be pretty bad but on top of that they decided to buff/add cloaked units for Terran and Zerg. So... uhm.. what is the compensation for Stargate opening?
-Protoss, especially against Zerg, was already heavily relying on the sentry to get to a somewhat stable 2-3 base economy or to be able to push across the map without getting devoured by superior low-tier Zerg units. And even then we have witnessed Zerg players being able to shut down a 3rd base for Protoss if they were dedicated enough. With the Ravager added, Warpgates nerfed and the economy changed in a way that makes overly passive play unviable I'm not really sure what Protoss is supposed to do to compete. In fact there is not much a Protoss army can do without the help of forcefields and I don't think that Disruptors will stay the way they are now. So with everything nerfed in that regard, where is the compensation to make up for it?
The Adept, while a pretty cool unit, is not really what people wanted it to be and it does not solve any of the inherent problems of the Protoss race when it comes to being able to compete with mobile low-tier armies of other races without needing expensive, high tier silver bullets.
Many units of the other races where buffed without giving Protoss new ways to deal with them properly. Neither the Adept nor the Disruptor are a proper answers to Zerg Muta/Corruptor/Viper combinations and with Phoenix or air units in general being out of the equation there is no answer left that is mobile enough to defend the higher amount of bases properly with.
I seriously don't understand what they are trying to do with Protoss in LotV. Like... Why nerf Oracle detection? Why nerf Warpgate units (through warp-in and Ravager)? Why give Zerg a hardcounter to the only counter to Mut-Muts?
When players have been asking for the exact opposite (more stable ways of dealing with mass Muta transitions that don't require prebuilding 4 Stargates, stronger Warpgate units during the mid- to lategame, a more mobile core army)...
Regarding Warpgates:
It was proposed quite a few times that a solution would be to simply swap cooldowns of the Warpgate with unit build time of Gateways. Currently it's faster to warp-in units than building them from a Gateway which means that you will turn every Gateway into a Warpgate by default. If building a unit from a Gateway would be faster than using a Warpgate then there is a choice when to change Gateways into Warpgates and how many of them. There would be a payoff for being able to warp units across the map (longer build time per unit) and either building units faster from the Gateway or stronger Gateway units in general would be a pretty good way to give Protoss a proper defenders advantage... and help them get through the early- and midgame in a more stable fashion without resorting to being hyper defensive, spamming sentries or relying on rushing key tech units.
|
Protoss does not need any changes. The economy needs to be changed to accomodate defensive styles instead of removing them like the LOTV current economy does.
Then Protoss/Mech will be in a better place without even changing anything else about the game.
Protoss suffers some in beta right now because you are put on a timer to take a 3rd and 4th base. The way Protoss has always functioned is that you need to get a decent army up with tech units and you cannot really spread across the map too easily or you will get picked apart.
Same applies to Mech Terran.
|
Maybe they can adjust the warp gate mechanic where instead of nerfing the warp-in time across the board, units warp faster when near allied nexi/town halls to make defending bases easier while limiting the strength of offensive warpins.
Another idea could be to have the warp in time the same as before the nerf if units are being warped in via warp prism.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On April 13 2015 07:10 avilo wrote:
Protoss does not need any changes. The economy needs to be changed to accomodate defensive styles instead of removing them like the LOTV current economy does.
Then Protoss/Mech will be in a better place without even changing anything else about the game.
Protoss suffers some in beta right now because you are put on a timer to take a 3rd and 4th base. The way Protoss has always functioned is that you need to get a decent army up with tech units and you cannot really spread across the map too easily or you will get picked apart.
Same applies to Mech Terran.
I doubt it's only the economy, you could introduce these same changes to hots (which is reasonably balanced) minus the new units and protoss would still suffer
|
I just see a lot of meta complaining without actually waiting to see how things work. If adepts prove strong enough, they could be excellent harass defenders paired with a DEFENSIVE warp in behind the mineral line. You don't NEED to put your warp ins right in front of his army, in fact, that should be as stupid as it sounds.
The thing is blizzard WANTS protoss to stop being so clumpy and slow. The beta is very much going to be in flux, and we're likely to see changes made. But right now, very, very clearly, blizzard is most interested in the new economy.
So while I do agree that protoss is certainly the odd one out, being forced to rethink unit comps moreso than terran or zerg, I don't think the game has been broken. Meta wank is always the absolute nadir of this game, and it just never, ever plays out according to how things "should" be. discussing theoretical potentials of composition and structure/economy just do not EVER translate to core gameplay.
Stop going off the rails and bitching at blizzard. Provide clean feedback based on what you are seeing in a way that makes their job (which is providing us with a good game, not just pissing specifically on your shoes for a laugh) easier to do, not combing through miles of speculative nonsense.
As it stands, I think the economy is causing more problems than the unit comp for all races equally, maybe SLIGHTLY less so for zerg, but the DRG vs yoda style of crashing waves of units on a fortress is weakened just as much.
That said, lurkers shouldn't outrange colossus. That is kind of stupid.
On April 13 2015 08:25 Teoita wrote:
I doubt it's only the economy, you could introduce these same changes to hots (which is reasonably balanced) minus the new units and protoss would still suffer
But the thing is, protoss is not in a position with the current meta for that to be a huge problem. Protoss is already one of the most forgiving races for new players and still performs very well at the pro level. So this kind of comment is not very helpful.
|
On April 13 2015 10:46 Honeybadger wrote:
But the thing is, protoss is not in a position with the current meta for that to be a huge problem. Protoss is already one of the most forgiving races for new players and still performs very well at the pro level. So this kind of comment is not very helpful.
lol, forgiveness is exactly what protoss lacks, the race does not forgive mistakes from the opponent or from the protoss player, it's the race that only go big. The best way to avoid that is to play passive instead of trying to make stuff happen.
Almost every action you decide to take with protoss you either win big time or get rekt.
The Disruptor is like the the best example of the race as a whole. and of course I'm exaggerating a bit, sometimes disruptor trades evenly or slightly (un)favorable, but it lacks the ability to do that consistently just like the protoss race.
This problem is far harder to solve than the inability of the race to grab new bases in LOTV.
|
Warped in units should start with the same HP but takes double the damage like in Warcraft 3. This is so much more feasible.
|
On April 13 2015 11:09 rpgalon wrote:
lol, forgiveness is exactly what protoss lacks, the race does not forgive mistakes from the opponent or from the protoss player, it's the race that only go big. The best way to avoid that is to play passive instead of trying to make stuff happen.
Almost every action you decide to take with protoss you either win big time or get rekt.
The Disruptor is like the the best example of the race as a whole. and of course I'm exaggerating a bit, sometimes disruptor trades evenly or slightly (un)favorable, but it lacks the ability to do that consistently just like the protoss race.
This problem is far harder to solve than the inability of the race to grab new bases in LOTV.
Taking my statements out of context is not winning you anything.
Chrono boost makes poor worker production easier to catch up on as a newbie.
Warp in lets you rapidly rebuild units. As a newbie.
Overexaggerating and doing PRECISELY what I just described (meta analysis wanking that just doesn't mirror the real games people play) is exactly what's wrong with balance discussion.
|
I'd like to see some change with the adept. Right now it feels like yet another harassment only unit for Protoss which is a role that's already oversaturated. Making it trade well with light units in the early and mid game would be nice, and might make Protoss more stable early on.
|
It's probably at the bottom of the priority list, but do hope they get around to doing something with the Mothership. I always thought it was cool and fitting that Protoss supposedly has the only super unit in the game, yet it seems so unimpressive. I think at a minimum abduct and neural shouldn't work on it.
|
NVM done with posting on TL even if i thinks its worth it or not.
|
On April 13 2015 04:35 sitromit wrote:
Every time I hear Protoss complain about their status in LotV, I remember HotS beta, and how they complained through the entire thing that they were broken and terrible, only to dominate for the next 2 years once the game went live.
This is the funniest thing I've read on the internet all month. Thanks man, I really needed that laugh.
|
I don't think the current disruptor can hit air, can it? Making them hit air as well is not a bad idea IMO. Would help vs mass mutas to some extent. As of it being viable against terran bio...nope, I'd rather have colossi. Decent terrans would know how to micro against disruptors as they do against banelings.
And the adept, like others said is probably useful as harassment units only as they are now. 4 range, weaker than a zealot/stalker and a low fire rate, they will get shredded by bio and roaches. The bounce thing doesn't come until twilight council and I don't think people would delay blink/charge for it. And seriously, change its name please.
The carrier build time reduction is much appreciated, but with the new corruptors I don't think that will help. The AoE bomb thing corruptors have seems pretty strong.
Protoss have relatively weak cheap units and it's always a struggle to get the big hitters out. The beta so far doesn't seem to address any of that, instead they give zerg ravagers and terran cyclones, both great core units. Well at least the campaign will be fun...hopefully.
|
On April 13 2015 12:08 Honeybadger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 11:09 rpgalon wrote:
lol, forgiveness is exactly what protoss lacks, the race does not forgive mistakes from the opponent or from the protoss player, it's the race that only go big. The best way to avoid that is to play passive instead of trying to make stuff happen.
Almost every action you decide to take with protoss you either win big time or get rekt.
The Disruptor is like the the best example of the race as a whole. and of course I'm exaggerating a bit, sometimes disruptor trades evenly or slightly (un)favorable, but it lacks the ability to do that consistently just like the protoss race.
This problem is far harder to solve than the inability of the race to grab new bases in LOTV. Taking my statements out of context is not winning you anything. Chrono boost makes poor worker production easier to catch up on as a newbie. Warp in lets you rapidly rebuild units. As a newbie. Overexaggerating and doing PRECISELY what I just described (meta analysis wanking that just doesn't mirror the real games people play) is exactly what's wrong with balance discussion.
Chronoboost allows Protoss to keep up with Z and T when it comes to mining. Z can mass produce drones, T have mules. If P uses chronoboost to catch up on worker count because their macro is lacking then they've missed out on vital chronoboosts to get upgrades/tech out to deal with T and Z armies.
Warp-in allows for Protoss to be able to defend harassment back at home. The main issue with the Protoss race is that the army isn't very mobile and doesn't allow for the main army to split into smaller sections a lot of the time. The units are fragile and P can easily be pulled apart by ling run-bys. Muta harass and T drops, without warp-in what is P supposed to do? Photon cannons aren't the answer as T can just stim in and kill, lings can surround and kill and Mutas in a high enough number can easily destroy them, just as they can against Missile Turrets in ZvT
|
Buff photon cannon then. How about giving it a secondary ability kind of like the reaver in BW ?
Make it an upgrade in the robo bay, then pay 100 minerals and your photon gets a 'reaver bomb' shot, that you can only use manually, works against ground and air. Pay 100 to recharge.
Then to avoid invincible defenses the photon cannon is shut down for x seconds after using that ability.
|
i thought the mothership core's "get out of jail free card" was a good defenders advantage. Cant just sit on 2 stalkers and tech to 3-3 while warping in only when you need to.
|
On April 13 2015 17:14 FaultyReDD wrote:
i thought the mothership core's "get out of jail free card" was a good defenders advantage. Cant just sit on 2 stalkers and tech to 3-3 while warping in only when you need to.
Even in HotS you can't do that, at least against half decent players.
If you have 2/3 bases to work with sure but the thing is, in LotV the economic changes mean you have to expand quicker and a lot more and Protoss just can't do that effectively in the midgame, especially with the nerfed warp-in mechanics. Protoss cannot spread forces too thin without just dying to harass from Z and T. Gateway forces are too fragile, Immortals are now nerfed, Forcefields are not as good against Z anymore thanks to the Ravager.
All in all it's hard for P to get the necessary tech up while defending the numerous expansions that are required to keep up economically and there's very little in the way currently for P to effectively harass or deal with things like cyclones/ravagers.
Cyclones can easily lock-on and kill a MSC with little trouble, especially if the Protoss is distracted elsewhere. MSC can't physically cover 3 or 4 bases at once either.
Adepts as they stand are not very good, even against light units like Marines and Lings because they attack too slow to even make the bonus damage worth it. Disruptors are VERY gas intensive and you can whiff with them, sometimes horribly and kill your own units, they also can't damage air.
Blizz still needs to tweak something, economy for sure, TL guys have come up with some excellent suggestions in that regard that won't be such a kick in the nuts for Protoss. Warp-ins need tweaking too, while I do kinda like the extra damage units take while warping in I also don't like it at the same time. Makes it a lot easier for harassment to do a LOT more damage and drops and mutas can already do a lot even if you warp in good time.
I really feel Blizz should make warp-gate a later game tech while decreasing the production time on gateways to make it more in-line with T and Z production times because as it stands, pure gateway without warp-gate is just too slow. Buff the Adept to make it viable (as it stands, blink stalker is still the go-to tech choice just because of the cyclone and the adept's lackluster dps is just eh)
|
Nerf the immortal, and reduce its cost and build time. Make it so its more masseable sort of like a dragoon that still comes from the robo. (I didn't play BW). This change is needed to help the Protoss have a stronger mid game while not buffing the Stalker against ground, which due to its mobility and blink, could lead to very strong all ins.
Agree, it is important to remember that the Dragoon did have 2.95 movement speed (same as Stalker), and I believe the Immortal must be signifciantly faster as well so protoss has an easier time moving out on the map.
Buff the adept: In my opinion, two changes need to happen to make it a good core unit: Increase its health, and make it so you decide when to teleport him, and not the "7 second" rule we have right now.
-Give the Stalker two different attacks. One for Air and one for ground. The ground one is the same. The air one is just 2-3 points better than the ground one. I'd manage it as a passive "The Stalked deals increased damage to air targets" This will help against the units that counter the Tempest, Colossus, Warp Prism and Carriers, but shouldn't be that big of an increased attack to not make Stalkers hard counter them.
You are on to some logic here. From my perspective, I would change (buff) the damage of the Stalker to 12-13 vs everything (from 10 + 4 vs armored) and give the Immortal a larger role in the game IF the Adept wasn't in the game.
Now, with the addition of the Adept I think it makes sense to focus the Stalkers role more as an anti-air/mobility unit than a core vs light unit (so its damage vs ground light shouldn't be significantly buffed). Thus, it could use a seperate air and ground attack.
Not sure about the Adept being able to teleport at any point in time as I think that might reduce counterplay, but its shadow-micro potential needs a huge buff imo.
|
Charge should go to cybernetics while warpgate to the twilight council, buff build time from gateway so protoss can keep with T Z unit production before warpgate tech.
|
On April 13 2015 04:35 sitromit wrote:
Every time I hear Protoss complain about their status in LotV, I remember HotS beta, and how they complained through the entire thing that they were broken and terrible, only to dominate for the next 2 years once the game went live.
They did? Stats so different
|
I have an idea:
-Immortals removed from the robo
-Immortals added to the gateway (cyber core requirement)
-Immortals cant be warped in.
that would help stabilize protoss in the early game without requiring too heavy of a tech investment.
|
On April 14 2015 02:06 404AlphaSquad wrote:
I have an idea:
-Immortals removed from the robo
-Immortals added to the gateway (cyber core requirement)
-Immortals cant be warped in.
that would help stabilize protoss in the early game without requiring too heavy of a tech investment.
Quite much death to PvP blink but not bad idea.
|
On April 14 2015 02:06 404AlphaSquad wrote:
I have an idea:
-Immortals removed from the robo
-Immortals added to the gateway (cyber core requirement)
-Immortals cant be warped in.
that would help stabilize protoss in the early game without requiring too heavy of a tech investment.
I think the biggest issue is that it would allow protoss players to produce immortals and disruptors/colossi all at the same time. It also makes getting observers/warp prisms have no opportunity cost because the robo is just sitting there idle anyway while the protoss player gets the additional tech for the aoe units.
Also, while it seems that sentry/immortal all ins would be harder, it would actually hit a lot harder and maybe faster. Instead of having to build a robo, protoss just tosses down two more gateways after cyber. Then starts producing immortals from two structures rather than one with the extra gas saved from the robo for at least one round of production.
|
There's a lot of opportunity here provided they don't just revert changes. The bandaids have been pulled off and the hole in protoss has been exposed. There are probably a lot of possible solutions but it's tough for me to envision one that doesn't involve reworking warpgate and gateway units. That seems like the obvious next step.
Edit: I don't think reworking the immortal is the solution, it just seems like another bandaid. Do away with forcefields, remove/delay warpgate, and give flat stat boosts to gateway units. Proxy's have already been massively nerfed, which was the reason they increased gateway build times in the first place. This is the perfect opportunity to try that and it's something that's been harped on for years now.
|
The trouble is that they have gone to the community and said "what do you hate the most about Protoss?" All the changes to Protoss are to "improve micro" or to remove strategies that people didn't like. As a result, Blizzard has nerfed basically every single Protoss unit in one way, directly or indirectly.
BUT they've given nothing back to compensate.
Separately, the economy itself is a nerf to Protoss since tech takes the same time to develop but by the time that tech is done the enemy's economy is much, much stronger. Terran and Zerg have much better spammable low tier units than Protoss.
So you end up with a game where T/Z can spam their good early game units and trade while securing bases. Meanwhile, Protoss gets punished for its reliance on tech and slower rate of expansion.
|
On April 14 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:BUT they've given nothing back to compensate.
A unit that becomes invincible (two of which can kill ~80 Zerg psi if your opponent isn't looking), and Zed, and range pickup are 'compensations'. Mind you, there are other issues that perhaps make this not so obvious.
|
On April 14 2015 08:10 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:BUT they've given nothing back to compensate. A unit that becomes invincible (two of which can kill ~80 Zerg psi if your opponent isn't looking), and Zed, and range pickup are 'compensations'. Mind you, there are other issues that perhaps make this not so obvious.
A unit that's only really viable if used with a Warp Prism. So Zerg goes Muta and shuts that down.
My point is that Protoss had a number of tools it could use to dictate the pace of the game early. Now with the 3-4 base before anything happens economy, Zerg's "late game" tech switches happen much earlier. So if you don't get Ravager all-inned, by the time you have any tech to speak of Zerg can already very comfortably counter it.
|
On April 14 2015 04:30 robopork wrote:
There's a lot of opportunity here provided they don't just revert changes. The bandaids have been pulled off and the hole in protoss has been exposed. There are probably a lot of possible solutions but it's tough for me to envision one that doesn't involve reworking warpgate and gateway units. That seems like the obvious next step.
Edit: I don't think reworking the immortal is the solution, it just seems like another bandaid. Do away with forcefields, remove/delay warpgate, and give flat stat boosts to gateway units. Proxy's have already been massively nerfed, which was the reason they increased gateway build times in the first place. This is the perfect opportunity to try that and it's something that's been harped on for years now.
Everyone knew about these glaring holes of the Protoss Gateway units. It's been long stated and long hated. The protoss gimmicky all-in style or Deathball syndrome are due to the weak gateway units and abuse of Warpgate to get the slightest edge possible. But a rework is something I believe is not a requirement to help push Protoss away from their style that is frowned upon by the community. Their tier 3 units are a clutch Protoss, and I personally believe that the Stalkers does nothing but make the entire situation worst for their lack of unable to fight any race in fair trades. Generally by the time when Stalkers are able to be losing as much as they are killing, they are already past the point in which they will simply overpower the enemy and abuse both Force-field and blinks to not lose anything, making the stalkers the worst offenders of the Protoss army at forcing the All-In situation. But if the other gateway units were decent, then all-in and Deathball would not be their only solutions. They could actually force strategic battles for once.
And here's why I think that. Please stop ignoring the darn Zealot. Zealots are a great unit in battle. They are tanky and have good DPS. And here is a bigger shocker, they can actually trade effectively with almost every lower tier unit (marine, marauder, zergling, roaches, ravagers, hydralisk, stalkers, immortal, adepts). The only problem, this is assuming if they could ever reach their target. If Protoss is only losing Zealots when killing the enemy units, you can actually break even in resource lost or even ahead, making the battle strategic for once. And since Zealots are strong against most mobile small packs and rather cheap in the grand scheme, losing them isn't soul crushing and generally, they could take out enough enemy units to maybe break-even.
If Zealot could actually contribute in battles, Protoss just needs to fill 1 real ninch, high DPS (something that makes Stalkers and Zealot synergy worthless since Stalkers doesn't provide the DPS). Adept don't need to be super mobile or tough since they have Zealots being the meat shield and the engagers. They don't need to be the bandaid to marine/marudar/roach/ravager/hydralisk packs, because zealots can actually hold those units at a bay.
So if I had to envision a way to improve Protoss early-mid game without reworking Warpgate and without making lategame deathball overpowered, it would go like this: (check in spoiler)
+ Show Spoiler +
Zealot
Simple goal. If Zealots could actually reach their target, they can actually make cost effective trade assuming they have Adepts to back them up. This shouldn't have much late game impact because either most player already got the upgrade by that time or didn't built Zealots to begin with.
- Charge upgrade is now researched at Cybernetic Core
Stalker
The change here is just to help deflect air harass. Not counter but deflect Muta, Banshee, or drop play. Also, once again should not have much of a late game effect since what race uses light air-units in large scale battle. I don't believe Muta are used in that fashion. Once again, making the Gateway unit more viable without making deahball more threatening
- Now has an air attack and ground attack. Ground attack is the exact same.
- Air attack deals 14 damage instead of 10 (+ 4 vs armor)
Adept
This could go either way, but I would wish they did something like this over just making the Adept a high single target DPS unit. By making it more of a soft-AoE DPS unit, it makes it more different from the marie and Hydralisk, while still performing the same task. Also, the bounce is only meant to go after units 'behind' the target and not to the sides. I rather see this because I believe the higher DPS units generally are in the back line instead of the front.
- Fragile. Relativity squishy for their cost, but not near Sentry level of squishy for cost.
- Attack animation improved to be quicker and swifter
- Changed to be more of a soft-AoE DPS unit (it doesn't need to be super quick attacks, but hopefully faster than the stalker's attack rate)
-- Single target DPS will be low (maybe slightly above Stalker DPS against non-armor units)
-- Total DPS will be higher due to: Adept's basic attack bounces one in a 135 degree angle behind their initial target, dealing ~60% of the Adept's damage to the second target.
--- Shockwave upgrade now improves Adept's basic attack to split into 2 instead of 1 (both still doing ~60% damage) and increase Adept's attack range by 1 (making total 5 range).
- Psionic Transfer can now end prematurely if casted a second time within 8 seconds.
There are other changes I would want to make like modify Sentry with removal of Forcefield and nerf/change Colossus and Disruptor, but that's a completely different story with a bunch of other changes. In terms of balance, I'm not sure how well it would work, but in theory, this should allow Protoss a much stronger early game with having almost zero impact in the late game. The only real impact would be how well the Adept becomes the core unit, and if they are good, then it would be reasonable to nerf the tier 3 units so Protoss becomes less reliant on them to win.
|
On April 14 2015 08:53 Clear World wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 04:30 robopork wrote:
There's a lot of opportunity here provided they don't just revert changes. The bandaids have been pulled off and the hole in protoss has been exposed. There are probably a lot of possible solutions but it's tough for me to envision one that doesn't involve reworking warpgate and gateway units. That seems like the obvious next step.
Edit: I don't think reworking the immortal is the solution, it just seems like another bandaid. Do away with forcefields, remove/delay warpgate, and give flat stat boosts to gateway units. Proxy's have already been massively nerfed, which was the reason they increased gateway build times in the first place. This is the perfect opportunity to try that and it's something that's been harped on for years now. Let's be frank, everyone knew about these glaring holes of the Protoss Gateway units. It's been long stated and long hated. The protoss gimmicky all-in style or Deathball syndrome are due to the weak gateway units and abuse of Warpgate to get the slightest edge possible. But a rework is something I believe is not a requirement to help push Protoss away from their all so style that is frowned upon by the community. Their tier 3 units are a clutch Protoss, but if the gateway units were decent, then all-in and Deathball would not be their only solutions. They could actually force strategic battles for once. And here's why I think that. Bizzard and many people within the community needs to stop ignoring the darn Zealot. Zealots are a great unit in battle. They are tanky and have good DPS. And here is a bigger shocker, they can actually trade effectively with almost every lower tier unit (marine, marauder, zergling, roaches, ravagers, hydralisk, stalkers, immortal, adepts). The only problem, this is assuming if they could ever reach their target without taking heavy lost. If Protoss is only losing Zealots when killing the enemy units, you can actually break even in resource lost or even ahead, making the battle strategic for once. If Zealot could actually contribute in battles, Protoss just needs to fill 1 real ninch, high DPS. Adept don't need to be super mobile or tough since they have Zealots being the meat shield. They don't need to be the bandaid to marine/marudar/roach/ravager/hydralisk packs, because zealots can actually hold those units at a bay. So if I had to envision a way to improve Protoss early-mid game without reworking Warpgate and without making lategame deathball overpowered, it would go like this: (check in spoiler) + Show Spoiler +
Zealot
Simple goal. If Zealots could actually reach their target, they can actually make cost effective trade assuming they have Adepts to back them up. This shouldn't have much late game impact because either most player already got the upgrade by that time or didn't built Zealots to begin with.
- Charge upgrade is now researched at Cybernetic Core
Stalker
The change here is just to help deflect air harass. Not counter but deflect Muta, Banshee, or drop play. Also, once again should not have much of a late game effect since what race uses light air-units in large scale battle. I don't believe Muta are used in that fashion. Once again, making the Gateway unit more viable without making deahball more threatening
- Now has an air attack and ground attack. Ground attack is the exact same.
- Air attack deals 14 damage instead of 10 (+ 4 vs armor)
Adept
This could go either way, but I would wish they did something like this over just making the Adept a high single target DPS unit. By making it more of a soft-AoE DPS unit, it makes it more different from the marie and Hydralisk, while still performing the same task. Also, the bounce is only meant to go after units 'behind' the target and not to the sides. I rather see this because I believe the higher DPS units generally are in the back line instead of the front.
- Fragile. Relativity squishy for their cost, but not near Sentry level of squishy for cost.
- Attack animation improved to be quicker and swifter
- Changed to be more of a soft-AoE DPS unit through quick attacks
-- Single target DPS will be low (somewhere around Stalker DPS against Non-armor units)
-- Total DPS will be higher due to: Adept's basic attack bounces one in a 135 degree angle behind their initial target, dealing ~50% of the Adept's damage to the second target.
--- Shockwave upgrade now improves Adept's basic attack to split into 2 instead of 1 (both still doing ~50% damage) and increase Adept's attack range by 1.
- Psionic Transfer can now end prematurely if casted a second time within 8 seconds.
There are other changes I would want to make like modify Sentry and nerf/change Colossus and Disruptor, but that's a completely different story. In terms of balance, I'm not sure how well it would work, but in theory, this should allow Protoss a much stronger early game with having almost zero impact in the late game. The only real impact would be how well the Adept becomes the core unit, and if they are good, then it would be reasonable to nerf the tier 3 units so Protoss becomes less reliant on them to win.
It's simpler, definitely. But warpgate places a comparatively low ceiling on how good the units produced from it can be. As you said, this isn't a new or even disputed discussion for the most part so I won't waste space reconstructing the whole argument.
But it follows that you can't make warpgate units good enough to defend and have them be weak enough to not break the game when attacking, so as interesting as putting charge in the cybernetics core could be I think you're still going to run into the same problem; without true defender's advantage, just right in one area = all fucked up in another, unless you make other units that don't benefit from warpgate in the same way disproportionately powerful (e.g. sentry, colossus).
So we nerfed our heavy hitters and protoss is weak, no surprises there. It's also true, though, that weaker late game options make it possible to buff early game units and have a deathball that, at least on paper, is about as strong. But to do that we need defender's advantage. So warpgate has to go or change pretty radically.
The reason I think the time is now is that we have already upset that delicate balance of unit interactions, not just with protoss but the other races as well, and unless we give up and revert the changes there's going to be re balancing effort expended. I think it should focus on the core units, as far as protoss is concerned, rather than trying to come up with a solution through higher tech units that's interesting and reliable, as well as versatile enough for protoss to keep up in this fast paced expansion gobbling environment ( I don't think any one unit can be all of those things, and it's probably going to err on the side of being lame because balance is something you can quantify).
Honestly I'm not sure I'm right about all of this, but it's the way it looks from where I'm sitting. If we appreciate how much of the game is up in the air and how deep some of the changes run, it doesn't seem like that much more work to at least test these changes and see how they play out.
Edit: I should qualify the statement about deathballs on paper by saying that the big picture goal here is to work away from deathballs, open up more options, and create dynamic spread out gameplay, while keeping the deathball that could ultimately form manageable.
|
I still think only reason Protoss appears weaker is because of the economy. If they adjust the economy to not punish defensive play like that recent TL article explains...but reward expanding, then Protoss will be perfectly fine, same with mech Terran.
It's just right now LOTV economy is what i like to call "The gun to your head" economy. You expand asap or you basically die.
If blizzard tests that double harvest economy proposed / tested by the TL guys and such, i bet Protoss will be in a good spot and that defensive strats will be just as viable as offensive ones.
|
Canada13388 Posts
On April 14 2015 10:07 avilo wrote:
I still think only reason Protoss appears weaker is because of the economy. If they adjust the economy to not punish defensive play like that recent TL article explains...but reward expanding, then Protoss will be perfectly fine, same with mech Terran.
It's just right now LOTV economy is what i like to call "The gun to your head" economy. You expand asap or you basically die.
If blizzard tests that double harvest economy proposed / tested by the TL guys and such, i bet Protoss will be in a good spot and that defensive strats will be just as viable as offensive ones.
That is part of the reason we wrote it.
I think on the surface though it seems like protoss needs unit changes.
Part of the problem is also that Protoss needs something like blink to make stalkers really good but they can't get it in time with the speed of the current economy. So if they commit to the current economy stalkers will need to be better at fighting light units specifically (because of Z) or a big buff to blink research time to support a third base with blink stalkers.
The other problem is also that protoss units cost a lot, and need research which the economy doesnt support. Maybe if we had power units good enough that they could trade against other races even when down on econ (even better collossus never gonna happen) we could expo as toss.
I mean protoss has some GREAT harass options. We just dont have good expand options. So since we can't keep up in expansions Protoss falls behind really hard (especially when turrets are so early and spores). Love or hate oracles and disruptors these are the only two high impact harass units protoss has to "level" out the economy when the thirds and fourths are so late for toss.
Its a lot of things but I really feel like the economy more than anything else has hurt protoss and by extension mech. Except cyclones are really really good, so i guess mech can be mobile now.
But I really dont think heavy tank space control mech will work in LotV. And I wouldnt be surprised if you noticed this.
|
It's simpler, definitely. But warpgate places a comparatively low ceiling on how good the units produced from it can be. As you said, this isn't a new or even disputed discussion for the most part so I won't waste space reconstructing the whole argument.
But it follows that you can't make warpgate units good enough to defend and have them be weak enough to not break the game when attacking, so as interesting as putting charge in the cybernetics core could be I think you're still going to run into the same problem; without true defender's advantage, just right in one area = all fucked up in another, unless you make other units that don't benefit from warpgate in the same way disproportionately powerful (e.g. sentry, colossus).
So we nerfed our heavy hitters and protoss is weak, no surprises there. It's also true, though, that weaker late game options make it possible to buff early game units and have a deathball that, at least on paper, is about as strong. But to do that we need defender's advantage. So warpgate has to go or change pretty radically.
The reason I think the time is now is that we have already upset that delicate balance of unit interactions, not just with protoss but the other races as well, and unless we give up and revert the changes there's going to be re balancing effort expended. I think it should focus on the core units, as far as protoss is concerned, rather than trying to come up with a solution through higher tech units that's interesting and reliable, as well as versatile enough for protoss to keep up in this fast paced expansion gobbling environment ( I don't think any one unit can be all of those things, and it's probably going to err on the side of being lame because balance is something you can quantify).
Honestly I'm not sure I'm right about all of this, but it's the way it looks from where I'm sitting. If we appreciate how much of the game is up in the air and how deep some of the changes run, it doesn't seem like that much more work to at least test these changes and see how they play out.
Edit: I should qualify the statement about deathballs on paper by saying that the big picture goal here is to work away from deathballs, open up more options, and create dynamic spread out gameplay, while keeping the deathball that could ultimately form manageable.
I feel like you are using the crappiness of the Stalker trading potential to put some blame on Warpgate and then why Protoss 'must' have this very powerful unit outside of Warpgate. Let me just give some example on trading resources during battle and why being too focus on the Stalker is really skewing all this information in believing that Protoss 'requires' a powerful non-gateway unit.
To make this simple, let's just say 2 gas = 1 mineral in cost (because I think that's how people still views it).
Now in this given example, say you are moving 4 Stalkers on the field and come by 8 marines (with stim). In a direct battle with almost no mirco, 8 marines would destroy those 4 stalkers hands down with 4-3 marines still living. They lost around 200 resources and you lost around 900 resources. Now that is a terrible trade and is in all favor of the Terran.
Now in the same example, let's say you somehow completely out-mirco the 8 terrans with your 4 stalkers, killing all 8 marines (with stim) and saving 2 stalkers. You still lose this trade. They only lost 400 resource while you lost 450 resource. Though, this is really hard to do even with blink mirco. Without Blink, it's impossible.
Now, instead of 4 stalkers, you have 4 Zealots (with charge) against the 8 marines (with stim & shield). In a direct battle with almost zero mirco, the 4 zealots would destroy the 8 marines and probably have 2 of them still alive. You only lost 200 resource and they lose 400 resource. You win this trade easily.
But now let's those 8 marines micoo like a boss and kills every zealot and managing to keep at least 2 of their marine alive. You lost 400 resources and they lost 300 resource. Trading resource here, you don't come out that far behind and this is more or less assuming they are like micro kings.
This is just an example, and with marines but the same sort of holds true against any lower tier unit. You could lose 2 zealots and that would be better than losing 1 Stalker. The bigger difference here is that, 2 zealots can absorb twice as much damage, and dish out 4 times the damage of 1 Stalker. The only reason why people don't use zealots in the early game is because, they are kited by everything and so hard that their much higher DPS is basically 0 making them worthless and making the Stalkers better since they can actually deal damage.
And here's another thing I think you overlook, if Zealots could finally participate in most battles, you can use Zealot to be the sacrificial lamb and keep your more expensive out of harms way. And I'm talking about large scale battles around like 15-25 units. The Zealots would be able to put in their high DPS and absorbing roughly the same amount of damage as a Stalker, all while doing it on like half the cost of a Stalker. If you're about to lost the fight, let the Zealot die and allow your 2x more expensive unit run to their safety.
If you want to talk about needing powerful units, than this is a huge buff for Protoss if their tanky, strong DPS front line unit if they could actually contribute. Zealot may not be the cheapest or strongest units in the game, but compared to the Stalker, Zealots are so cheap and powerful.
People like to say, Protoss gateway units can't trade effectively. I rather say, Stalkers can't trade effectively and since they generally is the Protoss main damage output for most of the early game, this causes Protoss to look awful at trading.
|
On April 14 2015 10:22 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 10:07 avilo wrote:
I still think only reason Protoss appears weaker is because of the economy. If they adjust the economy to not punish defensive play like that recent TL article explains...but reward expanding, then Protoss will be perfectly fine, same with mech Terran.
It's just right now LOTV economy is what i like to call "The gun to your head" economy. You expand asap or you basically die.
If blizzard tests that double harvest economy proposed / tested by the TL guys and such, i bet Protoss will be in a good spot and that defensive strats will be just as viable as offensive ones. That is part of the reason we wrote it. I think on the surface though it seems like protoss needs unit changes. Part of the problem is also that Protoss needs something like blink to make stalkers really good but they can't get it in time with the speed of the current economy. So if they commit to the current economy stalkers will need to be better at fighting light units specifically (because of Z) or a big buff to blink research time to support a third base with blink stalkers. The other problem is also that protoss units cost a lot, and need research which the economy doesnt support. Maybe if we had power units good enough that they could trade against other races even when down on econ (even better collossus never gonna happen) we could expo as toss. I mean protoss has some GREAT harass options. We just dont have good expand options. So since we can't keep up in expansions Protoss falls behind really hard (especially when turrets are so early and spores). Love or hate oracles and disruptors these are the only two high impact harass units protoss has to "level" out the economy when the thirds and fourths are so late for toss. Its a lot of things but I really feel like the economy more than anything else has hurt protoss and by extension mech. Except cyclones are really really good, so i guess mech can be mobile now. But I really dont think heavy tank space control mech will work in LotV. And I wouldnt be surprised if you noticed this.
In regards to mech, from my experience so far, a lot of the games that go lategame half my army is like mass tanks, the other half cyclones, very similar to bw tank/goliath. Lots of people go for the pure mass cyclone/hellion with almost no tanks, but i think that is really weak imo vs people that know how to take advantage.
On April 14 2015 08:44 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 08:10 Gnosis wrote:On April 14 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:BUT they've given nothing back to compensate. A unit that becomes invincible (two of which can kill ~80 Zerg psi if your opponent isn't looking), and Zed, and range pickup are 'compensations'. Mind you, there are other issues that perhaps make this not so obvious. A unit that's only really viable if used with a Warp Prism. So Zerg goes Muta and shuts that down. My point is that Protoss had a number of tools it could use to dictate the pace of the game early. Now with the 3-4 base before anything happens economy, Zerg's "late game" tech switches happen much earlier. So if you don't get Ravager all-inned, by the time you have any tech to speak of Zerg can already very comfortably counter it.
From all my off-race PvZ games...when i'm P i feel like Zerg is invincible and on 4 base and i'm stuck on 2, or that Z can use ravager + speedlings to just deny 3rd for so long that by the time you can maybe get 3rd nexus Z is on 5 base with high tech as you said lol
|
Canada13388 Posts
On April 14 2015 11:17 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 10:22 ZeromuS wrote:On April 14 2015 10:07 avilo wrote:
I still think only reason Protoss appears weaker is because of the economy. If they adjust the economy to not punish defensive play like that recent TL article explains...but reward expanding, then Protoss will be perfectly fine, same with mech Terran.
It's just right now LOTV economy is what i like to call "The gun to your head" economy. You expand asap or you basically die.
If blizzard tests that double harvest economy proposed / tested by the TL guys and such, i bet Protoss will be in a good spot and that defensive strats will be just as viable as offensive ones. That is part of the reason we wrote it. I think on the surface though it seems like protoss needs unit changes. Part of the problem is also that Protoss needs something like blink to make stalkers really good but they can't get it in time with the speed of the current economy. So if they commit to the current economy stalkers will need to be better at fighting light units specifically (because of Z) or a big buff to blink research time to support a third base with blink stalkers. The other problem is also that protoss units cost a lot, and need research which the economy doesnt support. Maybe if we had power units good enough that they could trade against other races even when down on econ (even better collossus never gonna happen) we could expo as toss. I mean protoss has some GREAT harass options. We just dont have good expand options. So since we can't keep up in expansions Protoss falls behind really hard (especially when turrets are so early and spores). Love or hate oracles and disruptors these are the only two high impact harass units protoss has to "level" out the economy when the thirds and fourths are so late for toss. Its a lot of things but I really feel like the economy more than anything else has hurt protoss and by extension mech. Except cyclones are really really good, so i guess mech can be mobile now. But I really dont think heavy tank space control mech will work in LotV. And I wouldnt be surprised if you noticed this. In regards to mech, from my experience so far, a lot of the games that go lategame half my army is like mass tanks, the other half cyclones, very similar to bw tank/goliath. Lots of people go for the pure mass cyclone/hellion with almost no tanks, but i think that is really weak imo vs people that know how to take advantage. Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 08:44 DinoMight wrote:On April 14 2015 08:10 Gnosis wrote:On April 14 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:BUT they've given nothing back to compensate. A unit that becomes invincible (two of which can kill ~80 Zerg psi if your opponent isn't looking), and Zed, and range pickup are 'compensations'. Mind you, there are other issues that perhaps make this not so obvious. A unit that's only really viable if used with a Warp Prism. So Zerg goes Muta and shuts that down. My point is that Protoss had a number of tools it could use to dictate the pace of the game early. Now with the 3-4 base before anything happens economy, Zerg's "late game" tech switches happen much earlier. So if you don't get Ravager all-inned, by the time you have any tech to speak of Zerg can already very comfortably counter it. From all my off-race PvZ games...when i'm P i feel like Zerg is invincible and on 4 base and i'm stuck on 2, or that Z can use ravager + speedlings to just deny 3rd for so long that by the time you can maybe get 3rd nexus Z is on 5 base with high tech as you said lol
Well youve got cyclones to pressure the map I guess 
|
|
|
On April 13 2015 10:46 Honeybadger wrote:I just see a lot of meta complaining without actually waiting to see how things work. If adepts prove strong enough, they could be excellent harass defenders paired with a DEFENSIVE warp in behind the mineral line. You don't NEED to put your warp ins right in front of his army, in fact, that should be as stupid as it sounds. The thing is blizzard WANTS protoss to stop being so clumpy and slow. The beta is very much going to be in flux, and we're likely to see changes made. But right now, very, very clearly, blizzard is most interested in the new economy. So while I do agree that protoss is certainly the odd one out, being forced to rethink unit comps moreso than terran or zerg, I don't think the game has been broken. Meta wank is always the absolute nadir of this game, and it just never, ever plays out according to how things "should" be. discussing theoretical potentials of composition and structure/economy just do not EVER translate to core gameplay. Stop going off the rails and bitching at blizzard. Provide clean feedback based on what you are seeing in a way that makes their job (which is providing us with a good game, not just pissing specifically on your shoes for a laugh) easier to do, not combing through miles of speculative nonsense. As it stands, I think the economy is causing more problems than the unit comp for all races equally, maybe SLIGHTLY less so for zerg, but the DRG vs yoda style of crashing waves of units on a fortress is weakened just as much. That said, lurkers shouldn't outrange colossus. That is kind of stupid. Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 08:25 Teoita wrote:
I doubt it's only the economy, you could introduce these same changes to hots (which is reasonably balanced) minus the new units and protoss would still suffer But the thing is, protoss is not in a position with the current meta for that to be a huge problem. Protoss is already one of the most forgiving races for new players and still performs very well at the pro level. So this kind of comment is not very helpful.
I see a lot of posts like this one and it upsets me that sweeping judgements about the reality of many players' experiences are discounted as mere speculation, and that "forgiveness of race" claims are thrown about recklessly and without merit.
Is Warp-In forgiving? Yes and no. It means you can build a certain number of units at once more or less where you choose, which is nice. But, those units are hugely weak compared to their cost, and it's an excessively unforgiving macro mechanic in that you can't que up units like in Barracks to ensure maximum production uptime, and you're limited to low tech units for Warps, unlike Zerg who use one type of production (larvae) for all levels of tech units. Unlike Terran as well, you usually don't want a huge army of low tier units at the end of the game, so units that are warped in, aside from Templar, lose value for the supply they take up as the game goes on. This is also why you see Protoss so centered around hitting specific timings in matchups, as those units rapidly decline in effectiveness beyond that timing they're designed to hit.
Each race is very forgiving in its own way. Blasting all of your saved up Orbital energy on 10 MULEs at once when you've been inefficient on spending it is forgiving, as is being able to float an Orbital to a new expo that's been built in the safety of your own base. Stockpiling huge amounts of resources instead of spending it effectively and being able to have a ton of larvae banked in order to do so is forgiving, as is being able to reposition your Static D.
So, let's please stop with the "this or that is easier or more forgiving" and stick to observations of gameplay - which, if you've been watching Protoss LotV streamers, do speak to a major issue with the weakness of Gateway units and the problems Protoss has right now both early and mid game in holding attacks. Ravager rushes and Cyclone rushes are both prevalent and cripplingly effective early game. Warp gate defense midgame is also very lacking for the exact reason the OP described, and contrary to what you're saying, you actually do want the Gateway units coming in as close to the drop/harass as possible so they can close distance and end the threat as soon as possible. You can't afford to wait for the MSC to get from your third or fourth to your main (if it even has energy) or you'll lose too much to come back from. It's not just me saying this either - I recently watched HuK play ViBE, who Ravager rushed him. HuK called it from the start of the game, built a heavy forward D, and still lost his whole front wall and all Gateway units he had minus one Stalker he was microing with a Warp Prism in order to try and stay alive. Meanwhile, on ViBE's stream, he watched the replay and called the Ravager OP verbatim, while noting that he could have won the game much earlier by just following it with an a-move Ravager army attack several minutes later due to their incredible damage and attack speed. The feedback is there and available - it's not just "speculative nonsense", as you call it.
|
The entire problem with this game boils down to the speed ling. Its just too fast.
Think about it.
Seriously.
|
On April 14 2015 13:13 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
The entire problem with this game boils down to the speed ling. Its just too fast.
Think about it.
Seriously.
Haahaha.
Basically. Protoss NEEDS FF against it early. Which causes problems later if they mass Sentries. Etc.
|
I think Blizzard should reintroduce the Dragoon into the Protoss army and change stalkers in the following way.
Dragoon 125M, 50G, 2 Supply
100 HP, 80 Shields, 1 armor
Attack: 10 (20 vs armored) @ 1.44 cooldown
Stalker 100M, 75G, 2 Supply
80 HP, 80 Shields, 1 armor
Attack: 14 @ 1.44 cooldown
Dragoons are the beefier unit that can tank better and have better burst damage vs armored. Stalkers become a better harass/anti light unit. The full 14 damage attack makes them much better at killing light units in general in the early game. Increased gas cost and lowered mineral cost frees up some minerals for making the expansions you need, as well as limiting how many stalkers you can build so their numbers don't get too crazy.
So with this change, 4 stalkers (400M, 300G) have about as much offensive power vs light as 6 stalkers (750M, 300G) currently. This number of stalker is when they become a potent harassment force. They can kill a combat shield marine in one volley. They can kill a zealot in 3 volleys. SCVs can be killed in one volley and probes and drones can be as well even if you only have three stalkers.
|
On April 14 2015 13:48 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 13:13 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
The entire problem with this game boils down to the speed ling. Its just too fast.
Think about it.
Seriously.
Haahaha. Basically. Protoss NEEDS FF against it early. Which causes problems later if they mass Sentries. Etc.
UMMM... exactly... plus all those terran walls
|
I've made many posts like 6 months ago or so addressing a lot of the problems I foresaw going into the Lotv beta for protoss..... most of the problems they are facing in the beta right now. Unfortunately basically none of them have been dealt with by Blizzard as of yet.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470781-legacy-of-the-void-announced?page=50#998
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/471552-legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-development-update?page=16#310
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/473613-legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-development-update?page=10#190
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470781-legacy-of-the-void-announced?page=137#2732
I'll just post the last one in full. It's a bit pessimistic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have high hopes for LOTV, but I fear that they are going to have a hard time balancing the game with the proposed economy changes. I fear for Protoss the most, as they are going to have one hell of a time defending the 4-5 bases they need at a game time where they'd normally have at most 3 in HOTS.
Due to the warpgate mechanic removing defender's advantage, an army of warpgate units was made strictly weaker than an army of equal tier units from the other races in the mid and late game. Protoss compensated for this by only every fighting part of an army at a time (splitting up with forcefields), and by teching quickly to T3 splash (colossus mainly). Due to the extreme gas cost of getting lots of sentries // teching up and getting colossi (not to mention their lack of mobility), Protoss is more or less forced to keep all of their units in a deathball in order to protect these gas heavy units. This has always been quite bad for the game, as having an army that doubles in strength with the addition of a couple T3 units is bad game design (Needing T3 units to combat T1-T2 units is also bad game design). With this need for a deathball, Protoss has always been the weakest at being able to split their army into multiple chunks while remaining cost effective.
The Mothership core was introduced in HOTS to help Protoss with the issue of their immobile deathball, by enabling early access to both recall and photon overcharge for defense against multi-pronged harass. Recall also enabled Protoss to be out on the map with their expensive immobile army more aggressively (previously in WOL, moving out on the map generally either meant winning a fight, or losing everything, and most often the game afterwards). The problem with the Mothership core, is that it only ever really was a band-aid over more deep and fundamental design problems with the Protoss race. These fundamental problems being:
1) the inability to fight tech for tech and cost for cost over many small and spread out engagements.
2) mobility.
Through careful map design and the MSC band-aid (or through just all-inning) Protoss has been able to be successful despite these weaknesses, but the band-aid like the MSC will no longer be sufficient for a 4-5 base Toss at the same game time of a 3 base toss in HOTS. When you add into consideration the mobility of the speed medi-vac for Terran and the ability to break forcefields at Lair tech with the Ravager for Zerg, I can't see Protoss being anything other than "FUCKED" unless they get some heavy changes to their race. Protoss will need to be able to actually fight tech for tech and cost for cost in small engagements to have any chance of keeping up to the other races in expansions in LOTV. For this to happen, Protoss will need:
1) a T1.5 or T2 splash option
2) stronger gateway units
3) both.
Such changes will not only allow, but probably require Blizzard to change / nerf warp-gate, force-fields, and the colossus to compensate for the increased strength of T1-2 Protoss. While I feel the community would rejoice over such changes, I fear Blizzard will be unwilling to make them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard overcomes these challenges in a clunky, round-a-bout way by either having very regimented maps with easily accessible 4-5 bases covered in ramps / choke points galore, or by giving Protoss a gas-heavy, tech-heavy option for defending locations from small attacks, that also happens to be completely hit or miss. (Makes me think of the disruptor... 300 gas... also robo bay tech... can blow up an entire 1-2 medi-vac force or miss everything). Imagine a world in which Protoss needs to tech up to disruptors fast at like the 10 minute mark so they can put them at all of their outlying bases for defense. Sounds... sooooo... terrible.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard doesn't even recognize the need for any changes until they are well into LOTV beta and Protoss is forced to 1-3 base all-in every game in order to win...........with people complaining like mad for something to be done........ and with Blizzard eyeing the win rate percentages on Beta ladder thinking to themselves "Well the numbers are balanced from Bronze to Gold league in these match-ups. Things seem to be ok for now."
Oh the fear. I want the more spread out, more action packed, more enjoyable game LOTV aims to be.... I just fear Blizzard will be too incompetent to implement the necessary changes correctly.
|
As it stands I think that Protoss is lacking a unit to counter the power of mass zergling early game. Zerg and Terran can combat zerglings with hellions and banelings by just adding a single extra tech building (the factory or the baneling nest).
Protoss throughout all of the history of Starcraft has been forced into early walls and bigger amounts of production and tech. Regardless how you design warptech, a race that is forced to invest into high amounts of production early is forced to use and abuse it.
Enter the ravager which is designed to kill the current early game walls, canons and take the zerglings designated hardcounter - the sentry - out of the game by popular demand. Enter warpgate changes.
The solution is rather simply though, they need to make the adept work more like a hellion (strategically speaking). No focus on the gimmicky spell that cannot avoid a zergling surround. No snailing behind zerglings running circles around you.
Just plainly a speed value between 3.75 and 4.5 (depending on the amount of damage point the unit receives in return).
|
On April 14 2015 18:05 Big J wrote:
As it stands I think that Protoss is lacking a unit to counter the power of mass zergling early game. Zerg and Terran can combat zerglings with hellions and banelings by just adding a single extra tech building (the factory or the baneling nest).
Protoss throughout all of the history of Starcraft has been forced into early walls and bigger amounts of production and tech. Regardless how you design warptech, a race that is forced to invest into high amounts of production early is forced to use and abuse it.
Enter the ravager which is designed to kill the current early game walls, canons and take the zerglings designated hardcounter - the sentry - out of the game by popular demand. Enter warpgate changes.
The solution is rather simply though, they need to make the adept work more like a hellion (strategically speaking). No focus on the gimmicky spell that cannot avoid a zergling surround. No snailing behind zerglings running circles around you.
Just plainly a speed value between 3.75 and 4.5 (depending on the amount of damage point the unit receives in return).
I think you have a really good point. I'd much rather have the adept (or any new gateway core unit) be a bit slower, *not* have that copied blink ability, and instead have a little bit of splash damage (either a straight line like a hellion, or a small spray like a hellbat). It doesn't need to be a huge harass unit, but it could have plenty of utility helping deal with huge speedling surrounds and might even prove effective in mid or late game with warp prism drops/ warp-ins in mineral lines. Having minor splash damage early on would really help out the Protoss, and I'd imagine the numbers and speed could be tweaked enough so it's not like it'll do game-ending damage.
|
To deal with speedlings they could also just give the adept the muta-like bounce attack by default instead, and make the shade the research instead. Maybe even mix the shade and blink research together and make it cost 200/200 lol.
|
Yeah honestly I think Protoss's weakness comes from an inability to deal with mass Speedlings until frickin Colossus or Disruptors are out, now that forcefields can be killed...
Perhaps making the ravager ability a researched thing that takes a long time would be better?
Time it so that it can hold off an Sentry allin if scouted and researched at the right time. Sems that this fix would delay the Ravager cheese we're seeing and allow Protoss to get their 3rd at a reasonable time and get Colos to deal with Speedlings.
|
Id honestly just love to see warp gate nerfed or removed from the game/only applicable to warp prisms. Then see gateway units given a buff so that protoss can hold its ground in the early to mid game.
Most of the games fights are focused around the centre of the map because your defending 3 to 4 bases now or at least exerting a level of map control around these bases. This doesn't favour a reliance on slow to gain tech.
Basically need stalkers to be like dragoons were, spam rallied from gateways to the centre of your 4 bases and used to trade and hold the map.
|
On April 15 2015 01:31 DinoMight wrote:
Yeah honestly I think Protoss's weakness comes from an inability to deal with mass Speedlings until frickin Colossus or Disruptors are out, now that forcefields can be killed...
Perhaps making the ravager ability a researched thing that takes a long time would be better?
Time it so that it can hold off an Sentry allin if scouted and researched at the right time. Sems that this fix would delay the Ravager cheese we're seeing and allow Protoss to get their 3rd at a reasonable time and get Colos to deal with Speedlings.
I think it would be just better if Protoss had more capable mapcontrol units against speedlings instead of hiding behind walls and forcefields until the midgame. This has been a major point of critique with the PvZ matchup since 3gate sentry expands died. There is little interaction between the races for so long.
The ravager with its ability is one way to punish a Protoss relying too heavily only on walls+forcefields, granted of course that it gets balanced.
The current situation is also a huge limit for mapdesign. Protoss against Zerg without rushed out walls would allow for a much bigger variety of natural base layouts.
The contra-point to ravagers punishing overreliance on walls instead of units early would be units that force the zerg into units instead of drones early. Basically more early game dynamics for both races.
|
On April 13 2015 03:46 blade55555 wrote:
Darkness your post is kind of lol. Protoss can deal with mutalisks just fine or in HOTS they would be struggling versus zergs (hint they don't). Protoss can deal with mutas by making Phoenixes. It's their ONLY option against them, which is dumb.
I mean, if the Zerg player is transitioning to Mutas and is vulnerable, then killing them is the other option, but there is no long term solution to Mutas except Phoenixes. Terran has marines, Zerg Spore crawlers 3 shot the Mutas with a fast attack rate so mutas will pretty much always die if they try to poke in for harass near static defense.
Cannon DPS is much lower than the static AA of the other races, and they can't be repaired/transfused so Mutas have more time to deal damage and/or can kill the cannons without significant risk.
Stalkers don't have the DPS to deter them once the Muta count gets reasonably high.
Storms are easy to avoid and can't kill mutas.
Archons can't get in range to hit the mutas.
Aside from that, Protoss need a gateway "core" unit that deals high dps, particularly vs Light units, and is mobile, so it can actually deter Mutas and so they can deal with ling run-bys and defend constructing bases from relatively small numbers of units without committing significantly more than the attacker.
|
On April 15 2015 06:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 01:31 DinoMight wrote:
Yeah honestly I think Protoss's weakness comes from an inability to deal with mass Speedlings until frickin Colossus or Disruptors are out, now that forcefields can be killed...
Perhaps making the ravager ability a researched thing that takes a long time would be better?
Time it so that it can hold off an Sentry allin if scouted and researched at the right time. Sems that this fix would delay the Ravager cheese we're seeing and allow Protoss to get their 3rd at a reasonable time and get Colos to deal with Speedlings. I think it would be just better if Protoss had more capable mapcontrol units against speedlings instead of hiding behind walls and forcefields until the midgame. This has been a major point of critique with the PvZ matchup since 3gate sentry expands died. There is little interaction between the races for so long. The ravager with its ability is one way to punish a Protoss relying too heavily only on walls+forcefields, granted of course that it gets balanced. The current situation is also a huge limit for mapdesign. Protoss against Zerg without rushed out walls would allow for a much bigger variety of natural base layouts. The contra-point to ravagers punishing overreliance on walls instead of units early would be units that force the zerg into units instead of drones early. Basically more early game dynamics for both races.
Maybe zealots should two-shot zerglings?
|
On April 15 2015 10:07 Asamu2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 03:46 blade55555 wrote:
Darkness your post is kind of lol. Protoss can deal with mutalisks just fine or in HOTS they would be struggling versus zergs (hint they don't). Protoss can deal with mutas by making Phoenixes. It's their ONLY option against them, which is dumb.
3base blink is just fine, unless you are stupid and go into something like double robo Colossus behind. If anything, 3base blink is a hardcounter vs mutalisks that gets a freewin if the zerg even tries.
On April 15 2015 19:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:09 Big J wrote:On April 15 2015 01:31 DinoMight wrote:
Yeah honestly I think Protoss's weakness comes from an inability to deal with mass Speedlings until frickin Colossus or Disruptors are out, now that forcefields can be killed...
Perhaps making the ravager ability a researched thing that takes a long time would be better?
Time it so that it can hold off an Sentry allin if scouted and researched at the right time. Sems that this fix would delay the Ravager cheese we're seeing and allow Protoss to get their 3rd at a reasonable time and get Colos to deal with Speedlings. I think it would be just better if Protoss had more capable mapcontrol units against speedlings instead of hiding behind walls and forcefields until the midgame. This has been a major point of critique with the PvZ matchup since 3gate sentry expands died. There is little interaction between the races for so long. The ravager with its ability is one way to punish a Protoss relying too heavily only on walls+forcefields, granted of course that it gets balanced. The current situation is also a huge limit for mapdesign. Protoss against Zerg without rushed out walls would allow for a much bigger variety of natural base layouts. The contra-point to ravagers punishing overreliance on walls instead of units early would be units that force the zerg into units instead of drones early. Basically more early game dynamics for both races. Maybe zealots should two-shot zerglings?
I thought about this too. I'm not sure. Zealots with +1 do this, and similar to hellbats it just makes it so that zerg cannot ever engage with zerglings. It's the opposite of combating for mapcontrol, you give the Protoss a stronger deathball and timing tool, but zealots cannot really be on the map. Though with warpins of course the can harass.
As I said, I'm not sure. And it could be a problem for balance. Not that it is balanced right now, but zealots that two-shot zerglings without +1 could make for some very fast early game cheeses, timings and proxies.
|
On April 15 2015 19:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 10:07 Asamu2 wrote:On April 13 2015 03:46 blade55555 wrote:
Darkness your post is kind of lol. Protoss can deal with mutalisks just fine or in HOTS they would be struggling versus zergs (hint they don't). Protoss can deal with mutas by making Phoenixes. It's their ONLY option against them, which is dumb. 3base blink is just fine, unless you are stupid and go into something like double robo Colossus behind. If anything, 3base blink is a hardcounter vs mutalisks that gets a freewin if the zerg even tries. Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 19:11 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2015 06:09 Big J wrote:On April 15 2015 01:31 DinoMight wrote:
Yeah honestly I think Protoss's weakness comes from an inability to deal with mass Speedlings until frickin Colossus or Disruptors are out, now that forcefields can be killed...
Perhaps making the ravager ability a researched thing that takes a long time would be better?
Time it so that it can hold off an Sentry allin if scouted and researched at the right time. Sems that this fix would delay the Ravager cheese we're seeing and allow Protoss to get their 3rd at a reasonable time and get Colos to deal with Speedlings. I think it would be just better if Protoss had more capable mapcontrol units against speedlings instead of hiding behind walls and forcefields until the midgame. This has been a major point of critique with the PvZ matchup since 3gate sentry expands died. There is little interaction between the races for so long. The ravager with its ability is one way to punish a Protoss relying too heavily only on walls+forcefields, granted of course that it gets balanced. The current situation is also a huge limit for mapdesign. Protoss against Zerg without rushed out walls would allow for a much bigger variety of natural base layouts. The contra-point to ravagers punishing overreliance on walls instead of units early would be units that force the zerg into units instead of drones early. Basically more early game dynamics for both races. Maybe zealots should two-shot zerglings? I thought about this too. I'm not sure. Zealots with +1 do this, and similar to hellbats it just makes it so that zerg cannot ever engage with zerglings. It's the opposite of combating for mapcontrol, you give the Protoss a stronger deathball and timing tool, but zealots cannot really be on the map. Though with warpins of course the can harass. As I said, I'm not sure. And it could be a problem for balance. Not that it is balanced right now, but zealots that two-shot zerglings without +1 could make for some very fast early game cheeses, timings and proxies.
With the adept buff protoss might have a good answer to early speedlings without a wall. I guess the problem then is that adepts seem to be really weak against roaches and ravagers.
|
what if warped in units start with no shield?
|
Italy12246 Posts
On April 15 2015 20:35 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 19:47 Big J wrote:On April 15 2015 10:07 Asamu2 wrote:On April 13 2015 03:46 blade55555 wrote:
Darkness your post is kind of lol. Protoss can deal with mutalisks just fine or in HOTS they would be struggling versus zergs (hint they don't). Protoss can deal with mutas by making Phoenixes. It's their ONLY option against them, which is dumb. 3base blink is just fine, unless you are stupid and go into something like double robo Colossus behind. If anything, 3base blink is a hardcounter vs mutalisks that gets a freewin if the zerg even tries. On April 15 2015 19:11 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2015 06:09 Big J wrote:On April 15 2015 01:31 DinoMight wrote:
Yeah honestly I think Protoss's weakness comes from an inability to deal with mass Speedlings until frickin Colossus or Disruptors are out, now that forcefields can be killed...
Perhaps making the ravager ability a researched thing that takes a long time would be better?
Time it so that it can hold off an Sentry allin if scouted and researched at the right time. Sems that this fix would delay the Ravager cheese we're seeing and allow Protoss to get their 3rd at a reasonable time and get Colos to deal with Speedlings. I think it would be just better if Protoss had more capable mapcontrol units against speedlings instead of hiding behind walls and forcefields until the midgame. This has been a major point of critique with the PvZ matchup since 3gate sentry expands died. There is little interaction between the races for so long. The ravager with its ability is one way to punish a Protoss relying too heavily only on walls+forcefields, granted of course that it gets balanced. The current situation is also a huge limit for mapdesign. Protoss against Zerg without rushed out walls would allow for a much bigger variety of natural base layouts. The contra-point to ravagers punishing overreliance on walls instead of units early would be units that force the zerg into units instead of drones early. Basically more early game dynamics for both races. Maybe zealots should two-shot zerglings? I thought about this too. I'm not sure. Zealots with +1 do this, and similar to hellbats it just makes it so that zerg cannot ever engage with zerglings. It's the opposite of combating for mapcontrol, you give the Protoss a stronger deathball and timing tool, but zealots cannot really be on the map. Though with warpins of course the can harass. As I said, I'm not sure. And it could be a problem for balance. Not that it is balanced right now, but zealots that two-shot zerglings without +1 could make for some very fast early game cheeses, timings and proxies. With the adept buff protoss might have a good answer to early speedlings without a wall. I guess the problem then is that adepts seem to be really weak against roaches and ravagers.
That would be nice, but with their current stats (and likely post buff) adepts aren't capable of poking a zerg because slow lings and queens deal with them effectively. I suppose their design is to allow them to kill lings decently, but right now it's just not happening for a variety of reasons (mostly tied to the economy to be fair).
|
Give the adept an ability that allows them to be blinked to each other. Kind of like the Meepo poof from Dota. I think that would be fun. Obviously you'd have to balance it, maybe cap the range on it or something.
|
On April 13 2015 11:09 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 10:46 Honeybadger wrote:
But the thing is, protoss is not in a position with the current meta for that to be a huge problem. Protoss is already one of the most forgiving races for new players and still performs very well at the pro level. So this kind of comment is not very helpful. lol, forgiveness is exactly what protoss lacks, the race does not forgive mistakes from the opponent or from the protoss player, it's the race that only go big. The best way to avoid that is to play passive instead of trying to make stuff happen. Almost every action you decide to take with protoss you either win big time or get rekt. The Disruptor is like the the best example of the race as a whole. and of course I'm exaggerating a bit, sometimes disruptor trades evenly or slightly (un)favorable, but it lacks the ability to do that consistently just like the protoss race. This problem is far harder to solve than the inability of the race to grab new bases in LOTV.
I'm not sure how I feel about Disruptor. Ground only AoE, requires a lot of babysitting, is designed to be sacrificed on 1st attempt for the average encounter, and 150/300/4; compared to a lower tier Widow Mine, 75/25/2, can hit both air and ground, and does basically the same thing from a distance. You can mess with tons of variables but what I find most important is that Disruptor should have some sort of escape mechanism (or less of a committal dynamic) to make it less cheesy and more stable of a unit. You could desync the detonation with the speed/invuln buffs, making them two active buttons that need to be timed If it's going to require a lot of screen time, it should give Protoss more leeway for showing skill. You might have to nerf the damage for giving Protoss more control over the detonation, but it also let's those who plan ahead get to keep their units more frequently.
The Adept needs to fill the role of going toe to toe with MM, Speedlings, Mutas, and Stalkers. Super bad version of Blink for an ability is not going to cut it. Generalist, slow hitting, anti-light with bounce (active or passive) seems to be the most direct design that fulfills that role, even against armored Stalker because you can beat them by just being a good fighting unit.
Sentry needs to be cheaper or needs to fight better.
Zealots need to move faster, either pushing their upg to cybercore, making a new upgrade for cybercore, or just basal buffs to their speed. Where does the Zealot fit in the world of Cyclones, Helbats, and Ravagers? Where does the Zealot fit when MsC can't photon charge 5 bases at once? Zealots are good at a-moving with Warp Prism and hoping nobody pays attention to the hatch snipe.
Colossus needs to be scaled down, can't just cut 20% off of something even if it is broken and it's yucky for PvP. Pseudo removing Collo from the game and hoping the Disruptor does everything better was not the best strategy. Roach gonna get a 20% pay cut too? They are yucky for ZvZ and don't deserve all that DPS-tankiness, but they need it for the broken MMM ball and apparently Protoss can go eff themselves when the MM ball or Ravager + Roach/Ling comes knocking, all the while trying to take an earlier third.
Blizzard needs to learn to design weakness into Terran units. Can't have range, health, damage, cost, versatility, and speed like the Cyclone or Warhound. Usually just 1 or 2 is your strength, the other 2-4 are your weaknesses or you're average. The opposite with Protoss, can't be gimp at 5 of the parameters for a new unit and just have a lot of HP, like the Adept. Open up the box here. Speed and range are the most powerful parameters and thus should come with heavy detriment for being fast or high range or, contrapositively, heavy benefit for being slow and blind.
|
On April 13 2015 01:07 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a problem with this though, that goes way back to the time the Colossus way unveiled.
When Blizzard showed the colossus, and people got to play it, one of its main "features" was that it could be targeted by both Air, and ground. One of the problems with this though, is that if you were playing with Colossi, and then for some reason wanted to switch to, Carriers for example, the opponent already had the unit it needed to counter it in the game.
This problem not only still exist in LotV, but it is amplified. In TvP for example, if the game starts as Bio, and when you got your Disruptors and Colossi, and the Terran is forced to Switch into mech, and So, you switch to Stargate, well, if they didn't suicide their Vikings, they already have a counter to your Air army. This can be tweaked with numbers of course, to make it fairly balanced, however, the design problem is there.
But what happens with the Disruptor? Well, if you don't want it to be a glorified baneling, you need some way to make it survive after the explosion. The way to save it right now is either to kill everything, or use a warp prism. Now, think about that for a second. What unit counters the warp prism? The same units that counters the tier 3 of both the Robo, and the Stargate.
This is alleviated a little by the increased pick up range, but again, it is a problem that's bound to have consequences sooner or later.
This is a very good point. Right now 3 out of 4 lategame Protoss units (Colossus, Disruptor, Carrier, HT) are hard-countered by air-to-air. (Vikes and Corrs)
Given how expensive and fragile the Disruptor is, the current design only works if you have a Warp Prism ready to pick it up. That does make for some cool micro, but it pigeonholes the Disruptor quite a bit. (and makes it really risky against Vikings, you can lose 400 gas in a couple of missile salvos)
Would it be worth testing a version of the Disruptor that, for example, gets a 5-second Shield buff after exploding but cannot be picked up by Void Prisms during this time?
|
On April 16 2015 10:34 Piousflea84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 01:07 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a problem with this though, that goes way back to the time the Colossus way unveiled.
When Blizzard showed the colossus, and people got to play it, one of its main "features" was that it could be targeted by both Air, and ground. One of the problems with this though, is that if you were playing with Colossi, and then for some reason wanted to switch to, Carriers for example, the opponent already had the unit it needed to counter it in the game.
This problem not only still exist in LotV, but it is amplified. In TvP for example, if the game starts as Bio, and when you got your Disruptors and Colossi, and the Terran is forced to Switch into mech, and So, you switch to Stargate, well, if they didn't suicide their Vikings, they already have a counter to your Air army. This can be tweaked with numbers of course, to make it fairly balanced, however, the design problem is there.
But what happens with the Disruptor? Well, if you don't want it to be a glorified baneling, you need some way to make it survive after the explosion. The way to save it right now is either to kill everything, or use a warp prism. Now, think about that for a second. What unit counters the warp prism? The same units that counters the tier 3 of both the Robo, and the Stargate.
This is alleviated a little by the increased pick up range, but again, it is a problem that's bound to have consequences sooner or later. This is a very good point. Right now 3 out of 4 lategame Protoss units (Colossus, Disruptor, Carrier, HT) are hard-countered by air-to-air. (Vikes and Corrs) Given how expensive and fragile the Disruptor is, the current design only works if you have a Warp Prism ready to pick it up. That does make for some cool micro, but it pigeonholes the Disruptor quite a bit. (and makes it really risky against Vikings, you can lose 400 gas in a couple of missile salvos) Would it be worth testing a version of the Disruptor that, for example, gets a 5-second Shield buff after exploding but cannot be picked up by Void Prisms during this time?
You could change the disruptor in the following way:
- increase the radius of the explosion by a small amount
- change the damage so that it does more damage at the center and less damage at the edges, just like the siege tank
- add an effect to the explosion which gives a short stun, disorient, curse or slow to give the disruptor some room to try to escape
Just an idea of course.
|
On April 17 2015 05:18 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 10:34 Piousflea84 wrote:On April 13 2015 01:07 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a problem with this though, that goes way back to the time the Colossus way unveiled.
When Blizzard showed the colossus, and people got to play it, one of its main "features" was that it could be targeted by both Air, and ground. One of the problems with this though, is that if you were playing with Colossi, and then for some reason wanted to switch to, Carriers for example, the opponent already had the unit it needed to counter it in the game.
This problem not only still exist in LotV, but it is amplified. In TvP for example, if the game starts as Bio, and when you got your Disruptors and Colossi, and the Terran is forced to Switch into mech, and So, you switch to Stargate, well, if they didn't suicide their Vikings, they already have a counter to your Air army. This can be tweaked with numbers of course, to make it fairly balanced, however, the design problem is there.
But what happens with the Disruptor? Well, if you don't want it to be a glorified baneling, you need some way to make it survive after the explosion. The way to save it right now is either to kill everything, or use a warp prism. Now, think about that for a second. What unit counters the warp prism? The same units that counters the tier 3 of both the Robo, and the Stargate.
This is alleviated a little by the increased pick up range, but again, it is a problem that's bound to have consequences sooner or later. This is a very good point. Right now 3 out of 4 lategame Protoss units (Colossus, Disruptor, Carrier, HT) are hard-countered by air-to-air. (Vikes and Corrs) Given how expensive and fragile the Disruptor is, the current design only works if you have a Warp Prism ready to pick it up. That does make for some cool micro, but it pigeonholes the Disruptor quite a bit. (and makes it really risky against Vikings, you can lose 400 gas in a couple of missile salvos) Would it be worth testing a version of the Disruptor that, for example, gets a 5-second Shield buff after exploding but cannot be picked up by Void Prisms during this time? You could change the disruptor in the following way: - increase the radius of the explosion by a small amount - change the damage so that it does more damage at the center and less damage at the edges, just like the siege tank - add an effect to the explosion which gives a short stun, disorient, curse or slow to give the disruptor some room to try to escape Just an idea of course.
I feel like a stun on disruptor is a little bit.... useless since it's such a hit or miss unit. If it hits then everything dies and it can run away. If the enemy splits then it hits nothing and it dies (or gets picked up by a Warp Prism). You'd never have a situation in which you're able to retreat because you stunned the units that were going to kill it.
|
On April 17 2015 05:36 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 05:18 Grumbels wrote:On April 16 2015 10:34 Piousflea84 wrote:On April 13 2015 01:07 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a problem with this though, that goes way back to the time the Colossus way unveiled.
When Blizzard showed the colossus, and people got to play it, one of its main "features" was that it could be targeted by both Air, and ground. One of the problems with this though, is that if you were playing with Colossi, and then for some reason wanted to switch to, Carriers for example, the opponent already had the unit it needed to counter it in the game.
This problem not only still exist in LotV, but it is amplified. In TvP for example, if the game starts as Bio, and when you got your Disruptors and Colossi, and the Terran is forced to Switch into mech, and So, you switch to Stargate, well, if they didn't suicide their Vikings, they already have a counter to your Air army. This can be tweaked with numbers of course, to make it fairly balanced, however, the design problem is there.
But what happens with the Disruptor? Well, if you don't want it to be a glorified baneling, you need some way to make it survive after the explosion. The way to save it right now is either to kill everything, or use a warp prism. Now, think about that for a second. What unit counters the warp prism? The same units that counters the tier 3 of both the Robo, and the Stargate.
This is alleviated a little by the increased pick up range, but again, it is a problem that's bound to have consequences sooner or later. This is a very good point. Right now 3 out of 4 lategame Protoss units (Colossus, Disruptor, Carrier, HT) are hard-countered by air-to-air. (Vikes and Corrs) Given how expensive and fragile the Disruptor is, the current design only works if you have a Warp Prism ready to pick it up. That does make for some cool micro, but it pigeonholes the Disruptor quite a bit. (and makes it really risky against Vikings, you can lose 400 gas in a couple of missile salvos) Would it be worth testing a version of the Disruptor that, for example, gets a 5-second Shield buff after exploding but cannot be picked up by Void Prisms during this time? You could change the disruptor in the following way: - increase the radius of the explosion by a small amount - change the damage so that it does more damage at the center and less damage at the edges, just like the siege tank - add an effect to the explosion which gives a short stun, disorient, curse or slow to give the disruptor some room to try to escape Just an idea of course. I feel like a stun on disruptor is a little bit.... useless since it's such a hit or miss unit. If it hits then everything dies and it can run away. If the enemy splits then it hits nothing and it dies (or gets picked up by a Warp Prism). You'd never have a situation in which you're able to retreat because you stunned the units that were going to kill it.
Well, the main idea is that you increase the range while adding damage gradient so that it's equally powerful as it is now. But then you add a new effect on top of this, which has a lot more range than the current incarnation mind you, to help them escape. So it affects a lot more units than it would have before, even if the opponent splits. So he would split to avoid the damage, but if he splits to avoid the disorient effect the disruptor would have free space to run away anyhow.
You don't even need to add the spell debuff effect, which is probably overdoing it and adding unintended behaviors. But the idea of a damage gradient (more damage at the center, less at the edges) I think is really nice because it gives your opponent a choice: keep some units inside the blast radius so that they can pick off the disruptor or move them out of the blast radius completely but then risk the disruptor escaping more easily.
A second solution is to make the disruptor cheaper so that it being hit-or-miss is less important. 300 gas is sooo much, honestly I don't know what Blizzard is thinking with it.
|
On April 17 2015 05:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 05:36 DinoMight wrote:On April 17 2015 05:18 Grumbels wrote:On April 16 2015 10:34 Piousflea84 wrote:On April 13 2015 01:07 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a problem with this though, that goes way back to the time the Colossus way unveiled.
When Blizzard showed the colossus, and people got to play it, one of its main "features" was that it could be targeted by both Air, and ground. One of the problems with this though, is that if you were playing with Colossi, and then for some reason wanted to switch to, Carriers for example, the opponent already had the unit it needed to counter it in the game.
This problem not only still exist in LotV, but it is amplified. In TvP for example, if the game starts as Bio, and when you got your Disruptors and Colossi, and the Terran is forced to Switch into mech, and So, you switch to Stargate, well, if they didn't suicide their Vikings, they already have a counter to your Air army. This can be tweaked with numbers of course, to make it fairly balanced, however, the design problem is there.
But what happens with the Disruptor? Well, if you don't want it to be a glorified baneling, you need some way to make it survive after the explosion. The way to save it right now is either to kill everything, or use a warp prism. Now, think about that for a second. What unit counters the warp prism? The same units that counters the tier 3 of both the Robo, and the Stargate.
This is alleviated a little by the increased pick up range, but again, it is a problem that's bound to have consequences sooner or later. This is a very good point. Right now 3 out of 4 lategame Protoss units (Colossus, Disruptor, Carrier, HT) are hard-countered by air-to-air. (Vikes and Corrs) Given how expensive and fragile the Disruptor is, the current design only works if you have a Warp Prism ready to pick it up. That does make for some cool micro, but it pigeonholes the Disruptor quite a bit. (and makes it really risky against Vikings, you can lose 400 gas in a couple of missile salvos) Would it be worth testing a version of the Disruptor that, for example, gets a 5-second Shield buff after exploding but cannot be picked up by Void Prisms during this time? You could change the disruptor in the following way: - increase the radius of the explosion by a small amount - change the damage so that it does more damage at the center and less damage at the edges, just like the siege tank - add an effect to the explosion which gives a short stun, disorient, curse or slow to give the disruptor some room to try to escape Just an idea of course. I feel like a stun on disruptor is a little bit.... useless since it's such a hit or miss unit. If it hits then everything dies and it can run away. If the enemy splits then it hits nothing and it dies (or gets picked up by a Warp Prism). You'd never have a situation in which you're able to retreat because you stunned the units that were going to kill it. Well, the main idea is that you increase the range while adding damage gradient so that it's equally powerful as it is now. But then you add a new effect on top of this, which has a lot more range than the current incarnation mind you, to help them escape. So it affects a lot more units than it would have before, even if the opponent splits. So he would split to avoid the damage, but if he splits to avoid the disorient effect the disruptor would have free space to run away anyhow. You don't even need to add the spell debuff effect, which is probably overdoing it and adding unintended behaviors. But the idea of a damage gradient (more damage at the center, less at the edges) I think is really nice because it gives your opponent a choice: keep some units inside the blast radius so that they can pick off the disruptor or move them out of the blast radius completely but then risk the disruptor escaping more easily. A second solution is to make the disruptor cheaper so that it being hit-or-miss is less important. 300 gas is sooo much, honestly I don't know what Blizzard is thinking with it.
The idea goal would be to make the Disruptor less binary in end result. It really doesn't matter how. And seeing the ideas which I think can be built upon, what about this? In an attempt to make the simplest changes possible but to achieve a few goals of making the Disruptor self-suffice (without the need of Warp prism) and create a less binary result:
- Increase Disruptor health to 100 hit/350shield from 100hit/100shield.
- Purification Nova damage now does less the further away from the center, damage ranges from 160 to 40
- Let them move through units at all times, instead of just when using Purification Nova.
Because I doubt Blizzard will make this unit cheap after pricing it so high and trying their hardest to make it powerful. So instead, why not just make it a tank with a shield that can regenerate, which just works with their style of play.
|
I'm pretty much only watching SC2 (and playing LoL) these days but since I was a brotoss at some point I wanted to add a few ideas which I think might be cool to see in the game. Keep in mind that this is more or less from a spectator's viewpoint so I don't really claim anything in terms of viability (or, balancedness) ; )
- Nexus
Add shield battery (as in SC1/BW) and recall (with a unit limit) to the nexus.
This adds some more value to expansions while also adding additional defense and offensive options to the protoss. It should mix in well with the new fast expand economy.
Personally, I never liked the Mothership Core and with this change I think it may be safely removed (including the "nexus canon"). With the shield battery defense against rushes should be manageable and stasis wards on the oracle basically make time warp superfluous.
- Adept
Give it a semi spammable damage debuff (meaning that the Adept casts this on any enemy unit and any friendly units -- including the adept itself -- receives a damage increase against that unit).
This will make the adept a semi-support unit which can also be used to harrass (more or less an offensive sentry). The damage debuff is an ability which rewards heavy micro (spamming the ability on different adepts/ targets and focus firing) in the early game but would be largely negligible in the late game (since spamming the debuff on enemy units probably is not the smartest use of APM in large army battles; except maybe on massive units).
I suggest keeping the shade ability as an escape/ engage tool. It should be cancelable to allow for escape trickery.
- Immortal
Make the shield ability completely negate the next attack the immortal receives (with toggle auto-cast). The cooldown should be relatively low. To balance this the immortal's range should be lowered and damage against armored should be reduced.
The immortal currently is used mostly for its DPS against armored units and structures but it always seemed to me that its tanking role is undervalued (or underdeveloped). The immortal for me should be a strong pushing unit which you mainly build when you attack an enemy base. It should be in the front soaking up damage, while at the same time razing defense structures (and armored units).
[With this change the immortal would again do very well against tanks in siege mode; while tanks in in non-siege mode would do much better (because of the faster attack rate). For that reason I don't think it would turn back the clock on mech viability versus protoss.]
- Tempest
I think this unit should fill a supplementing damage role in a protoss air army. Personally I'd give it two attacks: (1) high damage versus structures (2) an attack against air and ground units with high range and a low radius splash damage.
This change makes the Tempest a flying siege tank both in terms of offense and defense. With the low radius splash damage against units the Tempest can add some very reliable AoE. I think it would be especially useful in defending bases against muta balls in ZvP.
- Oracle
Give it a decent air to ground attack for harrass and remove the death-ray. It should also have an (energy based or passive) cloaking field ability (with a lower radius than the Mothership; multiple oracle's to cover the whole army). The revelation/ detection spell is very good and should stay on the oracle.
I think this unit to some degree should fit a role similar to the Arbiter in SC1/BW. The addition of stasis was a really good move in my opinion. With the addition of the cloaking field the Mothership can be removed (it's borderline useless in its current state anyway).
- Disruptor
Remove this unit.
The gameplay of Protoss in SC2 is unique in the way that it revolves around the idea of divide and conquer (i.e. controlling the enemy army and picking your fights) and outlasting the enemy army. Protoss armies typically cannot simply outgun a terran or zerg army in a straight up battle and this is a good thing.
The disruptor doesn't really fit into this gameplay. It's essentially a scarab that builds in the robo bay; or rather, a really expensive baneling. A fire and forget unit. I don't think a unit like that suits the SC2 protoss style very well.
Hope you like some of these ideas. I might have some more at a later point in time. Any feedback is welcome! : )
|
Protoss is broken design-wise at its core since the SC2 came out. First of all it's a build order race. Win hard or lose hard.
I'd say remove protoss entirely, make a shiny metallic yellow skin for Terran and name it Protoss  then there would be 3 good designed races in the game.
|
Has anyone tested the marauder change versus guardian shield? I imagine this would make MMM a lot weaker versus protoss.
|
Do Disruptors take damage from banelings if it kills them?
|
What about making disruptors get the increased speed when activated, but deal DOT? They can then deal partial damage and run away, or fully commit.
|
On April 20 2015 13:49 lpunatic wrote:
What about making disruptors get the increased speed when activated, but deal DOT? They can then deal partial damage and run away, or fully commit.
This is actually pretty much what I was going to suggest. You could maybe even take it one step further and make it so that they ALWAYS deal damage over time, but the ability lets them go invulnerable and speed up for a bit. Would make it even more important when you activate the ability. Also, doing this means that if the AoE damage doesn't stack, it would force the protoss player to spread out the disruptor even more. Could lead to some really interesting micro.
|
On April 20 2015 15:22 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 13:49 lpunatic wrote:
What about making disruptors get the increased speed when activated, but deal DOT? They can then deal partial damage and run away, or fully commit. This is actually pretty much what I was going to suggest. You could maybe even take it one step further and make it so that they ALWAYS deal damage over time, but the ability lets them go invulnerable and speed up for a bit. Would make it even more important when you activate the ability. Also, doing this means that if the AoE damage doesn't stack, it would force the protoss player to spread out the disruptor even more. Could lead to some really interesting micro.
I could imagine some fun times if they kept friendly fire :p
|
On April 20 2015 16:01 lpunatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 15:22 StalkerFang wrote:On April 20 2015 13:49 lpunatic wrote:
What about making disruptors get the increased speed when activated, but deal DOT? They can then deal partial damage and run away, or fully commit. This is actually pretty much what I was going to suggest. You could maybe even take it one step further and make it so that they ALWAYS deal damage over time, but the ability lets them go invulnerable and speed up for a bit. Would make it even more important when you activate the ability. Also, doing this means that if the AoE damage doesn't stack, it would force the protoss player to spread out the disruptor even more. Could lead to some really interesting micro. I could imagine some fun times if they kept friendly fire :p
Oh man I would love that haha. That would be hilarious.
|
just make our gateway/core units strong now...gateway timings are nearly obsolete with the 2 wg nerfs
|
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.
|
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?
|
just put disruptor at cyber and delay the prism somehow, 2 ravager shots for a ff, and give the adept another slight health boost and raise attack speed considerably. Will that fix the tears?
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.
|
yeah maybe if you actually played protoss in lotv you would be qualified in giving criticism or advice on the race and the way its supposed to be played.
|
So I agree with a lot of the OP and thought I'd bump this thread and post a tweet from Puck, it's not just about Protoss but still important. I also want to add my own thoughts.
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 .
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 29 2015 04:22 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Very good point, seeing 14 or so sentries always feel wrong indeed. Should be more special.
|
On April 29 2015 04:33 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 04:22 JCoto wrote: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. 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.
|
On April 29 2015 04:22 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On April 29 2015 04:43 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 04:33 Musicus wrote:On April 29 2015 04:22 JCoto wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
