|
For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit.
I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes?
To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly.
Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
|
Do BCs and Carriers actually have a role? Does Z have a late game composition that can match mech or protoss? These things need answers,
|
Lurker isn't pointless ! Lurker is life ! Gogo lurker BW style ~ I am not even in LOTV, but these changes seem good.
|
On April 15 2015 16:38 huller20 wrote:
Do BCs and Carriers actually have a role? Does Z have a late game composition that can match mech or protoss? These things need answers,
We're in super early beta and most good players are playing HotS. Remember, nobody made Infestors for like 2 years in WoL. As of now it seems Carriers certainly do have a role, they are very powerful and seem to be what Protoss should aim for in the late-game against many compositions. It also seems at the moment that Zerg might have the strongest lategame, 8 armour Ultralisks are insane, Viper Irradiate is insane, Corruptors seem a lot more useful and new Adrenal Glands Zerglings are great.
|
I think this first wave of invites is just to get some general feel of things and these first "minor" tweaks are in line with that. We have a LONG beta - let's go slowly.
That said, I think the robo (or immortal) could use a cost adjustment if blizzard envisions P having more than one off 2 base.
Why would blizzard really discuss economy changes before we've really gotten a chance to see how it works? Again, we've had 1 week of very limited testing. Granted, I do like the "reward expansion" over "punish turtle" (especially as it puts pressure on the player vs player instead of player vs clock) however let's not rush everything at once.
|
Italy12247 Posts
On April 15 2015 16:23 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit. I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes? To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly. Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
Something like this (double robo or even double star void, before the phoenix buff) was discussed when protoss were trying to figure out how to not die to roach max: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/320894-pvz-beating-stephano-style-roaches
The opinion of most good players in that thread was that yes, you stop roaches (or ravager i imagine), but immortals are not versatile enough to deal with basically anything else (mutas being the scariest thing, fast hive for broodlords was also an issue at the time); the zerg can too easily adjust to what you're doing and tech switch, and since that time PvZ has become much, much more about tech switches anyway. Even if you scout this consistently (which as you said isn't that obvious with the current pacing of the game), double robo opens up a bunch of other problems for the protoss.
|
On April 15 2015 16:23 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit. I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes?To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly. Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
in a standard game protoss is blindly gonna tech to robo or stargate anyways so thats not an issue, the main thing is that we need a cheap "low tech" counter to the ravager in both tech trees because its a hatch tech unit.
right now void rays are a viable answer to them but immortals aren't, the only way to deal with ravagers on robo tech is with disruptors and thats obviously not an optimal tech path when we're on 2 bases. it delays your 3rd for a long time and gives zerg alot of map control, they can easily go up to 4 bases and tech switch into mutas.. it usually doesnt end well for protoss when that happens.
EDIT: oh shit i miss-read your post, my bad. against a fast 2base ravager push you won't have enough time but vs 3hatch ravager you most likely would, although i dont think its a very optimal playstyle. it doesnt really make alot of sense if protoss is forced to go into duo robo immortal in order to take our 3rd safely vs a hatch tech unit. in any case i do agree that the immortal needs to be a core unit, if it doesnt become a solid anti-ravager unit then robo tech wont be a viable opener in pvz (that being said another issue is that ravagers are extremely cost efficient vs gate units, especially sentries).
|
On April 15 2015 17:19 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 16:23 Hider wrote: For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit. I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes? To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly. Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant. Something like this (double robo or even double star void, before the phoenix buff) was discussed when protoss were trying to figure out how to not die to roach max: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/320894-pvz-beating-stephano-style-roachesThe opinion of most good players in that thread was that yes, you stop roaches (or ravager i imagine), but immortals are not versatile enough to deal with basically anything else (mutas being the scariest thing, fast hive for broodlords was also an issue at the time); the zerg can too easily adjust to what you're doing and tech switch, and since that time PvZ has become much, much more about tech switches anyway. Even if you scout this consistently (which as you said isn't that obvious with the current pacing of the game), double robo opens up a bunch of other problems for the protoss.
Yeah, Immos are a wasted apportunity to have some very strong core unit.
Immortals need some love.
Decreased cost to 200/100 minimum (better for adepp/zealot immmortal compos), decreased build time by 10 s at least, and maybe their damage slighly reworked to be stonger vs more thigs, like 30+20vs armored.
|
Italy12247 Posts
I'm not a fan of immortals being a core unit that we always need tbh. They still have the issue of not being very versatile no matter how you tweak their damage, and i'd prefer if Protoss was designed so that our robo production time is mostly warp prisms/observers with situatioanlly immortals or disruptors.
|
oh !@#$%^&* i didnt read the ADDITIONAL part, my bad. against a fast 2base ravager push you won't have enough time but vs 3hatch ravager you most likely would, although i dont think its a very optimal playstyle. ideally we should be able to take our 3rd safely by going 1 robo immo + gate units vs ravagers.
Yeh I wasn't sure the "use multiple Robitics Facilities" comment from David Kim was realistic either. At least not untill the later stages of the game.
I'm not a fan of immortals being a core unit that we always need tbh. They still have the issue of not being very versatile no matter how you tweak their damage, and i'd prefer if Protoss was designed so that our robo production time is mostly warp prisms/observers with situatioanlly immortals or disruptors.
I agree that a 2.25 Immortal with 6 range and the default damage point of 0.16 with a "press a button"-ability shouldn't be a core unit. This type of unit is too specialized and doesn't reward proper micro.
But I think it is very important that protoss gets a strong core army that cannot be warped in at the same time (high cost efficiency + warp-in is a bad combo due to lack of defenders advantage).
This is why I propose several changes to the Immortal and I would like to make it feel a bit more like a Dragoon in terms of mobility and production speed.
|
Quick thoughts/my opinion:
Adept change:
Good, juke city
Immortal:
Idiotic change. Let's make siege tanks just as useless as HOTS/WOL vs toss. Un-necessary.
Cyclone:
I recommended same type of change. Gives more opportunity to micro vs it since people don't realize right now the way you micro vs cyclone is same as you do vs raven seeker - move the unit away, cyclone loses it's lock on. This change is good.
Lurker:
Good change, will see more of them.
Tempest:
Why does this need an ability that is uber late game abuse. Remove this ability immediately.
Last thoughts as a lot of other people are thinking:
Test double harvest economy or other similar model please. LOTV econ right now = "gun to your head economy" which is not fun at all and removes too many defensive options.
Protoss/Mech become more viable when you are allowed to play defensive. TL proposed economy model allows for defensive play + offensive play + rewards you for expanding, rather than punishing you for not.
|
im worried for new terran content, i hate the cyclone and they already removed the herc. i think they need 2 new units altogether. maybe some sort of new science vessel type unit, or a lategame addon that works as both a techlab and a reactor like in the WOL campaign, maybe make it a research upgrade in the fusion core that transforms all ur addons to the mega addon which fills both roles to give terran remaxing some flexibility perhaps?
zerg looks great, i love the ravager and the lurker additions, although ravager might be a big too big aesthetically for a roach evolution, it kinda overshadows everything else in a composition.
i want to like the adept but as a protoss player something feels weird about it, i want it to be able to fill a core gateway role like blizzard intends for it but i dont know if i can see it working with this units design-
i would much prefer adding a dragoon, and making the stalker a twilight council tech unit, protoss gateway units need to be buffed if they are to be viable in the mid game without sentries or splash, and although stalkers are an amazing unit with blink, they are flimsy and not very durable, and durability and quality for expensiveness has always been the entire idea of protoss units. I never liked the idea of them being a core unit, theyre dark templars by lore, and they should be for harassing and blinking hit squads not giant numbers in a big deathball, thats what a dragoon should be for.
dunno wtf to do about the tempest. the unit was only ever in the game coz infestor broodlord was broken in WOL, if its not an issue anymore i dont see why it should even stay, although aesthetically its really cool, it still fills no role, and i dont like the skirmisher role its trying to be pushed towards, thats what phoenix are for, turn it back to siege or remove it imo
a shield battery might also be a cool addition
also whats the deal with the collosus? i dont get whats happening there at all...
|
On April 15 2015 18:02 Champi wrote:
im worried for new terran content, i hate the cyclone and they already removed the herc. i think they need 2 new units altogether. maybe some sort of new science vessel type unit, or a lategame addon that works as both a techlab and a reactor like in the WOL campaign, maybe make it a research upgrade in the fusion core that transforms all ur addons to the mega addon which fills both roles to give terran remaxing some flexibility perhaps?
zerg looks great, i love the ravager and the lurker additions, although ravager might be a big too big aesthetically for a roach evolution, it kinda overshadows everything else in a composition.
i want to like the adept but as a protoss player something feels weird about it, i want it to be able to fill a core gateway role like blizzard intends for it but i dont know if i can see it working with this units design-
i would much prefer adding a dragoon, and making the stalker a twilight council tech unit, protoss gateway units need to be buffed if they are to be viable in the mid game without sentries or splash, and although stalkers are an amazing unit with blink, they are flimsy and not very durable, which is the entire idea of protoss units. I never liked the idea of them being a core unit, theyre dark templars by lore, and they should be for harassing and blinking hit squads not giant numbers in a big deathball, thats what a dragoon should be for.
dunno wtf to do about the tempest. the unit was only ever in the game coz infestor broodlord was broken in WOL, if its not an issue anymore i dont see why it should even stay, although aesthetically its really cool, it still fills no role, and i dont like the skirmisher role its trying to be pushed towards, thats what phoenix are for, turn it back to siege or remove it imo
a shield battery might also be a cool addition
also whats the deal with the collosus? i dont get whats happening there at all...
Blizzard has confirmed they are adding a 2nd new Terran unit, and have even told us what they are currently experimenting with. It's a Reactor-able slightly-more-expensive-than-Banshee Starport unit with AoE air-to-air that can transform into another mode which makes it air-to-ground with 9 range single-target.
|
On April 15 2015 17:13 y0su wrote:
I think this first wave of invites is just to get some general feel of things and these first "minor" tweaks are in line with that. We have a LONG beta - let's go slowly.
That said, I think the robo (or immortal) could use a cost adjustment if blizzard envisions P having more than one off 2 base.
Why would blizzard really discuss economy changes before we've really gotten a chance to see how it works? Again, we've had 1 week of very limited testing. Granted, I do like the "reward expansion" over "punish turtle" (especially as it puts pressure on the player vs player instead of player vs clock) however let's not rush everything at once.
The voice of reason speaking!
I find it amazing how people cry for economy changes just 2 weeks after big economy changes were introduced with the beta 
Of course Blizzard could just try out all the suggested economy models for a week or two, however, I don't think we would be able to deduct much useful information this way since the economy is so fundamental that a change to it influences the entire balance of the game.
|
On April 15 2015 17:48 Teoita wrote:
I'm not a fan of immortals being a core unit that we always need tbh. They still have the issue of not being very versatile no matter how you tweak their damage, and i'd prefer if Protoss was designed so that our robo production time is mostly warp prisms/observers with situatioanlly immortals or disruptors.
But is what Protoss needs. Some strong "almost core" unit to eliminate the desperate need of robo bay splash. Gateway army isn't able to cover all the roles, and what's more, it shouln't.
Immortals could be the complementary DPS and strong sustain that the Gateway army needs. By tweaking their damage, you make them effectively stronger vs light units reducing the amount of shots to kill them, specially marines and hydralisks (2shot marines, 3shot hydras) and 1 shoot zrglings at +3. That would be a hughe performance increase, with their base DPS increased by 50%(50%, 33%, and 100% respectively) so it would result in much higher flexibility. That is something that protoss has been demanding for years, easier time killing masseable fragile units with high DPS. That's why the adept was introduced and is being buffed to stupid levels of tankiness now.
However, I agree with you that Immo's speed and range don't help much their flexibily. But maybe with a little more speed and the alpha +1 range (up to 7) Immortals could play a very interesting role there.
We need to remove the " hero" status off Immortals, moving towards a more flexible unit, specially vs light units that the Protoss find problematic, more mobile, and less hardcountering, being slightly cheaper and a bit easier to produce.
What we need first is to tune the Immo ability/trait
Making tech situational or niche is not a very good design Immao. Look at Zerg and Terran now. They are being given options to make every tech tree really usable.
|
On April 15 2015 18:02 avilo wrote:
Immortal:
Idiotic change. Let's make siege tanks just as useless as HOTS/WOL vs toss. Un-necessary.
Cyclone:
I recommended same type of change. Gives more opportunity to micro vs it since people don't realize right now the way you micro
Because Immortals are really really really good right now, am I right? Cyclones also have tons of super intense micro involved right now, and the range reduction is totally going to open that up more vs stalkers which have like, half that range right?
Please stop confusing lower league players on this forum with such posts.
Thanks.
|
On April 15 2015 18:02 avilo wrote:
Quick thoughts/my opinion:
Adept change:
Good, juke city
Immortal:
Idiotic change. Let's make siege tanks just as useless as HOTS/WOL vs toss. Un-necessary.
Cyclone:
I recommended same type of change. Gives more opportunity to micro vs it since people don't realize right now the way you micro vs cyclone is same as you do vs raven seeker - move the unit away, cyclone loses it's lock on. This change is good.
Lurker:
Good change, will see more of them.
Tempest:
Why does this need an ability that is uber late game abuse. Remove this ability immediately.
Last thoughts as a lot of other people are thinking:
Test double harvest economy or other similar model please. LOTV econ right now = "gun to your head economy" which is not fun at all and removes too many defensive options.
Protoss/Mech become more viable when you are allowed to play defensive. TL proposed economy model allows for defensive play + offensive play + rewards you for expanding, rather than punishing you for not.
I think you're overreacting a bit to the Immortal buff.
In an optimal battle, now Immortal shield/barrier absorbs 6 tank shots (from 4 previous).
Ability lasts only 3s, that is one tank volley. Immos will ussually have time to absorb 1 or 2 Shots only. That has not changed.
So it's quite brained to say that the change doesn't specifically affect Siege tanks much.
You also have flying siege tanks with the medivac thing with no upgrade requirement. And Immortals dont shoot up and move far slower than medivacs.
Do you still need mech to be more abusable?
It's obviously targeted at Ravagers and Roaches.
|
Immortals could be the complementary DPS and strong sustain that the Gateway army needs. By tweaking their damage, you make them effectively stronger vs light units reducing the amount of shots to kill them, specially marines and hydralisks (2shot marines, 3shot hydras) and 1 shoot zrglings at +3. That would be a hughe performance increase, with their base DPS increased by 50%(50%, 33%, and 100% respectively) so it would result in much higher flexibility. That is something that protoss has been demanding for years, easier time killing masseable fragile units with high DPS. That's why the adept was introduced and is being buffed to stupid levels of tankiness now.
However, I agree with you that Immo's speed and range don't help much their flexibily. But maybe with a little more speed and the alpha +1 range (up to 7) Immortals could play a very interesting role there.
Your correct that it needs to do better vs light, but I think you accomplish more flexibility with a mobility/range + responsiveness change. It simply becomes much easier to move it around, kite and target fire what you want with such a change. Thus with such a change it won't need any damage buff vs light to feel like less of a hardcounter unit.
On top of that you now have Adepts which are good vs light units.
|
On April 15 2015 18:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Immortals could be the complementary DPS and strong sustain that the Gateway army needs. By tweaking their damage, you make them effectively stronger vs light units reducing the amount of shots to kill them, specially marines and hydralisks (2shot marines, 3shot hydras) and 1 shoot zrglings at +3. That would be a hughe performance increase, with their base DPS increased by 50%(50%, 33%, and 100% respectively) so it would result in much higher flexibility. That is something that protoss has been demanding for years, easier time killing masseable fragile units with high DPS. That's why the adept was introduced and is being buffed to stupid levels of tankiness now.
However, I agree with you that Immo's speed and range don't help much their flexibily. But maybe with a little more speed and the alpha +1 range (up to 7) Immortals could play a very interesting role there. Your correct that it needs to do better vs light, but I think you accomplish more flexibility with a mobility/range + responsiveness change. It simply becomes much easier to move it around, kite and target fire what you want with such a change.
Yeah, that is what I wrote below the damage thing. 2.625 speed could work. Also the turret fix would be useful.
The huge problem yet is the ability. However, I think that they aren't moving in a bad direction.Also, I think we can't buff much thir movement/range while keepin actual damage values
I also think that Tanks in tank mode should be buffed, specially in terms of micro, and possibly range up to 7.5 or 8. Old BW tanks used to have 2 range advatage over pgraded ranged units and 3 over unupgraded ones. Here in SC2 we don't have range upgrades except for the hydralisk, and the siege tank in tank mode has only 1 range advantage over ranged units, plus a very defficient micro.!
|
Called the 200 damage shield buff on immortals so hard :D
The direction is right. But some changes feel really pushed. Like the lurker range, why not just remove the lurker den? Why are they so obsessed in making it happen in ZvZ, when they were never used in that MU in broodwar? Also the Tempest ability, nobody cares about this unit xD
They seriously need to adress the economy problems first tho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
