On May 12 2015 04:57 DinoMight wrote: People are talking like Protoss isn't the weakest race at the moment.
Protoss needs to be buffed. It is the weakest race right now. And that buff has to go to a unit or another.
There isn't a single Protoss unit that Terran/Zerg don't hate:
Zealots (too strong, charge is bullshit,A-move unit) Stalkers (Blink imba etc) Adepts (broken as hell in high nubmers vs Terran right now) Templar (storm OP omg) - edit: apparently feedback OP too now (there is a thread about it) DTs (no explanation needed). Mothership core (imba, protoss doesn't need any defense photon overcharge OP) Disruptor (OP omg it becomes invincible!) Colossus (Dumb A-move unit, no skill) Observer (unlimited vision everywhere, map hacks) Warp Prism (warp in 25 units at a time anywhere on the map?? stupid pickup range) Immortal (Mech isn't viable, hard counter unit, stupid etc.) Oracles (coinflippy bullshit) Void Rays (OP) Tempests ("unbeatable in high numbers" why does a unit need so much range???) Carriers (dump all the interceptors whatttt??)
Sorry.. I guess the Phoenix is okay.
But seriously... Protoss is underperforming. So ONE of these units has to be buffed, at the very least. Would you rather an extra recall or two, or double damage Storm? More Colossus range? Void Ray upgrade vs Light? Bigger disruptors.
Think about it......
The funny thing is that you point out exactly what the problem is in your post.
The problem is that Protoss units suck. They're also ineffectual in LOTV, but that's a separate matter.
First they need to not suck. Then they can be made strong enough.
Making A-move units stronger is the LAST thing we should be doing in LOTV. If we hadn't learned our lesson by WOL, then we should have by HOTS. Zealots don't need buffs, they need to be changed so that PartinG and Zest can do things with them that absolutely no other Protoss in the world can. Until that is a reality, making them even stronger is just dumb.
I've suggested this many times: if it's impossible to change units like the Zealot and Archon to make them more interesting (not sure what the state of the Immortal in LOTV is), then what those units need is an ability - on the Nexus, on a support caster, somewhere - to force those units to micro. .
That shows a serious misconception from your game perception.
Every unit with limited mobility and microability (responsiveness) or very limited micro is doomed to be an "A-move". By giving speed and responsiveness you get Kiting and dynamic splitting, but they are still "A-moves" that only move and shot. For example, TvP when the Protoss has no splash is an A-move game from Terran (I can beat you, I press T and A-move into you). ZvP Roach Hydra is about positioning and A-moving Roaches, Lings and Hydras, Hellbats are about A-moving too, and maxed Toss with 5 colossus is A-moving too. A big part of the game is positioning and A-moving one army into another, as in many RTS games. You don't need fancy abilities for micro to happen; this is not a MOBA.
Every Meele/Short range unit is a false "A-move unit" Zerglings, banelings, Zealots, Ultralisks, but also Hellbats and Archons, since you need to maximize their potential mobility for the engage. In order to get them to be effective at max, you have to pre-split them before engaging, increasing the effectivity of the units as they will get more area surface than just A-moving them in a deathball, as the AI would make them to trip each other.
If you build up and move a ball of units, it is much less effective than pre-spliting for the concave or the sourround, and maximizing DPS density. And that applies to almost all units except air units. For ranged units, the smaller they are, the more "A-move" they become because they maintain a good DPS density in the "ball" (marines, adepts).
Throwing Zealots at Bio is 90% the same than throwing Zerglings and Banelings. You maximize damage by pre-splits, good positioning, and forcing the Bio to counter-micro. So "A-moving" Zealots is very similar to "A-moving" lingbane. In both cases, getting good trades is very difficult to achieve. In both cases, getting good surface area is relatively hard. Zealots are hardly cost efficient in that cases. So yes, they might need buffs.
The problem of Zealots is that they are balanced around Charge. And Charge is a mechanic that removes control from your Zealots, as they auto-engage. But Charge is there to compensate for Concussive Shells effect. You need to tune both to achieve a good usability of Zealots in PvT. Concussive Shells completely negates any possible micro from Zealots, both in attack and retreat.
BW Zealots were amazing because Zealots were faster than many units, ensuring that it was relatively easier to get into engagements, but also because the engine splitted units as they moved. Making them relatively useful, and with good micro they could somewhat force the nature of the movement engine at their favor (kiting -> auto unit spread) The nature of the SC2 engine makes Zealots weaker by default, and if Zealots had the same mobility as they had back in BW, they would be much more microable than actual Zealots, forcing to get good pres-plits in order to be effective against the clumps of units.
BTW, for all that Terrans saying "Protoss A-move" Managing an army of 5 types of different units is more complex than stuttersteping 2 units that have exactly the same micro.
Making A-move units stronger is the LAST thing we should be doing in LOTV.
With a low movement speed and high damage point, Marines would also be the ultimate a-move unit. The point here is that solid mobility and responsiveness is essential for units to be microable.
The primitive tension between melee and ranged units is that ranged units have the initiative (thanks to their range), but should obviously be weaker in “face to face” combat when melee units manage to successfully close the distance. Hence ranged units tend towards hit & run behaviour to maximize their advantage, while melee units obviously charge to use their own advantage. What makes Charge Zealots and Cyclones so terrible is that they're the pure automation of the archetypal behaviour of their respective category. Charge is the dream of any melee unit, while infinite hit & run is the dream of any ranged unit. And that's why they should never have access to it (at least not without heavy costs/counterparties created through various barriers in the game-user architecture, e. g. monopolizing the attention through micro, having a minor impact on the grand scheme of things, etc.). That's also why burrowed Charge Ultralisks would have been a huge joke, or why automating their “melee approach” by forcing zero collision size with Zerglings would be terribad. But none of this is an accident; it's perfectly representative of the “completeness mindset” in SC2. + Show Spoiler +
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves. SC2 suffered because the “completeness of the circle of the counters” is inherently an inflationnary process leaving less and less room for the player.
Completeness is toxic for the game. Structural holes are what makes things interesting. For instance, Terran would stop being Terran if they received some metaphysical horror like the “tech reactors” from the campaign or static defence (or more brainless melee units). Having those structural holes within the architecture of the race is what defines it. Working around structural holes is players' job.
You don't play, you simply execute the automated, prepared script.
On May 13 2015 21:48 TheDwf wrote: The primitive tension between melee and ranged units is that ranged units have the initiative (thanks to their range), but should obviously be weaker in “face to face” combat when melee units manage to successfully close the distance. Hence ranged units tend towards hit & run behaviour to maximize their advantage, while melee units obviously charge to use their own advantage. What makes Charge Zealots and Cyclones so terrible is that they're the pure automation of the archetypal behaviour of their respective category. Charge is the dream of any melee unit, while infinite hit & run is the dream of any ranged unit. And that's why they should never have access to it (at least not without heavy costs/counterparties created through various barriers in the game-user architecture, e. g. monopolizing the attention through micro, having a minor impact on the grand scheme of things, etc.). That's also why burrowed Charge Ultralisks would have been a huge joke, or why automating their “melee approach” by forcing zero collision size with Zerglings would be terribad. But none of this is an accident; it's perfectly representative of the “completeness mindset” in SC2. + Show Spoiler +
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves. SC2 suffered because the “completeness of the circle of the counters” is inherently an inflationnary process leaving less and less room for the player.
Completeness is toxic for the game. Structural holes are what makes things interesting. For instance, Terran would stop being Terran if they received some metaphysical horror like the “tech reactors” from the campaign or static defence (or more brainless melee units). Having those structural holes within the architecture of the race is what defines it. Working around structural holes is players' job.
You don't play, you simply execute the automated, prepared script.
This comes down to: How important should be the strategy/tactic in comparison to the execution. There is no right answer to this i am afraid
Maybe it would be helpful to gateway comps if widow mines used energy? That way, at least protoss could use feedback and give zealots a chance to trade with some units before getting deleted.
On May 13 2015 22:49 BaronVonOwn wrote: Maybe it would be helpful to gateway comps if widow mines used energy? That way, at least protoss could use feedback and give zealots a chance to trade with some units before getting deleted.
If WidowMines didn't hardcounter HT/Zealot so hard and if Colossus tech wasn't an easy solution. I think there would be a cool interaction between Zealots and Widow Mines the same way it is in TvZ I would really love that. Could be that in 5 years some Protoss player called ZealotKing comes along and shows us how PvT is supposed to be played though
On May 13 2015 22:49 BaronVonOwn wrote: Maybe it would be helpful to gateway comps if widow mines used energy? That way, at least protoss could use feedback and give zealots a chance to trade with some units before getting deleted.
If WidowMines didn't hardcounter HT/Zealot so hard and if Colossus tech wasn't an easy solution. I think there would be a cool interaction between Zealots and Widow Mines the same way it is in TvZ I would really love that. Could be that in 5 years some Protoss player called ZealotKing comes along and shows us how PvT is supposed to be played though
Well actually they added 2 hard counters for zealots in HOTS, widow mines and hellbats. Where's the hard counter for marines? Oh that's right, colossus. Seems like you need colossus for everything. Anyway, problem with colossus is that it's easily sniped. Once your colossus are dead, marines walk all over you. Meanwhile, there's no way to snipe widow mines or hellbats. You just can't build zealots anymore. Same can be said with tempests vs. brood lords. Once 4-5 tempests are out, forget about building brood lords for the rest of the game. Muta harass in the ZvT matchup was also devastated by this wonderful zero-effort widow mine unit. Maybe we should take autocast away from widow mines in addition to making them use energy.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, I've realized what a terrible expansion HOTS is. They added a few hard-counters meant to be band-aids, and also blessed us with swarm hosts. They may as well have removed zealots and brood lords from the game.
On May 12 2015 03:38 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: >Mass Recall cost reduced from 100 energy to 50 energy
Because why should a protoss player ever have to worry about good army positioning and movement? Let's just make it so they can have all their units anywhere they want at any time with no consequence! With recall and photon overcharge, there's no need to ever have defensive units at all and you can always move out without worry of being punished ever.
They say they want to discourage deathball play, then they make units like the mothership core encourage it in every way. I'm at a loss for words at how dumb this is.
This first post wins the Thread no competition. Its spot on how they put no thoughts in their ideas and it lets you question their decisions once again.
Really disappointing patchnotes in general. Just experiment, the beta is still kept pretty private. Do something about Tanks and Thors. MediTank out, BW Tanks like someone said here. Better Tanks would solve a lot of problems. Maybe bring back Siege Mode to compensate or make Factorys 200M 100G like in BW. Of course do something for the other races too. Make Zerg more swarm like , too many Units have too many supply and make Protoss strong and durable like they should not be... dumb like some of them are.
But im hyped for the new Terran Unit, how it looks what attributes it will have,name, gender etc.
On May 13 2015 21:48 TheDwf wrote: The primitive tension between melee and ranged units is that ranged units have the initiative (thanks to their range), but should obviously be weaker in “face to face” combat when melee units manage to successfully close the distance. Hence ranged units tend towards hit & run behaviour to maximize their advantage, while melee units obviously charge to use their own advantage. What makes Charge Zealots and Cyclones so terrible is that they're the pure automation of the archetypal behaviour of their respective category. Charge is the dream of any melee unit, while infinite hit & run is the dream of any ranged unit. And that's why they should never have access to it (at least not without heavy costs/counterparties created through various barriers in the game-user architecture, e. g. monopolizing the attention through micro, having a minor impact on the grand scheme of things, etc.). That's also why burrowed Charge Ultralisks would have been a huge joke, or why automating their “melee approach” by forcing zero collision size with Zerglings would be terribad. But none of this is an accident; it's perfectly representative of the “completeness mindset” in SC2. + Show Spoiler +
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves. SC2 suffered because the “completeness of the circle of the counters” is inherently an inflationnary process leaving less and less room for the player.
Completeness is toxic for the game. Structural holes are what makes things interesting. For instance, Terran would stop being Terran if they received some metaphysical horror like the “tech reactors” from the campaign or static defence (or more brainless melee units). Having those structural holes within the architecture of the race is what defines it. Working around structural holes is players' job.
You don't play, you simply execute the automated, prepared script.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge, or ultra without fungal/some charge mecanism, the "yeah terran micro", while spamming A /right click behind your unit is not that hard, and everyone can perform, while whoever you are, if you have the zealot, you can't get the MM without charge. You ask for a strategic game, but if it's just : Take terran, master hit and run, and you can't be defeated, it's not a strategic game, but more like a "can you do that ?" "Good you win", and the Z/P is a bit like an A.I. vs you on an arcade game".
You can't say, just it's bad design, and ignore T can infinite hit and run easily if these units have not some way to catch them, they become totally useless and not worth being played. Sure making it too strong will be a mistake, but aslo too weak, that's why it's call "balance".
On May 13 2015 21:48 TheDwf wrote: The primitive tension between melee and ranged units is that ranged units have the initiative (thanks to their range), but should obviously be weaker in “face to face” combat when melee units manage to successfully close the distance. Hence ranged units tend towards hit & run behaviour to maximize their advantage, while melee units obviously charge to use their own advantage. What makes Charge Zealots and Cyclones so terrible is that they're the pure automation of the archetypal behaviour of their respective category. Charge is the dream of any melee unit, while infinite hit & run is the dream of any ranged unit. And that's why they should never have access to it (at least not without heavy costs/counterparties created through various barriers in the game-user architecture, e. g. monopolizing the attention through micro, having a minor impact on the grand scheme of things, etc.). That's also why burrowed Charge Ultralisks would have been a huge joke, or why automating their “melee approach” by forcing zero collision size with Zerglings would be terribad. But none of this is an accident; it's perfectly representative of the “completeness mindset” in SC2. + Show Spoiler +
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves. SC2 suffered because the “completeness of the circle of the counters” is inherently an inflationnary process leaving less and less room for the player.
Completeness is toxic for the game. Structural holes are what makes things interesting. For instance, Terran would stop being Terran if they received some metaphysical horror like the “tech reactors” from the campaign or static defence (or more brainless melee units). Having those structural holes within the architecture of the race is what defines it. Working around structural holes is players' job.
You don't play, you simply execute the automated, prepared script.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge, or ultra without fungal/some charge mecanism, the "yeah terran micro", while spamming A /right click behind your unit is not that hard, and everyone can perform, while whoever you are, if you have the zealot, you can't get the MM without charge. You ask for a strategic game, but if it's just : Take terran, master hit and run, and you can't be defeated, it's not a strategic game, but more like a "can you do that ?" "Good you win", and the Z/P is a bit like an A.I. vs you on an arcade game".
You can't say, just it's bad design, and ignore T can infinite hit and run easily if these units have not some way to catch them, they become totally useless and not worth being played. Sure making it too strong will be a mistake, but aslo too weak, that's why it's call "balance".
Zealots passive speed can be faster than stimmed marauders/marines. Zealots/and/or other melee units can use a charge type ability manually with resources/energy. With some skills. Or some other ability.
There are so many things do be done in this regard, yet here we are with a autocboringcharge. No clue why blizzard didnt make the game more about micro.
On May 14 2015 02:27 Tyrhanius wrote: Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge, or ultra without fungal/some charge mecanism, the "yeah terran micro", while spamming A /right click behind your unit is not that hard, and everyone can perform, while whoever you are, if you have the zealot, you can't get the MM without charge. You ask for a strategic game, but if it's just : Take terran, master hit and run, and you can't be defeated, it's not a strategic game, but more like a "can you do that ?" "Good you win", and the Z/P is a bit like an A.I. vs you on an arcade game".
You can't say, just it's bad design, and ignore T can infinite hit and run easily if these units have not some way to catch them, they become totally useless and not worth being played. Sure making it too strong will be a mistake, but aslo too weak, that's why it's call "balance".
I was thinking maybe give concussive shells a cooldown like a spell? Maybe give it a heavier/longer slow to compensate for this. You'd probably would want it to be at or around the cooldown of charge/blink. That way you could use it to help escape but you can't use it to kite for days. Honestly though I don't even know why this ability is in the game.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge,
You must have the missed the critical moment in SC2 history when our French savior, Adelscott, said that Gateway units alone not only could compete with, but could easily defeat MM in the early game.
He then went about proving that vs the greatest SC2 player ever, IMMVP in the first round of the TSL3. And it was a shocking upset.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge,
You must have the missed the critical moment in SC2 history when our French savior, Adelscott, said that Gateway units alone not only could compete with, but could easily defeat MM in the early game.
He then went about proving that vs the greatest SC2 player ever, IMMVP in the first round of the TSL3. And it was a shocking upset.
That was before David Kim (Satan) cursed the land with widow mines.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge,
You must have the missed the critical moment in SC2 history when our French savior, Adelscott, said that Gateway units alone not only could compete with, but could easily defeat MM in the early game.
He then went about proving that vs the greatest SC2 player ever, IMMVP in the first round of the TSL3. And it was a shocking upset.
That was before David Kim (Satan) cursed the land with widow mines.
Well we wanted a spider mine like ability to protet our flanks better for Mech.But no Sa.. uh David Kim refused to change the Thor and deided to make the Mine able to shoot air and make it also pretty random and take way too much supply. (to be fair they also changed the mine so it doesnt get killed before it deals damage right?) Thats why I really like the Concept of the new Terran Unit so stuff like this does not happen anymore and the thor gets finally a change(sorry don´t know how to make timestamps :
At about 1:38:00 - 1:39:00 6(!) Thors get destroyed by 20-30 Mutas with minimal losses. Something is wrong there.
When are they going to fix carriers? Right now mass carriers are unstoppable. The release interceptor ability is broken.
Also marauders are pretty much useless in late game TvZ. I suggest the following changes:
1) Make marauders do 10+5 armor damage. Reduce cooldown to 1 second. 2) Have the marauders alternate firing between arms again. :D
This makes them less weak against light units like zealots, and not as strong against armored units, without completely nerfing the unit to uselessness.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge,
You must have the missed the critical moment in SC2 history when our French savior, Adelscott, said that Gateway units alone not only could compete with, but could easily defeat MM in the early game.
He then went about proving that vs the greatest SC2 player ever, IMMVP in the first round of the TSL3. And it was a shocking upset.
That was before David Kim (Satan) cursed the land with widow mines.
Well we wanted a spider mine like ability to protet our flanks better for Mech.But no Sa.. uh David Kim refused to change the Thor and deided to make the Mine able to shoot air and make it also pretty random and take way too much supply..
Yeah to protect the flanks of Mech... like when you go Marine/Marauder/Medivac that kind of Mech...
Blizzard did a real number on SC2 with the Widow Mine, and I've railed against it since I go the HOTS Beta. Back then I feel like people were so awed by the new units and build orders that they thought the early game was coming back and loved it.
Now people are seeing through what Blizzard is feeding them, and realize it is just more gimmicks that don't strategic depth, they actually subtract from it.
Things like Widow Mines reduce strategic variation because your opponent, knowing Widow Mines could be an option as they are so easily accessible, is going to reduce the number of times he splits his forces because he needs to pay attention and watch for Widow Mines. They are incredibly unforgiving unlike Lurkers, where you can react to them after you've taken some damage (unless your opponent has a massive group of Lurkers, but that is a huge investment and whole different strategy). By the time you react versus Widow Mines you've already lost units unless you are carefully watching your units move across the map.
On May 14 2015 05:03 Loccstana wrote: When are they going to fix carriers? Right now mass carriers are unstoppable. The release interceptor ability is broken.
On May 14 2015 02:27 Tyrhanius wrote: Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge, or ultra without fungal/some charge mecanism, the "yeah terran micro", while spamming A /right click behind your unit is not that hard, and everyone can perform, while whoever you are, if you have the zealot, you can't get the MM without charge. You ask for a strategic game, but if it's just : Take terran, master hit and run, and you can't be defeated, it's not a strategic game, but more like a "can you do that ?" "Good you win", and the Z/P is a bit like an A.I. vs you on an arcade game".
You can't say, just it's bad design, and ignore T can infinite hit and run easily if these units have not some way to catch them, they become totally useless and not worth being played. Sure making it too strong will be a mistake, but aslo too weak, that's why it's call "balance".
I was thinking maybe give concussive shells a cooldown like a spell? Maybe give it a heavier/longer slow to compensate for this. You'd probably would want it to be at or around the cooldown of charge/blink. That way you could use it to help escape but you can't use it to kite for days. Honestly though I don't even know why this ability is in the game.
Or just, you know, remove it altogether.
We always complain about anti micro abilities, and concusive shells does just that.
Infinite hit an run is exactly what have Marinne/Marauder vs zealot without charge,
You must have the missed the critical moment in SC2 history when our French savior, Adelscott, said that Gateway units alone not only could compete with, but could easily defeat MM in the early game.
He then went about proving that vs the greatest SC2 player ever, IMMVP in the first round of the TSL3. And it was a shocking upset.
That was before David Kim (Satan) cursed the land with widow mines.
Well we wanted a spider mine like ability to protet our flanks better for Mech.But no Sa.. uh David Kim refused to change the Thor and deided to make the Mine able to shoot air and make it also pretty random and take way too much supply..
Yeah to protect the flanks of Mech... like when you go Marine/Marauder/Medivac that kind of Mech...
Blizzard did a real number on SC2 with the Widow Mine, and I've railed against it since I go the HOTS Beta. Back then I feel like people were so awed by the new units and build orders that they thought the early game was coming back and loved it.
Now people are seeing through what Blizzard is feeding them, and realize it is just more gimmicks that don't strategic depth, they actually subtract from it.
Things like Widow Mines reduce strategic variation because your opponent, knowing Widow Mines could be an option as they are so easily accessible, is going to reduce the number of times he splits his forces because he needs to pay attention and watch for Widow Mines. They are incredibly unforgiving unlike Lurkers, where you can react to them after you've taken some damage (unless your opponent has a massive group of Lurkers, but that is a huge investment and whole different strategy). By the time you react versus Widow Mines you've already lost units unless you are carefully watching your units move across the map.
I actually really like WM, it gives bio AoE and allows them to have a certain amount of map control, also it forces micro for the oponents.
But I have to agree, its too unforgiving and too much random variance, but its one of those things that are hard to change because its chained to other stuff (for example its tied to muta regen, wich is then tied to medivac speed boost).
Its just one of the things Blizzard didn't implement well and instead of solving it simple put band aids on top of other band aids.
On May 14 2015 05:03 Loccstana wrote: When are they going to fix carriers? Right now mass carriers are unstoppable. The release interceptor ability is broken.
Doesn't widow mines kill interceptors?
Yes and from what I've seen mass Widow Mines + Cyclones have very very cost-efficient trades against Carriers. I think Morrow was complaining about mass Carriers and then Desrow told him to try this composition and Morrow was pretty impressed that it works since nothing else does.
EPT
:
