On May 15 2015 03:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
from the games I've seen, the adept player just dies to blink stalkers: defending till blink is done or you get a decisive victory in a fight (which only happens if the adept player mismicros though) and then walk over the map andkill the guy.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
Well, that pretty much sums up every Gateway unit.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
Well, that pretty much sums up every Gateway unit.
That's not completely true. In fact, it rarely applies to any Gateway unit. The only unit that in fact has that kind of stats is Stalkers and maybe Archons (I think that Archons are more like Zergling/marine snipers and not that tanky, but therycraft....). Protoss units are very tanky from their design. High cost, valuable, strong units.
Zealots have very Strong DPS, and very efficient in damage; the difficut part is to get them to deal damage. They are also tanky. Zealots knocking at you have a very interesting damage. Get a bad engagement, Zealots slip into your army, and it will be reduced faster than it should.. Zealots have good DPS, the problem is that they are too slow and inneficient to get into fights, and Concussive shells makes them shit in PvT. Just remove Concussive shells and increase Zealot base speed (BW style) and we'll see that "low DPS".
Stalkers are hardly "tanky" as they evaporate in straight fights. Yes, it is relatively tanky and have low DPS. But guess what, with good micro and some synergy with Sentries they can get much more value than expected. But you need godly micro. However, from what we see in ZvP and TvP vs Blinkstalker pushes, they are in a relatively good spot. Stalkers are obviously balanced as a mobile thing, they are very mobile, and the rate of fire is quite decent, but obviously the damage isn't excelent. However, even with Stalkers being considered "shit" they are the origin of a ton of complaints when paired with Sentries. You can buff them in damage like Dragoons and see what happens. Wanna try? ^^
Adepts were originally more fragile (60HP/80 shields, +1 armor) and designed with more firepower, considering the potential splash damage. So in the end, they were something like a Marauder. Specialized infantry, with decent HP and strong, focused DPS. Obviously, launching the upgrade as something that took a lot of time (140s) to tech too, considering it competes with Blink and Charge, made them very unpractical to tech to. And they were very clunky shooting, also caused in order to compensate for the splash, but as a thing, think of this: the high damage point prevented Adepts to waste too many shots, because it took longer to fire the initial shot, but made them very inneficient in fights, since they rarely get shots, considering also the low rate of fire.
Sentry is a caster. Low HP, high gas cost, low base damage.
HT is pure caster, very fragile too Low HP. But damage is insane on good storms (NO basic attacks).
DT's a very fragile too, Low HP, but insane meele damage.
Archon is a very very lategame unit, tanky but with aceptable damage considering the splash. The Archon is usually wasted since Protoss almost never get shield upgrades and that makes them fragile.
So not, out of 7 Gateway units, Protoss only has 2 tanky-low DPS units. 3 Counting the actual design of the Adept which is stupid.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
The weapon stats for Adepts (not damage, but weapon's) are obviously outdated. The Adept was balanced around a low-tier splash concept and thus the weapon needed to be inneficient as the splash damage was very destructive, but with the splash damage removed the first thing that should have been tweaked is the weapon values.
My suggestion: retune it in a similar way to marauders, maybe adjust it to a marine-like unit with smartfire, and test it that way.
I think it should be much more like a Marauder or even a Marine in that aspect, and retune mobility/maneuverability (damage point, weapon speed, projectile speed and so) so it becomes much more effective at combat, but easier to counter. That could bring some type of bio/baneling play viability to ZvP.
I think that Blizz will realize some day that in fact small HP/shield buffs and small ajustements to Stalkers and Zealots would make a lot of room to retuning the Adept into a balanced unit, not an obviously buffed unit whose stats are absurd and exploiteable at the cost of being damage-inneficient.
I'd actually prefer toning down the HP (but not shields) and reintroducing its forked splash attack. It would give it a lot more personality as a unit.
I think the adepts are in a good place balance wise. Protoss really needs a tanky gateway unit and I prefer the shield upgrade to the splash upgrade.
1 base all-ins are supposed to be strong, I'm having a lot of success with this because people have forgotten how to react to committed protoss 1 base all-in.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I think he means can't be scouted or else they fail.
Bingo.
The big problem is that people open blindly going for those builds, there is no in game strategic choice to being made, it is literally gambling. And that is dumb.
You have plenty of time to scout and make a read, and then go for this build if you open up in a standard way. You aren't trapped into doing it as soon as the game begins. It is (or at least can be) a strategic choice.
We need so much more of this in SC2 to make the early game exciting. It is what made WOL in 2011 so exciting.
But Blizzard and also map makers have been forcing it out of the game because it is difficult to balance. Doing what is hard is how great things are done though.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I did this off 2 bases. Not as allin and you can transition into disruptors etc.
Standard macro play is built on the roots of good all-ins. It goes from one base, to two, maybe to three and then becomes part of standard play.
You realize that there is strategy behind calculating odds and taking risks?
On May 15 2015 03:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
I'm not sure this is the exact answer to the problem. Adepts are GOOD units vs Z and T. It's just that it is unfortunate that unlike Z and T: P has no real way of preventing their harassment, even if they know it is coming. The best thing you can do is to completely wall off, but in that case, opening with 2gate adept is not all in at all. You can just expo or literally anything else.
I think I have a bit more refined version of this build, and some nice follow ups. I'll post some replays below of my version of it. I never did commentary on my YT channel of the newer reps because I had a huge drop of interest with LotV recently due to the really lame patches that have been coming out.
anyway, i think this is really the only viable opening for protoss atm. it prevents any type of real cheese from either race and allows you to be aggressive. if you scout dgas from z u just go SG instead of robo to fight ravagers. if u can get tons of damage then you're generally in a good spot to win, but lurkers and so on can be very hard to kill regardless l0l. anyway hope this helps people somewhat
Thanks for sharing this build! I don't have much to say with regard to balance, but if it helps, you can find the build orders for all of the replays shared above (thanks for linking, by the way) here
On May 15 2015 03:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
I'm not sure this is the exact answer to the problem. Adepts are GOOD units vs Z and T. It's just that it is unfortunate that unlike Z and T: P has no real way of preventing their harassment, even if they know it is coming.
Agree that adepts show interesting potential in other mus (though possibly too strong here too). Possible solution : shades no longer go through forcefields, giving adepts attacks reliable counterplay.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I think he means can't be scouted or else they fail.
Bingo.
The big problem is that people open blindly going for those builds, there is no in game strategic choice to being made, it is literally gambling. And that is dumb.
You have plenty of time to scout and make a read, and then go for this build if you open up in a standard way. You aren't trapped into doing it as soon as the game begins. It is (or at least can be) a strategic choice.
We need so much more of this in SC2 to make the early game exciting. It is what made WOL in 2011 so exciting.
But Blizzard and also map makers have been forcing it out of the game because it is difficult to balance. Doing what is hard is how great things are done though.
On May 15 2015 00:50 DinoMight wrote:
On May 15 2015 00:43 TronJovolta wrote:
On May 15 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
On May 14 2015 23:35 Geiko wrote:
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I did this off 2 bases. Not as allin and you can transition into disruptors etc.
Standard macro play is built on the roots of good all-ins. It goes from one base, to two, maybe to three and then becomes part of standard play.
You realize that there is strategy behind calculating odds and taking risks?
Sure. There is strategy in rock paper scissors, too. But to produce repeatable results and predictable interaction, we should remove as much luck as possible. If we don't, then we won't be able to balance the game.
The problem with those blind all-ins is that they are designed to counter another terrible gameplay mechanic, blind greed (Nexus first). Make neither possible, and the game is better for it.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
Well, that pretty much sums up every Gateway unit.
That's not completely true. In fact, it rarely applies to any Gateway unit...
Stalkers are hardly "tanky" as they evaporate in straight fights. Yes, it is relatively tanky...
Well everything is relative. Stalkers aren't tanky when facing Siege Tanks, but versus Banelings they can take quite a few hits. Zealots are the opposite.
Let's compare apples to apples here.
Stalkers have low DPS (6.9) but the most effective HP of any tier unit one. 160 is as much as a Tank, though the Tanks armor applies to the full 160 HP, so they are slightly more tough. And that isn't taking into account Blink and shield recharge. The reason they look weak is that people build things that straight counter them if you commit to them. Marauders, Immortals, ect.
Zealots do not have good DPS for their cost compared to Zerglings or Marines. They do 13.3 DPS, compared to 14 for 2 Marines and 21 for 2 stimmed Marines. And the Marines are a ranged unit. 4 Lings do 28.2 DPS, and that increases to 34 with Adrenal glands. It isn't even close, Zealots do not have good DPS.
But Zealots have excellent survivability with armor and more effective HP than either of those units for cost.
Sentries have 80 effective hp and 1 armor, so that makes them tougher than a Hydralisk (80hp, no armor). Compared to Reapers or Banes, the other gas heavy tier 1 units for the other races, they are tanky and have low DPS.
Archons do 14.3 DPS (+5.7 versus bio units), though they do splash. For comparison, a Hydralisk does 16 DPS, and perhaps the most comparable unit, the Ultralisk does 40.65 DPS, which is also splashed. A Hellbat does 9 DPS (+6 versus light units). So two Hellbats does more damage than an Archon, for far less money.
So yeah. Protoss unit don't do the damage people think they do. But their tankiness makes up for it. We just think that Archons and Zealots do a lot of damage, because it is what Protoss uses for damage dealers. But they simply don't do a lot of damage relative to similar units from the other races.
Dark Templars and High Templars have other intended purposes that straight up fighting where DPS and tankiness are important, so you got me there. But that is also why I said pretty much.
On May 15 2015 04:26 JCoto wrote: Just remove Concussive shells and increase Zealot base speed (BW style) and we'll see that "low DPS".
You can't remove concussive shells or Protoss would kite Marauders all day with Stalkers. Run in, trade with the Marauder, move back and recharge shields, rinse and repeat. You'd have to give Terran medics or the Marine and Marauders would get whittled to pieces early game and Terran would need to be even more passive early in PvT than they are now.
And with Forcefields Zealots get plenty of chances to show off their DPS.
A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
On May 15 2015 08:11 Big J wrote: A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
What part of their stats do you think needs reworking ? If you nerf their main stats you run the risk of turning it into a specialized scouting unit like the reaper and that's not what blizzard intended for the unit.
It's supposed to be a core unit, so massing it should be powerful.
On May 15 2015 08:11 Big J wrote: A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
What part of their stats do you think needs reworking ? If you nerf their main stats you run the risk of turning it into a specialized scouting unit like the reaper and that's not what blizzard intended for the unit.
It's supposed to be a core unit, so massing it should be powerful.
The adept is a bit like the roach with 25% more costs and 25% more health, same damage on average which is kind of reasonable so far. But then it also has shield regeneration and the shadow walk gimmick (which works partly like a speed upgrade, e.g. to get adepts over the map, partly like a burrow movement upgrade to get adepts through blockades) from the get-go and a massive health upgrade on top of it. I think the core stats would be kind of OK - though +50shields from the upgrade always sounded like blizzard just overnight threw out a number to replace the splash and the number was a bit excessive - but not in the context of shields and shadow walk.
Other units at that techlevel have either their combat stats and abilities - stim, combat shields, speed, charge, blink, blue flame - or their harassment capability - blink, speed, medivac drops, medivac regeneration, burrow movement, burrow regeneration - rolled in. The +50health are more of an extra, than something that holds back its combat power so that early on it is mainly a harassment/scouting unit. The only reason why it isn't that imbalanced at the moment after the upgrade is that later on there is a lot of other imbalanced stuff in the game, but that seems to be slowly balanced out (like lurkers and ravagers, roll in of the cyclone AA). I think the health upgrade should be scrapped, the unit very slightly nerfed in health (like -10/-10) and a new upgrade introduced that buffs the speed of the adept (and maybe its shadow).
On May 15 2015 08:11 Big J wrote: A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
What part of their stats do you think needs reworking ? If you nerf their main stats you run the risk of turning it into a specialized scouting unit like the reaper and that's not what blizzard intended for the unit.
It's supposed to be a core unit, so massing it should be powerful.
Initially it wasn't meant to be a core unit, they changed their minds suddenly. I would have actually liked it much more if it became an early game scouting/harass tool, kinda similar to WoL reaper or the hellion ; something quick and fragile that can get scouting information and inflict some damage to worker lines without proper reaction. This version is just too good with many bad consequences, the worst obviously being that stone age PvP no one would ever want to play.
Glad I don't have beta, looks obnoxious to play against.
Edit: just looked at the stats for this unit, lol, hard to imagine it being balanced when it's so much better than all other gateway units. Guess Blizzard just wants to see how people use them.
On May 15 2015 19:57 Saechiis wrote: Guess Blizzard just wants to see how people use them.
I think that's the reason why they're currently "broken", Blizzard just wants to gather data before proposing a reasonable iteration of the unit. I must say I don't really like their way of balancing things though, makes the beta a really frustrating experience.
On May 15 2015 21:21 BiiG-Fr wrote: Hi, As terran bio player, what's the best answer to an adept opening or an adept heavy composition?
I tried marauder, mine or hellbat, and nothing seems to work, especially in mid-game with heavy adept composition.
Bio is meant to fail in direct engagements against Adepts, specially once the macrogame evolves and upgrades start to be added. Adepts are damn tanky in their actual state, destroy marines, and Marauders lose in straigth fights to Adepts since Adepts can tank much more and Guardian shields block a ton of damage from Marauders. If you are going to try Bio, experiment with Ghosts and EMP, because it is the only theroticall response to Adepts, considering EMP, snipes and bonus damage vs light, so a few Ghost as support units could help against a ball of Adepts. Ghosts are available very early in the Teerran tech tree, even if they are costly. It is also very interesting since no-one seems to have tried it.
Bio with some support of mines and Hellbatdrops can work relatively decent in trades pre-upgrade, but once Adepts are upgraded and Templars/ Disruptors come in, start praying for Protoss to be greedy and mess up with macro.
But definitely, Mech is the brained answer. Blue flame, Banshees, and Cyclones.And Harass and macro like crazy, and have a good luck. And Pray. Bio doesn't work well against Adepts in the same way that Pure Gateway units fail against MMM in HotS, specially as upgrades kick in.
The Karma is a funny thing. 5 years dealing with MMM and how it restricted Protoss play to obvious need of AoE and playing in disadvantage of cost efficiency, now Protoss has an OP infantry, Terran has no other way to win than all-in, outplaying the opponent by far,to build a very focused counter-army or outmacro, because Protoss can abuse of relatively efficient, countering units. Roles reversed.
EPT
