| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 16 2015 16:23 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: Adepts are a BW Protoss unit living in a SC2 world. Of course they're not going to fit in. Lol no, Adepts are the purest form of a typical SC2 product | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On May 16 2015 08:49 Beelzebub1 wrote: I don't quite know about that though, that they are already strong for a "core" unit, they definitely don't feel very core, a core unit is something that you rely on throughout the game almost, the marine is a core unit, the Roach is a core unit, Adepts just feel over buffed in the early game hp wise and kind of underwhelming in the later stages when stimmed bio can still mow them down relatively quickly. I really do not think straight up nerfing the unit is the way to go, it needs to be strong to be a core unit. You contradicted yourself a bit there, Roaches are very very underwhelming later in the game because of their low DPS. If Roaches can be core units, so can Adepts. Unlike Roaches, Adepts can actually fight Marines because they have more range, are more tanky and deal more damage to them than Roaches while costing only 25 minerals more. And none of the other factions core units can fight Marines and Marauder ball efficiently in the later stages of the game. Roaches and Zerglings just melt, so does Zealots and Stalkers, and Stalkers are the only one that can somewhat trade efficiently(to some point of course) because of the Blink. Not being able to fight stimmed bio doesn't make them bad core units, you just need to support them with other high tier units such as Colossi/Disruptors/Immortals/Archos/HTs etc. All other factions needs to do that as well. | ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
On May 16 2015 16:23 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: Adepts are a BW Protoss unit living in a SC2 world. Of course they're not going to fit in. So i guess you never played BW ? | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 16 2015 19:04 Ramiz1989 wrote: You contradicted yourself a bit there, Roaches are very very underwhelming later in the game because of their low DPS. If Roaches can be core units, so can Adepts. Unlike Roaches, Adepts can actually fight Marines because they have more range, are more tanky and deal more damage to them than Roaches while costing only 25 minerals more. And none of the other factions core units can fight Marines and Marauder ball efficiently in the later stages of the game. Roaches and Zerglings just melt, so does Zealots and Stalkers, and Stalkers are the only one that can somewhat trade efficiently(to some point of course) because of the Blink. Not being able to fight stimmed bio doesn't make them bad core units, you just need to support them with other high tier units such as Colossi/Disruptors/Immortals/Archos/HTs etc. All other factions needs to do that as well. Original concept of Adept had 140HP (60/80) 1 base armor, and the same DPS it has now. Basically, a Roach. Cheap, quite tanky, relatively low DPS. But it had a damage upgrade that was removed. The Adept is not meant to be a Roach. The purpose of the Adept is to bring in a Marauder-like unit that is strong vs bio, as Stimbio stomps Gateway units very easily due to their amazing damage efficiency. The idea behind it is that Protoss can compete with their core units against bio quite efficiently, removing the need to go Deathball into AoE units, and eliminating the absolute dependance on Photon overcharge to survive against drops or Stimpushes. The problem with the adept is that is very inneficient at dealing damage because the upgrade was removed, so Bllizz has mde them stupidly tanky to study how it could affect the Protoss army and study new iterations. Protoss has a Roach-like unit too, which is called Stalker. Statwise, they are fairly similar, but the Roach is stronger vs light units than Stalkers on paper for 2 reasons, which is the damage scaling and the need of 2 upgrades instead of 3 to reach full armor. 160HP (80 HP 1 armor/ 80 shields), 7DPS (9.8vs armored) for 125/50. Damage scales by +1 Full upgrades(3): 160 HP (80HP 4 armor, 80 shields 3 armor), 9.1 DPS (11.9 vs armored) Roach is 145 HP, 1 armor, 8 DPS for 75/25, but with shorter range. Damage scales by +2 BTW Full upgrades (2): 145HP 4 armor, 11 DPS. The problem of what you've posted comes from wrong comparaisons, comparing it to a Roach. 1- You almost never play pure Roach, specially lategame. You mix Roaches with units with more DPS, like Zerglings and Hydras and sometimes Banelings. Roaches act as meatshields while other core DPS units get the damage done. 2- Roaches aren't really viable against Bio as they are very inneficient. They aren't core vs bio. You need to tech to splash damage against bio (banelings). But splash damage is relatively cheap and masseable, so Banelings are "core units". Which will be a good core unit vs bio for Protoss? A Roach-like Adept unit? Guess not. 3- Zerg outmacroes every race in production (you can get a ton of units per production cycle) you can get that to play in your favor against the also high production of Bio in some early game scenarios. 4- Zerg tends to play with numerical supperiority. Then now move to Protoss: - Stalkers are inneficient in DPS and tanky (like a Roach). Zealots have not bad damage but are inneficient (slow) at engaging, kited by almost every unit and specially bio. They are a good meatshield though. (Like a Roach). - The other Gateway units are SUPPORTS or casters, so you can't really use them to engage as DPS dealers. You need to tech to AoE damage. But guess what, AoE is ultra expensive and high tech. - Protoss plays in numerical disadvantage for that tech-rush reason. Which unit is going to be the DPS while Adepts tank if we revert the changes to it and we keep it inneficient vs bio as you are saying? Immortals aren't good enough vs bio, as marines destroy them. No Stargate unit is strong vs bio. The only other options are HTs, Colossi or Disrutors, which is the same case we have in HotS: tech to Templar or RoboBay. So again, "Deathballs" It makes no sense to add another soft version of the Stalker but with damage vs light if we want to give Protoss some viability, speically vs bio without the need to play turtle into AoE like in WoL or HotS. Protoss needs a Marauder/Hydralisk like unit, with a relatively high damage, strong, with tactical limitations (Range, only antiground, quite vulnerable) and vulnerable to AoE. DPS infantry. If not, the Protoss race is doomed to repeat the same deathball/all-in style that we are trying to solve with Adepts. Stimbio not being able to fight Gateway units with the comfort it has enjoyed for 5 years isn't bad at all, "you just need to support them with other high tier units, like Ghosts, Tanks, Cyclones, Hellions, Ravens". Once the balance gets to a right point, bio is obviously going to need to adapt a bit in the same way Protoss needs to tech because Marauders are really strong vs their armored units. Obviously, this will lead to some buffs to mech units and some refined mechanics for Bio play (probably new bio unit, Ghost rework, revision of Reaper) Saying that you can't just stay on basic core units for straight combat applies for all races. | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
I agree with you on everything else, so I am not sure why it is pointed towards me and where this whole discussion is going. All I am saying is that right now, Adepts are too tanky for core units and their cost, while also having great mobility. | ||
|
Klowney
Sweden277 Posts
On May 16 2015 23:02 Ramiz1989 wrote: All I am saying is that right now, Adepts are too tanky for core units and their cost, while also having great mobility. The other races have healing. Protoss doesn't, so it has to be tanky. | ||
|
_indigo_
Slovenia171 Posts
On May 17 2015 00:42 Klowney wrote: The other races have healing. Protoss doesn't, so it has to be tanky. What kinda clown statement is this when protoss has regenerating shields? And even if it didn't, racial difference shouldn't be the right reason. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 17 2015 00:42 Klowney wrote: The other races have healing. Protoss doesn't, so it has to be tanky.  plasma shieldI dont care if you guys want to beat 3M and 4M compositions with early gateway units. Protoss has the versatility to add in higher tech units that already counter bio. If the adept alone forces bio players to use more than their usual 3-5bio units, then think what adept/templar or adept/disruptor will do. Exactly, breaking the game. Protoss cant have basic gateway countering hightier bio (speak medivac/stim). Unless of course you just dont want bio to be viable and want cyclonehell every game. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On May 16 2015 19:04 Ramiz1989 wrote: You contradicted yourself a bit there, Roaches are very very underwhelming later in the game because of their low DPS. If Roaches can be core units, so can Adepts. Unlike Roaches, Adepts can actually fight Marines because they have more range, are more tanky and deal more damage to them than Roaches while costing only 25 minerals more. And none of the other factions core units can fight Marines and Marauder ball efficiently in the later stages of the game. Roaches and Zerglings just melt, so does Zealots and Stalkers, and Stalkers are the only one that can somewhat trade efficiently(to some point of course) because of the Blink. Not being able to fight stimmed bio doesn't make them bad core units, you just need to support them with other high tier units such as Colossi/Disruptors/Immortals/Archos/HTs etc. All other factions needs to do that as well. Perhaps I accidentally came across that way? Ease up on the passive aggression though. I also have explicitly said in other threads that Adepts should be tailored to be strong early-mid game units that can transition into being supported by higher tier units to let gateway units in general not be unviable post mid game. JCoto already grilled you on essentially everything that I was going to respond with so no need to harp. "All I am saying is that right now, Adepts are too tanky for core units and their cost, while also having great mobility." I agree and that's all I was attempting to say, they need to be strong, but later, they are far too tanky in the early game compared to other units and their ability to stomp light units and trade decently vs. even Queens and smaller Roach numbers is an issue. | ||
|
owlman
France58 Posts
Roach totally destroy them. Adept dps vs non light is pitifull : it's almost half the dps of a roach... | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
On May 17 2015 01:37 Big J wrote: plasma shieldI dont care if you guys want to beat 3M and 4M compositions with early gateway units. Protoss has the versatility to add in higher tech units that already counter bio. If the adept alone forces bio players to use more than their usual 3-5bio units, then think what adept/templar or adept/disruptor will do. Exactly, breaking the game. Protoss cant have basic gateway countering hightier bio (speak medivac/stim). Unless of course you just dont want bio to be viable and want cyclonehell every game. Please stop posting in LotV threads about balance, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2657 Posts
This is the exact example of that, the adepts are too strong in the early game and altough still very strong in the mid and late not so much a problem. This will simply become what protoss has been all the time, the adept will be nerfed so its not so strong, then protoss would need higher AoE tech and we will still need deathballs. I think adepts shouldn't be capable of being warped in and instead could only be produced from gateways. Then they could add a upgrade that gives adepts something like damage/range/small aoe/etc. As long as adepts can be warped in anywhere in the map they will be too strong, if instead you had to make them from gateways, wait their production time and then walked them around the map, then they would be such a big problem. As I said everyone knew this was going to happen, you can't have a strong gateway unit as long as WG is still there, because that makes them too abusable. On May 17 2015 03:37 -Kyo- wrote: Please stop posting in LotV threads about balance, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening. Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 17 2015 03:37 -Kyo- wrote: Please stop posting in LotV threads about balance, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening. He's not even talking about the current balance... | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 17 2015 01:37 Big J wrote: plasma shieldI dont care if you guys want to beat 3M and 4M compositions with early gateway units. Protoss has the versatility to add in higher tech units that already counter bio. If the adept alone forces bio players to use more than their usual 3-5bio units, then think what adept/templar or adept/disruptor will do. Exactly, breaking the game. Protoss cant have basic gateway countering hightier bio (speak medivac/stim). Unless of course you just dont want bio to be viable and want cyclonehell every game. Why should bio stay the same as it is now but Protoss be forced to tech instead of having a decent, competent unit vs bio? Maybe we could empower bio with new units/reworks and some unit that complemented Bio well instead of saying "MMMM should be able to beat every non-splash army"? | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:08 -Kyo- wrote: I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games. But...Adepts ARE too strong, at least in the early game. They need to be toned down early on and made to scale into the mid game. If that's what you were trying to get across then I apologize but you actually aren't contributing anything to this discussion. In fact you just wrote a long paragraph explaining why you aren't saying anything useful instead of just contributing something useful to the discussion at all, I don't get it. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2657 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:08 -Kyo- wrote: I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games. Then don't, if you have really good feedback then good, thats nice and all, but you can't be simply "refuting" idea just because of that, you saying other people are wrong make it look like only you have the truth, you don't, you just said you try to talk to other players and do videos, etc. So keep doing that, your opinion is not more right nor wrong than anybody else opinion, no matter how ludicrous that opinion may be. All in all your opinion is not more true than anybody elses, so you either try to counter argument or you don't, don't simply attack people saying "they should stop posting" or "that they know nothing" because thats just attacking them and derailing the discussion. Wich by the way I'm doing so I will stop now, do note that I'm not attacking you as a player or person, its just that your attitude gets really bad sometimes. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On May 17 2015 07:04 Loccstana wrote: Make it so that when the adept hallucination is moving, the original body cannot move or attack. This way, the hallucination can be countered by destroying the original That's not even gimping the unit, that's just grabbing the garden shears and cutting it's balls off. The hallucination isn't the issue, the issue is that it has an insane number of hit points, stomps light units, and hits the field very early. A poster above said that the Warp Gate was an inherent issue in balancing the Adept and I have to agree, if it's going to keep it's current stats, then Warp Gate just needs a straight nerf or the Adept will have to be toned down and it will be nothing more then a glorified Reaper. Blizzard already nerfed Warp Gate which was 50% of the issue but they didn't follow through with buffs to Gateway units which was the other 50% of the issue, they said oh it's too much Protoss is super gimped now and then they back tracked. Not sure why David and the team are making this harder then it has to be, they seem obsessed with units that have "cool" abilities instead of just making the units themselves good. If a unit has a cool/abusable ability, it simply cannot be that great in terms of raw stats, something has to give. It's very easy and it's been posted 1000 times by people alot smarter then me, you warp the nerf gate so it is a mid game strategic tool... THEN you can factor in that now every unit doesn't negate defenders advantage (nerf), cant be abused in gimmicky all ins (nerf) and has an actual travel time to get to the battle field (huge nerf in comparison to teleporting anywhere) so by this logic, with all of these nerfs, you can actually BUFF the units without breaking the game in the process, Zerg already has a very early tool to deal with force fields so that argument is null. | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
On May 17 2015 06:26 Lexender wrote: Then don't, if you have really good feedback then good, thats nice and all, but you can't be simply "refuting" idea just because of that, you saying other people are wrong make it look like only you have the truth, you don't, you just said you try to talk to other players and do videos, etc. So keep doing that, your opinion is not more right nor wrong than anybody else opinion, no matter how ludicrous that opinion may be. All in all your opinion is not more true than anybody elses, so you either try to counter argument or you don't, don't simply attack people saying "they should stop posting" or "that they know nothing" because thats just attacking them and derailing the discussion. Wich by the way I'm doing so I will stop now, do note that I'm not attacking you as a player or person, its just that your attitude gets really bad sometimes. Well, first off lets get this out of the way: The above ideas are not relative and to approach them as such would be fatal to non-linear game balance. For me to have to point this out makes me feel as if you have missed the underlying point of my original post. There are blatant balance issues at hand. This is not an opinion, but a fact. You are right in stating that Gateway units getting a buff is an opinion, but imo it is a very real possibility. It being a possibility and me thinking it is the 'correct' thing to do are two different statements, however. Now that you should understand that lets get to what I wanted to communicate with my first response to the poster: I think it is a bad approach for someone to come to a forum and simply state that just because they think 'the game would be utterly broken' protoss gw(which is vague in itself) units should not get a buff. Why? Because other casual readers might see this and think, "Oh, I guess that makes sense, or 'lets move on from that idea' ". When, in fact, nothing has even been tested. If this is the case why discredit it? That type of post We have 7 months(?)+ of testing and so far the first month+ has been protoss getting smashed. It seems clear to me that this approach is very non-progressive and doesn't help us fix the real problems at hand. I would hope others would take the same stance especially given the substantial evidence that protoss has troubles ranging from mobility, economy, unit balance and beyond, but you can never be too sure. Thus, I feel a response post is somewhat warranted, even more so when a person states that a race has versatility in higher tier units which, atm, seems really really questionable. So, to summarize: it seems that it'd be a much smarter idea to try out a balance change before stating 'na, not a good idea, I don't care what you think' If your conclusions appear to be steeped in bias and/or a lack of understanding then you best prepared for people to say what you have posted is, quite possibly, moronic. If you think me stating this to hopefully keep other readers skeptical is a bad idea, then again, feel free. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Maestros of the Game
Classic vs Lambo
Clem vs Maru
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs Rogue
herO vs SHIN
Replay Cast
Maestros of the Game
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
