|
On May 17 2015 03:37 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 01:37 Big J wrote:On May 17 2015 00:42 Klowney wrote: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.  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.
Context...
I'm clearly responding to people like JCoto and OP who stated that:
1) Adepts counter traditional 3M bio, at the very least early
2) that it is OK if they do so (to some degree)
If you don't have the time to follow that discussion, then don't. If you want to give your - obviously differing - opinion you may want to start with the original statements that I've built upon. You are right that what I posted was theorycraft, my knowledge of LotV TvP is very finite. As TheDwf pointed out, I'm merely responding to - inparticular but not exclusive - JCoto's sentiment that it is OK to "turn the tables and let Protoss infantry counter Terran infantry for once". Whether or not this is the ulimate state of the game I don't know and I think noone does, yet, certain experiences shared here, as well as a look at the numbers behind the adept suggest it could be.
Also, if you really had followed my posts on LotV as avidly as you pretend you did then you might have noticed that I do think Protoss feels a bit weak (not as unplayable as some people pretend, but weak) and that I've posted concerns about various units. Just because I don't share the sentiment that the ravager is still broken after the patch and I honestly asked you whether your proclaimed hidden zealot-nerf in attack speed might have been just you missinterpreting the realtime conversion of all time related values doesn't make me clueless.
And whether you like it or not, I don't share your idea of the adept being allowed to be very powerful just because there are other possibly overpowerful options for the other races currently in the game. Everyone having something strong doesnt create a good game, it just narrows everyone's options down to use that one or two powerful things they have.
|
On May 16 2015 22:22 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 19:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:
But that's the thing, they are already really strong for core units, they aren't harassment units anymore. With shield upgrade they are even more tanky than Zealots and Stalkers, and they still destroy light units in the mid/late game while Stalkers and Immortals can deal with armored.
They should be nerfed a bit(either through stat nerf or their cost increased) and shield upgrade removed. 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. 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.
Great post. Adepts being 'stupid tanky' and being able to +a move into bio and trade evenly is a breath of fresh air to the game. Protoss finally has a unit that is cost effective vs a certain unit composition just on its own, and can in small numbers deal with small numbers of bio, instead of the traditional fact that you need 2x the units to fight medivac harass, and being constantly vulnerable to losing units for nothing against uber M&M. Protoss players worldwide will gladly accept the aoe units being toned down if the counter balance is that they don't need to desperately defend untill the perfect deathball allows them to move out.
This is exactly what the Protoss players were asking for. A tough gateway unit that can man fight without special gimmicks. Since Protoss now have that (for the time being) it's in turn OK that the warp gate mechanic is more punishing, that the new economy doesn't really fit Protoss as well as the other two races, and that the Colossus was nerfed.
|
On May 17 2015 07:57 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 22:22 JCoto wrote:On May 16 2015 19:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:
But that's the thing, they are already really strong for core units, they aren't harassment units anymore. With shield upgrade they are even more tanky than Zealots and Stalkers, and they still destroy light units in the mid/late game while Stalkers and Immortals can deal with armored.
They should be nerfed a bit(either through stat nerf or their cost increased) and shield upgrade removed. 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. 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. Great post. Adepts being 'stupid tanky' and being able to +a move into bio and trade evenly is a breath of fresh air to the game. Protoss finally has a unit that is cost effective vs a certain unit composition just on its own, and can in small numbers deal with small numbers of bio, instead of the traditional fact that you need 2x the units to fight medivac harass, and being constantly vulnerable to losing units for nothing against uber M&M. Protoss players worldwide will gladly accept the aoe units being toned down if the counter balance is that they don't need to desperately defend untill the perfect deathball allows them to move out. This is exactly what the Protoss players were asking for. A tough gateway unit that can man fight without special gimmicks. Since Protoss now have that (for the time being) it's in turn OK that the warp gate mechanic is more punishing, that the new economy doesn't really fit Protoss as well as the other two races, and that the Colossus was nerfed.
Uh what? lol
My bias detector just exploded reading this.
|
On May 17 2015 08:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 07:57 xyzz wrote:On May 16 2015 22:22 JCoto wrote:On May 16 2015 19:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:
But that's the thing, they are already really strong for core units, they aren't harassment units anymore. With shield upgrade they are even more tanky than Zealots and Stalkers, and they still destroy light units in the mid/late game while Stalkers and Immortals can deal with armored.
They should be nerfed a bit(either through stat nerf or their cost increased) and shield upgrade removed. 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. 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. Great post. Adepts being 'stupid tanky' and being able to +a move into bio and trade evenly is a breath of fresh air to the game. Protoss finally has a unit that is cost effective vs a certain unit composition just on its own, and can in small numbers deal with small numbers of bio, instead of the traditional fact that you need 2x the units to fight medivac harass, and being constantly vulnerable to losing units for nothing against uber M&M. Protoss players worldwide will gladly accept the aoe units being toned down if the counter balance is that they don't need to desperately defend untill the perfect deathball allows them to move out. This is exactly what the Protoss players were asking for. A tough gateway unit that can man fight without special gimmicks. Since Protoss now have that (for the time being) it's in turn OK that the warp gate mechanic is more punishing, that the new economy doesn't really fit Protoss as well as the other two races, and that the Colossus was nerfed. Uh what? lol My bias detector just exploded reading this.
There's literally nobody on this entire forum who doesn't post with a bias of some degree. I don't deny that I think Protoss is designed badly. The win rates stay even because of various all-ins which neither Protoss players or their victims are fond of. Every macro game is a pain in the butt because you're always defending and fighting units much better than yours, untill you get a super deathball that can't be destroyed, and therefore often end up in either a +a move to win or a stupid baserace. So even macro games are mostly unenjoyable for both the Protoss players and their opponents (for the opponents when they lose and feel they can't kill the deathball, and for Protoss players when they just defend for 20minutes and slowly die to harass, nexus snipes and other completely lopsided unit trades due to imperfect army splitting).
The current Adept and Disruptor design turns that whole concept upside down. I would've expected that you realise that none of the actual damage or health values in beta now are final, but a tanky gateway man-fighting value unit is something that is needed, or the final version of SC2 Protoss (the LOTV version) will be just as terrible as the HOTS version. A race that will always be described as 'stupid 1 or 2 base all-ins or turtle forever into unkillable deathball'.
|
I don't even have a problem with some bias, just that your post about "What Protoss players always wanted" made very little sense. Protoss doesn't want another tanky core unit, you already got 2 of those, you want high dps unit with lower hp. You don't want to make Zealots obsolete by introducing ranged Zealots that are even more tanky but also ranged and more mobile, you want to make Zealots better and design a new unit that complements other very well.
I would tune their HP and shield down, remove their shield upgrade and give them something more interesting, while increasing their attack speed by quite a bit. At least that makes sense to me, if you want to make them a core unit they should be used together with Zealots and/or Stalkers, not replacing both.
|
On May 17 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:
I don't even have a problem with some bias, just that your post about "What Protoss players always wanted" made very little sense. Protoss doesn't want another tanky core unit, you already got 2 of those, you want high dps unit with lower hp. You don't want to make Zealots obsolete by introducing ranged Zealots that are even more tanky but also ranged and more mobile, you want to make Zealots better and design a new unit that complements other very well.
I would tune their HP and shield down, remove their shield upgrade and give them something more interesting, while increasing their attack speed by quite a bit. At least that makes sense to me, if you want to make them a core unit they should be used together with Zealots and/or Stalkers, not replacing both.
No. We don't want a high dps unit with low hp. I'm not sure why you'd think that. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Also I'm not sure what you're refering as a tanky unit. None of the Gateway units are tanky in a real game. They're very resource inefficient against most common unit compositions.
Maybe someone does, but I sure as heck don't. I want a unit that doesn't get facerolled every time a Terran clicks stimpack. Zealots on their own can't beat a two Medivac drop. They'll die to Terran micro while killing very little in return (without charge they kill nothing at all). Stalkers with blink will kill the Medivacs and then die and the mineral line is gone. Colossi without backup are dead. Immortals on their own can't do anything. Templars should never be on their own unless you're just looking to throw away resources to deal with the drops.
Get the picture? Protoss needs some perfect mini-armies (mini-deathballs) consisting of tanky units and dps units and high tech aoe units just to be able to sometimes trade evenly with braindead M&M spam. The opponent gets to play and call all the action, while the Protoss is left second guessing how to split his army. Hilariously, when Protoss does split his army perfectly, the Terran can react by just getting back on the Medivacs and zooming away and waiting for another more opportune moment. Warp Prisms on the other hand are always suicide missions for most of the units and therefore superbly cost inefficient compared to Terran drops or Zerg Mutas. The units that the Warp Prism is warping in are cost inefficient by design, and even if they weren't, there's very little chance of escape if the enemy reacts fast. Protoss can likewise never move out with anything else than the absolute deathball that is guaranteed to win, because a small number of backstabbing enemy units can roll entire Protoss bases because small numbers of Protoss units can't defeat them. Nearly every Protoss attack is an all-in, and the fact they can reinforce new units on top of their attacking units just reinforces that idea. I'm tired of it.
|
All your points are so massively exaggerated that they become untrue despite stemming from authentic issues.
|
On May 17 2015 08:28 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 08:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 17 2015 07:57 xyzz wrote:On May 16 2015 22:22 JCoto wrote:On May 16 2015 19:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 16 2015 08:04 Ramiz1989 wrote:
But that's the thing, they are already really strong for core units, they aren't harassment units anymore. With shield upgrade they are even more tanky than Zealots and Stalkers, and they still destroy light units in the mid/late game while Stalkers and Immortals can deal with armored.
They should be nerfed a bit(either through stat nerf or their cost increased) and shield upgrade removed. 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. 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. Great post. Adepts being 'stupid tanky' and being able to +a move into bio and trade evenly is a breath of fresh air to the game. Protoss finally has a unit that is cost effective vs a certain unit composition just on its own, and can in small numbers deal with small numbers of bio, instead of the traditional fact that you need 2x the units to fight medivac harass, and being constantly vulnerable to losing units for nothing against uber M&M. Protoss players worldwide will gladly accept the aoe units being toned down if the counter balance is that they don't need to desperately defend untill the perfect deathball allows them to move out. This is exactly what the Protoss players were asking for. A tough gateway unit that can man fight without special gimmicks. Since Protoss now have that (for the time being) it's in turn OK that the warp gate mechanic is more punishing, that the new economy doesn't really fit Protoss as well as the other two races, and that the Colossus was nerfed. Uh what? lol My bias detector just exploded reading this. There's literally nobody on this entire forum who doesn't post with a bias of some degree. I don't deny that I think Protoss is designed badly. The win rates stay even because of various all-ins which neither Protoss players or their victims are fond of. Every macro game is a pain in the butt because you're always defending and fighting units much better than yours, untill you get a super deathball that can't be destroyed, and therefore often end up in either a +a move to win or a stupid baserace. So even macro games are mostly unenjoyable for both the Protoss players and their opponents (for the opponents when they lose and feel they can't kill the deathball, and for Protoss players when they just defend for 20minutes and slowly die to harass, nexus snipes and other completely lopsided unit trades due to imperfect army splitting). The current Adept and Disruptor design turns that whole concept upside down. I would've expected that you realise that none of the actual damage or health values in beta now are final, but a tanky gateway man-fighting value unit is something that is needed, or the final version of SC2 Protoss (the LOTV version) will be just as terrible as the HOTS version. A race that will always be described as 'stupid 1 or 2 base all-ins or turtle forever into unkillable deathball'.
I definitely agree with you on the whole Protoss can't be out on the map until deathball. However, I disagree with everyone has bias, I mean they do but there is human level of bias towards your race and there is just flat out blatant bias which is just unconductive and invites the flames/derailment.
Ramiz said it perfect, why the hell would Protoss want another tanky slow unit at Gateway when the Zealot and Stalker are plenty tanky, they just need to be better or be supported by something that can really do damage to clumped up light units, weaning Protoss's reliance off of Colossus/higher tech AOE play.
In my previous posts I've already explained how Warp Gate is centrifugal to the issues regarding gateway unit balance. Until Warp Gate is properly nerfed and made into a mid game late game only tool, Gateway units are always just going to flat out suck against things like stimmed bio and Roach/Hydra (That is debatable as lately blink Stalker/Sentry is pretty damn strong in the meta) if they can be warped in anywhere on the map PERIOD.
If you nerf Warp Gate, you can actually do things like buffing Zealots so they can actually close in and start killing bio without being kited to death, this can be accomplished by removing noob charge and putting in old school Zealot legs so the Zealots can be microable, strong, and if the Terran wants to kite he's just going to take a ton of free Zealot swipes. Buffing Stalkers to not be just absolutely god awful vs. bio and even Mutalisks with a blink cool down nerf and a +dmg to light so it's not mandatory to go for Stargates to not die to mass Mutalisk.
Nerf warp gate....Buff gateway units appropriately.....Make Zealots faster at Twilight...Make Stalkers do more damage at Twilight....nerf Adept HP (nothing else, just the HP, they are an awesome unit, but being THAT tanky at the beginning of the game is just bad) buff Adept movement speed a tad, and give them upgrade for whatever the hell works at Twilight (Even tankier? More DPS against light? Maybe a very small "shotgun" attack so they are effective against drops and Zergling run bys?)
|
Ramiz said it perfect, why the hell would Protoss want another tanky slow unit at Gateway when the Zealot and Stalker are plenty tanky, they just need to be better or be supported by something that can really do damage to clumped up light units, weaning Protoss's reliance off of Colossus/higher tech AOE play.
Because if you actually play the LOTV beta, or atleast watch Protoss players stream it, you'd have noticed how different the Adepts are to Zealots and Stalkers. In their current form they're so good you can remove their special shade ability altogether and they'd still completely change the way Protoss is played vs Terran. They just don't get destroyed by M&M like HOTS Zealot/Stalker does. They're brilliant vs Marines and good against Marauders, which is something that in HOTS can't be said of any Protoss unit unless its a part of some deathball unit composition. I'm not surprised this kind of change might be unsettling to Terran players.
Regarding your points about the Warp Gate, I agree of course in the sense that what you're proposing would work for me too. I'm fine with your changes too, as long as the Protoss units can finally start fighting vs Terran units on their own. However, I'm posting from the assumption that Blizzard doesn't agree with your idea of nerfing or removing the Warp Gate, and if that's the case then I'll gladly take something else, like the maniac Adepts in the current beta.
|
On May 17 2015 09:20 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +
Ramiz said it perfect, why the hell would Protoss want another tanky slow unit at Gateway when the Zealot and Stalker are plenty tanky, they just need to be better or be supported by something that can really do damage to clumped up light units, weaning Protoss's reliance off of Colossus/higher tech AOE play.
Because if you actually play the LOTV beta, or atleast watch Protoss players stream it, you'd have noticed how different the Adepts are to Zealots and Stalkers. In their current form they're so good you can remove their special shade ability altogether and they'd still completely change the way Protoss is played vs Terran. They just don't get destroyed by M&M like HOTS Zealot/Stalker does. They're brilliant vs Marines and good against Marauders, which is something that in HOTS can't be said of any Protoss unit unless its a part of some deathball unit composition. I'm not surprised this kind of change might be unsettling to Terran players.
*sigh*
" if you want to make them a core unit they should be used together with Zealots and/or Stalkers, not replacing both."
Literally the point here man, I've been playing/watching the beta nonstop since I got in, Adepts in their current form and Zealot/Stalker in their current form means building Zealots and Stalkers is literally a stupid decision compared to just massing more Adepts.
You want Adepts to supplement the Gateway army and make it viable post early game, not replace them by being inherently better in damn near every way. Why would you ever build a Zealot when you could build an Adept? Yes for the third time in a row I agree that Protoss needs a unit that can stand toe to toe with bio balls and deal with drops better, I don't agree that they should be OP just because Protoss doesn't have an OP gateway unit in HOTS, that's just bad.
|
On May 17 2015 09:25 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 09:20 xyzz wrote:
Ramiz said it perfect, why the hell would Protoss want another tanky slow unit at Gateway when the Zealot and Stalker are plenty tanky, they just need to be better or be supported by something that can really do damage to clumped up light units, weaning Protoss's reliance off of Colossus/higher tech AOE play.
Because if you actually play the LOTV beta, or atleast watch Protoss players stream it, you'd have noticed how different the Adepts are to Zealots and Stalkers. In their current form they're so good you can remove their special shade ability altogether and they'd still completely change the way Protoss is played vs Terran. They just don't get destroyed by M&M like HOTS Zealot/Stalker does. They're brilliant vs Marines and good against Marauders, which is something that in HOTS can't be said of any Protoss unit unless its a part of some deathball unit composition. I'm not surprised this kind of change might be unsettling to Terran players. *sigh* " if you want to make them a core unit they should be used together with Zealots and/or Stalkers, not replacing both." Literally the point here man, I've been playing/watching the beta nonstop since I got in, Adepts in their current form and Zealot/Stalker in their current form means building Zealots and Stalkers is literally a stupid decision compared to just massing more Adepts. You want Adepts to supplement the Gateway army and make it viable post early game, not replace them by being inherently better in damn near every way. Why would you ever build a Zealot when you could build an Adept? Yes for the third time in a row I agree that Protoss needs a unit that can stand toe to toe with bio balls and deal with drops better, I don't agree that they should be OP just because Protoss doesn't have an OP gateway unit in HOTS, that's just bad.
Nah you still need a few units that shoot air and blink Stalkers serve a needed support role. Zealots are the ones that are left out like you agreed, and like iNcontroL said today they seem to be relegated to late game harass/throwaway units instead of main army fighters.
Maybe you're right. Maybe it's more elegant to just go from the ground up, nerfing the Warp Gate or removing it, revising the Gateway units completely, and afterwards naturally also revising all the tech units too, and all their costs.
Does this sound likely to happen though? Blizzard will never, ever do that.
Either Protoss will go into LOTV as the same old HOTS race with all the weaknesses and victory conditions, or it'll go changed somewhat because of two new units and a new economy model. I have very little faith that any deeper changes are coming.
|
On May 17 2015 09:27 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 09:25 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 17 2015 09:20 xyzz wrote:
Ramiz said it perfect, why the hell would Protoss want another tanky slow unit at Gateway when the Zealot and Stalker are plenty tanky, they just need to be better or be supported by something that can really do damage to clumped up light units, weaning Protoss's reliance off of Colossus/higher tech AOE play.
Because if you actually play the LOTV beta, or atleast watch Protoss players stream it, you'd have noticed how different the Adepts are to Zealots and Stalkers. In their current form they're so good you can remove their special shade ability altogether and they'd still completely change the way Protoss is played vs Terran. They just don't get destroyed by M&M like HOTS Zealot/Stalker does. They're brilliant vs Marines and good against Marauders, which is something that in HOTS can't be said of any Protoss unit unless its a part of some deathball unit composition. I'm not surprised this kind of change might be unsettling to Terran players. *sigh* " if you want to make them a core unit they should be used together with Zealots and/or Stalkers, not replacing both." Literally the point here man, I've been playing/watching the beta nonstop since I got in, Adepts in their current form and Zealot/Stalker in their current form means building Zealots and Stalkers is literally a stupid decision compared to just massing more Adepts. You want Adepts to supplement the Gateway army and make it viable post early game, not replace them by being inherently better in damn near every way. Why would you ever build a Zealot when you could build an Adept? Yes for the third time in a row I agree that Protoss needs a unit that can stand toe to toe with bio balls and deal with drops better, I don't agree that they should be OP just because Protoss doesn't have an OP gateway unit in HOTS, that's just bad. Nah you still need a few units that shoot air and blink Stalkers serve a needed support role. Zealots are the ones that are left out like you agreed, and like iNcontroL said today they seem to be relegated to late game harass/throwaway units instead of main army fighters. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's more elegant to just go from the ground up, nerfing the Warp Gate or removing it, revising the Gateway units completely, and afterwards naturally also revising all the tech units too, and all their costs. Does this sound likely to happen though? Blizzard will never, ever do that. Either Protoss will go into LOTV as the same old HOTS race with all the weaknesses and victory conditions, or it'll go changed somewhat because of two new units and a new economy model. I have very little faith that any deeper changes are coming.
I'm not sure if it's as difficult as that. Templar are already phenomenal units that are totally bad ass late game additions vs. Zerg and Terran, the Colossus has been rightfully nerfed (if they would just remove it now..) and the Disruptor will take it's place in the robotics.
Stargate seems fine, Oracles new abilities are pretty cool and Void Rays and Phoenix are as good as ever, it really is just the gateway units as far as I can see in need of a moderate "redesign".
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WSkwGb0.png)
shade vs blink battles haha, no one knows wtf is going on
|
To add to the interesting balance discussion going on here, I've been smashed enough by good players defending consistently against my early adept all-in to know that adepts aren't "broken" early game.
Zergs just need to make roach/queen and Terrans just need to wall-off and mind warpprism drops.
It's just just something that needs to become part of the meta, how to defend against adept all-ins. Maybe this means that zergs can't go 3 hatch before pool, maybe it means that terran can't make their first CC directly in their natural.
Concerning the late game, in their current form adepts don't feel overpowered at all.
My concerns with adepts are the following:
- They are very unforgiving in PvP. If you are not going mass adepts, then you need to wall-off because stalkers and zealots don't kill adepts fast enough to prevent them from decimating your mineral line. IMO this could be fixed by a simple change: "Shades can't move through Forcefields". Making the sentry relevant again early game.
- The zealot/adept interaction. As other's have pointed out, it seems it's always a better idea to make adepts. An interesting approach could be to play around with build times and costs. Something like Zealots now cost 85 minerals and build in 15% less time while adepts now cost 110 minerals + 25 gas and build in 10% more time. Something like this would maybe incentivize zealot usage in mid-game and slightly tone down early game adept usage.
- As far as I'm concerned, damage stats of adepts were designed for the unit to be a harass unit, which means in blizzard's eyes, 2 shotting workers. Maybe that idea is not relevant anymore if the adepts role is to be a core unit. More base damage and less bonus vs light would be interesting to test out, as long as they still 2 shot zerglings. I would try out 12 damage (+ 7 vs light) instead of 10 damage (+13) and give them instant projectile speed like marines (less dps but less overkill).
|
On May 17 2015 12:26 TT1 wrote:shade vs blink battles haha, no one knows wtf is going on
I actually like the blink vs shade interaction ! Before there was really no counter play to blink micro as protoss. With the shade abilty, blink players can't take "free" engagements without risking any unit loss. And the micro battles push the skill ceiling a little higher, which is always a good thing 
|
With powerful adepts, if you have a large army of them what counterplay is there actually? You cast the shade and run down your opponent and you can ignore all positioning. Maybe you should be able to kill the psionic images if they run up to your army?
It reminds me of having medivacs in TvT, where if you have an advantage you just kill your opponent with hellbat drops on top of his army, but at least there you can shoot down the medivacs.
The context of this post is watching Nightend play vs Top in the OlimoLeague where he teleports an army of adepts into a tank line. (okay, this reaction might be extreme after seeing them in action just once, but I was curious about it)
|
God forbid some things are too strong in the beta...
|
On May 17 2015 23:20 ZenithM wrote:
God forbid some things are too strong in the beta...
That's why beta time is beta.
|
On May 17 2015 16:41 Geiko wrote:To add to the interesting balance discussion going on here, I've been smashed enough by good players defending consistently against my early adept all-in to know that adepts aren't "broken" early game. Zergs just need to make roach/queen and Terrans just need to wall-off and mind warpprism drops. It's just just something that needs to become part of the meta, how to defend against adept all-ins. Maybe this means that zergs can't go 3 hatch before pool, maybe it means that terran can't make their first CC directly in their natural. Concerning the late game, in their current form adepts don't feel overpowered at all. My concerns with adepts are the following: - They are very unforgiving in PvP. If you are not going mass adepts, then you need to wall-off because stalkers and zealots don't kill adepts fast enough to prevent them from decimating your mineral line. IMO this could be fixed by a simple change: "Shades can't move through Forcefields". Making the sentry relevant again early game.
- The zealot/adept interaction. As other's have pointed out, it seems it's always a better idea to make adepts. An interesting approach could be to play around with build times and costs. Something like Zealots now cost 85 minerals and build in 15% less time while adepts now cost 110 minerals + 25 gas and build in 10% more time. Something like this would maybe incentivize zealot usage in mid-game and slightly tone down early game adept usage.
- As far as I'm concerned, damage stats of adepts were designed for the unit to be a harass unit, which means in blizzard's eyes, 2 shotting workers. Maybe that idea is not relevant anymore if the adepts role is to be a core unit. More base damage and less bonus vs light would be interesting to test out, as long as they still 2 shot zerglings. I would try out 12 damage (+ 7 vs light) instead of 10 damage (+13) and give them instant projectile speed like marines (less dps but less overkill).
While they may not be broken early game, their tankiness is creating problems in their mirror match, and to put things into context man, you are an "upper level player" but you aren't anywhere near the top level of play, so getting wrecked on by players vastly better then you in spite of an OP unit really doesnt make it not OP, I'm really trying to say that in a non aggressive way, but to be frank, if SoS or Parting could get his hands on these bad boys Adepts would receive the nerf bat promptly.
I also completely disagree with your idea about the Zealot, 85 minerals is absolutely ridiculous and 10% reduction in build time just makes no sense, it's just a band aid, the Zealot should be buffed in it's role of a front line damage dealer/meat shield, not band aid fixed to make the Adept semi not OP and the Zealot some small reason to be built.
|
Amazing. Thank you for sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
