|
Their stats are just insane on early game :
It's a roach (same range, 1 of armor, dps vs non light) with 180 HP (roach has 145), and with the same dps vs light : 14.5 more than a stimmed 2/0 marine : 13.9.
The shadow is just so paintful as zerg as you don't have the DPS to One shot them, nor the mobility to catch them, you can't wall with your unit your ramp as the shadow ignore collision, so you'r forced to split your army on two part at your two bases, so to build double the size of his army.
This unit become after less good later as they are very slow, even if they are strong and tanky.
Honestly if the shadow can't ignore collision it would be better for early game, and allow more micro from the other player to counter.
|
On May 18 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If you have 11 zealots instead of 10, that's a buff to their roll of front line damage dealer though.
Regarding the OPness of the unit, for me a unit is OP when you can design an unstoppable push around it, or when their usage in the early game gives you a massive lead in the later stages of the game. So far none of that seems to be happening.
A unit being so good that you need to make them every game doesn't make it OP, it just makes it a core unit, which is the intended design.
On May 18 2015 00:53 mishimaBeef wrote:
Amazing. Thank you for sharing.
You're quite welcome 
|
problem is protoss would be utter shit if you nerfed adepts, we need a core unit replacement for the colossus in the middgame.
|
On May 18 2015 01:05 TT1 wrote:
problem is protoss would be utter shit if you nerfed adepts, we need a core unit replacement for the colossus in the middgame.
I think that it is time to apply a general minor buff to Gateway units and them more as a whole, not only articulating most of the Gateway strength around a unit that needs to be overbuffed to allow Gateway play to be in a trading position vs bio and Roach/Hydra without the need of tech supperiority and AoE to face them. It's the requisite to completely remove "deathball" play and promote aggressive skirmishing.
Increasing the overall trading efficiency in some common engagements, specially the ones where gateway armies are more inneficient and very tech dependant (vs bio or Roach/hydra) without falling much behind makes room for additional nerfs, reworks and buffs to units and tech for all three races, specially that ones that can be played around the midgame. And there are a ton of things that can be improved or reworked around that time space (Reaper, Ghost, a new bio unit, Hellion/Hellbat combatt strength, Hydralisk strenght mid-lategame, Ravagers, SH, Sentry, Immortal, Colossus, Oracle, VoidRay).
In my opinon:
Zealots pre-charge are shit, out microed by many units as they move too slow, being really inneficient at engaging, specially earlymidgame. They tank quite well, but maybe they need to take the extra tankiness that has been given to the Adept and, of course, a bit more of speed, both early and after the upgrade.
Suggested buffs:
- Base speed increase to 2.5/2.75.
- Slightly increased Shields maybe?
- Better upgrade. Either + base speed with Charge, or reworking the upgrade completely. Objective: high mobility.
Stalkers with enough micro and Sentries have been in a good spot balance-wise, but might need some extra power or tankiness if we nerf Adepts. They could have some extra HP (maybe taking Adept values).
Adepts should be more damage efficient and maybe a bit more mobile, and obviously less tanky. That doesn't mean increasing DPS, but reducing weapon cooldown so there are less wasted shots. We have to find a mid-lategame usability of Adepts. The shade is okay, but the mechanic neeeds to be readapted a bit. It's a true pain in the ass earlygame and not that useful in straigth engagements mid-lategame. Ideally, it should be some kind of Marauder for Protoss. Specialized infantry. Adepts should not replace Zealots but complement them.
Suggested buffs:
- Increased base speed.
- Damage reduced (for example (8+10)
- Weapon cooldown reduced (for example, to 1.5)
- Better upgrade to have utility mid-lategame.
Dark templars could also have a look at them, made less timing-friendly (tech delay) and thus have better move speed (3.39) or a bit more damage with a bit more weapon CD (1 shot marine at full upgrades) to be more viable as tactical reinforcement in some situations, exploiting a bit more the lack of detection in the same way that burrow Roaches, Lurkers, Ghosts and Banshees do.
Archons could be also reviewed when looking at their damage, but the main problem they have is that is much more common to go for armor upgrade than for shield upgrades, so they are relatively fragile.
|
On May 18 2015 06:04 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 01:05 TT1 wrote:
problem is protoss would be utter shit if you nerfed adepts, we need a core unit replacement for the colossus in the middgame. I think that it is time to apply a general minor buff to Gateway units and them more as a whole, not only articulating most of the Gateway strength around a unit that needs to be overbuffed to allow Gateway play to be in a trading position vs bio and Roach/Hydra without the need of tech supperiority and AoE to face them. It's the requisite to completely remove "deathball" play and promote aggressive skirmishing. Increasing the overall trading efficiency in some common engagements, specially the ones where gateway armies are more inneficient and very tech dependant (vs bio or Roach/hydra) without falling much behind makes room for additional nerfs, reworks and buffs to units and tech for all three races, specially that ones that can be played around the midgame. And there are a ton of things that can be improved or reworked around that time space (Reaper, Ghost, a new bio unit, Hellion/Hellbat combatt strength, Hydralisk strenght mid-lategame, Ravagers, SH, Sentry, Immortal, Colossus, Oracle, VoidRay). In my opinon: Zealots pre-charge are shit, out microed by many units as they move too slow, being really inneficient at engaging, specially earlymidgame. They tank quite well, but maybe they need to take the extra tankiness that has been given to the Adept and, of course, a bit more of speed, both early and after the upgrade. Suggested buffs:
- Base speed increase to 2.5/2.75.
- Slightly increased Shields maybe?
- Better upgrade. Either + base speed with Charge, or reworking the upgrade completely. Objective: high mobility.Stalkers with enough micro and Sentries have been in a good spot balance-wise, but might need some extra power or tankiness if we nerf Adepts. They could have some extra HP (maybe taking Adept values). Adepts should be more damage efficient and maybe a bit more mobile, and obviously less tanky. That doesn't mean increasing DPS, but reducing weapon cooldown so there are less wasted shots. We have to find a mid-lategame usability of Adepts. The shade is okay, but the mechanic neeeds to be readapted a bit. It's a true pain in the ass earlygame and not that useful in straigth engagements mid-lategame. Ideally, it should be some kind of Marauder for Protoss. Specialized infantry. Adepts should not replace Zealots but complement them. Suggested buffs:
- Increased base speed.
- Damage reduced (for example (8+10)
- Weapon cooldown reduced (for example, to 1.5)
- Better upgrade to have utility mid-lategame.Dark templars could also have a look at them, made less timing-friendly (tech delay) and thus have better move speed (3.39) or a bit more damage with a bit more weapon CD (1 shot marine at full upgrades) to be more viable as tactical reinforcement in some situations, exploiting a bit more the lack of detection in the same way that burrow Roaches, Lurkers, Ghosts and Banshees do. Archons could be also reviewed when looking at their damage, but the main problem they have is that is much more common to go for armor upgrade than for shield upgrades, so they are relatively fragile.
Even tough I don't think anybody is against making gateway units stronger and less dependant on high tech to make protoss less dependant of death balls, you simply can't just buff gateway units as long as no change to WG is done.
This is not an protoss OP opinion, its just something a lot people will surely agree with, wheter protoss is weaker or not, GW makes changing gateway units too risky, we already had this in HotS, small changes can make WG too strong.
Any change to gateway units should be done taking WG into consideration as flat buffs to them are too game changing, wich in response force blizzard to make changes wich are going to be band aids, we already knows what happens when blizzard changes stuff without changing WG.
|
On May 17 2015 16:41 Geiko wrote:
[*]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 fact it is not the case blows my mind. A forcefield should act like a building, and PvP early game would feel so much better while not going adepts if FFs could block the shades.
|
On May 18 2015 08:07 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 16:41 Geiko wrote:
[*]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 fact it is not the case blows my mind. A forcefield should act like a building, and PvP early game would feel so much better while not going adepts if FFs could block the shades.
FF blocking shades is not the correct mindset for a number of reasons:
#1 being for this to be effective you'd have to be a moderately skilled player. Knowing when an adept is coming and when to correctly time a FF would be very difficult for a large majority of lower league players. Moreover, the fact that the adept could, in theory, just sit at your ramp forces you to continue to produce units which are... bad against adepts.. while also spending your gas which is much much much worse than the player investing in a few number of adepts at low gas cost.
Overall, this is not the correct approach I don't think. It seems, again, too favorable for one person in the mirror.
|
This build doesn't really work vs terran or zerg. Terran if they open mech with quick cyclone and then quick tankivac + bunkers hold easily without taking too much damage. Zerg can just open 14 pool and lings get in your base before adepts even finish, then they just mass roach on 2 base and get wayyy too many roaches for your adepts to handle.
I did the build order perfectly and it doesn't work when they react properly
|
On May 18 2015 06:52 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 06:04 JCoto wrote:On May 18 2015 01:05 TT1 wrote:
problem is protoss would be utter shit if you nerfed adepts, we need a core unit replacement for the colossus in the middgame. I think that it is time to apply a general minor buff to Gateway units and them more as a whole, not only articulating most of the Gateway strength around a unit that needs to be overbuffed to allow Gateway play to be in a trading position vs bio and Roach/Hydra without the need of tech supperiority and AoE to face them. It's the requisite to completely remove "deathball" play and promote aggressive skirmishing. Increasing the overall trading efficiency in some common engagements, specially the ones where gateway armies are more inneficient and very tech dependant (vs bio or Roach/hydra) without falling much behind makes room for additional nerfs, reworks and buffs to units and tech for all three races, specially that ones that can be played around the midgame. And there are a ton of things that can be improved or reworked around that time space (Reaper, Ghost, a new bio unit, Hellion/Hellbat combatt strength, Hydralisk strenght mid-lategame, Ravagers, SH, Sentry, Immortal, Colossus, Oracle, VoidRay). In my opinon: Zealots pre-charge are shit, out microed by many units as they move too slow, being really inneficient at engaging, specially earlymidgame. They tank quite well, but maybe they need to take the extra tankiness that has been given to the Adept and, of course, a bit more of speed, both early and after the upgrade. Suggested buffs:
- Base speed increase to 2.5/2.75.
- Slightly increased Shields maybe?
- Better upgrade. Either + base speed with Charge, or reworking the upgrade completely. Objective: high mobility.Stalkers with enough micro and Sentries have been in a good spot balance-wise, but might need some extra power or tankiness if we nerf Adepts. They could have some extra HP (maybe taking Adept values). Adepts should be more damage efficient and maybe a bit more mobile, and obviously less tanky. That doesn't mean increasing DPS, but reducing weapon cooldown so there are less wasted shots. We have to find a mid-lategame usability of Adepts. The shade is okay, but the mechanic neeeds to be readapted a bit. It's a true pain in the ass earlygame and not that useful in straigth engagements mid-lategame. Ideally, it should be some kind of Marauder for Protoss. Specialized infantry. Adepts should not replace Zealots but complement them. Suggested buffs:
- Increased base speed.
- Damage reduced (for example (8+10)
- Weapon cooldown reduced (for example, to 1.5)
- Better upgrade to have utility mid-lategame.Dark templars could also have a look at them, made less timing-friendly (tech delay) and thus have better move speed (3.39) or a bit more damage with a bit more weapon CD (1 shot marine at full upgrades) to be more viable as tactical reinforcement in some situations, exploiting a bit more the lack of detection in the same way that burrow Roaches, Lurkers, Ghosts and Banshees do. Archons could be also reviewed when looking at their damage, but the main problem they have is that is much more common to go for armor upgrade than for shield upgrades, so they are relatively fragile. Even tough I don't think anybody is against making gateway units stronger and less dependant on high tech to make protoss less dependant of death balls, you simply can't just buff gateway units as long as no change to WG is done. This is not an protoss OP opinion, its just something a lot people will surely agree with, wheter protoss is weaker or not, GW makes changing gateway units too risky, we already had this in HotS, small changes can make WG too strong. Any change to gateway units should be done taking WG into consideration as flat buffs to them are too game changing, wich in response force blizzard to make changes wich are going to be band aids, we already knows what happens when blizzard changes stuff without changing WG.
Yeah, I agree that WG needs to be adjusted.
In fact, Protoss is completely WG dependant since WoL beta days because of the simple fact of production times, when it should not. I think we should rework and reestandarize Protoss macro, paying for access to macrobooster, and empower the Protoss macro with new additional, strong mechanics like Terran or Zerg have (mass production, megaworkers). That means, bringing Protoss macro back to late alpha stage. (Obelisk containing mechanics, non-default access to CB, Gateway times short, Warpgate mid-lategame oriented)
After that, the second step is to empower gateway production to WG levels and move WG up in tech requirements or/and costs. That is a first step to delay in time all-ins, something that is very time dependant and relatively abusable early/earlymidgame, when you don't have firepower to kill the pylons and the units fast, and you might be caugth off guard with very few units on the map.
IMAO the most problematic of WG is when an all-in is bringing in a Warp Prism and units start to warp in your face without being able to deny it effectively, typical of the early phase of the game. Most of the time, the only true effect of WG is negating travel time, and, of course, allowing to select your composition instantly.However, I don't think that that is as abusable as warpins "on da face" since build time for Protoss units tends to be much higher. For example, now WG attacks (not considering abuse of Adepts) tend feel a bit weaker in LotV because of the econ, something that allows for better defense.
Delaying WG in time so it appears in a phase of the game when you can really have units around to defend, and also nerfing the strengh of Warp Prism to bring in units on the face of the defending player might be a good balance measure. The clock tends to play against timing all-ins. I also think that a brained option is to readjust the Warp prism while in warp mode. Maybe x2/x3 warping time and vulnerability should be applied to WarpPrism (olny), hurting that abusable lategame warp-ins in-base. If WG comes late when you have enough defender strength, aggressive strategies around WG would be obviously nerfed.
|
On May 18 2015 06:04 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 01:05 TT1 wrote:
problem is protoss would be utter shit if you nerfed adepts, we need a core unit replacement for the colossus in the middgame. I think that it is time to apply a general minor buff to Gateway units and them more as a whole, not only articulating most of the Gateway strength around a unit that needs to be overbuffed to allow Gateway play to be in a trading position vs bio and Roach/Hydra without the need of tech supperiority and AoE to face them. It's the requisite to completely remove "deathball" play and promote aggressive skirmishing. Increasing the overall trading efficiency in some common engagements, specially the ones where gateway armies are more inneficient and very tech dependant (vs bio or Roach/hydra) without falling much behind makes room for additional nerfs, reworks and buffs to units and tech for all three races, specially that ones that can be played around the midgame. And there are a ton of things that can be improved or reworked around that time space (Reaper, Ghost, a new bio unit, Hellion/Hellbat combatt strength, Hydralisk strenght mid-lategame, Ravagers, SH, Sentry, Immortal, Colossus, Oracle, VoidRay). In my opinon: Zealots pre-charge are shit, out microed by many units as they move too slow, being really inneficient at engaging, specially earlymidgame. They tank quite well, but maybe they need to take the extra tankiness that has been given to the Adept and, of course, a bit more of speed, both early and after the upgrade. Suggested buffs:
- Base speed increase to 2.5/2.75.
- Slightly increased Shields maybe?
- Better upgrade. Either + base speed with Charge, or reworking the upgrade completely. Objective: high mobility.Stalkers with enough micro and Sentries have been in a good spot balance-wise, but might need some extra power or tankiness if we nerf Adepts. They could have some extra HP (maybe taking Adept values). Adepts should be more damage efficient and maybe a bit more mobile, and obviously less tanky. That doesn't mean increasing DPS, but reducing weapon cooldown so there are less wasted shots. We have to find a mid-lategame usability of Adepts. The shade is okay, but the mechanic neeeds to be readapted a bit. It's a true pain in the ass earlygame and not that useful in straigth engagements mid-lategame. Ideally, it should be some kind of Marauder for Protoss. Specialized infantry. Adepts should not replace Zealots but complement them. Suggested buffs:
- Increased base speed.
- Damage reduced (for example (8+10)
- Weapon cooldown reduced (for example, to 1.5)
- Better upgrade to have utility mid-lategame.Dark templars could also have a look at them, made less timing-friendly (tech delay) and thus have better move speed (3.39) or a bit more damage with a bit more weapon CD (1 shot marine at full upgrades) to be more viable as tactical reinforcement in some situations, exploiting a bit more the lack of detection in the same way that burrow Roaches, Lurkers, Ghosts and Banshees do. Archons could be also reviewed when looking at their damage, but the main problem they have is that is much more common to go for armor upgrade than for shield upgrades, so they are relatively fragile.
Pretty much just took all of what I was going to say and summed it up nicely.
The buff to give Zealots is extremely simple though, as long as they can be kited they will always suck, they need to be able to close in quickly and do damage and reduce the effectiveness of the stim + kite combo. Literally be applying your idea and buffing base speed just a tad and reworking Charge so that it doesn't exist because it is an idiotically designed upgrade number one and number two it literally takes micro completely out of the equation, it does the work for the player except it still let's Zealots be kited, with Charge they get ONE hit off and then they are kited.
Remove Charge, replace with Zealot legs so that top tier players can control the Zealot in ways that lower level players cannot, this will allow the Zealot to rapidly respond to drops and run by attacks and will prevent them from being senselessly kited.
All of your buff/changes ideas for the Adept are absolutely spot on.
|
On May 18 2015 13:03 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 06:04 JCoto wrote:On May 18 2015 01:05 TT1 wrote:
problem is protoss would be utter shit if you nerfed adepts, we need a core unit replacement for the colossus in the middgame. I think that it is time to apply a general minor buff to Gateway units and them more as a whole, not only articulating most of the Gateway strength around a unit that needs to be overbuffed to allow Gateway play to be in a trading position vs bio and Roach/Hydra without the need of tech supperiority and AoE to face them. It's the requisite to completely remove "deathball" play and promote aggressive skirmishing. Increasing the overall trading efficiency in some common engagements, specially the ones where gateway armies are more inneficient and very tech dependant (vs bio or Roach/hydra) without falling much behind makes room for additional nerfs, reworks and buffs to units and tech for all three races, specially that ones that can be played around the midgame. And there are a ton of things that can be improved or reworked around that time space (Reaper, Ghost, a new bio unit, Hellion/Hellbat combatt strength, Hydralisk strenght mid-lategame, Ravagers, SH, Sentry, Immortal, Colossus, Oracle, VoidRay). In my opinon: Zealots pre-charge are shit, out microed by many units as they move too slow, being really inneficient at engaging, specially earlymidgame. They tank quite well, but maybe they need to take the extra tankiness that has been given to the Adept and, of course, a bit more of speed, both early and after the upgrade. Suggested buffs:
- Base speed increase to 2.5/2.75.
- Slightly increased Shields maybe?
- Better upgrade. Either + base speed with Charge, or reworking the upgrade completely. Objective: high mobility.Stalkers with enough micro and Sentries have been in a good spot balance-wise, but might need some extra power or tankiness if we nerf Adepts. They could have some extra HP (maybe taking Adept values). Adepts should be more damage efficient and maybe a bit more mobile, and obviously less tanky. That doesn't mean increasing DPS, but reducing weapon cooldown so there are less wasted shots. We have to find a mid-lategame usability of Adepts. The shade is okay, but the mechanic neeeds to be readapted a bit. It's a true pain in the ass earlygame and not that useful in straigth engagements mid-lategame. Ideally, it should be some kind of Marauder for Protoss. Specialized infantry. Adepts should not replace Zealots but complement them. Suggested buffs:
- Increased base speed.
- Damage reduced (for example (8+10)
- Weapon cooldown reduced (for example, to 1.5)
- Better upgrade to have utility mid-lategame.Dark templars could also have a look at them, made less timing-friendly (tech delay) and thus have better move speed (3.39) or a bit more damage with a bit more weapon CD (1 shot marine at full upgrades) to be more viable as tactical reinforcement in some situations, exploiting a bit more the lack of detection in the same way that burrow Roaches, Lurkers, Ghosts and Banshees do. Archons could be also reviewed when looking at their damage, but the main problem they have is that is much more common to go for armor upgrade than for shield upgrades, so they are relatively fragile. Pretty much just took all of what I was going to say and summed it up nicely. The buff to give Zealots is extremely simple though, as long as they can be kited they will always suck, they need to be able to close in quickly and do damage and reduce the effectiveness of the stim + kite combo. Literally be applying your idea and buffing base speed just a tad and reworking Charge so that it doesn't exist because it is an idiotically designed upgrade number one and number two it literally takes micro completely out of the equation, it does the work for the player except it still let's Zealots be kited, with Charge they get ONE hit off and then they are kited. Remove Charge, replace with Zealot legs so that top tier players can control the Zealot in ways that lower level players cannot, this will allow the Zealot to rapidly respond to drops and run by attacks and will prevent them from being senselessly kited. All of your buff/changes ideas for the Adept are absolutely spot on.
Thanks for your support. But I think that the problem with Charge and Zealots is quite obvious: Concussive shells. As long as that exists the way it is now and Protoss has no effective counterplay to it, nothing will work.
Maybe if we get TimeWarp on Oracles or Sentries, or some anti-slow mechanic, that would be interesting. It would be fun. Marauders slow Zealots, Timewarp slows Bio. Or simply, an anti-slow AoE so that can be combined with FF/TimeWarps and fast-moving Zealots.
|
On May 15 2015 02:16 knOxStarcraft wrote:
How can you say something is balanced when you continually beat far better players than you doing a 1 base all in the other player knows is coming? Builds like this is why protoss is stupid, all ins are a staple for the race, not high risk high reward like they should be.
give it some time. If shit gets too bad we can still brigade Blizz to increase warp-in duration.
|
I think it's pretty tricky to buff the adept. I've been doing a 6-gates all-in in PvT every time I see a terran going for bio, and it's not even funny how easy it is to roll over the terran. Adepts tank so much, and the all-in comes right when stim finishes, he doesn't have medivacs out yet. I don't see Terrans holding in, except with something like 5 bunkers, and even then with a high amount of adepts, the scvs can be targetted, and unlike in WoT or HotS, if your all-in fails you have no tech and you're dead to the incoming MMM ball. Here it's not the case: even if your all-in fails ( which never happened to me ), you can continue to warp in an adept-based army and do fine while transitionning.
In my 150+ games on LotV so far, my feedback on adept is:
- it's OP in PvT vs bio
- it's average in PvZ ( mostly good for harass and early pressure )
- it's annoying in PvP ( because it dictates the builds )
Now clearly, if the adept is buffed, I don't see how Terrans are gonna survive. If the adept is nerfed, I don't see how Protoss can do well in PvZ. It looks tricky no matter what Blizzard chooses to do 
|
what if instead of nerfing the wg mechanics, blizzard will nerf tje wg units. like having them warp in with half strting energy and shilds and they will start reganerating them only after few sec?
|
On May 18 2015 17:08 JCoto wrote:
Thanks for your support. But I think that the problem with Charge and Zealots is quite obvious: Concussive shells. As long as that exists the way it is now and Protoss has no effective counterplay to it, nothing will work.
Maybe if we get TimeWarp on Oracles or Sentries, or some anti-slow mechanic, that would be interesting. It would be fun. Marauders slow Zealots, Timewarp slows Bio. Or simply, an anti-slow AoE so that can be combined with FF/TimeWarps and fast-moving Zealots.
Effective counterplay to Concussive shells? Such as Blink, Forefield, Timewarp, Psionic Transfer? Am I missing something or does it seem like nearly every Gateway unit has a mean to bypass this Concussive Shell issue, including the Zealot. I seriously don't get the hate on Charge. What is this mirco-potential that people keep raving on if Charge was removed? Charge is only activating if you're A-moving your Zealot to the enemy. If you want to mirco with them, don't A-move them to the enemy, and then you would will be able to mirco them as if they didn't have charge. You can try to surround them yourself. Or maybe I'm wrong and they want to attack and retreat like a marine. The only problem I see with this is that, they are MELEE and they shouldn't even be the main focus of your APM. Your range units should be, not the Zealot. When I see people complain that Charge is removing Mirco, I seriously doubt they even mean mirco. I just think almost all of them just mean, I want my Zealot to move faster so I can get to places faster.
On May 18 2015 20:58 Nyast wrote:
I think it's pretty tricky to buff the adept. I've been doing a 6-gates all-in in PvT every time I see a terran going for bio, and it's not even funny how easy it is to roll over the terran. Adepts tank so much, and the all-in comes right when stim finishes, he doesn't have medivacs out yet. I don't see Terrans holding in, except with something like 5 bunkers, and even then with a high amount of adepts, the scvs can be targetted, and unlike in WoT or HotS, if your all-in fails you have no tech and you're dead to the incoming MMM ball. Here it's not the case: even if your all-in fails ( which never happened to me ), you can continue to warp in an adept-based army and do fine while transitionning.
In my 150+ games on LotV so far, my feedback on adept is:
- it's OP in PvT vs bio
- it's average in PvZ ( mostly good for harass and early pressure )
- it's annoying in PvP ( because it dictates the builds )
Ignoring the actual situation, this is why the concept of having 1 unit be the sole band-aid to fix a balance issue is poor design. If a situation as something like this arise that centers around that 1 unit, you can't do much ajusting because its 'needed' to in the 'state of being an issue' to off-set another issue.
And this has happened to the Protoss the most of all the other races. Mothership Core with their required need for early base defense. Sentry for their need to make Gateway units be viable early game, Immortal to defend the Mass Roach/Stalker play, and Phoenixs to strave off Mass Mutalisk.
All of these units should feel like they great addtions to an army, that people should want to make these units because these units bring something awesome to the army composition. But due to how Protoss Core gateway army feels weak during the early phases of the game, all these units feel like clutches to survive. It's not "I want to make this unit", but rather, "I have to make this unit". And when it 'have' to make them, you can't nerf them without a stupid amount of blacklash.
So many times on fourms, I see people defend why the Immortal shouldn't be nerf to make Terran Mech more viable is because, "Protoss needs it to defend Mass Roach/Stalker play". When looking at 'statstical balance', it works, but in terms of fun design, it limits what the player can do from multiply sides.
But this is all coming from a low casual who sees maintaining a near perfect 50/50 win ratio secondary when compared to bringing diversity within the game. I want flexiablity in strageties over remembering build orders. I want multply ways of dealing 1 problem instead of 1 fix against the 1 problem. I want different maps where different stragerties are favored over others. But Blizzard, over and over again apperently don't share that view because they constantly push this 1 fix on protoss over and over, with the Immortal, with the Phoenix, with the MSC, and now with the Adept. And I don't have faith that they will change their appoarch because i don't see the examples of which they appoarched the issue in that manner.
On May 18 2015 20:58 Nyast wrote:Now clearly, if the adept is buffed, I don't see how Terrans are gonna survive. If the adept is nerfed, I don't see how Protoss can do well in PvZ. It looks tricky no matter what Blizzard chooses to do.
Well, I can think of a few changes that would improve all those three situation. Hint, it involves modifying other Gateway units along with the Adept.
|
blizzard really trapped protoss with warp gate and the adept is another example. to balance it it has to be a paper mache that trades poorly vs roach/hydra or bio, unless they look to change warp gates. i'm not sure what the state of it is now though, seems a bit early to tell since people still haven't figured out optimal LotV openings and stuff.
|
I have had pretty good success with this build vs zerg/terran. Against protoss I find that if my opponent has gone for quick oracle it is much harder to win. Also most zerg started going for quick overseer as soon as they see 2 adepts with mass roach.
If they keep adept allin viable for live then it will be another useful surprise allin to work with.
|
|
|
- Base speed increase to 2.5/2.75.
- Slightly increased Shields maybe?
- Better upgrade. Either + base speed with Charge, or reworking the upgrade completely. Objective: high mobility.
I think that with the introduction of the Adept it (besides faster speed) also makes sense to focus the Zealot more as a high HP/low dps unit in order to make sure that the Zealot always have utility as the buffer unit.
|
On May 29 2015 13:35 SayfT wrote:
I have had pretty good success with this build vs zerg/terran. Against protoss I find that if my opponent has gone for quick oracle it is much harder to win. Also most zerg started going for quick overseer as soon as they see 2 adepts with mass roach.
If they keep adept allin viable for live then it will be another useful surprise allin to work with.
I've been having pretty good results with proxying a robo instead of putting down a dakshrine.
Even if they spot it they can't leave their base to kill it, and the combination immortal+Adept makes for some pretty intersting micro (they need to make the right number of lings and roaches instead of just mass roach.).
The robo is pretty much necessary anyways against roaches because you need an obs for burrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
