Here's my little contribution to the LotV beta balance. I hear a lot of talk about how 1 base cheeses and all-ins are impossible to do in LotV, and also about how protoss is underpowered currently.
So I set myself a little challenge to play all my games exclusively on 1 base, using only mass adept builds and see where that gets me (some of you might remember me from that 3 rax to GM thread I made a couple of years back).
I use the same opening all match-ups, 2 gate fast 2 adepts, into 4 gate adept with adept shield upgrade.
[no scout]
13 pylon
14 gate with worker that pops out
*chronoboost probes once
15 gas with the worker that pops out
18 gate with the worker that pops out, and 3 on gas immediately
19 core with worker that pops out
19 gas
20 pylon
22 make 2 adepts and warpgate research.
*chrono warpgate continuously
more probes
vs Terran Variation
Robo
Twilight
2 x gates
Warprism
Adept upgrade
observer
You pressure their front with first adepts, then you warpprism elevator all your adepts in his main. From there on, it's pretty much gg.
Here's what former GSL code S runner-up oGsTOP had to say about this:
vs Zerg Variation Possibly the best matchup for adepts.
Twilight
2 x gates
Adept upgrade
DT shrine
With your first 2 adepts, you poke in their base. Queens should pop as you get there. If they don't have zerglings yet, go in for a couple of drone kills. Use the shades to distract opponent and escape with your adepts when zerglings pop out. If they already have lings, that means that they haven't droned up much and are expecting an all-in. Just wait it out and warp more adepts. Keep poking with shades and attack if they are not making enough units. Once shield upgrade finishes, you can go in for the kill. There are multiple ways to play it out, depends on what the zerg is doing. Snipe spores and go in with dts, go back and forth between bases and kill a couple drones every time. It's up to you. If he is massing roaches, don't worry, adepts do fine vs roaches. Just add a robo and get an observer.
Closing comment from arguably one of the best Zerg playing the beta currently:
Geiko vs ViBE: http://drop.sc/398903 Geiko vs MACHINE: http://drop.sc/398904 Geiko vs neuro: http://drop.sc/398907 (I actually tell this guys I'm going to go for 1 base mass adept into dts after 4 times of doing the same build against him and still win)
vs Protoss Variation
(your second pylon should be build at the ramp)
Twilight
2 x gates (full wall off)
Adept upgrade
DT shrine
It's important to wall off against toss because popular builds will get 2 adpets in your base and 2 at home to defend. Adepts in your probe line usually = gg. My build uses only 2 adepts early game to get faster shield upgrade so wall off is necessary.
Basically plays itself out. Harass, scout and take the engagement when upgrade finishes. Watch out for protoss with unsually low unit count. it's either DTs or proxy oracle. 2 stalkers in mineral line and proxy robo is a good safety measure. If he really is going for dts, then it's a base race and you'll win if you get an obs out in time.
Closing thoughts Adepts are very fun to play with. The shade ability is a lot more than a modified blink, it allows you to bypass defenses, control ennemy movement and is a great escape mechanism. They are extremely tanky once the shield upgrade is finished and allow for a lot more strategical decisions as fights aren't over in 10 seconds.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Nonetheless, I think I succeeded in abusing this unit. I'm pretty much on top (at least very high for my true skill) of the unranked mmr ladder with something like 100-60 win ratio. And have beaten all the pro players / GM players I've played at least once or twice.
Thank you for reading my little brag guide and have fun with the beta !
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves that can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I think he means can't be scouted or else they fail.
Also, to OP, nice haha.
I did this off 2 bases. Not as allin and you can transition into disruptors etc.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I think he means can't be scouted or else they fail.
Bingo.
The big problem is that people open blindly going for those builds, there is no in game strategic choice to being made, it is literally gambling. And that is dumb.
You have plenty of time to scout and make a read, and then go for this build if you open up in a standard way. You aren't trapped into doing it as soon as the game begins. It is (or at least can be) a strategic choice.
We need so much more of this in SC2 to make the early game exciting. It is what made WOL in 2011 so exciting.
But Blizzard and also map makers have been forcing it out of the game because it is difficult to balance. Doing what is hard is how great things are done though.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I did this off 2 bases. Not as allin and you can transition into disruptors etc.
Standard macro play is built on the roots of good all-ins. It goes from one base, to two, maybe to three and then becomes part of standard play.
Have you had the chance to test your build against reactor hellion openers? How well do Adepts fair against Hellions in general? At what time do your first two adepts hit the terran base?
On May 15 2015 01:11 PowerOfOne wrote: Have you had the chance to test your build against reactor hellion openers? How well do Adepts fair against Hellions in general? At what time do your first two adepts hit the terran base?
I played you yesterday aswell, I got wrecked by this build two or three times in a row. As you said, perhaps keeping roaches in the mineral line would help against this, I remember investing in fairly early ling speed both games where I knew it was coming to try and counterattack. Didn't quite help since by the time your pylons go down you can warp in some adepts in your base to stop the lings.
If we meet again I'm going to try and ignore lings completely and just going straight for roaches, I have the feeling roaches will just tickle adepts in small numbers and I wont have time to get big numbers since the adepts get there so incredibly fast.
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.
Haha, this seems obnoxious but at least somebody proved me wrong, I thought Adepts were going to be useless but they look pretty damn good in these scenarios, hopefully they are useful for things other then all ins though.
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.
Just because it hasn't been figured out doesn't mean it is unbalanced. Give it some time.
You're sacrificing a lot of economy to get this build that. That means your opponent is going to have sacrifice economy too. To expect to hold this with a standard expand build order isn't the right way to think.
So far, I've been opening 2 gate adept into expand in PvT (and even Nexus first into 2 gate adept) and I had quite the success with it. sending them chasing begind shades, just to cancel them the last second...priceless. If they don't wall, they are basically dead no matter what
I don't like the state of the adept currently and this thread only reinforces my impression Blizzard is failing to design this unit. I especially dislike how the adept seems to have become the only way to open in PvP and I fail to see which interesting dynamics are created by a shade that can be cancelled.
I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
The weapon stats for Adepts (not damage, but weapon's) are obviously outdated. The Adept was balanced around a low-tier splash concept and thus the weapon needed to be inneficient as the splash damage was very destructive, but with the splash damage removed the first thing that should have been tweaked is the weapon values.
My suggestion: retune it in a similar way to marauders, maybe adjust it to a marine-like unit with smartfire, and test it that way.
I think it should be much more like a Marauder or even a Marine in that aspect, and retune mobility/maneuverability (damage point, weapon speed, projectile speed and so) so it becomes much more effective at combat, but easier to counter. That could bring some type of bio/baneling play viability to ZvP.
I think that Blizz will realize some day that in fact small HP/shield buffs and small ajustements to Stalkers and Zealots would make a lot of room to retuning the Adept into a balanced unit, not an obviously buffed unit whose stats are absurd and exploiteable at the cost of being damage-inneficient.
Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
The weapon stats for Adepts (not damage, but weapon's) are obviously outdated. The Adept was balanced around a low-tier splash concept and thus the weapon needed to be inneficient as the splash damage was very destructive, but with the splash damage removed the first thing that should have been tweaked is the weapon values.
My suggestion: retune it in a similar way to marauders, maybe adjust it to a marine-like unit with smartfire, and test it that way.
I think it should be much more like a Marauder or even a Marine in that aspect, and retune mobility/maneuverability (damage point, weapon speed, projectile speed and so) so it becomes much more effective at combat, but easier to counter. That could bring some type of bio/baneling play viability to ZvP.
I think that Blizz will realize some day that in fact small HP/shield buffs and small ajustements to Stalkers and Zealots would make a lot of room to retuning the Adept into a balanced unit, not an obviously buffed unit whose stats are absurd and exploiteable at the cost of being damage-inneficient.
On May 15 2015 03:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
from the games I've seen, the adept player just dies to blink stalkers: defending till blink is done or you get a decisive victory in a fight (which only happens if the adept player mismicros though) and then walk over the map andkill the guy.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
Well, that pretty much sums up every Gateway unit.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
Well, that pretty much sums up every Gateway unit.
That's not completely true. In fact, it rarely applies to any Gateway unit. The only unit that in fact has that kind of stats is Stalkers and maybe Archons (I think that Archons are more like Zergling/marine snipers and not that tanky, but therycraft....). Protoss units are very tanky from their design. High cost, valuable, strong units.
Zealots have very Strong DPS, and very efficient in damage; the difficut part is to get them to deal damage. They are also tanky. Zealots knocking at you have a very interesting damage. Get a bad engagement, Zealots slip into your army, and it will be reduced faster than it should.. Zealots have good DPS, the problem is that they are too slow and inneficient to get into fights, and Concussive shells makes them shit in PvT. Just remove Concussive shells and increase Zealot base speed (BW style) and we'll see that "low DPS".
Stalkers are hardly "tanky" as they evaporate in straight fights. Yes, it is relatively tanky and have low DPS. But guess what, with good micro and some synergy with Sentries they can get much more value than expected. But you need godly micro. However, from what we see in ZvP and TvP vs Blinkstalker pushes, they are in a relatively good spot. Stalkers are obviously balanced as a mobile thing, they are very mobile, and the rate of fire is quite decent, but obviously the damage isn't excelent. However, even with Stalkers being considered "shit" they are the origin of a ton of complaints when paired with Sentries. You can buff them in damage like Dragoons and see what happens. Wanna try? ^^
Adepts were originally more fragile (60HP/80 shields, +1 armor) and designed with more firepower, considering the potential splash damage. So in the end, they were something like a Marauder. Specialized infantry, with decent HP and strong, focused DPS. Obviously, launching the upgrade as something that took a lot of time (140s) to tech too, considering it competes with Blink and Charge, made them very unpractical to tech to. And they were very clunky shooting, also caused in order to compensate for the splash, but as a thing, think of this: the high damage point prevented Adepts to waste too many shots, because it took longer to fire the initial shot, but made them very inneficient in fights, since they rarely get shots, considering also the low rate of fire.
Sentry is a caster. Low HP, high gas cost, low base damage.
HT is pure caster, very fragile too Low HP. But damage is insane on good storms (NO basic attacks).
DT's a very fragile too, Low HP, but insane meele damage.
Archon is a very very lategame unit, tanky but with aceptable damage considering the splash. The Archon is usually wasted since Protoss almost never get shield upgrades and that makes them fragile.
So not, out of 7 Gateway units, Protoss only has 2 tanky-low DPS units. 3 Counting the actual design of the Adept which is stupid.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
The weapon stats for Adepts (not damage, but weapon's) are obviously outdated. The Adept was balanced around a low-tier splash concept and thus the weapon needed to be inneficient as the splash damage was very destructive, but with the splash damage removed the first thing that should have been tweaked is the weapon values.
My suggestion: retune it in a similar way to marauders, maybe adjust it to a marine-like unit with smartfire, and test it that way.
I think it should be much more like a Marauder or even a Marine in that aspect, and retune mobility/maneuverability (damage point, weapon speed, projectile speed and so) so it becomes much more effective at combat, but easier to counter. That could bring some type of bio/baneling play viability to ZvP.
I think that Blizz will realize some day that in fact small HP/shield buffs and small ajustements to Stalkers and Zealots would make a lot of room to retuning the Adept into a balanced unit, not an obviously buffed unit whose stats are absurd and exploiteable at the cost of being damage-inneficient.
I'd actually prefer toning down the HP (but not shields) and reintroducing its forked splash attack. It would give it a lot more personality as a unit.
I think the adepts are in a good place balance wise. Protoss really needs a tanky gateway unit and I prefer the shield upgrade to the splash upgrade.
1 base all-ins are supposed to be strong, I'm having a lot of success with this because people have forgotten how to react to committed protoss 1 base all-in.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I think he means can't be scouted or else they fail.
Bingo.
The big problem is that people open blindly going for those builds, there is no in game strategic choice to being made, it is literally gambling. And that is dumb.
You have plenty of time to scout and make a read, and then go for this build if you open up in a standard way. You aren't trapped into doing it as soon as the game begins. It is (or at least can be) a strategic choice.
We need so much more of this in SC2 to make the early game exciting. It is what made WOL in 2011 so exciting.
But Blizzard and also map makers have been forcing it out of the game because it is difficult to balance. Doing what is hard is how great things are done though.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I did this off 2 bases. Not as allin and you can transition into disruptors etc.
Standard macro play is built on the roots of good all-ins. It goes from one base, to two, maybe to three and then becomes part of standard play.
You realize that there is strategy behind calculating odds and taking risks?
On May 15 2015 03:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
I'm not sure this is the exact answer to the problem. Adepts are GOOD units vs Z and T. It's just that it is unfortunate that unlike Z and T: P has no real way of preventing their harassment, even if they know it is coming. The best thing you can do is to completely wall off, but in that case, opening with 2gate adept is not all in at all. You can just expo or literally anything else.
I think I have a bit more refined version of this build, and some nice follow ups. I'll post some replays below of my version of it. I never did commentary on my YT channel of the newer reps because I had a huge drop of interest with LotV recently due to the really lame patches that have been coming out.
anyway, i think this is really the only viable opening for protoss atm. it prevents any type of real cheese from either race and allows you to be aggressive. if you scout dgas from z u just go SG instead of robo to fight ravagers. if u can get tons of damage then you're generally in a good spot to win, but lurkers and so on can be very hard to kill regardless l0l. anyway hope this helps people somewhat
Thanks for sharing this build! I don't have much to say with regard to balance, but if it helps, you can find the build orders for all of the replays shared above (thanks for linking, by the way) here
On May 15 2015 03:25 [PkF] Wire wrote: Watching TT1's stream. PvP games seem to be as interesting as a Ruff game on Catallena. PvP would be so dominated by adepts early game if the adepts stays the way they are the match-up will go back to WoL 4 gates levels of refinement. I agree with the previous post that the adept seems far too tanky for their role.
I'm not sure this is the exact answer to the problem. Adepts are GOOD units vs Z and T. It's just that it is unfortunate that unlike Z and T: P has no real way of preventing their harassment, even if they know it is coming.
Agree that adepts show interesting potential in other mus (though possibly too strong here too). Possible solution : shades no longer go through forcefields, giving adepts attacks reliable counterplay.
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I think he means can't be scouted or else they fail.
Bingo.
The big problem is that people open blindly going for those builds, there is no in game strategic choice to being made, it is literally gambling. And that is dumb.
You have plenty of time to scout and make a read, and then go for this build if you open up in a standard way. You aren't trapped into doing it as soon as the game begins. It is (or at least can be) a strategic choice.
We need so much more of this in SC2 to make the early game exciting. It is what made WOL in 2011 so exciting.
But Blizzard and also map makers have been forcing it out of the game because it is difficult to balance. Doing what is hard is how great things are done though.
On May 15 2015 00:50 DinoMight wrote:
On May 15 2015 00:43 TronJovolta wrote:
On May 15 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
On May 14 2015 23:35 Geiko wrote:
They don't seem overpowered as is, and the existence of powerful 4 gates openings is a good thing to keep other races from being too greedy.
Blizzard won't see it that way, but the return of any legitimate one base play that isn't based on blind moves and can't be scouted (proxy 2 gate, 6 pool, proxy 2 rax ect....) is very good for the game.
Nice build.
Actually all of those can be scouted. You're just bad.
I did this off 2 bases. Not as allin and you can transition into disruptors etc.
Standard macro play is built on the roots of good all-ins. It goes from one base, to two, maybe to three and then becomes part of standard play.
You realize that there is strategy behind calculating odds and taking risks?
Sure. There is strategy in rock paper scissors, too. But to produce repeatable results and predictable interaction, we should remove as much luck as possible. If we don't, then we won't be able to balance the game.
The problem with those blind all-ins is that they are designed to counter another terrible gameplay mechanic, blind greed (Nexus first). Make neither possible, and the game is better for it.
On May 15 2015 03:24 JCoto wrote: I think that design-wise, they are seriously too tanky.
But that happens because in fact the weapon is really innefective, the DPS is low, and the slow rate of fire makes the weapon much inneficient because there are a lot of wasted shots (The unit has no smartfire like marines).
Well, that pretty much sums up every Gateway unit.
That's not completely true. In fact, it rarely applies to any Gateway unit...
Stalkers are hardly "tanky" as they evaporate in straight fights. Yes, it is relatively tanky...
Well everything is relative. Stalkers aren't tanky when facing Siege Tanks, but versus Banelings they can take quite a few hits. Zealots are the opposite.
Let's compare apples to apples here.
Stalkers have low DPS (6.9) but the most effective HP of any tier unit one. 160 is as much as a Tank, though the Tanks armor applies to the full 160 HP, so they are slightly more tough. And that isn't taking into account Blink and shield recharge. The reason they look weak is that people build things that straight counter them if you commit to them. Marauders, Immortals, ect.
Zealots do not have good DPS for their cost compared to Zerglings or Marines. They do 13.3 DPS, compared to 14 for 2 Marines and 21 for 2 stimmed Marines. And the Marines are a ranged unit. 4 Lings do 28.2 DPS, and that increases to 34 with Adrenal glands. It isn't even close, Zealots do not have good DPS.
But Zealots have excellent survivability with armor and more effective HP than either of those units for cost.
Sentries have 80 effective hp and 1 armor, so that makes them tougher than a Hydralisk (80hp, no armor). Compared to Reapers or Banes, the other gas heavy tier 1 units for the other races, they are tanky and have low DPS.
Archons do 14.3 DPS (+5.7 versus bio units), though they do splash. For comparison, a Hydralisk does 16 DPS, and perhaps the most comparable unit, the Ultralisk does 40.65 DPS, which is also splashed. A Hellbat does 9 DPS (+6 versus light units). So two Hellbats does more damage than an Archon, for far less money.
So yeah. Protoss unit don't do the damage people think they do. But their tankiness makes up for it. We just think that Archons and Zealots do a lot of damage, because it is what Protoss uses for damage dealers. But they simply don't do a lot of damage relative to similar units from the other races.
Dark Templars and High Templars have other intended purposes that straight up fighting where DPS and tankiness are important, so you got me there. But that is also why I said pretty much.
On May 15 2015 04:26 JCoto wrote: Just remove Concussive shells and increase Zealot base speed (BW style) and we'll see that "low DPS".
You can't remove concussive shells or Protoss would kite Marauders all day with Stalkers. Run in, trade with the Marauder, move back and recharge shields, rinse and repeat. You'd have to give Terran medics or the Marine and Marauders would get whittled to pieces early game and Terran would need to be even more passive early in PvT than they are now.
And with Forcefields Zealots get plenty of chances to show off their DPS.
A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
On May 15 2015 08:11 Big J wrote: A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
What part of their stats do you think needs reworking ? If you nerf their main stats you run the risk of turning it into a specialized scouting unit like the reaper and that's not what blizzard intended for the unit.
It's supposed to be a core unit, so massing it should be powerful.
On May 15 2015 08:11 Big J wrote: A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
What part of their stats do you think needs reworking ? If you nerf their main stats you run the risk of turning it into a specialized scouting unit like the reaper and that's not what blizzard intended for the unit.
It's supposed to be a core unit, so massing it should be powerful.
The adept is a bit like the roach with 25% more costs and 25% more health, same damage on average which is kind of reasonable so far. But then it also has shield regeneration and the shadow walk gimmick (which works partly like a speed upgrade, e.g. to get adepts over the map, partly like a burrow movement upgrade to get adepts through blockades) from the get-go and a massive health upgrade on top of it. I think the core stats would be kind of OK - though +50shields from the upgrade always sounded like blizzard just overnight threw out a number to replace the splash and the number was a bit excessive - but not in the context of shields and shadow walk.
Other units at that techlevel have either their combat stats and abilities - stim, combat shields, speed, charge, blink, blue flame - or their harassment capability - blink, speed, medivac drops, medivac regeneration, burrow movement, burrow regeneration - rolled in. The +50health are more of an extra, than something that holds back its combat power so that early on it is mainly a harassment/scouting unit. The only reason why it isn't that imbalanced at the moment after the upgrade is that later on there is a lot of other imbalanced stuff in the game, but that seems to be slowly balanced out (like lurkers and ravagers, roll in of the cyclone AA). I think the health upgrade should be scrapped, the unit very slightly nerfed in health (like -10/-10) and a new upgrade introduced that buffs the speed of the adept (and maybe its shadow).
On May 15 2015 08:11 Big J wrote: A quick lool at their stats very simply revealed that they're probably going to cause balance problems (after the patch). I'm happy that it has been figured out so fast that blizzard still has time to rework that unit.
What part of their stats do you think needs reworking ? If you nerf their main stats you run the risk of turning it into a specialized scouting unit like the reaper and that's not what blizzard intended for the unit.
It's supposed to be a core unit, so massing it should be powerful.
Initially it wasn't meant to be a core unit, they changed their minds suddenly. I would have actually liked it much more if it became an early game scouting/harass tool, kinda similar to WoL reaper or the hellion ; something quick and fragile that can get scouting information and inflict some damage to worker lines without proper reaction. This version is just too good with many bad consequences, the worst obviously being that stone age PvP no one would ever want to play.
Glad I don't have beta, looks obnoxious to play against.
Edit: just looked at the stats for this unit, lol, hard to imagine it being balanced when it's so much better than all other gateway units. Guess Blizzard just wants to see how people use them.
On May 15 2015 19:57 Saechiis wrote: Guess Blizzard just wants to see how people use them.
I think that's the reason why they're currently "broken", Blizzard just wants to gather data before proposing a reasonable iteration of the unit. I must say I don't really like their way of balancing things though, makes the beta a really frustrating experience.
On May 15 2015 21:21 BiiG-Fr wrote: Hi, As terran bio player, what's the best answer to an adept opening or an adept heavy composition?
I tried marauder, mine or hellbat, and nothing seems to work, especially in mid-game with heavy adept composition.
Bio is meant to fail in direct engagements against Adepts, specially once the macrogame evolves and upgrades start to be added. Adepts are damn tanky in their actual state, destroy marines, and Marauders lose in straigth fights to Adepts since Adepts can tank much more and Guardian shields block a ton of damage from Marauders. If you are going to try Bio, experiment with Ghosts and EMP, because it is the only theroticall response to Adepts, considering EMP, snipes and bonus damage vs light, so a few Ghost as support units could help against a ball of Adepts. Ghosts are available very early in the Teerran tech tree, even if they are costly. It is also very interesting since no-one seems to have tried it.
Bio with some support of mines and Hellbatdrops can work relatively decent in trades pre-upgrade, but once Adepts are upgraded and Templars/ Disruptors come in, start praying for Protoss to be greedy and mess up with macro.
But definitely, Mech is the brained answer. Blue flame, Banshees, and Cyclones.And Harass and macro like crazy, and have a good luck. And Pray. Bio doesn't work well against Adepts in the same way that Pure Gateway units fail against MMM in HotS, specially as upgrades kick in.
The Karma is a funny thing. 5 years dealing with MMM and how it restricted Protoss play to obvious need of AoE and playing in disadvantage of cost efficiency, now Protoss has an OP infantry, Terran has no other way to win than all-in, outplaying the opponent by far,to build a very focused counter-army or outmacro, because Protoss can abuse of relatively efficient, countering units. Roles reversed.
On May 15 2015 04:26 JCoto wrote: However, even with Stalkers being considered "shit" they are the origin of a ton of complaints when paired with Sentries. You can buff them in damage like Dragoons and see what happens. Wanna try? ^^
I would do that anytime, if only tanks were given their BW damage back. Where a tank OS a dragoon; they take like 5 shots to kill a stalker ;O
On May 15 2015 21:21 BiiG-Fr wrote: Hi, As terran bio player, what's the best answer to an adept opening or an adept heavy composition?
I tried marauder, mine or hellbat, and nothing seems to work, especially in mid-game with heavy adept composition.
Bio is meant to fail in direct engagements against Adepts, specially once the macrogame evolves and upgrades start to be added. Adepts are damn tanky in their actual state, destroy marines, and Marauders lose in straigth fights to Adepts since Adepts can tank much more and Guardian shields block a ton of damage from Marauders. If you are going to try Bio, experiment with Ghosts and EMP, because it is the only theroticall response to Adepts, considering EMP, snipes and bonus damage vs light, so a few Ghost as support units could help against a ball of Adepts. Ghosts are available very early in the Teerran tech tree, even if they are costly. It is also very interesting since no-one seems to have tried it.
Bio with some support of mines and Hellbatdrops can work relatively decent in trades pre-upgrade, but once Adepts are upgraded and Templars/ Disruptors come in, start praying for Protoss to be greedy and mess up with macro.
But definitely, Mech is the brained answer. Blue flame, Banshees, and Cyclones.And Harass and macro like crazy, and have a good luck. And Pray. Bio doesn't work well against Adepts in the same way that Pure Gateway units fail against MMM in HotS, specially as upgrades kick in.
The Karma is a funny thing. 5 years dealing with MMM and how it restricted Protoss play to obvious need of AoE and playing in disadvantage of cost efficiency, now Protoss has an OP infantry, Terran has no other way to win than all-in, outplaying the opponent by far,to build a very focused counter-army or outmacro, because Protoss can abuse of relatively efficient, countering units. Roles reversed.
Yeah, adding a couple of Hellbats to your bio force is the good option vs adept heavy composition.
My only question is what is Terran supposed to do vs. early Adept play? It's like a super reaper in your base that can bypass frontal defenses and have a ridiculous escape mechanic as well.
And by "Terran" I mean what the hell is any race supposed to do? They are tanky to the point that when I go for heavy Queens, they get stomped, Zerglings get stomped and Roaches get stomped by them in low numbers considering they almost have the same HP as a Roach.
It's beta of course so things are going to go through their overpowered and underpowered swings but as far as I can tell watching pro games and playing 10-15 games a day Adepts are pretty absurdly strong and definitely abusable at the moment. Would appreciate Blizzard toning down their early game tankiness at the very least to prevent the super early Adept abuse O__o
On May 16 2015 01:26 Beelzebub1 wrote: My only question is what is Terran supposed to do vs. early Adept play? It's like a super reaper in your base that can bypass frontal defenses and have a ridiculous escape mechanic as well.
And by "Terran" I mean what the hell is any race supposed to do? They are tanky to the point that when I go for heavy Queens, they get stomped, Zerglings get stomped and Roaches get stomped by them in low numbers considering they almost have the same HP as a Roach.
It's beta of course so things are going to go through their overpowered and underpowered swings but as far as I can tell watching pro games and playing 10-15 games a day Adepts are pretty absurdly strong and definitely abusable at the moment. Would appreciate Blizzard toning down their early game tankiness at the very least to prevent the super early Adept abuse O__o
I think that Barrack/depot wall should work. I don't remember the timings, but considering that Barracks and Gateways take the same time to build, + Adept build time, + travel time... enough for 2 depots for a wall I think.
First, like Lings, don't let them go in via building a wall. Try to use mines.
Right now, your best option is to rush their best counters early. Concussive shells, Mines, Hellbats can help early game, and I think that Banelings could be used against them, specially considering how slow they split.
But don't take it too seriously, Adepts are obviously broken. Abuse the low mobility of the army and harass non-stop.
I've been having some laughs looking how Adept/Immortal feels like the Protoss version of MarineMarauder and how doomed Terrans feel now. That small Karma time might be positive to teach how bad it feels to have units that are inneficient to combat in straight engagements, maybe then we could stop race flamming. Colossi deathballs existed for the sole reason of inneficiency of the army in straight combat. Now that everyone is going to get some efficient basic units, trading with less restrictions, and the Colossus is nerfed, would the flamming stop?
On May 16 2015 01:55 JCoto wrote: But don't take it too seriously, Adepts are obviously broken.
I wouldn't say it's so obvious since according to Blizzard Protoss was struggling in LotV and the adept wasn't mentioned at all in the most recent patch notes. Nevertheless, adepts make bio and Z in general look silly and PvP is nothing but a messy adepts wars. Seemed to go unnoticed to Blizzard's eyes though.
On May 16 2015 01:55 JCoto wrote: But don't take it too seriously, Adepts are obviously broken.
I wouldn't say it's so obvious since according to Blizzard Protoss was struggling in LotV and the adept wasn't mentioned at all in the most recent patch notes. Nevertheless, adepts make bio and Z in general look silly and PvP is nothing but a messy adepts wars. Seemed to go unnoticed to Blizzard's eyes though.
On May 16 2015 01:55 JCoto wrote: But don't take it too seriously, Adepts are obviously broken.
I wouldn't say it's so obvious since according to Blizzard Protoss was struggling in LotV and the adept wasn't mentioned at all in the most recent patch notes. Nevertheless, adepts make bio and Z in general look silly and PvP is nothing but a messy adepts wars. Seemed to go unnoticed to Blizzard's eyes though.
We must be playing different betas
What do you find out to be different in your experience ? Adepts are really really strong vs bio and in PvP in general. As for PvZ, I find adepts void rays compositions to be very strong but I'm not sure how good it really is.
On May 16 2015 01:26 Beelzebub1 wrote: My only question is what is Terran supposed to do vs. early Adept play? It's like a super reaper in your base that can bypass frontal defenses and have a ridiculous escape mechanic as well.
And by "Terran" I mean what the hell is any race supposed to do? They are tanky to the point that when I go for heavy Queens, they get stomped, Zerglings get stomped and Roaches get stomped by them in low numbers considering they almost have the same HP as a Roach.
It's beta of course so things are going to go through their overpowered and underpowered swings but as far as I can tell watching pro games and playing 10-15 games a day Adepts are pretty absurdly strong and definitely abusable at the moment. Would appreciate Blizzard toning down their early game tankiness at the very least to prevent the super early Adept abuse O__o
I think that Barrack/depot wall should work. I don't remember the timings, but considering that Barracks and Gateways take the same time to build, + Adept build time, + travel time... enough for 2 depots for a wall I think.
First, like Lings, don't let them go in via building a wall. Try to use mines.
Right now, your best option is to rush their best counters early. Concussive shells, Mines, Hellbats can help early game, and I think that Banelings could be used against them, specially considering how slow they split.
But don't take it too seriously, Adepts are obviously broken. Abuse the low mobility of the army and harass non-stop.
I've been having some laughs looking how Adept/Immortal feels like the Protoss version of MarineMarauder and how doomed Terrans feel now. That small Karma time might be positive to teach how bad it feels to have units that are inneficient to combat in straight engagements, maybe then we could stop race flamming. Colossi deathballs existed for the sole reason of inneficiency of the army in straight combat. Now that everyone is going to get some efficient basic units, trading with less restrictions, and the Colossus is nerfed, would the flamming stop?
Yea it's looking like not walling off vs. P is pretty much begging to get stomped on by Adepts.
Really hoping that further tweaks are made to the unit though, it seems like it's too well rounded in some aspects and then seems horribly gimmicky on another. Theres no reason for it to be so tanky, no unit with that much potential vs. light (essentially all early game units lol) needs to be tankier then a Zealot. They should boost the mobility and range of the adept, slightly nerf the HP, and give the damage upgrade back.
That way initial pressure will still pay off, with greater speed and range they will benefit more from great control and will be easier to conserve them. Early game they should be able to be paired up with gateway units and boost the DAMAGE output of gateway armies, not the meat, Zealots provide the meat, that's their job. With the damage upgrade back it will still allow Adepts to be useful vs. bio in the later stages, right now they just come out too damn strong too fast with no real reliable counter play. You would be amazed at how many speedlings they can kill in groups of 4+
On May 15 2015 04:26 JCoto wrote: However, even with Stalkers being considered "shit" they are the origin of a ton of complaints when paired with Sentries. You can buff them in damage like Dragoons and see what happens. Wanna try? ^^
I would do that anytime, if only tanks were given their BW damage back. Where a tank OS a dragoon; they take like 5 shots to kill a stalker ;O
On May 15 2015 04:26 JCoto wrote: However, even with Stalkers being considered "shit" they are the origin of a ton of complaints when paired with Sentries. You can buff them in damage like Dragoons and see what happens. Wanna try? ^^
I would do that anytime, if only tanks were given their BW damage back. Where a tank OS a dragoon; they take like 5 shots to kill a stalker ;O
Tanks don't one-shot dragoons in BW.
What's more important, Siege tanks don't fly in BW.
I am not sure what's exactly the problem. Adepts look cool to me but I guess that they need some tweaking as of right now you don't really have a reason to make Zealots as Adepts deal more damage, are ranged(still without GtA attack), are more mobile and are more tanky while you are adding just 25 gas to the Zealot cost.
But even with these stats they don't seem broken, just very strong. I would call something broken when there is no way to counter it even if you know that it's coming.
On May 16 2015 06:12 Ramiz1989 wrote: I am not sure what's exactly the problem. Adepts look cool to me but I guess that they need some tweaking as of right now you don't really have a reason to make Zealots as Adepts deal more damage, are ranged(still without GtA attack), are more mobile and are more tanky while you are adding just 25 gas to the Zealot cost.
But even with these stats they don't seem broken, just very strong. I would call something broken when there is no way to counter it even if you know that it's coming.
I mean I do agree, I just think if they want to be an early game in your face harassment unit, then it needs to be faster and do less damage, if they want it to be something that you start adding in the early/mid game then that's different then yes it DOES need to be tanky and durable.
As you said there is literally no reason to be Zealots for a good long while when you have Adepts that are vastly stronger against bio and I'm sure can be deadly vs. mech once figured out with it's ability to take advantage of immobility with psionic transfer.
Either buff Zealots and Nerf Adept early game potential or buff Adepts maybe even a bit further and make it a strong mid game Gateway unit.
On May 16 2015 06:12 Ramiz1989 wrote: I am not sure what's exactly the problem. Adepts look cool to me but I guess that they need some tweaking as of right now you don't really have a reason to make Zealots as Adepts deal more damage, are ranged(still without GtA attack), are more mobile and are more tanky while you are adding just 25 gas to the Zealot cost.
But even with these stats they don't seem broken, just very strong. I would call something broken when there is no way to counter it even if you know that it's coming.
I mean I do agree, I just think if they want to be an early game in your face harassment unit, then it needs to be faster and do less damage, if they want it to be something that you start adding in the early/mid game then that's different then yes it DOES need to be tanky and durable.
As you said there is literally no reason to be Zealots for a good long while when you have Adepts that are vastly stronger against bio and I'm sure can be deadly vs. mech once figured out with it's ability to take advantage of immobility with psionic transfer.
Either buff Zealots and Nerf Adept early game potential or buff Adepts maybe even a bit further and make it a strong mid game Gateway unit.
Ah, the sad thing about the Zealot is that even before the Adept, they were still pretty useless throughout most of the game. They're just getting shoved even futher down to uselessness to only serve as a mineral dump to attack undefended base.
And before any one could agrue that Zealots weren't useless, I tell everyone to think of this simple question, why is that whenever the Stalker cannot deal with a unit, it becomes a huge issue for the Protoss to deal without higher tec? Example, MMMball, Cyclon, Roach, Zergling, Hydralisk. The obvious answer, the protoss other offensive gateway, the Zealots, is a wrothless unit when kitted so hard by every unit in the game, forcing the Stalker having to be the solution to everything (which they shouldn't since they are so freaking mobile and can bypass defensive & cliffs, and their omg powerful as ability Blink). Charge Zealots are actually decent against MMMball, even when they have Concussive Shells. Let's not forget, during the time of WoL, the Zealot+Archon combo was an actual powerful force that made MMMball need new units to deal with it. Charge Zealots are not invalidated just because Concussive Shells.
I mean, even look at right now with the PvP Adept issue. The unit that is supposed to counter the Adept is the Zealot (based on the fact that it says the Adept's strong against the Stalker but weak against the Zealot), and Zealots are failing their job again. It annoys the crap out of me to see the Adept take even more potential roles from the Zealot when the Zealot is being forced to suck for so long without Charge.
Well, before I end this and just look like I wanted to complain, the point I am trying to make is that, Adepts don't have to be the single band-aid that makes Protoss be good early game. It would be nice to also have the Zealots be viable in the early game for once, and then maybe, you can nerf the Adept's early game just a bit because they don't have to be so powerful because the glaring weakness isn't as big as before.
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.
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.
Some of this stems from psionic transfer I think, it is really only useful during the very early stage of the game before faster units kind of just make it a null point, it needs a tweak, maybe give it a manual cast (not sure if I worded that correctly I mean make it so you don't have to wait the full duration for the teleport) and some type of shot gun ability or very light aoe upgrade that let's it deal with mass light units semi efficiently.
Notice that I said semi efficiently, they should be able to actually deal damage to bio balls in the later game unlike the Stalker, but benefit highly from things like Storm and good Disruptor play (You know, things that take alot of control and micro unlike the Colossus) and anything in between. It just needs to make early mid game gateway armies more mobile and more able to defend itself against mass Zerglings or early bio forces.
To the poster above you..
I agree, the Zealot should be buffed and made a relevant unit. The Charge ability disgusts me, they should just remove it and give it Brood War legs back, maybe make with legs concussive shell cut in half or something, at least removing Charge and replacing it with legs would allow the damn thing to benefit from micro, it's ability literally a moves the unit for the player rofl
Lets also face the fact that if someone has never lost to something iE 1 base carrier, he will be caught offguard, and possibly make bad decisions.
Im sure there are ways to defend adepts efficiently, you just cant 3 hatch before pool anymore - they do something similar for P as hellions do - which is a good thing.
I have been trying several ways to get fast moving units in order to count with the speed to react to the spell, however it seems they are never in time (or not in the necessary numbers) to defend the 2 adept push except for marines, which is your basic bio unit.
To speak about timings, in the replay of Geiko against TOP his adepts start by the 2 minute mark (LotV time) taking 27 additional seconds to pop out, while a gas first reactor hellion opener starts the hellions by the 2:28ish minute mark taking 21 additional seconds to pop out. In conclusion, by the time the hellions start, the adepts have already popped out, considering he keeps on making 2 adepts at a time and you keep making 2 hellions at a time, I doubt there's going to be any number advantage for the terran unless you commit to making hellions faster or making more hellions at a time overall.
I believe that walling off your main ramp with the depot, the barracks and the factory is a viable choice though, in order to delay the push and being able to get your CC and your units safely.
I'm not in the Beta, but based on comments on this forum, and streams I've seen, they seem almost a little too good early game and not good enough mid late game.
I think one possible solution might be to buff them a little so they will be a stronger core unit mid-late game (and give them back some splash damage so Protoss won't have to rely on Colossus to fight bio armies mid-late game), but make them either a little more expensive and/or a later tier units (maybe a twilight council requirement? or twilight and a new structure?) to prevent early rushes and give the zealot back the role of being the tanky unit early game.
Just a thought. Again, this is just based on comments and a few streams, but I think it's something they should experiment with. Either way it seems an interesting unit, I hope Blizz doesn't just end up nerfing it into the ground because it's the kind of unit Protoss need after the colossus nerf (and they look a lot more fun to play with and against than Colossus)
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.
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.
I know that they shouldn't be compared to Roaches as Roaches aren't specialists, they don't do any bonus damage. I compared them just for the fact that they can be core and they can be massable, now if Protoss needs units like Adepts that is irrelevant. I am not the guy who brought example of Roach being a core unit in the first place, although they still are core units in ZvZ, ZvP and ZvMech(and they certainly aren't used just for tanking there). Bio was just an example, and I've never said that Bio doesn't need higher tech units.
I agree with you on everything else, so I am not sure why it is pointed towards me and where this whole discussion is going.
All I am saying is that right now, Adepts are too tanky for core units and their cost, while also having great mobility.
I 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.
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.
Perhaps I accidentally came across that way? Ease up on the passive aggression though.
I also have explicitly said in other threads that Adepts should be tailored to be strong early-mid game units that can transition into being supported by higher tier units to let gateway units in general not be unviable post mid game.
JCoto already grilled you on essentially everything that I was going to respond with so no need to harp.
"All I am saying is that right now, Adepts are too tanky for core units and their cost, while also having great mobility."
I agree and that's all I was attempting to say, they need to be strong, but later, they are far too tanky in the early game compared to other units and their ability to stomp light units and trade decently vs. even Queens and smaller Roach numbers is an issue.
Adepts are good early game but they don't trade decently against anything non light. Roach totally destroy them. Adept dps vs non light is pitifull : it's almost half the dps of a roach...
I 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.
I think that one of the biggest problems with the current adept is the WG, what we all said will happen when Blizzard added a strong gateway unit would happen, they became too strong.
This is the exact example of that, the adepts are too strong in the early game and altough still very strong in the mid and late not so much a problem.
This will simply become what protoss has been all the time, the adept will be nerfed so its not so strong, then protoss would need higher AoE tech and we will still need deathballs.
I think adepts shouldn't be capable of being warped in and instead could only be produced from gateways.
Then they could add a upgrade that gives adepts something like damage/range/small aoe/etc.
As long as adepts can be warped in anywhere in the map they will be too strong, if instead you had to make them from gateways, wait their production time and then walked them around the map, then they would be such a big problem.
As I said everyone knew this was going to happen, you can't have a strong gateway unit as long as WG is still there, because that makes them too abusable.
I 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.
Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion
I 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.
He's not even talking about the current balance...
On May 17 2015 04:25 Lexender wrote: @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening.
Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion
I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games.
I dont care if you guys want to beat 3M and 4M compositions with early gateway units. Protoss has the versatility to add in higher tech units that already counter bio. If the adept alone forces bio players to use more than their usual 3-5bio units, then think what adept/templar or adept/disruptor will do. Exactly, breaking the game.
Protoss cant have basic gateway countering hightier bio (speak medivac/stim). Unless of course you just dont want bio to be viable and want cyclonehell every game.
Why should bio stay the same as it is now but Protoss be forced to tech instead of having a decent, competent unit vs bio?
Maybe we could empower bio with new units/reworks and some unit that complemented Bio well instead of saying "MMMM should be able to beat every non-splash army"?
On May 17 2015 04:25 Lexender wrote: @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening.
Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion
I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games.
But...Adepts ARE too strong, at least in the early game.
They need to be toned down early on and made to scale into the mid game.
If that's what you were trying to get across then I apologize but you actually aren't contributing anything to this discussion.
In fact you just wrote a long paragraph explaining why you aren't saying anything useful instead of just contributing something useful to the discussion at all, I don't get it.
On May 17 2015 04:25 Lexender wrote: @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening.
Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion
I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games.
Then don't, if you have really good feedback then good, thats nice and all, but you can't be simply "refuting" idea just because of that, you saying other people are wrong make it look like only you have the truth, you don't, you just said you try to talk to other players and do videos, etc. So keep doing that, your opinion is not more right nor wrong than anybody else opinion, no matter how ludicrous that opinion may be. All in all your opinion is not more true than anybody elses, so you either try to counter argument or you don't, don't simply attack people saying "they should stop posting" or "that they know nothing" because thats just attacking them and derailing the discussion. Wich by the way I'm doing so I will stop now, do note that I'm not attacking you as a player or person, its just that your attitude gets really bad sometimes.
Make it so that when the adept hallucination is moving, the original body cannot move or attack. This way, the hallucination can be countered by destroying the original
On May 17 2015 07:04 Loccstana wrote: Make it so that when the adept hallucination is moving, the original body cannot move or attack. This way, the hallucination can be countered by destroying the original
That's not even gimping the unit, that's just grabbing the garden shears and cutting it's balls off. The hallucination isn't the issue, the issue is that it has an insane number of hit points, stomps light units, and hits the field very early.
A poster above said that the Warp Gate was an inherent issue in balancing the Adept and I have to agree, if it's going to keep it's current stats, then Warp Gate just needs a straight nerf or the Adept will have to be toned down and it will be nothing more then a glorified Reaper.
Blizzard already nerfed Warp Gate which was 50% of the issue but they didn't follow through with buffs to Gateway units which was the other 50% of the issue, they said oh it's too much Protoss is super gimped now and then they back tracked.
Not sure why David and the team are making this harder then it has to be, they seem obsessed with units that have "cool" abilities instead of just making the units themselves good. If a unit has a cool/abusable ability, it simply cannot be that great in terms of raw stats, something has to give. It's very easy and it's been posted 1000 times by people alot smarter then me, you warp the nerf gate so it is a mid game strategic tool...
THEN you can factor in that now every unit doesn't negate defenders advantage (nerf), cant be abused in gimmicky all ins (nerf) and has an actual travel time to get to the battle field (huge nerf in comparison to teleporting anywhere) so by this logic, with all of these nerfs, you can actually BUFF the units without breaking the game in the process, Zerg already has a very early tool to deal with force fields so that argument is null.
On May 17 2015 04:25 Lexender wrote: @_@;; Too many posts like this around here and it's really saddening.
Whats really saddening is that all you do is go crying around without adding anything to the discussion telling people that they don't know anything and eveytime some says something of protoss strong you tell them they don't know what they're talking about only to then say everything about the other races is strong. Stop martyring if you are not going to add anything to the discussion
I have a whole thread and youtube channel dedicated to builds and replays for lotv though...? I try to talk to other players and see if they have any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong and don't go around just theory crafting off the top of my head in threads on TL. People are free to do this, like the aforementioned, but you shouldn't feel offended when I point out how incredibly moronic it looks. I am by no means the best player, I freely admit this, so please don't take it as some form of elitism. The fundamental difference is that some of us want the blatant issues fixed and if you think adepts are too strong in lieu of the other races buffs then there is something seriously troubling about the discussion. To be succinct about this: refuting bad ideas is much more simple than taking the time to explain why they are wrong. Not all of us have tons of time to sit here and post about why some ideas are worse than others, or explain what might be missed by a % of the community in games.
Then don't, if you have really good feedback then good, thats nice and all, but you can't be simply "refuting" idea just because of that, you saying other people are wrong make it look like only you have the truth, you don't, you just said you try to talk to other players and do videos, etc. So keep doing that, your opinion is not more right nor wrong than anybody else opinion, no matter how ludicrous that opinion may be. All in all your opinion is not more true than anybody elses, so you either try to counter argument or you don't, don't simply attack people saying "they should stop posting" or "that they know nothing" because thats just attacking them and derailing the discussion. Wich by the way I'm doing so I will stop now, do note that I'm not attacking you as a player or person, its just that your attitude gets really bad sometimes.
Well, first off lets get this out of the way: The above ideas are not relative and to approach them as such would be fatal to non-linear game balance.
For me to have to point this out makes me feel as if you have missed the underlying point of my original post. There are blatant balance issues at hand. This is not an opinion, but a fact. You are right in stating that Gateway units getting a buff is an opinion, but imo it is a very real possibility. It being a possibility and me thinking it is the 'correct' thing to do are two different statements, however.
Now that you should understand that lets get to what I wanted to communicate with my first response to the poster: I think it is a bad approach for someone to come to a forum and simply state that just because they think 'the game would be utterly broken' protoss gw(which is vague in itself) units should not get a buff. Why? Because other casual readers might see this and think, "Oh, I guess that makes sense, or 'lets move on from that idea' ". When, in fact, nothing has even been tested. If this is the case why discredit it? That type of post We have 7 months(?)+ of testing and so far the first month+ has been protoss getting smashed. It seems clear to me that this approach is very non-progressive and doesn't help us fix the real problems at hand. I would hope others would take the same stance especially given the substantial evidence that protoss has troubles ranging from mobility, economy, unit balance and beyond, but you can never be too sure. Thus, I feel a response post is somewhat warranted, even more so when a person states that a race has versatility in higher tier units which, atm, seems really really questionable. So, to summarize: it seems that it'd be a much smarter idea to try out a balance change before stating 'na, not a good idea, I don't care what you think'
If your conclusions appear to be steeped in bias and/or a lack of understanding then you best prepared for people to say what you have posted is, quite possibly, moronic. If you think me stating this to hopefully keep other readers skeptical is a bad idea, then again, feel free.
I 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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).
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)
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
On May 18 2015 20:58 Nyast wrote: - 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
P should not have to rely on the adept being close to broken (to the point it restricts PvP hugely). As long as the lurker will outrange the colossus, PvZ will be a bad match-up anyway.
On May 30 2015 05:30 [PkF] Wire wrote: P should not have to rely on the adept being close to broken (to the point it restricts PvP hugely). As long as the lurker will outrange the colossus, PvZ will be a bad match-up anyway.
Do you think that the collossus provided great games? They should just scrap the unit entirely and come up with something new such as buffing storm or introducing the reaver.
On May 30 2015 05:30 [PkF] Wire wrote: P should not have to rely on the adept being close to broken (to the point it restricts PvP hugely). As long as the lurker will outrange the colossus, PvZ will be a bad match-up anyway.
I think that this is not all about Adepts being a bit OP that obviously are in a bad state, because they are ridiculously tanky and based hardcuontering, but their poor weapon desing, inneficient at dealing damage. . Adepts have an added problem now which is the shadow mechanic, that makes them a very strong early game harass. Harass + high HP = problems. Adepts are a good introduction specially to deal with bio, but they carry some design problems and Blizz seems to like the idea of letting Adepts get all the buffs that should be a general Gateway buff.
I think that on Adepts, shooting very slow with high damage is stupid on a unit that is supposed to counter masses of cheap units (Marines), something that made them stupdily innefficent with no place in the meta, so as Devs have that very beautiful minds, they gave us 230 max HP on a basic unit. And the fun fact is that designing a good early game unit with some extra late-game utility wasn't that hard: just look at Marauders. Consistent damage, good mobility. Adepts are a try to have 1 solution to various problems of Protoss and they simply overbuffed it. . IMAO, less health, more speed, lowered damage and much more faster attack speed (same DPS or a bit more) would lead us to better rounded Adepts,and the shade mechanic delayed and with some extra on it (shield heal, bonus damage after teleport, etc). We might see then much more micro involved and Banelings being a more decent unit in ZvP.
Part of the problem of Protoss in PvZ is the absolute dependency on Forcefields to fight, and the overpriced Immortal. Now that Zergs have 2 mid-game counters to the Protoss Deathballs (Mass Sentry Stalker/ Colossi Deathball) with Ravagers and Lurkers, and Immortals have been nerfed on the long run vs Roaches. PvZ is going to be shit unless they change all 4 units to allow more tradings between Zerg and Protoss armies without massforcefields or heavy snowball.
On May 30 2015 05:30 [PkF] Wire wrote: P should not have to rely on the adept being close to broken (to the point it restricts PvP hugely). As long as the lurker will outrange the colossus, PvZ will be a bad match-up anyway.
Do you think that the collossus provided great games? They should just scrap the unit entirely and come up with something new such as buffing storm or introducing the reaver.
Disruptor > Reaver. Disruptor is a controlable huge scarab. Why Reaver?
Disruptor is pure micro from both parts. Reavers just shoot and deal splash damage with it. No counterplay.
Even if I think that Reavers are much more what Protoss need, Disruptors provide more interesting interactions IMAO.
On May 30 2015 05:30 [PkF] Wire wrote: P should not have to rely on the adept being close to broken (to the point it restricts PvP hugely). As long as the lurker will outrange the colossus, PvZ will be a bad match-up anyway.
I'm really curious to see how top koreans tosses will deal with lurkers. Lurkers outrange colossus and shoot through forcefields. I can't deal with them without air based compositions.
And two or three burrowed lurkers can save one expansion from any amount of zealot harass. Snute will have a nice time turtling with them.
Most of new additions are problematic and should get the hammer like the ravager did (OK, maybe not as harsh as the ravager). Lurkers, 8 armor ultras, cyclones, disruptors, adepts... are just frustrating and restricting in their current state. And they said they wanted to move away from hardcounters, from "A builds X -> B builds Y", from stale match-ups and unforgiving units... LotV is, at the moment at least, just going the opposite way.
On July 06 2015 23:14 Geiko wrote: Haha most of the pros and good players are used to this by now. When I have time I'll upload some replays of me losing.
Or maybe your skill deficit is not enough anymore to win versus pro players. This says nothing about the actual state of adepts at pro level..
On July 06 2015 23:14 Geiko wrote: Haha most of the pros and good players are used to this by now. When I have time I'll upload some replays of me losing.
Or maybe your skill deficit is not enough anymore to win versus pro players. This says nothing about the actual state of adepts at pro level..
This, though it seems adepts are definitely counterable and make gateway armies really solid and viable. I really disliked them initially but I think they're a great addition.
Though... WHY DO THE FREAKIN SHADES GO PAST FORCEFIELDS ? They should behave like mineral walking probes I think. Would make adept wars soooooo much easier to manage in PvP.
I don't think 1 base plays are very good vs terran and zerg just like they aren't in hots. Terran players can wall off their main preventing adepts from entering, whereas zerg players can rely on queens and eventually roaches (adepts alone suck against them). Personally I got to top 16 GM very easily by doing 2 base adept builds vs terran and zerg. Against terran I usually load up 4 adepts in a warp prism and then start spamming adepts in the terran's base off of 7-8 warpgates. Against zerg I go for warp prism adept/sentry harass into immortal/adept/sentry all in. It's rare to find Protoss opponents but I had lots of free wins against adepts with proxy stargate, since it's also harder to scout in LotV compared to hots (you can do it with the 3rd pylon at the same timing).
On July 06 2015 23:14 Geiko wrote: Haha most of the pros and good players are used to this by now. When I have time I'll upload some replays of me losing.
Or maybe your skill deficit is not enough anymore to win versus pro players. This says nothing about the actual state of adepts at pro level..
This, though it seems adepts are definitely counterable and make gateway armies really solid and viable. I really disliked them initially but I think they're a great addition.
Though... WHY DO THE FREAKIN SHADES GO PAST FORCEFIELDS ? They should behave like mineral walking probes I think. Would make adept wars soooooo much easier to manage in PvP.
Just let them behave like normal units in their pathing to begin with. I block them, well that's it you've been outmicroed, time to cancel the shade. Then also add the ability to insta-teleport to them. More possibilities for both sides.
On July 21 2015 04:05 GGzerG wrote: Adepts are imba, they will be nerfed soon i'm sure, they are too strong and also too cheap.
Playing against Protoss right now: Question (1): Does he make adepts? Question (2): Does he have Carriers yet? Question (3): Just kidding, your opponent has probably left already.
On July 21 2015 04:05 GGzerG wrote: Adepts are imba, they will be nerfed soon i'm sure, they are too strong and also too cheap.
Playing against Protoss right now: Question (1): Does he make adepts? Question (2): Does he have Carriers yet? Question (3): Just kidding, your opponent has probably left already.
What a new terran thinks when he is beginning on the beta :
First game : FACK, what's the oracle timings ? MEH, whatever, better rush marines FAST. He's on one base DAMMIT I'm DOOMED. EBAY. FAST. Oh, that's the new un.. What Really. Okay I got them. What no, he escap..WAIT what's the cooldown on this thing, WOW
Second game: Ooookay, so no marines. Idea ! I'll create this new mech unit, heard it was OP, and it's not light, I'll REKT him. Damn, oracle, finish the production, faaaast pleeeaase. Okay, you're DEAD now. Wait It doesn't shoot up anymore
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2aA8K16.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kpoAYv0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s1.postimg.org/vetmt9mhr/GGNightend2.png)
plasma shield![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WSkwGb0.png)
