Everybody has been complaining, rightly, that Protoss is too weak.
There are many evidences that buffing gateway units would be at least part of a good fix, since LotV expects more mobile armies, and expensive units have historically been troublesome to balance. Blizzard has tipped to this when they buffed Charge, but this also shows that they are very reluctant to apply direct stat buffs on units (perhaps it is too much work to rebalance everything around it).
Do you guys have any ideas?
I would like to see them experiment with one thing in particular: buff Stalker's attack upgrade. Stalkers suck lategame (even more so than Roaches) and this is a reason why. I'm not sure of +1 Blink timings, but if they become too strong, there are other counter measures they can take that have less impact in the game. This would help one of the more mobile units in the Protoss arsenal, perhaps helping defend expansions far from the main.
The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
Basically they should have let the warp nerf, maybe nerf it even more but buff the warp gate units. Instead they made the Adepts to strong and let the warp in just like HotS
And this leads to 4 gate adept all ins that basically win you the game.
Stalker could get more HP maybe an upgrade to range. Zealots are overlaping to much with adepts, they should be 50 minerals but have less HP/SH that way you could make more Zealots, Charge also cheaper and faster to get. Adept is to strong i say, less DPS would be okay.
There are many ways to buff them but they need to kill mass stalker and other all ins, remove FF and make a sentry a more battle support like regenrating shields etc.
I would like to see a lategame upgrade for Blink that adds +damage for the first shot after you blink. And maybe a lategame upgrade to +armor for gateway units only, available on Templar Archives.
How does that sound?
And to expand on that, I there could be an upgrade to add, say, 50 additional shields to all gateway units (similar to adept upgrade in LotV right now). You see, I don't like the idea of nerfing warpgates, they are very impactful design choice for Protoss. I don't think it's impossible to balance gateway units withought the warpgate nerf. You just need to design interesting upgrades.
Btw, shield upgrade across the board for gateway units would also encourage more Ghost use, which is nonexistant currently.
Archons: Shield: Start with 3 and goes to 6 after +3 Shield upgrade.
Other changes: 1. Remove Immortal. 2. Remove Sentry. 3. Shield change: Shields are independent of the unit type. Example: Stalkers are armored units. When attacked by an unsieged Tank, Stalkers receive 15 damage instead of the 25 while shields are on. If shields are 0 then the stalker will receive 25 damage.
I agree. Remove forcefield and make hallucination cheaper and add range spell cast to it. There is a lot of cool things what blizzard cloud try only if they'd be willing to test BETA more aggressively. It would also add to lotv popularity.
Straight up increase stats on zealots and stalkers tbh; possibly nerf Guardian Shield along with that. Between the economy and warpgate nerf they have plenty of room to do that. Things like warpgate and blink timings are naturally weakened by the economy anyway (they take longer to hit, compared to how an opponent's build develops).
Unfortunately, they aren't likely to remove forcefields any time soon, so that's not happening.
Also, anything linked to upgrades isn't a good idea at all. Tech is much less useful in lotv because it's just easier to mass cheap units; balancing Protoss around some upgrade makes their early game even weaker. Stat upgrades on the other hand are fine because you can fine tune the scaling of units with upgrades.
Honestly in LotV as a Protoss I don't feel like it is very needed. I've been able to play PvT lategame scenarios without even having AoE. I've done some Triple Forge and it's really strong, because of the insane amount of Shields Adepts get. In TvP specifically Bio don't really work straight up against Protoss anymore, they have to drop you to death or mix in Liberators/Banshees and most of all Widow Mines. You can keep Terran back with the use of Adepts, Prism/Oracle harass and using Stasis Trap.
I haven't played much lategame PvZ, but early game seem very Protoss favoured untill Lurkers&other high tech units come in to save the day.
I think if we want stronger Gateway units it would be through removing Guardian Shield and giving some other buff in spread out scenarios. Or Guardian Shield could be made a purely defensive option through buildings or something. I'm attacking Guardian Shield, because it's a spell that purely benefits from the ball of death and is now even more crucial with double Marauder shot.
I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The economy itself is a huge nerf to all these strategies you brought up. They're weaker in LotV even with no stats changes.
On June 25 2015 22:41 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
I hate the idea of nerfing Warp Gate because it makes Protoss unique and interesting.
Also the real problem with Protoss balancing early game isn't Warp Gate, it is the Sentry and Forcefield.
Eventually I'll probably make my own version of SC2, but my solution to this specific issue is the following:
-Increase Zealot attack speed and shields by ~10. -Increase Stalker damage versus armored by ~1 (to help versus mass Roach specifically) and attack speed. -Increase Blink cooldown from 10 to ~14 seconds. -Increase Sentry damage by ~1, and increase their hitpoints and shields by ~10. -Make FF similar to Time Warp (though with an AOE similar to FF, Time Warp would also be removed) and reduce movespeed of units inside the FF by ~40%.
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The above changes can't be done alone, they have to done in conjunction with other minor changes to other races, but obviously an increase in Blink cooldown mitigates Blink all-ins to some extent and the 7 Gate is weakened by FF changes. Changes to other races would mitigate the power of the 4 gate.
On June 25 2015 22:41 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
I hate the idea of nerfing Warp Gate because it makes Protoss unique and interesting.
Also the real problem with Protoss balancing early game isn't Warp Gate, it is the Sentry and Forcefield.
Eventually I'll probably make my own version of SC2, but my solution to this specific issue is the following:
-Increase Zealot attack speed and shields by ~10. -Increase Stalker damage versus armored by ~1 (to help versus mass Roach specifically) and attack speed. -Increase Blink cooldown from 10 to ~14 seconds. -Increase Sentry damage by ~1, and increase their hitpoints and shields by ~10. -Make FF similar to Time Warp (though with an AOE similar to FF, Time Warp would also be removed) and reduce movespeed of units inside the FF by ~40%.
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The above changes can't be done alone, they have to done in conjunction with other minor changes to other races, but obviously an increase in Blink cooldown mitigates Blink all-ins to some extent and the 7 Gate is weakened by FF changes. Changes to other races would mitigate the power of the 4 gate.
Your wrong, FF is not the only problem, look at 4 gate adepts, a strong warpgate unit used for all in and it works. If you want warpagate units to be strong you cant also also a good warp in. Im sorry but its OP. And right now everyone knows how OP is the 4 gate adept all in cuz it uses a strong warpgate unit + warp in BS.
And it will be nerfed sooner or later. I suggest a big Nerf to warp in and making your units good + remove FF.
On June 25 2015 22:41 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
I hate the idea of nerfing Warp Gate because it makes Protoss unique and interesting.
Also the real problem with Protoss balancing early game isn't Warp Gate, it is the Sentry and Forcefield.
Eventually I'll probably make my own version of SC2, but my solution to this specific issue is the following:
-Increase Zealot attack speed and shields by ~10. -Increase Stalker damage versus armored by ~1 (to help versus mass Roach specifically) and attack speed. -Increase Blink cooldown from 10 to ~14 seconds. -Increase Sentry damage by ~1, and increase their hitpoints and shields by ~10. -Make FF similar to Time Warp (though with an AOE similar to FF, Time Warp would also be removed) and reduce movespeed of units inside the FF by ~40%.
On June 26 2015 01:55 _indigo_ wrote:
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The above changes can't be done alone, they have to done in conjunction with other minor changes to other races, but obviously an increase in Blink cooldown mitigates Blink all-ins to some extent and the 7 Gate is weakened by FF changes. Changes to other races would mitigate the power of the 4 gate.
Your wrong, FF is not the only problem, look at 4 gate adepts, a strong warpgate unit used for all in and it works.
I'm wasn't even considering the Adept. It is way too strong right now and will get nerfed before release, or Protoss and the other races will be completely rebuilt around it.
Anyway, you don't know the changes to the other races I suggest, which as I said are what would mitigate the power of the 4 Gate so this is a pretty useless conversation.
Blizzard has backed themselves in a corner with all the hard counters and the all or nothing abilities they've created (such as FF, Abduct, ect). So what they can do is very limited, and what will be done is they'll add more abilities and hard counters, which will further erode the game. That's all they know how to do.
On June 25 2015 22:41 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
I hate the idea of nerfing Warp Gate because it makes Protoss unique and interesting.
Also the real problem with Protoss balancing early game isn't Warp Gate, it is the Sentry and Forcefield.
Eventually I'll probably make my own version of SC2, but my solution to this specific issue is the following:
-Increase Zealot attack speed and shields by ~10. -Increase Stalker damage versus armored by ~1 (to help versus mass Roach specifically) and attack speed. -Increase Blink cooldown from 10 to ~14 seconds. -Increase Sentry damage by ~1, and increase their hitpoints and shields by ~10. -Make FF similar to Time Warp (though with an AOE similar to FF, Time Warp would also be removed) and reduce movespeed of units inside the FF by ~40%.
On June 26 2015 01:55 _indigo_ wrote:
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The above changes can't be done alone, they have to done in conjunction with other minor changes to other races, but obviously an increase in Blink cooldown mitigates Blink all-ins to some extent and the 7 Gate is weakened by FF changes. Changes to other races would mitigate the power of the 4 gate.
Your wrong, FF is not the only problem, look at 4 gate adepts, a strong warpgate unit used for all in and it works.
I'm wasn't even considering the Adept. It is way too strong right now and will get nerfed before release, or Protoss and the other races will be completely rebuilt around it.
But protoss is also incredibly weak right now. Something's gonna need to be buffed, even more so if the adept is getting nerfed.
On June 25 2015 22:41 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
I hate the idea of nerfing Warp Gate because it makes Protoss unique and interesting.
Also the real problem with Protoss balancing early game isn't Warp Gate, it is the Sentry and Forcefield.
Eventually I'll probably make my own version of SC2, but my solution to this specific issue is the following:
-Increase Zealot attack speed and shields by ~10. -Increase Stalker damage versus armored by ~1 (to help versus mass Roach specifically) and attack speed. -Increase Blink cooldown from 10 to ~14 seconds. -Increase Sentry damage by ~1, and increase their hitpoints and shields by ~10. -Make FF similar to Time Warp (though with an AOE similar to FF, Time Warp would also be removed) and reduce movespeed of units inside the FF by ~40%.
On June 26 2015 01:55 _indigo_ wrote:
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The above changes can't be done alone, they have to done in conjunction with other minor changes to other races, but obviously an increase in Blink cooldown mitigates Blink all-ins to some extent and the 7 Gate is weakened by FF changes. Changes to other races would mitigate the power of the 4 gate.
Your wrong, FF is not the only problem, look at 4 gate adepts, a strong warpgate unit used for all in and it works.
I'm wasn't even considering the Adept. It is way too strong right now and will get nerfed before release, or Protoss and the other races will be completely rebuilt around it.
But protoss is also incredibly weak right now. Something's gonna need to be buffed, even more so if the adept is getting nerfed.
I don't think you followed the conversation, re-read my first post. I suggested a whole slew of buffs.
I think the Adept should be removed, or completely rebalanced to be a scouting harass unit in the same vein as the Reaper. Much like the Tempest with the Carrier, it overlaps existing units too much.
The last thing Protoss needs is to be balanced around a bunch of weak units and a few powerful ones again...
I thought about the gateway units recently and came up with some tweaks to the stalker. Overhaul of one unit is probably more realistic than of the whole gateway arsenal
Its heavy discussed, but I think the sentry is fine. Overall through positioning, certain unit compositions and mostly the vulnerability of the sentry itself, the forcefield play can be countered.
Blink stalkers on the otherside can be more frustrating to play against. Their high hitpoints combined with mobility means very little reward for catching them offguard. On the other hand we see in Lotv the need for mobilty to gain mapcontroll or to defend multiple bases. From what I observed at the beginning of the beta, toss players relied very much on blink stalkers but they tended to underperform. Because of the faster start into the game and earlier units, it feels like Blink comes too late (as Teoita already wrote).
So my proposals to the Stalker are: Dmg: from 10(14) +1(1) to 11(17) +1(2) - 10(21)% increase Speed from 2.9531 to 3.1 - 5% increase Hp: from 80/80 to 65/60 - 22% decrease Blink from 150/150 170sec to 100/100 80sec
With the addition of the Adept, does Protoss really need two tanky ranged basic units? I don't think so. I think it is time for the stalker to live up more to what the name and model implies: a mobile unit that can hunt valuable targets over the map, instead of standing in the heat of the battle. With earlier blink and a more chasing potential against offcreep roaches, they should be better for defending, but perfom worse against queens, lings and hydras. Focussing moving lurkers would be more rewarding, but stalkers are getting shredded even faster under their fire. In PvT they would feel a lot more vulnerable in direct engagements, but be better for picking of medivacs, vikings or other armored units. That complements the role of the Adept imo. Banshees need one shot less, but still be cost ineffective. Also higher movement and earlier blink helps catching them
I feel that blinking to snipe will get more use, but also blink stalkers won't feel as unkillable anymore. Allins could still work with the faster timing, but specially offensive - with no meat shield or sim city - 35 hitpoints less are a big deal. My biggest concern is the nerf in direct fights with mutalisks.
Also as the stalker gets more specialized, the Adept could get less, which means less damage against light, but more overall. Maybe from 10(23) damage every 1.61 seconds - dps: 6.21(14.28) to 12(19) damage every 1.46 seconds - dps: 8.22(13.01). This unfortuanally means one shot more against worker and marines w/o combat shields, but at a little faster rate.
Swap the Sentry and the Immortal as far as production goes, and weaken/cheapen the Immortal. Lower the Adept's HP to 60, and tie Adept's shield increase upgrade to a smaller shield increase (maybe 20) to Zealots as well, improving Zealot tanking in the mid and late game.
Gateway units in SC2 are not significantly weaker compared to BW. The problem is all the new units that were added, and all the units that were removed. You have things like widow mines and marauders that just massacre zealots and stalkers respectively. Then you have the nerf to storm and the awful colossus replacing the reaver. For these reasons buffing gateway units is not going to make a difference. The game design was fundamentally altered for the worse in SC2.
You change the warpgate tech so it's still an upgrade to the gateway, still available at the cyber core, but the change would be that once the research is done a gateway can either produces normally as it was a unupgraded gateway or they can warp .
Now the change would be that producing as a "normal" gateway would take less time than actually is (and maybe even less than a warpgate in HOTS) and producing units by warping would take more time. In my opinion, it would be good because it solve different problems with one single change :
1. Using warp would be a trade : you gain the possibility to defend and attack at different in exchange of production time. A nerf to "cheeky" play but would still be possible, a buff to macro player. 2. It helps protoss against early attack, as it produces faster the first units. This is important, especially if we are keeping overlord drops pre-Lair, which might be too good to skirt building wall, and thus hardcounter fast expand builds. 3. I don't play the match up, but it would fix a lot of the crazy early game in PvP, by giving back the defender advantage to the attacked player, as he will more production efficiency. 3. Proxy gating would be problematic with this change in HoTS, but with LoTV and their 12 worker at start I don't think so.
3. Proxy gating would be problematic with this change in HoTS, but with LoTV and their 12 worker at start I don't think so.
Well I don't agree with changing Waprgate, the nerf to 2 gate proxy which is an annoying, blind and stupid cheese that adds nothing to the game is simple: Units built from Gateways begin with no shields. After you build a Cybercore, units built from Gateways have shields.
Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
On June 28 2015 10:07 pure.Wasted wrote: Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
Guys. Come on, guys. Come on.
Every argument you just listed doesn't matter. Any melee unit has the problems you mentioned, the Ling, the Ultra, the DT, even the Hellbat... they are close to 1 A units, but that doesn't mean they should be underpowered.
And the micro you can do, is surrounds and flanks through good positioning. That is a much better form of micro than point on click spells like Abduct or Photon Overcharge.
Sadly, right now the Zealot is underpowered, in HOTS the Ultra was, relative to the other units. We don't need useless units in the game.
On June 28 2015 10:07 pure.Wasted wrote: Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
Guys. Come on, guys. Come on.
Every argument you just listed doesn't matter. Any melee unit has the problems you mentioned, the Ling, the Ultra, the DT, even the Hellbat... they are close to 1 A units, but that doesn't mean they should be underpowered.
And the micro you can do, is surrounds and flanks through good positioning. That is a much better form of micro than point on click spells like Abduct or Photon Overcharge.
Sadly, right now the Zealot is underpowered, in HOTS the Ultra was, relative to the other units. We don't need useless units in the game.
All of the units you listed, outside of the DT which is essentially a chargeless invisible zealot with more DPS, require a lot more micro than a zealot ever could. Once you have charge you tell your zealots where to go and...that's it. They automatically charge and hit whatever it is they run into first no micro required. All of the other units require some form of additional use micro wise to be that effective
On June 28 2015 10:07 pure.Wasted wrote: Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
Guys. Come on, guys. Come on.
Every argument you just listed doesn't matter. Any melee unit has the problems you mentioned, the Ling, the Ultra, the DT, even the Hellbat... they are close to 1 A units, but that doesn't mean they should be underpowered.
And the micro you can do, is surrounds and flanks through good positioning. That is a much better form of micro than point on click spells like Abduct or Photon Overcharge.
Sadly, right now the Zealot is underpowered, in HOTS the Ultra was, relative to the other units. We don't need useless units in the game.
All of the units you listed, outside of the DT which is essentially a chargeless invisible zealot with more DPS, require a lot more micro than a zealot ever could. Once you have charge you tell your zealots where to go and...that's it. They automatically charge and hit whatever it is they run into first no micro required. All of the other units require some form of additional use micro wise to be that effective
The DT requires a decent amount of micro to target fire what you want to kill.
As for the Zealot, if you change FF into a small Time Warp that does 40% ms reduction, you'll see Zealot micro and surrounds and such. FF made Zealot micro easy. And I still think the Ultra requires the least micro.
Regardless, the fact these units don't require a lot of micro (like the Battle Cruiser) doesn't mean they should be underpowered, that was my point. And that's why we can buff the Zealot.
Not every unit needs to require the micro of a stimmed Marine or Blink Stalker.
On June 28 2015 10:07 pure.Wasted wrote: Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
Guys. Come on, guys. Come on.
Every argument you just listed doesn't matter. Any melee unit has the problems you mentioned, the Ling, the Ultra, the DT, even the Hellbat... they are close to 1 A units, but that doesn't mean they should be underpowered.
And the micro you can do, is surrounds and flanks through good positioning. That is a much better form of micro than point on click spells like Abduct or Photon Overcharge.
Sadly, right now the Zealot is underpowered, in HOTS the Ultra was, relative to the other units. We don't need useless units in the game.
All of the units you listed, outside of the DT which is essentially a chargeless invisible zealot with more DPS, require a lot more micro than a zealot ever could. Once you have charge you tell your zealots where to go and...that's it. They automatically charge and hit whatever it is they run into first no micro required. All of the other units require some form of additional use micro wise to be that effective
The DT requires a decent amount of micro to target fire what you want to kill.
As for the Zealot, if you change FF into a small Time Warp that does 40% ms reduction, you'll see Zealot micro and surrounds and such. FF made Zealot micro easy. And I still think the Ultra requires the least micro.
Regardless, the fact these units don't require a lot of micro (like the Battle Cruiser) doesn't mean they should be underpowered, that was my point. And that's why we can buff the Zealot.
Not every unit needs to require the micro of a stimmed Marine or Blink Stalker.
You're entire argument about zealot micro hinges on your own suggested changes to the race. Zealots are in no way underpowered and because of their lack of skill floor/ceiling buffing them would do more harm than good. Zealots already (after charge) are guaranteed to hit an opponents units. Why on earth should that get buffed?
That is all good and well but it is the production of Toss units that fruit them up...cant have buffed units warping in outside the opponents base...
My wife suggested this to me the other night.. (and yes she is Korean).
After the Twilight is built, closed gateways can train 'Dark' Toss units.
They would look like beefier gateway units; a little scarier (darker colors and a little blue green shimmer coming off them) and they would have better stats than norm gateway units.
She also suggested that as the Dark units increase in rank they increase in stats slightly (like C&C units). This I am not sure about it..But could be interesting!!!
I liked it cos it solved the problem of gateway units being hopeless late game, whilst keeping the now essential 'warp in' mechanic and maintaining the balance of early gateway units v Z and T early units. It also adds a use to the function of closing gateways post Warp Research. I think it would be very interesting to have to balance how many gates you have open vs how many you have closed...and to toggle the gates regularly.
This is similar to Vanadiel's post but different evough to consider.
On June 28 2015 10:07 pure.Wasted wrote: Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
Guys. Come on, guys. Come on.
Every argument you just listed doesn't matter. Any melee unit has the problems you mentioned, the Ling, the Ultra, the DT, even the Hellbat... they are close to 1 A units, but that doesn't mean they should be underpowered.
And the micro you can do, is surrounds and flanks through good positioning. That is a much better form of micro than point on click spells like Abduct or Photon Overcharge.
Sadly, right now the Zealot is underpowered, in HOTS the Ultra was, relative to the other units. We don't need useless units in the game.
All of the units you listed, outside of the DT which is essentially a chargeless invisible zealot with more DPS, require a lot more micro than a zealot ever could. Once you have charge you tell your zealots where to go and...that's it. They automatically charge and hit whatever it is they run into first no micro required. All of the other units require some form of additional use micro wise to be that effective
The DT requires a decent amount of micro to target fire what you want to kill.
As for the Zealot, if you change FF into a small Time Warp that does 40% ms reduction, you'll see Zealot micro and surrounds and such. FF made Zealot micro easy. And I still think the Ultra requires the least micro.
Regardless, the fact these units don't require a lot of micro (like the Battle Cruiser) doesn't mean they should be underpowered, that was my point. And that's why we can buff the Zealot.
Not every unit needs to require the micro of a stimmed Marine or Blink Stalker.
You're entire argument about zealot micro hinges on your own suggested changes to the race. Zealots are in no way underpowered and because of their lack of skill floor/ceiling buffing them would do more harm than good. Zealots already (after charge) are guaranteed to hit an opponents units. Why on earth should that get buffed?
Well you've done nothing to counter the argument I've made, which is regardless that Zealots don't require a lot of micro (or lack of skill floor/ceiling) doesn't mean they should be underpowered.. except deny it.
And of course my argument hinges on my own suggested changes... anyone that makes any argument, it hinges on what they are suggesting... that is blatantly obvious.
But the argument between us is whether or not Zealots are underpowered, which isn't the point of this thread, and isn't really something I want to debate.
We are talking about Gateway units being buffed. If we had to pick one, I'd say the Adept, Stalker and Sentry are just fine and far more dangerous to buff without other corresponding nerfs. FF is already so strong, Adepts are very strong, and Blink all-ins are strong. So that leaves the Zealot basically. Do you disagree?
The other option is a list of changes, buffs and nerfs, which will include Zealot buffs in one way or another if you change FF which is the limiting factor because Zealots are so reliant on it. And how else can you can buff Protoss Gateway units meaningfully? Seriously think about it. So either way you buff the Zealot. Now my problem is the poster above doesn't want any buffs to the Zealot for a bad reason.
It actually does matter if low skill units are underpowered. That is a problem. No unit should be underpowered or overpowered.
I have a feeling you think Gateway units are fine no matter what... so... maybe you just shouldn't be here. But the way the Adept is balanced is very poorly done.
On June 28 2015 10:07 pure.Wasted wrote: Everybody proposing buffs to the Zealot, you cannot possibly be serious. After 5 years of watching competitive SC2, you cannot honestly mean what you are saying.
The unit has a skill floor and a skill cap of fucking zero, and you want to make it more powerful NOT in the hands of expert players, but BY DEFAULT? Why even have micro in this game? Why not just build Hatcheries/Gateways/Barracks and then uncontrollable army units will spawn out of your production buildings and run toward each other and fight on their own? The Zealot as it exists is one step removed from that. FFS.
The only stat buffs the Zealot would ever see, in a benevolent universe, would be lower damage point/faster movement (with lower HP/shields/DPS to compensate). Option for manually cast Charge would be great, not sure if that would require a stat nerf to compensate.
Past that, if you want the Zealot to be better than it is now... hell, if you want it to be as good as it is now... it needs to achieve that through a Protoss player's mechanical execution. And that means new synergies with other Protoss units. Not free freaking stat boosts.
Guys. Come on, guys. Come on.
Every argument you just listed doesn't matter. Any melee unit has the problems you mentioned, the Ling, the Ultra, the DT, even the Hellbat... they are close to 1 A units, but that doesn't mean they should be underpowered.
The Ling rewards an infinity of micro over the Zealot, the Ultralisk is a shitty unit but it's seen in like 1 out of 50 TvZs and zero of the other MUs so it's not a big deal, the DT is OK and the Hellbat (without being a braindead unit) offsets the crazy micro requirements of the rest of the Terran army.
And the micro you can do, is surrounds and flanks through good positioning. That is a much better form of micro than point on click spells like Abduct or Photon Overcharge.
Zealots are used to surround and flank in, what, 1 game out of 100? It's like mech vs Protoss, or unicorns prancing around the countryside - not an actual real thing that happens. They're like moving brick walls, they're just too god damn slow to do it and too easy to evade if they even succeed.
The solution isn't to buff them to godhood, it's to fix them so they're not such shitty units.
Sadly, right now the Zealot is underpowered, in HOTS the Ultra was, relative to the other units. We don't need useless units in the game.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the Zealot is underpowered? The Adept making it redundant isn't proof, the Adept might simply be absurdly OP.
Regardless, the fact these units don't require a lot of micro (like the Battle Cruiser) doesn't mean they should be underpowered, that was my point. And that's why we can buff the Zealot.
I reiterate: if the Zealot really does suck, the solution isn't simply to buff him. That is what results in a shitty game and "Terran elitism." The solution is to change the unit. Not superficially. Fundamentally. Make it reward skill. I've brought up solutions on how to do this before, and I'd be happy to do it again if I thought that someone was actually listening and cared (meaning Blizzard, not you).
Not every unit needs to require the micro of a stimmed Marine or Blink Stalker.
I have to laugh when you say Marines and Blink Stalkers in the same sentence, implying that the Zealot is the Hellbat counterpart or something, and therefore T and P are actually, really pretty even. Blink Stalkers are capable of godly plays, and once in a blue moon, watching PartinG, Zest, herO, or HerO, you'll actually see it happen. But it's not required of them. TvP isn't balanced around Stalkers blinking all over the map all the time (in fact, deathballs pretty much preclude it outright). But TvZ is balanced around Marines splitting all over the map all of the time. Asking "what's a unit theoretically capable of?" is disingenuous. You cannot forget to ask "how often is a player required to use it to its fullest potential, and failing that will begin to accrue a steady deficit over the course of the game?"
We are talking about Gateway units being buffed. If we had to pick one, I'd say the Adept, Stalker and Sentry are just fine and far more dangerous to buff without other corresponding nerfs. FF is already so strong, Adepts are very strong, and Blink all-ins are strong. So that leaves the Zealot basically. Do you disagree?
The other option is a list of changes, buffs and nerfs, which will include Zealot buffs in one way or another if you change FF which is the limiting factor because Zealots are so reliant on it. And how else can you can buff Protoss Gateway units meaningfully? Seriously think about it. So either way you buff the Zealot. Now my problem is the poster above doesn't want any buffs to the Zealot for a bad reason.
I can't speak for chipmonklord17, but I disagree passionately.
The notion that Protoss Gateway units need straight buffs is absolutely contrary to everything we've seen of the race in the last 5 years. Gateway units need changes.
More specifically, they need straight nerfs and conditional buffs, buffs which someone like Paralyze or Terminator wouldn't have the mechanical genius or multitasking to take advantage of, and therefore, due to the nerfs, they would never grace Code S ever again for as long as they live... but someone like PartinG could use to make his Gateway units as powerful, or even more powerful, than they are at present.
The sentiment to buff Gateway unit stems from the fact that early game revolves around using Sentries correctly. On the opposite end those against it worry about further abuse of the warp in mechanic. These 2 key mechanics has attracted much derision, but regardless both have become a staple of SC2 and in my opinion should stay.
The call for a beefier Gateway unit to substitute P dependency on the Sentry can be done with another unit already in the Protoss arsenal. The idea is to have the Immortal swap production facility with the Sentry. Immortals are really good defensive unit in a choke while not being overpower without Sentry support. Sentry being a Robo unit is a big nerf to FF in general but this is compensated by the early access of Immortals. The goal here is to have less binary outcome in engagements where one army fails completely while the other come out unscathed. Much would depend on the control, composition of the army and in a later stage, good placements of limited FF in the hands of a good player.
With this change and the current LotV economy, Warp-ins might not need much of a change after all. Having powerful units at your doorstep early is a scary thought, but without FF the scenario of getting beaten to death without returning damage is unlikely to happen. If warp-in Immortals prove too much I would suggest warp-in cooldown of all unit be the same length at its longest. This does 2 things: massing units by warp in takes significantly longer for cheaper units such as Zealots and Stalkers, and to prevent the instant reinforcements snowballing out of control. This would also mean vanilla Gateway mode can make units quicker in base.
Elements of these ideas can be seen across TL from time to time. These changes also doesn't introduce anything new or too convoluted to the game and the ideas are very much understood, and from a development point of view, are relatively easy to implement.
On June 25 2015 22:41 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: The most popular thing that could help protoss is the following idea.
Buff all the warp gate units, to the point of holding their own. Nerf the warp in ability to balance the all ins, the warp in needs a huge nerf.
I hate the idea of nerfing Warp Gate because it makes Protoss unique and interesting.
Also the real problem with Protoss balancing early game isn't Warp Gate, it is the Sentry and Forcefield.
Eventually I'll probably make my own version of SC2, but my solution to this specific issue is the following:
-Increase Zealot attack speed and shields by ~10. -Increase Stalker damage versus armored by ~1 (to help versus mass Roach specifically) and attack speed. -Increase Blink cooldown from 10 to ~14 seconds. -Increase Sentry damage by ~1, and increase their hitpoints and shields by ~10. -Make FF similar to Time Warp (though with an AOE similar to FF, Time Warp would also be removed) and reduce movespeed of units inside the FF by ~40%.
On June 26 2015 01:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I'd simply improve the DPS of stalkers and sentries, because they are pretty bad and the protoss ground to air damage has always sucked. Zealots are fine.
Let's all forget about 7gate, blink allins, 4 gate etc where mostly stalkers are utilised. You seriously think those strongest allins in SC2 would not get disgustingly OP with simple dmg increase? It has to be in a way of upgrading in lategame.
The above changes can't be done alone, they have to done in conjunction with other minor changes to other races, but obviously an increase in Blink cooldown mitigates Blink all-ins to some extent and the 7 Gate is weakened by FF changes. Changes to other races would mitigate the power of the 4 gate.
Maybe the weakness of Gateway units is due to a combination of Warpgate and Forcefield. I would prefer to see both the Warpgate being a more niche or late game tool and Forcefield removed.
On June 28 2015 19:52 pure.Wasted wrote: and I'd be happy to do it again if I thought that someone was actually listening and cared (meaning Blizzard, not you).
That made me laugh. I'm imagining you breaking into tears while saying it.
But you're right nobody cares what you think, not me or Blizzard. And no one cares what I think (even me), but that isn't the point here.
This is a place to discuss things, that is what a forum is, not a place to give Blizzard ideas. If you want Blizzard to listen to you, then this isn't the place to do that, because Blizzard listens to no one but themselves regardless of how good the ideas are.
But if you don't value sitting here and theorycrafting because it won't matter, then don't waste your time. But then coming in here and telling me not to theorycraft about Gateway unit buffs in the "How do we buff Gateway units?" thread also wastes your time, because you can't choose not to participate by participating. Especially when you don't actually take the time to read what I wrote before making an emo appeal, because I'm not suggesting straight buffs.
It is really simple. Warpgates are an extremely powerful mechanic. It means Gatway units need to be weak without it to be 100% of the strength required by balance with it.
Same with speed bonus on creep. It sounds like a cool idea lore-wise, but in terms of game mechanics all it means is that zerg can't fight off creep.
On June 26 2015 04:50 BaronVonOwn wrote: Gateway units in SC2 are not significantly weaker compared to BW. The problem is all the new units that were added, and all the units that were removed. You have things like widow mines and marauders that just massacre zealots and stalkers respectively. Then you have the nerf to storm and the awful colossus replacing the reaver. For these reasons buffing gateway units is not going to make a difference. The game design was fundamentally altered for the worse in SC2.
This is pretty much what happens right now in SC2, units like marauders and roaches are so strong early game compared to gateway units, that make them weaker, its not like BW gateway units were much different, it's just sc2 design at its core.
I would like charging zealots to have no unit collision and for the charge to end on the opposite side of the target. That way zealots don't get stuck behind allied units and they can typically attack twice after charging and charging zealots can actually surround their targets. And because charge would be more effective, players might actually not just let it auto cast, so there'd be more micro to do. When zealots attack a ball of enemy ranged units, some of them would want to charge to the back line and some to the front, so as many as possible are attacking simultaneously. The zealots charging to the back line need to be manually cast.
Instead of messing with their pure stats, I have a strange idea.
Each Stalker starts out with energy. When their energy reaches 50 (out of 50), you activate their spell and they create a hallucinated decoy next to them. Some stalkers will not have this decoy (not enough energy) while others will. It will allow stalkers to become a lot more tanky because enemies are forced to hit the decoy as well (they cannot tell the difference).
It doesn't increase the DPS at all since decoys do 0 dmg. It only increases survivability. These decoys may also blink if that tech is unlocked.
I'm not too worried about the decoys taking up the space and blocking the concave of real stalkers, because stalkers may blink.
On June 29 2015 11:03 NonY wrote: I would like charging zealots to have no unit collision and for the charge to end on the opposite side of the target. That way zealots don't get stuck behind allied units and they can typically attack twice after charging and charging zealots can actually surround their targets. And because charge would be more effective, players might actually not just let it auto cast, so there'd be more micro to do. When zealots attack a ball of enemy ranged units, some of them would want to charge to the back line and some to the front, so as many as possible are attacking simultaneously. The zealots charging to the back line need to be manually cast.
That's pretty damn interesting. Would you put them on the same collision plane as shades and Disruptors in nova-form, or an entirely new one?
Another thought I had was to give all Protoss units +2 armor and also to reduce to the cooldown on shield recharge post-combat from 10 seconds to nearly instanaeous while they're in a friendly power field.
Lol giving all protoss units "just" free +1 armor would be a bit too much of a buff I'm afraid. Lings attack would be so weak against toss. Also imagine the outrage in the forums
Improving the cooldown of the shield regen on the other hand would be a sweet, smooth buff.
Call me heretic but I propose that we make all gateway units except zealot and dt slower by .05 units and get 20% health and shield but get only 83~85% damage per second and +1 range.
Now where and when you warp in is more meaningful. But you won't lose unit as easily as losing workers or buildings.
Give the disrupter a shield battery buff. If the disrupter detonated around allied units, those units have shields replenished. That will buff gateway units.
On July 12 2015 20:57 BisuDagger wrote: Give the disrupter a shield battery buff. If the disrupter detonated around allied units, those units have shields replenished. That will buff gateway units.
Depending on numbers P vT pure chargelot and adepts will be unstoppable.
On July 12 2015 20:57 BisuDagger wrote: Give the disrupter a shield battery buff. If the disrupter detonated around allied units, those units have shields replenished. That will buff gateway units.
Depending on numbers P vT pure chargelot and adepts will unstoppable.
Terran DPS is really strong and consider the fact that the disrupter isn't contributing to damage. Balance around a straight shield replenishment versus let's say some sma replenishment and faster regeneration over a few seconds can be considered.
Straight up buffing gateway units could potentially hurt bio terran really bad. Bio relies on the fact that they could overpower pure gateway army without support units like colossi. If gateway units were to be stronger then that will leave bio powerless except there are some nerfs on Protoss other units or buffs on terran to compensate.
On July 12 2015 22:31 Wildmoon wrote: Straight up buffing gateway units could potentially hurt bio terran really bad. Bio relies on the fact that they could overpower pure gateway army without support units like colossi. If gateway units were to be stronger then that will leave bio powerless except there are some nerfs on Protoss other units or buffs on terran to compensate.
This is true, which is why the buffs I suggest on the first page include some nerfs to Blink and Forcefield.
There's a legitimate worry about the power of warpgate if you increase the stats on gateway units. Not only can a warp in occur anywhere with a pylon or deployed warp prism, it also gives you the unit around thirty seconds earlier than traditional production. This is why the timing of warp gate research finishing could decide games in WoL PvP (3 or 5 stalkers vs 7 is very tough). Some have suggested changing warpgates to be less efficient at making units than gateways, but I think there might be a simpler way to take the edge off of early warpgate aggression while still allowing the gateway units themselves to be more powerful. And that is: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more. Since it gives you the units it produces almost a production cycle early, and with more flexibility with regard to location, it makes sense that this additional cost would match up with the cost of one unit. An 8 gate that has to spend 800 extra minerals transforming its gateways to warp gates would be much less powerful, but still a bit better than an 8 gate that declines to transform its gateways, spends the time waiting for its units to finish and then walks across the map (or arrives at the same time with 8 less units).
Such a change also delays the Protoss maxing out and makes the maxed out bank smaller at any particular point in time just by nature of being extra infrastructure cost, so the power of remaxing with zealots and stalkers as compared to units which must wait their full build time to be produced is indirectly addressed. Since it's the warp gate itself that enables most of the strongest independent applications of gateway units it makes sense that it would be the warp gate that would have additional cost rather than zealots and stalkers suffering a tax on their effectiveness in all situations.
There might even be room to experiment with bringing back the WoL alpha's 2 gate proxy pylon with warp gates able to be placed on the map without research for 250 minerals and a build time of 95 seconds. That might demand a shift to very aggressive openings in PvP, though, just to be safe from a proxy pylon.
I think that no unit ever should get a damage buff. Everything does too much damage already and any requests for damage buffs just only increase the inflation. The best way to buff gateway units would be to just nerf roaches and bio slightly.
The talk about removing FF is silly, FF is cool, interesting and fantasticly visual, it's one of the best inventions of SC2.
On July 13 2015 02:33 opisska wrote: I think that no unit ever should get a damage buff. Everything does too much damage already and any requests for damage buffs just only increase the inflation. The best way to buff gateway units would be to just nerf roaches and bio slightly.
The talk about removing FF is silly, FF is cool, interesting and fantasticly visual, it's one of the best inventions of SC2.
I agree the FF is a cool ability and nice visual, however I think that FF should have a health bar to make it breakable.
On July 13 2015 02:31 Ball656 wrote: There's a legitimate worry about the power of warpgate if you increase the stats on gateway units. Not only can a warp in occur anywhere with a pylon or deployed warp prism, it also gives you the unit around thirty seconds earlier than traditional production. This is why the timing of warp gate research finishing could decide games in WoL PvP (3 or 5 stalkers vs 7 is very tough). Some have suggested changing warpgates to be less efficient at making units than gateways, but I think there might be a simpler way to take the edge off of early warpgate aggression while still allowing the gateway units themselves to be more powerful. And that is: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more. Since it gives you the units it produces almost a production cycle early, and with more flexibility with regard to location, it makes sense that this additional cost would match up with the cost of one unit. An 8 gate that has to spend 800 extra minerals transforming its gateways to warp gates would be much less powerful, but still a bit better than an 8 gate that declines to transform its gateways, spends the time waiting for its units to finish and then walks across the map (or arrives at the same time with 8 less units).
Such a change also delays the Protoss maxing out and makes the maxed out bank smaller at any particular point in time just by nature of being extra infrastructure cost, so the power of remaxing with zealots and stalkers as compared to units which must wait their full build time to be produced is indirectly addressed. Since it's the warp gate itself that enables most of the strongest independent applications of gateway units it makes sense that it would be the warp gate that would have additional cost rather than zealots and stalkers suffering a tax on their effectiveness in all situations.
There might even be room to experiment with bringing back the WoL alpha's 2 gate proxy pylon with warp gates able to be placed on the map without research for 250 minerals and a build time of 95 seconds. That might demand a shift to very aggressive openings in PvP, though, just to be safe from a proxy pylon.
Although Warp Gate rushes are a problem my bigger personal gripe with Warp Gate is that its a non-decision. Why would anybody ever not get Warp Gate in this game. There is absolutely no choice and no decision making involved. The rules are clear: Get Warp Gate you idiot!
It is Cyber-Core tech which you need to get anyways. Its cheap and it only brings benefits. There is no reason not to research it with 50/50 costs and no other useful early game upgrades at Cyber-Core. And there is no reason not to use it when you have it.
Instead, I would like to see a role for both Gateways and Warp Gates. Differentiate between these two and give us a chance to actually make a decision. Give us some reason to think instead of follow.
Thats why I suggest making Gateways produce units on mass faster then Warp Gates can. If you want to build a big army or remax after a fight you should have Gateways. If you want to reinforce during a fight or harass your opponent you should have Warp Gates. You can even have a mix of both and use them in parallel.
On July 13 2015 02:31 Ball656 wrote: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more. Since it gives you the units it produces almost a production cycle early, and with more flexibility with regard to location, it makes sense that this additional cost would match up with the cost of one unit. An 8 gate that has to spend 800 extra minerals transforming its gateways to warp gates would be much less powerful, but still a bit better than an 8 gate that declines to transform its gateways, spends the time waiting for its units to finish and then walks across the map (or arrives at the same time with 8 less units).
I actually really like this idea - thank you! Yes, in the late game you want warpgates and there is no reason not to have them. However, in early game, if you attach an extra cost of transforming each individual gateway to warpgate - then there is a really valid decission of what you need most. Maybe, instead of getting 4 warpgates, you want to put that expansion first?
On July 13 2015 02:31 Ball656 wrote: There's a legitimate worry about the power of warpgate if you increase the stats on gateway units. Not only can a warp in occur anywhere with a pylon or deployed warp prism, it also gives you the unit around thirty seconds earlier than traditional production. This is why the timing of warp gate research finishing could decide games in WoL PvP (3 or 5 stalkers vs 7 is very tough). Some have suggested changing warpgates to be less efficient at making units than gateways, but I think there might be a simpler way to take the edge off of early warpgate aggression while still allowing the gateway units themselves to be more powerful. And that is: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more. Since it gives you the units it produces almost a production cycle early, and with more flexibility with regard to location, it makes sense that this additional cost would match up with the cost of one unit. An 8 gate that has to spend 800 extra minerals transforming its gateways to warp gates would be much less powerful, but still a bit better than an 8 gate that declines to transform its gateways, spends the time waiting for its units to finish and then walks across the map (or arrives at the same time with 8 less units).
Such a change also delays the Protoss maxing out and makes the maxed out bank smaller at any particular point in time just by nature of being extra infrastructure cost, so the power of remaxing with zealots and stalkers as compared to units which must wait their full build time to be produced is indirectly addressed. Since it's the warp gate itself that enables most of the strongest independent applications of gateway units it makes sense that it would be the warp gate that would have additional cost rather than zealots and stalkers suffering a tax on their effectiveness in all situations.
There might even be room to experiment with bringing back the WoL alpha's 2 gate proxy pylon with warp gates able to be placed on the map without research for 250 minerals and a build time of 95 seconds. That might demand a shift to very aggressive openings in PvP, though, just to be safe from a proxy pylon.
Really like this extra cost idea.
Something, anything, Blizzard.. Why not just give a Gateway vs Warpgate mechanic a try to see how it plays out? You don't really know if something will be better or worse until you give it a shot. And Warpgate by itself definitely defines Protoss way too much imo.
It's stupid in its current form for lots of reasons:
- Shade ability very similar to Blink - At cost very near to zealots, the only thing it does worse is kill undefended buildings - HP overload to make them suck less - No real identity
Instead of a massively confused, tanky as crap unit ... give Protoss' gateway what it has always lacked: the ability to actually stand up to mid-game forces from opponents -- DPS to actually scare opponents away.
Here's an initial set of changes that would lean in the direction I'd go (though of course they'd have to be adjusted for balance reasons):
* Adept - Psionic Transfer removed - Movement speed increased to 2.9531 - Attack changed to 12 damage (no +armored or +light damage) - Cool-down changed to 1 second - Range changed to 5 - Cost to 25/75 - Health decreased to 70 shields, 20 HP - Can shoot up - (if a strength nerf is desired, they could warp-in without shields)
And then, you could do something like the following: stalkers and sentries have their power in the early-game reduced or changed so that all-ins aren't too-powerful whereas a late-game upgrade for Adepts allows them to continue to be a significant threat to opponents despite their low health pool.
* Sentry - Forcefield duration changed to 5 seconds - Speed increased to 2.9531
* Stalker - Attack changed to 5 (+5 vs light) (+1 & +1 vs light per attack upgrade) - Attack cool-down changed to 1 second - Blink cool-down changed to 5 seconds - Health reduced to 40 / 40 - Range reduced to 5
* New upgrade (use the old image and name or whatever) (shield upgrade replaced) - At twilight council available after templar archives AND dark shrine are built - Increases range of Adepts by 2 (total 7)
And now that you have a solid core, you could do something like the following: Disruptor changed to be a general-purpose support unit.
* Disruptor - Purification Nova removed - Disruptors remove the need for the 5 closest GROUND units to wait 10 seconds before shields regen ... shields of those units constantly regenerate (not target-able) (drains 1 energy per unit healed per second) - Disruptors can teleport up to 10 units in a 1.5 radius around the unit to any place on the map with vision
And ... if you want, you can go hog-wild on other changes that are just cool for the race:
* New upgrade - available after robo and stargate are built ... at twilight council - Increases energy regeneration of HTs to 1.0 (or increases movement speed of HTs to 2.8125)
* PO removed
* Time warp moved to oracle - Cost increased to 125 energy
* Pulsar beam removed
* Mass recall removed from MSC
* MSC provides cloaking in a radius of 2 (but doesn't cloak itself) after one of TC, Robo, or SG complete
...
None of that really makes much sense without a solid core of gateway units that can actually afford to be spread out all over the map and still go toe-to-toe with opposing forces.
Instead of mobility due to medivacs ... or mobility due to creep being the defining characteristic of Protoss match-ups, Protoss' mobility comes due to having forces that are just a higher threat (with the damage of adepts and the threat of reinforcements via warp-prisms making any force a serious problem) than opponent's forces unless the opponent is in higher numbers.
Due to the tanky-ness of zealots, the positional wins of sentries (shields, forcefields, hallucinations), the sniping of stalkers (what workers?), and the stand-off-ish-ness of Adepts' new damage ... gateway forces would actually be a solid core upon which support could build (instead of being totally necessary in all circumstances).
But, I'm probably just dreaming anyway. Whatever happens, I hope that Blizzard makes Protoss less-reliant upon high-tech, few-in-number units so that true skill can be displayed and the Protoss race is fearsome for its control once more.
On July 13 2015 02:31 Ball656 wrote: I think there might be a simpler way to take the edge off of early warpgate aggression while still allowing the gateway units themselves to be more powerful. And that is: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more.
Simple and elegant solution - I like it Ofc not sure about exact cost/upgrade time but that's tweakable.
So in the leaked Whispers of Oblivion video we can see the Sentry as a medic that restores shields.
I think this would be a great idea for the mutliplayer to make sentries useful beyond forcefields. The difference to Terran will be that it won't restore life, only shield so it's still a unique design.
This might be a bit strong but should be tested imo. Making the gateway army stronger at it's core is important and I'd rather see a gimmick like warpgate or forcefields nerfed to compensate for it.
On July 13 2015 02:31 Ball656 wrote: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more. Since it gives you the units it produces almost a production cycle early, and with more flexibility with regard to location, it makes sense that this additional cost would match up with the cost of one unit. An 8 gate that has to spend 800 extra minerals transforming its gateways to warp gates would be much less powerful, but still a bit better than an 8 gate that declines to transform its gateways, spends the time waiting for its units to finish and then walks across the map (or arrives at the same time with 8 less units).
I actually really like this idea - thank you! Yes, in the late game you want warpgates and there is no reason not to have them. However, in early game, if you attach an extra cost of transforming each individual gateway to warpgate - then there is a really valid decission of what you need most. Maybe, instead of getting 4 warpgates, you want to put that expansion first?
I love this idea btw, it makes sense on so many levels. You could even put warpgate later in the tech tree and increase the cooldowns between warp-ins until it''s faster to build a big gateway army through normal gateways instead of warpgates. Then in the lategame you would like to have 10 Gateways for building your army and maybe 5 warpgates for harassing via Warpprisms/proxy Pylons or to defend harass.
Then finally buffs for gateway units like giving zealots 10 more shield and faster zealot legs and lots of other stuff would be possible.
On July 15 2015 18:11 TedCruz2016 wrote: It's simple. Just replace sentry's guardian shield with the shield-healing skill that appeared in the campaign! And remove MSC.
It is fun because when they design Protoss, good and reasonable design concepts are moved to the thrash can in late alfa/ early beta design, maybe kept as some campaign thing, and they keep the gimmicks. Well, in fact that applies to other races, but specially to protoss.
- Standard Macro on Protoss (paying 150 min for macrobooster, Gateways building fast) -> Alpha - Gateway as a situational "upgrade" of Gateways -> alfa - Reasonable design on the Immortal -> Alfa - Oracle as a non-terrible terrible damage -> Alfa - Sentry as a "medic" unit -> possibley alfa, just reimported for LotV campaign - Damage dealer Adept -> alfa (now has stupid tanking with retardedly inneficient shooting)
And we could keep listing more things like Lurker removed in WoL alpha, SwarmHosts design, Widow mines/Hellbats.
On July 15 2015 18:11 TedCruz2016 wrote: It's simple. Just replace sentry's guardian shield with the shield-healing skill that appeared in the campaign! And remove MSC.
It is fun because when they design Protoss, good and reasonable design concepts are moved to the thrash can in late alfa/ early beta design, maybe kept as some campaign thing, and they keep the gimmicks. Well, in fact that applies to other races, but specially to protoss.
- Standard Macro on Protoss (paying 150 min for macrobooster, Gateways building fast) -> Alpha - Gateway as a situational "upgrade" of Gateways -> alfa - Reasonable design on the Immortal -> Alfa - Oracle as a non-terrible terrible damage -> Alfa - Sentry as a "medic" unit -> possibley alfa, just reimported for LotV campaign - Damage dealer Adept -> alfa (now has stupid tanking with retardedly inneficient shooting)
And we could keep listing more things like Lurker removed in WoL alpha, SwarmHosts design, Widow mines/Hellbats.
Well, P should have a medic unit in one form or another, and it better be added in the early game when units are few and money is tight.
On July 13 2015 15:41 Edowyth wrote: Change the adept.
It's stupid in its current form for lots of reasons:
- Shade ability very similar to Blink - At cost very near to zealots, the only thing it does worse is kill undefended buildings - HP overload to make them suck less - No real identity
Yeah, work on the adept please. It's just too strong atm in all match-ups. I don't really like the ability nor the upgrade too. The unit doesn't feel polished.
EPT
. 
