On July 13 2015 04:09 RoomOfMush wrote: I disagree. Yes, Warp Gates are very very powerful, but not so powerful that they can not be reasonably incorporated into the game in some way. This is what I wrote in another thread, I am just gonna copypasta:
I don't disagree with what you say, but if you keep warp gates as strong as they are and make normal gateways stronger, you need to weaken the base stats of the units themselves even more to achieve balance. My objection is, make the unit themselves strong. Not some fundamental mechanic that indirectly requires units to be weak.
But I guess you still play SC2, play protoss, and think they need a buff.
I like the second option in the OP, which is plain and simple. If you want gateway units to be balanced, just shortens the buildtime of all gateway units but make the cooldown relatively longer to warp one. For example, the current buildtime of a zealot is 38 second. With a 10% punishment for warpgate but 10% reward for gateway, it takes only 34 seconds to produce one in a gateway but 42 seconds to warp one into a power field, so obviously that will nerf P's warpgate rush but buff it's ability of defense at the same time.
I want to thank you for all the hard work preparing it. I understand you watched a lot of games and have made some statistics behind it to support your claims, rather than relying on your gut-feeling. I really like some of your ideas, such as the decreased time of non-warpgate build time. As JCoto points out however, this will work only if chronoboost is not available early game. Otherwise, we will see more proxy gateway all-ins. If you recall in early WoL building time was nerfed to compensate for chronoboost usage when proxying.
You are talking about buffing Adepts, but I think all gateway units should be buffed in some way to be able to withstand a frontal attack without resorting to force-fields. When that happens the slow sentry would become an option, not a must-have in early-to-mid gateway compositions. Naturally, it would have to be nerfed in some way as well so that sentry-based compositions are not plainily OP.
Your discussion will help tremendously on my project I started only recently (Starcraft Improved), but we seem to move in similar direction as some of the suggestions that I see in this thread. One thing we are currently trying is an added cost to each Gateway-to-Warpgate that you make. This, coupled with reduced cost from plain Gateway may convince Protoss not to rush to Warpgates in the first place.
There are however changes that I am torn about. For example: the templar usage. Templars are slow for a reason. They function (or should function) as a mild deny area unit (I have templars here, you shall not pass!). Similarly as Lurkers and Siege Tanks.
I'm fond of buffing the core protoss army and trimming back on the cost of key tech buildings
the way I see it:
-Buff zeolot shields by 10, increase movespeed -Increase Stalker damage/DPS
from some Community projects such as Starbow i've become a fan of moving the Immortal from Robo to Gate and Sentry from Gate to robo.
Immortals (with adjusted cost and stats) would serve to give GW armies real muscle and and would give P options for early armies (zeolots for frontline, adept for harass, Stalker for range/anti-air and Immortal for anti-armored) and it would be ok for them to be stronger early with the loss of Sentries. Sentries in the robo could be redesigned as, well, an actually sentry which could serve to provide territory advantages to allow protoss to spread out more and secure expansions.
I think with these kind of changes P would have a strong Core that can be built upon.
Protoss need to have their strengths and weaknesses tweaked. They rely on certain overly powerful abilities like forcefield, blink and warpgate, which scale exponentially. It's difficult to balance forcefield etc. so that it's not useless when you have only a couple, but not overpowered when you have a lot. I think this is occurring because these abilities don't have big enough weaknesses associated with them.
For example, there is no reason not to get warpgates - they're clearly the best way for protoss to build gateway units. So protoss needs to get balanced around having a weak gateway early game, then a steady increase in power over the course of the game as warpgates are added and units can be built faster, and in more places as more pylons get built.
Most protoss units work in this way - the scaling is very strong. That's why protoss starts so weak then gets so powerful as the game goes on. I think that by tweaking things such that protoss don't scale so well into the lategame, you can balance both the early and late game (by flattening the power curve).
For example:
Stalker: get rid of the armor bonus on stalker damage and increase their attack speed slightly, so that they do more DPS to light units (i.e. the units you encounter early game), but less damage to the armored units that come out as the game goes on. You already have a very good anti armor unit (the immortal) which comes out in the mid game, so it's ok to trade armored damage on the stalker for added power against zealots, lings and marines.
Warpgate: make it take longer to warp-in units than to build them from a gateway. What warpgates do is shorten the resupply route, but at the moment they have no down-side. Making gateways build faster allows you to choose between getting units out faster (but having to reinforce from across the map), or getting units where you want them immediately (but less often). This change wouldn't effect a passive protoss, but would make protoss all-ins weaker.
Sentries: Make forcefield only last for 10 seconds, but increase sentry damage slightly, and make guardian shield work against melee units. This will make sentries better combat units at the expense of area control. 10 seconds is still enough time to cut an army in half, block a path, make a retreat etc. but makes it easier for an opponent to deal with. This change makes sentries better against zerglings - a unit protoss often has problems with in the early game - and weaker when massed (because it's harder to keep large sections of the map blocked off).
Of course there are more things that I think should change, and not just for protoss, but what do you think about this stuff?
On July 16 2015 15:04 Quineotio wrote: Protoss need to have their strengths and weaknesses tweaked. They rely on certain overly powerful abilities like forcefield, blink and warpgate, which scale exponentially. It's difficult to balance forcefield etc. so that it's not useless when you have only a couple, but not overpowered when you have a lot. I think this is occurring because these abilities don't have big enough weaknesses associated with them.
For example, there is no reason not to get warpgates - they're clearly the best way for protoss to build gateway units. So protoss needs to get balanced around having a weak gateway early game, then a steady increase in power over the course of the game as warpgates are added and units can be built faster, and in more places as more pylons get built.
Most protoss units work in this way - the scaling is very strong. That's why protoss starts so weak then gets so powerful as the game goes on. I think that by tweaking things such that protoss don't scale so well into the lategame, you can balance both the early and late game (by flattening the power curve).
For example:
Stalker: get rid of the armor bonus on stalker damage and increase their attack speed slightly, so that they do more DPS to light units (i.e. the units you encounter early game), but less damage to the armored units that come out as the game goes on. You already have a very good anti armor unit (the immortal) which comes out in the mid game, so it's ok to trade armored damage on the stalker for added power against zealots, lings and marines.
Warpgate: make it take longer to warp-in units than to build them from a gateway. What warpgates do is shorten the resupply route, but at the moment they have no down-side. Making gateways build faster allows you to choose between getting units out faster (but having to reinforce from across the map), or getting units where you want them immediately (but less often). This change wouldn't effect a passive protoss, but would make protoss all-ins weaker.
Sentries: Make forcefield only last for 10 seconds, but increase sentry damage slightly, and make guardian shield work against melee units. This will make sentries better combat units at the expense of area control. 10 seconds is still enough time to cut an army in half, block a path, make a retreat etc. but makes it easier for an opponent to deal with. This change makes sentries better against zerglings - a unit protoss often has problems with in the early game - and weaker when massed (because it's harder to keep large sections of the map blocked off).
Of course there are more things that I think should change, and not just for protoss, but what do you think about this stuff?
I think the stalker change would cause problems for terran in the early game. Sometimes I've won games PvT by merely sending a stalker and a zealot to the other side of the map.
On July 16 2015 15:04 Quineotio wrote: Warpgate: make it take longer to warp-in units than to build them from a gateway. What warpgates do is shorten the resupply route, but at the moment they have no down-side. Making gateways build faster allows you to choose between getting units out faster (but having to reinforce from across the map), or getting units where you want them immediately (but less often). This change wouldn't effect a passive protoss, but would make protoss all-ins weaker.
Totally agree with this. Some fundamental changes should be made on warpgate mechanic. In the early game, Z, when with a handful of larvas, has to choose between a round of workers and zerglings; to T, it's mules or scans. P shouldn't make an exception. It should make a similar choice between a passive style - with gateway - and an aggressive style - with warpgate. That could certainly diversify P's strategies throughout the whole game.
On July 16 2015 17:23 shin_toss wrote: Ive been playing like 60~70games and seriously haven't explored adept's usage..so how? What matchup? anyone can give me short answer
Adepts are used to harass in all 3 matchups. They are bad against stalkers, marauders, and roaches. They are often used to apply pressure and transition into tech.
I made a Video of tricks on how to micro adepts as well. If you have specific questions let me know. Some of the best games with adepts was Mana/Parting vs Puckk/pili in archon. Also, tt1 has explained quite a bit about adept usage and frequently post in the forums. (his name might be ttone on teamliquid.)
Most protoss units work in this way - the scaling is very strong. That's why protoss starts so weak then gets so powerful as the game goes on. I think that by tweaking things such that protoss don't scale so well into the lategame, you can balance both the early and late game (by flattening the power curve). ... what do you think about this stuff?
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not this is really a problem.
In PvZ, pros have been moving away from colossus because they are too easily countered with vipers. See this set, for example, especially the second game. Intense amazing game.
In PvT, check out how action packed this game is. What else would you really want from Starcraft?
PvP is super exciting as a mirror matchup if you understand build orders and counters. Later in the game, protoss players sometimes hide in their bases, trying to build up the best army they can, but it doesn't need to be that way. Check out the first game of this match as an example:
Most protoss units work in this way - the scaling is very strong. That's why protoss starts so weak then gets so powerful as the game goes on. I think that by tweaking things such that protoss don't scale so well into the lategame, you can balance both the early and late game (by flattening the power curve). ... what do you think about this stuff?
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not this is really a problem.
In PvZ, pros have been moving away from colossus because they are too easily countered with vipers. See this set, for example, especially the second game. Intense amazing game.
PvP is super exciting as a mirror matchup if you understand build orders and counters. Later in the game, protoss players sometimes hide in their bases, trying to build up the best army they can, but it doesn't need to be that way. Check out the first game of this match as an example:
Of course, these games are HOTS, not LOTV, but the beta isn't quite ready for balance testing yet in LOTV.
There are definitely good games involving protoss - heaps of them. But I feel that there would be even more good games, and less bad ones, if some changes were made.
I don't really like vipers. Blizzard acknowledged that the colossus was a problem, but chose to add a counter unit rather than fix the problem. If I were redesigning the colossus I'd experiment with lowering its movement speed and changing its attack. I think by lowering its movement speed you increase the difficulty of getting it into a good position, and make it harder to escape, "weakening" without removing its ability to kick ass when it's in the right spot at the right time.
I'd also consider lowering its attack speed and increasing its damage so that targeting the shot becomes more important. Both of these things would increase the micro necessary to get maximum use out of it.
These changes I wouldn't make in isolation though - colossus interaction with vikings would need to be looked at for example. But it's hard to make one change - I'd be making adjustments all over. The point is, I don't like the way starcraft is being developed. I think blizzard should be adding nuances to the game rather than adding blunt counter units to the biggest perceived problems. I mean, why put the ravager into the game to solve the force-field problem instead of just solving the force-field problem?
On July 16 2015 18:31 Quineotio wrote: These changes I wouldn't make in isolation though - colossus interaction with vikings would need to be looked at for example. But it's hard to make one change - I'd be making adjustments all over. The point is, I don't like the way starcraft is being developed. I think blizzard should be adding nuances to the game rather than adding blunt counter units to the biggest perceived problems. I mean, why put the ravager into the game to solve the force-field problem instead of just solving the force-field problem?
Ravagers do more than counter force fields.....killing forcefields is just one of their nuances.
I don't see forcefields as a problem. The have so many interesting uses.
I think warpgate is fine balance-wise, it's just that most players see it as glaringly-bad game design to have a building like the gateway which serves no purpose whatsoever in the game but to be clicked on and transformed (for free) to a much better building, the warpgate. It's like having that extra step where you have to turn every gateway you build into a warpgate is nothing but an unnecessary wasteful click which adds no depth of strategy to the game. And not getting warpgate research ASAP has never been an option except for the earliest proxy rushes which are complete all-ins anyway and aren't affected by warpgate.
I agree with the people on here saying the mothership core is a bandaid unit with no clear purpose but to fill in existing design cracks. I would go further to say that it damages the fantasy and identity of playing protoss to have the early-midgame revolve around a single flying unit called the "mothership core" <-- seriously what kind of name is that for a unit.
And that brings me to my biggest question: why is the mothership still in the game, why is it so unused, why doesn't it have any cool/useful abilities (wow cloaking field at the 30 minute mark). I know at one point Dustin Browder said it was cool to have units in the game that were never used in pro-level play and that would just be fun for a casual 4v4, but I've never liked that attitude and I've always thought it was wrong for SC since the game already has enough units that aren't useful and with the new expansion we're getting even more dumped in our laps.
On July 17 2015 02:38 cordellb wrote: And that brings me to my biggest question: why is the mothership still in the game, why is it so unused, why doesn't it have any cool/useful abilities (wow cloaking field at the 30 minute mark). I know at one point Dustin Browder said it was cool to have units in the game that were never used in pro-level play and that would just be fun for a casual 4v4, but I've never liked that attitude and I've always thought it was wrong for SC since the game already has enough units that aren't useful and with the new expansion we're getting even more dumped in our laps.
It's better to have units then not, eventually uses might be found for them. It took a long time for BW to become balanced, as people found counters to different units, and new uses for other units.
In HOTS, the mothership wasn't used much at first, but eventually made its way into pro games. Here's an example of Zest using it from last Blizzcon:
I don't know what changes should be implemented, but I'm worried because of two things: 1- Hero units are still there for the protoss and as long as there is a need for a hero unit, there is probably a big design problem that has been "band-aided". What is worrying is that it is very unlikely at this stage to have changes sufficient enough to be done with the need for hero units. 2- The new minerals economic will probably create a big problem for the protoss. Again at this stage in the design, I wouldn't expect changes to the economy nor can i see an overhaul to all protoss mineral costs so god knows how this will fix this.
In anyways I hope they make enough changes to the game so we don't end up seeing absurd deathball games like that Zest. vs. Life that was posted above.
EPT
