|
"Last time we made a community update, we talked about what was discussed at our event at the Blizzard campus. We’d like to follow that up with a look at the state of Protoss in Legacy of the Void, which were not only big topics at the event, but also big topics within our community as a whole.
Feedback in general
We’re grateful to see so much passion from the community around balance topics – even when opinions are varied, this level of engagement is truly positive. Something we touched on previously is that we strive to locate and improve specific parts of the game that aren’t working well without taking away from the good parts. We understand that it’s tempting sometimes to just make extreme statements that only look at a part of a system, but what makes the process of improving StarCraft II difficult is trying to look at a system from all possible angles. Our goal isn’t to scrap main systems in the game or to throw away fun elements just because there’s a possible alternative path.
Putting this into context for this week’s topic, we see a lot of broad statements thrown around when it comes to Protoss. Saying things like “Protoss needs a complete redesign from scratch” while focusing only on the few negatives and ignoring the positives make it a difficult topic to discuss at times. We’d like to work together towards locating what the good parts are as well as the specific areas that need improvement so that we don’t throw away the core and fun parts of the race while trying to improve.
Disruptor
We agree that the new version of the Disruptor has a main issue. The issue being that because they’re invulnerable when engaging and retreating it almost feels like it’s a given to be able to save the Disruptor. Obviously, this is the opposite of what we want. We want the moments of saving and reusing Disruptors to be a cool moment, not something that’s almost always guaranteed. One suggestion we thought was good was instead of the Disruptor being invulnerable after the damage is dealt, it has the speed buff so that there is potential for good positioning play on both sides after the shot goes off. We will definitely try this out, and also try to brainstorm and playtest different ideas in order to get this unit in a good place.
Force Fields
Force Fields are something we’re definitely working on as seen from the beta. This can be a difficult topic because there are some very passionate sides regarding their place in StarCraft II. As with any aspect of StarCraft II, we hope that everyone analyzes how new changes to existing abilities or mechanics affect the game rather than stick to set beliefs.
We had some good discussion this topic with the members that participated in last week’s summit. While some players initially had strong opinions on this topic, others pointed out cool counter micro to Force Fields. Not only to negate their effect but ways that both Terran and Zerg could use the Force Fields against the Protoss. This included loading up units into Medivacs and unloading them on the other side, or Roach burrow-move micro to the other side. This highlighted the fact that some statements made about Force Fields just aren’t true.
However, even with some of these counter moves available, the majority of us agreed that Zerg could use more tools against Force Fields in Legacy of the Void, and that Ravagers could be a good tool if we balance it correctly. Not only that, as we see in other matchups, having siege range support also helps deal with Force Fields a lot, and the tier 2 siege-range Lurker change could be a good change vs. Force Fields as well.
If these two additions in the matchup aren’t enough, or if there are other specific scenarios where a change against Force Fields might be necessary, we can explore them on a case by case basis.
Warp Gates
This was another one of those topics where we saw a lot of the voices represented at the Summit. One main point we agreed on is that offensive warp-in is an area that can be improved. We also agreed that the current change might not be the best, and we could explore more in this area.
When going into deeper discussions, it was clear to us that Warp Gates have many interesting factors that shouldn’t be dismissed. It’s such an interesting mechanic and a core part of the Protoss identity - the ability to reinforce defenses quickly on a race that doesn’t have high mobility. Additionally, when we looked at the asymmetry of how each of the three races produce core units we felt it was another strong point for Warp Gates being more good than bad.
The main takeaway here was that we can explore potential changes to nerf the offensive warp-in case. Internally, we’re currently exploring two ideas on this front:
- Pylon power is separated from warp-in power. Pylon power will just serve to power buildings, and Warp Gates will provide power to be able to warp units in near them. Warp Prisms in this scenario will provide Warp-in power.
- In this scenario, in order to do an offensive all-in early, Protoss will need to construct a Pylon and a Warp Gate in order to do an all-in.
- In later stages of the game, players can still use Warp Prisms for warp-in harassment, or to support armies. We believe keeping warp-in strong in this case is good because players will have to commit tech to be able to pull something like this off. And it’ll also be more easily scoutable by the opponent compared to Pylons being hidden in various locations.
- Pylon power is separated from warp-in Power. Pylons would need to be upgraded to have warp-in power. Warp Prisms in this scenario will provide both types of power.
- In this scenario, we’re thinking something like: Costs 100 to upgrade, upgraded Pylons have the same health as normal Pylons, upgrading gives 8 extra supply, time to upgrade takes a very long time, and upgraded Pylons provide both Pylon power and warp-in power.
- Similar general idea as what’s mentioned above, but this change would be more tunable.
If we decide to nerf offensive Warp-ins, we’ll likely explore additional changes in this general area. Please keep in mind nothing is really set here, and we’ll be doing some heavy investigation on this front both in terms of new idea generation and internal playtesting.
Gateway Unit Strength
Some feedback we’ve seen in the area echoes a general belief that because you can warp-in anywhere, Gateways units aren’t very good. We felt this line of thought goes against the spirit of StarCraft as a strategy-based game.
- It’s becoming more and more common even in Heart of the Swarm that mostly Stalkers are forming main armies. This suggests to us that perhaps the cost might be appropriate for the strength and utility of the unit.
- It’s very common to see small groups of Zealots harass and deal high or even game ending damage. Compare this to other races core units - How often do we see Zerglings doing this? Not as often. Which is why we’re also trying out changes to buff Zergling harassment in Legacy of the Void. That isn’t to say that Gateway units are the strongest out of the three races. Gateway unit strength is part of the reason why we’ve added another core unit to the Gateway in Void that is very powerful.
- We’d like to share a scenario that someone mentioned during the summit that we found interesting. Imagine if Warp Gates were removed. Could we just buff Zealot/Stalker health by 5% to 10% and the game will be balanced still? The answers from almost everyone were that Protoss would be way too strong. And we agree, because both of those units are core units that are used in mass so a buff to these could more easily be game breaking compared to a slight buff to end game units which are used in smaller numbers.
This isn’t to say that the current strength of the Gateway is at its max potential nor are we trying to say that we’re opposed to changes to Gateway units. For example, the new Adept is a powerful Gateway unit that was recently added. And even without Warp Gates removed, Zealots also got a speed buff after the Charge upgrade currently in the beta. The main thing we’d like to point out is Warp Gates being in the game isn’t only related to how strong or weak Warp Gate units are. Just because the Warp Gate is nerfed, it doesn’t mean Gateway units have to be buffed and just because Warp Gates aren’t nerfed, it also doesn’t mean we can buff or add to the Gateway strength.
Zealot’s role vs. Adept’s role
We agree with you in terms of Adept overshadowing the Zealot in some situations. We feel that if we’re going to add a core unit to the Gateway, we have to take away somewhat from the role of another core unit. We currently have two core units on the Protoss: Zealot and the Stalker. Because we believe Stalkers are a more interesting unit, we believe the Adept taking some of the Zealot’s role away is the better direction.
With that said, we also agree with you guys that it’s possible the speed upgrade on the Zealot might not have been the best direction. Because the Adept’s role is heavily focused on early game harassment, and tanking damage in combat, we wonder if we can do something different for the Zealot. For example, what if we added the initial burst damage Zealots deal after charging to an enemy? Something like this might be cool for a few different reasons:
- Adept is about the added meat shield, Zealots are about the added damage.
- Zealots would clearly be better in the mid/late game Warp Prism harassment case, while the two main advantages of the Adept would still be intact.
- It has the type of micro that a lot have been asking for: More positioning and movement-based, rather than ability-click based.
Thank you again for taking the time to read our thoughts on this and as always, please continue to share your feedback and concerns with us as we work to make Legacy of the Void, the best game it can be!" - David Kim
Source
|
Pylon power and warp-in power separated is definitely interesting, as long as it's not too messy on screen (with colors, dots, indicators...).
One suggestion we thought was good was instead of the Disruptor being invulnerable after the damage is dealt, it has the speed buff so that there is potential for good positioning play on both sides after the shot goes off
I think this is something that has to be tested. If the unit has the speed buff but no invulnerability after the shot, the disruptor player actually has to micro to hit an outer part of the army (and not the heart) so that he can escape. This is definitely the change I would have gone for and I'm happy to see you're considering it seriously.
|
Pretty much agree with everything said about warpgates, the power of gateway units and that persperctive with adepts in the picture.
I'm not a fan of splitting warpin and power radius though, it feels like a complicated solution. I believe it would be much easier if warpins just took longer if they were too far from the gateway. That way defensive warpins would remain the same but offensive warpins might take 10seconds or more which not only slows down the attack in comparison to thw current state but also gives some extra seconds until the cooldown restarts and hence adds to production time.
|
On July 23 2015 08:30 Big J wrote:
Pretty much agree with everything said about warpgates, the power of gateway units and that persperctive with adepts in the picture.
I'm not a fan of splitting warpin and power radius though, it feels like a complicated solution. I believe it would be much easier if warpins just took longer if they were too far from the gateway. That way defensive warpins would remain the same but offensive warpins might take 10seconds or more which not only slows down the attack in comparison to thw current state but also gives some extra seconds until the cooldown restarts and hence adds to production time.
It's always been the solution I would personally go for, but what is "too far" from the gateway ? Do we make dots indicators everywhere to define where is too far and where is not too far ? Doesn't it make warp prisms far less attractive ? It feels at least as complicated as the splitting to me.
By the way, since Blizzard seems to genuinely read TL feedback : liberator DPS is OP with lame design and the cyclone makes dots everywhere. 
|
Why cant some units ONLY be made from warpgates, it would make protoss macro so much more interesting if the player had to switch back and forth between warp gates and normal gateways. Like HTs should only be made in gateways so 14 hts cant be warped in instantly for 7 archons. Make the adept ONLY gateway and the zealot warpgate.
|
I cant say that I think these are the best solutions but they are definitely solutions and it is nice to see that blizzard is considering them.
|
Sounds like more nerfs rather than help
|
|
|
Pylon upgrade and Warp Gate warp in doesn't make sense. What's cool about Warp Gate is that you can have hidden harass pylons, where it's possible to counter attack if the opponent attacks. This change would make Warp Gate pretty much only used on allins and it wouldn't really nerf the allin that much.
And why nerf it when Protoss is believed to do the worst in LotV and if we can't buff Gateway units, as they say. We can't buff gateway units because lategame balance would be broken if Protoss get even more strength.
I like Charge change on Zealot, this guy needs some love.
|
For example, what if we added the initial burst damage Zealots deal after charging to an enemy?
I don't think I understand what it means. Buffing charge with some damage on the first attack ?
|
On July 23 2015 08:40 ejozl wrote:
Pylon upgrade and Warp Gate warp in doesn't make sense. What's cool about Warp Gate is that you can have hidden harass pylons, where it's possible to counter attack if the opponent attacks. This change would make Warp Gate pretty much only used on allins and it wouldn't really nerf the allin that much.
And why nerf it when Protoss is believed to do the worst in LotV and if we can't buff Gateway units, as they say. And we can't, because lategame balance would be broken if Protoss get even more strength.
I like Charge change on Zealot, this guy needs some love.
It does make sense in fact. Hidden harass pylons are just frustrating and are the core of most broken Protoss all-ins. This would be a good incentive for Protoss to use warp prisms and would really really take away some of the "cheesy all-in no skill noob race" burden by making macro styles far more prominent.
|
On July 23 2015 08:41 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +For example, what if we added the initial burst damage Zealots deal after charging to an enemy? I don't think I understand what it means. Buffing charge with some damage on the first attack ?
y
|
On July 23 2015 08:39 nichan wrote:
Sounds like more nerfs rather than help
the point is redesigning, and then aiming for balance on what is hopefully a better foundation, not an immediate change with the aim of balance. Or at least thats what it sounds like
|
I highly appreciate these prompt, frequent and detailed updates. I generally liked most of the things they are testing, and I feel like the game is in good hands.
|
On July 23 2015 08:43 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:41 [PkF] Wire wrote:For example, what if we added the initial burst damage Zealots deal after charging to an enemy? I don't think I understand what it means. Buffing charge with some damage on the first attack ? y
I like it
|
On July 23 2015 08:43 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:40 ejozl wrote:
Pylon upgrade and Warp Gate warp in doesn't make sense. What's cool about Warp Gate is that you can have hidden harass pylons, where it's possible to counter attack if the opponent attacks. This change would make Warp Gate pretty much only used on allins and it wouldn't really nerf the allin that much.
And why nerf it when Protoss is believed to do the worst in LotV and if we can't buff Gateway units, as they say. And we can't, because lategame balance would be broken if Protoss get even more strength.
I like Charge change on Zealot, this guy needs some love. It does make sense in fact. Hidden harass pylons are just frustrating and are the core of most broken Protoss all-ins. This would be a good incentive for Protoss to use warp prisms and would really really take away some of the "cheesy all-in no skill noob race" burden by making macro styles far more prominent.
It's a bigger nerf to harassment than to cheesy all'in no skill noob race. Make this change and we will just sit in the base even more or allin, because we can't take a third...
|
On July 23 2015 08:45 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:43 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 23 2015 08:40 ejozl wrote:
Pylon upgrade and Warp Gate warp in doesn't make sense. What's cool about Warp Gate is that you can have hidden harass pylons, where it's possible to counter attack if the opponent attacks. This change would make Warp Gate pretty much only used on allins and it wouldn't really nerf the allin that much.
And why nerf it when Protoss is believed to do the worst in LotV and if we can't buff Gateway units, as they say. And we can't, because lategame balance would be broken if Protoss get even more strength.
I like Charge change on Zealot, this guy needs some love. It does make sense in fact. Hidden harass pylons are just frustrating and are the core of most broken Protoss all-ins. This would be a good incentive for Protoss to use warp prisms and would really really take away some of the "cheesy all-in no skill noob race" burden by making macro styles far more prominent. It's a bigger nerf to harassment than to cheesy all'in no skill noob race. Make this change and we will just sit in the base even more or allin, because we can't take a third, even more...
Maps in LotV will probably feature an easy third and a doable 4th 80% of the time if the economy remains the same.
|
Good to see that they are addressing the Disrupter invulnerability, let it keep the speed on retreat but lose invulnerability.
What about toning the adept down - every damn match I see with Protoss v Terran it seems to be Adepts only, then adepts with a Warp Prism - is that the experience of other Terrans???
|
On July 23 2015 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:30 Big J wrote:
Pretty much agree with everything said about warpgates, the power of gateway units and that persperctive with adepts in the picture.
I'm not a fan of splitting warpin and power radius though, it feels like a complicated solution. I believe it would be much easier if warpins just took longer if they were too far from the gateway. That way defensive warpins would remain the same but offensive warpins might take 10seconds or more which not only slows down the attack in comparison to thw current state but also gives some extra seconds until the cooldown restarts and hence adds to production time. It's always been the solution I would personally go for, but what is "too far" from the gateway ? Do we make dots indicators everywhere to define where is too far and where is not too far ? It feels at least as complicated as the splitting to me. By the way, since Blizzard seems to genuinely read TL feedback : liberator DPS is OP with lame design and the cyclone makes dots everywhere.
I think you could do something like a second for every 5-10distance with a minimum of the current 5seconds and a maximum of 10-15seconds. If an indicator is needed (which i feel like is hardly an issue for new players and experienced players will get the grip how long it will take them) it could be the plain numer of aeconds it takes the unit to warp in, showcased upon the warpin shadow of the unit. (If you know what i mean. That model of the unit you see when you clicked its warpgate button)
|
China6326 Posts
On July 23 2015 08:41 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +For example, what if we added the initial burst damage Zealots deal after charging to an enemy? I don't think I understand what it means. Buffing charge with some damage on the first attack ?
I think it means the first attack(s) the Zealot does immediately after charging deals more damage, like one or two swipes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
