|
From what I can tell by Blizzard's post, they are not in tune with the community. Maybe they hear us, but they aren't listening to us. Yes, they list a lot of todo items, but they aren't solving the right end of the problem.
How in the hell are they just now realizing that you can bait forcefields as counterplay, wait for them to expire, or go under or over them? A decision to counter and an execute, like splitting against Storm or Banelings, is far more interesting counterplay. As a Protoss play even I don't want forcefields because they are too binary.
Thank God Warpgates are finally on the table! A dual pylon or Gateway proximity is as silly as it is unintuitive. I'll admit, being forced to use one or more Warp Prisms isn't so bad, but I'd like the Protoss units to be buffed in smaller numbers.
As has been said many times already, Stalkers are used out of necessity and not choice, but only in certain phases of some matchups. They are one of the best designed units in the game, for showing skill, but not in their versatility through the game phases.
Buff zergling run-bys!? So now when we leave a tiny little hole in the wall we can be punished even further. Yeah, great.
This best sums up my proposals:
On July 23 2015 16:32 Musicus wrote:
Forcefields: Please make counterplay to forcields possible in every situation, not just if you have burrow movement roaches or ravagers. So my solution that I've seen from others before: Give Forcefields hitpoints!
Also make the sentry useful beyond forcefields, a shield heal would be an option hear. Sentries being a dead weight after they made forcefields sucks, and I think they might just be too slow for LotV. Speed buff? (Of course you have to enable the counter play to Forcefields by giving them hitpoints first).
Gateways/Warpgate: I'm all for nerfing offensive warpgate, but give Protoss something in return. Namely, make the normal Gateway better! Making a warpgate should be a choice, and not the default option. You achieve this by making it possible for Protoss to max out faster with Gateways than with Warpgates.
Balancing your Gateway/Warpgate count could be a new interesting aspect of playing Protoss. Maybe you'd want to have 10 normal gateways to buld your main army as fast as possible, while having 4 warpgates for defensive warpins and warpprism harassment.
|
^ All of those things need to happen and Protoss would be so much better as a race design
Don't just hear us David, yea it's great that your hearing us but you need to LISTEN as well.
|
I honestly don't understand why the "make both gateways and warp gates viable at the same time" thing has had such a long life in the community. It's hands down one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. The idea of having half of your production buildings producing one way and half of them producing in a completely different other way, and having to constantly switch them back and forth in order to play optimally, is just profoundly annoying for no real advantage. Warp Gates, for all of the potential problems with offensive warp-ins, positively streamlines Protoss production and makes it very clean, fun, and intuitive to use. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make Protoss macro so much more finnicky, complicated, and annoying. It's just complexity for the sake of complexity.
This is a great feedback post from David Kim, though. I trust everyone will figure things out in the end.
|
On July 23 2015 16:32 Musicus wrote:
Gateways/Warpgate: I'm all for nerfing offensive warpgate, but give Protoss something in return. Namely, make the normal Gateway better! Making a warpgate should be a choice, and not the default option. You achieve this by making it possible for Protoss to max out faster with Gateways than with Warpgates.
One of the reasons warp gate is a requirement is to slow down early game production out of gateways.
|
I honestly don't understand why the "make both gateways and warp gates viable at the same time" thing has had such a long life in the community. It's hands down one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. The idea of having half of your production buildings producing one way and half of them producing in a completely different other way, and having to constantly switch them back and forth in order to play optimally, is just profoundly annoying for no real advantage.
Your 100% correct. Switching back and fourth is the most annoyung thing in the world.
People really aren't thinking their ideas through properly. It just sounds cool on theory because it adds "strategy".
|
On July 24 2015 07:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I honestly don't understand why the "make both gateways and warp gates viable at the same time" thing has had such a long life in the community. It's hands down one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. The idea of having half of your production buildings producing one way and half of them producing in a completely different other way, and having to constantly switch them back and forth in order to play optimally, is just profoundly annoying for no real advantage. Your 100% correct. Switching back and fourth is the most annoyung thing in the world. People really aren't thinking their ideas through properly. It just sounds cool on theory because it adds "strategy".
Just as annoying as switching between reactor and techlab?
I don't get this criticism at all, most people also don't wanna say you have to switch back and forth every X seconds to macro perfectly, but having a real choice between warpgate and gateway cause they behave differently adds strategy AND macro mechanics the toss has to master (which is a good thing imo)
I can understand that toss players like warpins quite a lot, but "coolness" is a very bad reason for ti to exist in the first place.
It creates design problems which shouldn't be there, solid gameplay > desperately wanting to have unique production methods
|
Just as annoying as switching between reactor and techlab?
That's annoying too, but you rarely do it after the early game (except when zerg switches to Ultras - and lifting and landing barracks is so dumb when you just wanna micro your bio units. Its a pointless design gimmick that makes the playing experience worse).
The Warpgate change however implies frequent back-and-fourth changes and its gonna be a pain in the !@#$%^&*. There is a reason no MBS was removed as it simply isn't a fun way to reward mechanics and the same is the case here.
but having a real choice between warpgate and gateway cause they behave differently adds strategy AND macro mechanics the toss has to master (which is a good thing imo)
If you add more options but make the game less fun in the proces (because the optimal strategy becomes something that is annoying), then its not a good change.
It's clear that this isn't a real strategic option as the only opportunity cost is that you need to spend extra APM on it. If you have high enough APM, however, it will always be optimal to switch back and fourth.
I find that strategic decisions should have actual disadvantages and advantages by them selves. And each strategy should feel fun to use.
I can understand that toss players like warpins quite a lot, but "coolness" is a very bad reason for ti to exist in the first place.
It creates design problems which shouldn't be there, solid gameplay > desperately wanting to have unique production methods
I think you can design a game where warpgate work well, but you need to make quite a few changes from where the game is right now. Unfortunately DK isn't really doing anything in that regard.
|
I don't know, maybe give different units to gateway/warpgate.
Move some redesigned form of the immortal to gateway only.
Or don't research a warpgate tech, let gateways be updated one by one for some price so you typically only want to upgrade them later in the game
Maybe give warpgates some unique gameplay mechanic which isn't producing units. (maybe warping already existing units between your bases?)
I have no idea, i am no gamedesigner (and i am pretty tired atm :D), i just know that warpgates are IMO poorly implemented in the game atm and the main reason seems to be to have a 'cool production method'
|
As long as there is a need for hero units, the protoss is half patched up race.
|
How about, reverting back to Gateway and then transforming back to Warpgate will reset the cooldown to build units. This will make it a bit harder to macro continuously with warpgate (assuming cooldown gets nerfed slightly)
|
Where are Pro Korean SC2 players complaining about Warpgate ?
|
On July 24 2015 07:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I honestly don't understand why the "make both gateways and warp gates viable at the same time" thing has had such a long life in the community. It's hands down one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. The idea of having half of your production buildings producing one way and half of them producing in a completely different other way, and having to constantly switch them back and forth in order to play optimally, is just profoundly annoying for no real advantage. Your 100% correct. Switching back and fourth is the most annoyung thing in the world. People really aren't thinking their ideas through properly. It just sounds cool on theory because it adds "strategy".
Added strategy or micro potential is not a thing in this game anymore? Yeah... so... in that case could my lurkers and siege tanks also move while burrowed or sieged? Its just hella annoying to position them properly. While we are at it, lets add tech reacters from campaign as well.
|
Super disappointed by DK that he listens to the TL whiners who can't handle their losses on ladder and want to blame the game instead of themselves.
Zerg has more than enough ways to deal with forcefields and roach hydra vs blink sentry battles are one of the most interesting micro interactions in the game.
With ravagers the micro interaction will be horrible, protoss places forcefields and the zerg just casts corrusive bile on them and the forcefields disappear. It doesn't matter anymore how sick forcefields the p has because zerg can just click on them and negate the skill of the protoss. I thought they wanted a game where micro is more important? This change discourages good micro for sure.
Soon blizzard will realize that the TL whiners who complain about forcefields whine about everything they lose against on ladder. I thought DK knew this community better already.
Instead of destroying interesting micro interactions they should concentrate on making changes that are good for the game, such as removing the viper and the tempest, undoing the unneeded marauder nerf, removing/redesigning liberators, combining mech attack upgrades again (or even zerg melee and ranged uprades) and of course making ultras killable again.
|
On July 24 2015 18:22 Charoisaur wrote:
Super disappointed by DK that he listens to the TL whiners who can't handle their losses on ladder and want to blame the game instead of themselves.
Zerg has more than enough ways to deal with forcefields and roach hydra vs blink sentry battles are one of the most interesting micro interactions in the game.
With ravagers the micro interaction will be horrible, protoss places forcefields and the zerg just casts corrusive bile on them and the forcefields disappear. It doesn't matter anymore how sick forcefields the p has because zerg can just click on them and negate the skill of the protoss. I thought they wanted a game where micro is more important? This change discourages good micro for sure.
Soon blizzard will realize that the TL whiners who complain about forcefields whine about everything they lose against on ladder. I thought DK knew this community better already.
Instead of destroying interesting micro interactions they should concentrate on making changes that are good for the game, such as removing the viper and the tempest, undoing the unneeded marauder nerf, removing/redesigning liberators, combining mech attack upgrades again (or even zerg melee and ranged uprades) and of course making ultras killable again.
The problem is that at the monent FF negate the skill and micro from zerg side. Making battles less reliant on FF would be huge improvement in my opinion.
Edit: its all about your opinion but i would think that most z and t players dont share your opinion on FF.
|
On July 24 2015 18:31 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 18:22 Charoisaur wrote:
Super disappointed by DK that he listens to the TL whiners who can't handle their losses on ladder and want to blame the game instead of themselves.
Zerg has more than enough ways to deal with forcefields and roach hydra vs blink sentry battles are one of the most interesting micro interactions in the game.
With ravagers the micro interaction will be horrible, protoss places forcefields and the zerg just casts corrusive bile on them and the forcefields disappear. It doesn't matter anymore how sick forcefields the p has because zerg can just click on them and negate the skill of the protoss. I thought they wanted a game where micro is more important? This change discourages good micro for sure.
Soon blizzard will realize that the TL whiners who complain about forcefields whine about everything they lose against on ladder. I thought DK knew this community better already.
Instead of destroying interesting micro interactions they should concentrate on making changes that are good for the game, such as removing the viper and the tempest, undoing the unneeded marauder nerf, removing/redesigning liberators, combining mech attack upgrades again (or even zerg melee and ranged uprades) and of course making ultras killable again. The problem is that at the monent FF negate the skill and micro from zerg side. Making battles less reliant on FF would be huge improvement in my opinion.
Nah, zerg can spread out their forces or set up flanks to bait forcefields (or burrow move roaches)
The counterplay to them is huge.
|
Zerg can set up a flank against toss even when they dont have forcefields. Baiting storm, disruptor or anything else works the same way as vs force field, yet its more rewarding i would say to bait those things than this force field.
Why?
Because when the forcefield hits you, you cant do anything while the same isnt true about storm or disruptor or something else.
The bait tactic and the flank tactic is there no matter what, forcefield or not. Even against purely aoe units, you want to flank. Doesnt even need to be spells/abilities.
The argument that its possible to load the units into medivacs and use the forcefield against the enemey, like, i dont find it fun to do that micro.
Micro should feel rewarding/fun.
|
On July 23 2015 08:49 digmouse 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 ? I think it means the first attack(s) the Zealot does immediately after charging deals more damage, like one or two swipes.
I kind of thought of it as jousting. They charge into enemy, stab, deals x amount of damage and then back to regular attack
Why not just increase the shields when the disruptor is activated instead of invulnerable? or like a similar shield effect as the immortal? After it detonates instead of extending the activated speed, reduce it a bit, so like a speed in-between the activated and regular speed, lasts for maybe a second or 2 before back to normal,. That to me would seem more... aesthetic.. or something.. But it kinda makes sense? no? I donno... seems like the activated speed would be too quick and easily get away, but not sure. Great thing about beta testing...
|
On July 24 2015 17:50 NHY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 07:27 Hider wrote:I honestly don't understand why the "make both gateways and warp gates viable at the same time" thing has had such a long life in the community. It's hands down one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. The idea of having half of your production buildings producing one way and half of them producing in a completely different other way, and having to constantly switch them back and forth in order to play optimally, is just profoundly annoying for no real advantage. Your 100% correct. Switching back and fourth is the most annoyung thing in the world. People really aren't thinking their ideas through properly. It just sounds cool on theory because it adds "strategy". Added strategy or micro potential is not a thing in this game anymore? Yeah... so... in that case could my lurkers and siege tanks also move while burrowed or sieged? Its just hella annoying to position them properly. While we are at it, lets add tech reacters from campaign as well.
Strawman 101. Consider reading my posts properly before writing low-quality posts in the future demonstrating your ignorance. If you don't have the intelligence to understand them or suffer from severe reading comprehensions, ask questions instead.
Thanks in advance
The argument that its possible to load the units into medivacs and use the forcefield against the enemey, like, i dont find it fun to do that micro.
As I written many times by now, David Kim's biggest flaw as a game designer is that he doesn't think about what's fun or not. He is overly focussed on whether something takes skill.
Creating abilities that are fun and have a high skillcap are definitely possible, however when something takes skill but doesn't lead to fun gameplay, it shouldn't be in the game.
|
On July 24 2015 18:37 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 18:31 RaFox17 wrote:On July 24 2015 18:22 Charoisaur wrote:
Super disappointed by DK that he listens to the TL whiners who can't handle their losses on ladder and want to blame the game instead of themselves.
Zerg has more than enough ways to deal with forcefields and roach hydra vs blink sentry battles are one of the most interesting micro interactions in the game.
With ravagers the micro interaction will be horrible, protoss places forcefields and the zerg just casts corrusive bile on them and the forcefields disappear. It doesn't matter anymore how sick forcefields the p has because zerg can just click on them and negate the skill of the protoss. I thought they wanted a game where micro is more important? This change discourages good micro for sure.
Soon blizzard will realize that the TL whiners who complain about forcefields whine about everything they lose against on ladder. I thought DK knew this community better already.
Instead of destroying interesting micro interactions they should concentrate on making changes that are good for the game, such as removing the viper and the tempest, undoing the unneeded marauder nerf, removing/redesigning liberators, combining mech attack upgrades again (or even zerg melee and ranged uprades) and of course making ultras killable again. The problem is that at the monent FF negate the skill and micro from zerg side. Making battles less reliant on FF would be huge improvement in my opinion. Nah, zerg can spread out their forces or set up flanks to bait forcefields (or burrow move roaches) The counterplay to them is huge.
When protoss has 5+ sentries they have enough FF to design the map as they wish. This argument can go forever so i just state that i do not agree with you.
|
I don't know, maybe give different units to gateway/warpgate.
Move some redesigned form of the immortal to gateway only.
I feel part of the problems with this suggestion is related to people not being able to see the wood for the trees. I guess you want the following conditions to met (right?)
(a) Immortal = Bigger part of the core protoss composition.
(b) Immortal = Build from normal production facility (that implies it has a BT and canot be warpined).
To meet these requirements, all we have to do is to reduce the cost of the Robotics Facility. Think of a the Robotics Facility as a Gateway that comes at tier 2 and is a bit more expensive.
If you reduce the cost to like 150/50 it would be more in line with a Gateway, which would make it possible to get 2-3 Robos in the midgame. Moving Immortal to gateway and making it uncapable of being warped in, is an overly complicated and unnecsary solution.
So how do we make Warpgate fit properly into the game? By increasing the defenders advantage against timing attacks of all the races. I suggest we give the races a proper macromechanic that doesn't prevent harass from taking place (as Photon overcharge) does, but just make all-ins a ton less efficient.
This way warpgate all ins will indirectly be nerfed, and the efficiency of the warpgate units can be slightly buffed.
Below is my attempt at cleaning and refining unit roles of LOTV (that imo is a big mess) while giving protoss a solid core composition and at the same time making sure protoss feels like a non gimmicky and fun race to play:
Zealot
- More tanky
- Less DPS
- Faster
- Gets a constant speed upgrade instead of charge (and concussive shell removed). .
The Zealot will then be the meatshield unit and it will be much harder to kite it. It will, however, be quite bad without any ranged DPS support.
Adept
- Less tanky
- More DPS
(I also would like to see the shade ability being used a ton more. I imagine it with 3-5 second cooldown and duration, but that's more of a micro thing than a role-thing).
Stalker
- Less tanky.
- More DPS.
- I also wouldn't mind to see blink with a 15 second CD as it can be very snowbally which makes it "risky" to buff a composition that contains a lot of Stalkers. Late game, however, Stalkers could get a second upgrade to either blink or its core stats. (this will make blink all ins weaker in the midgame, but the Stalker can still be better later in the game).
Sentry:
Everything about this unit needs to be redesigned, prepare for big changes below.
- Forcefield and Guardian Shield removed and replaced with two new abilities.
- Movement speed: 2.75
- New armor type to all spellcasters (Viper, Sentry, Ghost, Raven, Infestor and High Templar).
- Armor = 3 (makes it better vs Marines and Speedlings especially. That will be expanded later on in the analysis).
Spellcaster-armor
The purpose is to give more counterplay to spellcasters (rather than just micro - but also in terms of unit composition).
The general rule is that units that deal low damage vs light units deals more damage vs spellcasters.
That includes Maurauders, Stalkers and in my world the Ravager should deal less damage vs light and more vs spellcasters. Only exception is the Immortal that will deal low damage vs both spellcasters and light units.
Abiltiy 1: Skillshot
- You target the ground and the Sentry launches a slow projectile with a dot that shows where the skillshot will land.
- AOE radius should be a bit larger than the radius of the Ravager skillshot
- Reward of landing a good skillshot should be noticeable but far from game-ending.
- Long cast range (12-13)
- Slightly harder to dodge than Ravager skillshot but easier than Fungal growth. I imagine that the skillshot should deal damage over time when it hits in order to prevent mass spammings of the same target.
- Skillshot should deals bonus damage vs spellcasters --> Kills them in one hit. So the skillshot has a clear purpose (even though it can also be used vs all units).
Ability 2: Shield
- The shield only works on the specific Sentry
- The shield gives the Sentry +150-200 shield but costs energy to activate and drains energy over time.
The energy cast of the skillshot + new shield will be balanced in such a way that the Sentry - before a battle - cannot cast both a skillshot and activate the shield. Thus, it will have to choose. That will require a relatively low maximum energy, but instead the Sentry could have much faster energy regenaration. So if it misses one skillshot it will be able to cast another one relatively shortly afterwards.
This means that the Sentry will be able to activate the shield and function as a meatshield unit if the enemy has centered their compositions around killing Zealots easily. E.g. if they have Marines, Hydras and Roaches that easily can kill the Zealots, warping in some Sentries for tankiness will come in very handy.
The enemy can soft-counter that by building units that deal extra damage to spellcasters, e.g. Marauders, Ravagers or Stalkers. So suddenly the Ravager also gets a specific purpose and this helps differentiate the roles of the Stalker and the Immortal.
Effect of changes to Sentry
Yep these are huge changes, but the unit is a giant mess and there are no easy fixes. With the changes, the Sentry has received two clear roles:
1. Vs spellcasters as the skillshot will oneshot them.
2. To soak up damage vs units that otherwise would kiil yor Zealots fast.
You also get an option to choose between a low APM sentry style (where you activate shield and "afk") and the more skillful and APM-heavy micro style where you use your skillshot actively.
You are never forced into any " I have to use my abilities well or I will die" with this Sentry. if you are unconfident in landing skillshots you can simply activate your shield and always do decently. However, the opponent can run away until your Sentries have no energy. So this "strategy" is not without disadvantages.
The best players will probably be able to use some Sentries in the frontline (to soak damage with the shield) and use other Sentries for the skillshot.
So this sentry can fare well throughout all map designs. You can be out on the open with this unit and still be pretty cost effective + Sentries are fast enough to actually escape by them selves (so its not all in or nothing or relying on MSC recall).
Immortal
- Produced from a cheaper Robotics. So if you want a stronger core army, you will get more Immortals into your composition.
- 2.75 speed
- 7 Range
- No active abilities.
- Cheaper and weaker core stats + 2 supply.
The Immortal can then go out on the map and will be fast enough to retreat if caught of guard. Due to its faster speed, range and responsiveness, it will be very rewarded if it focus fire enemy armored units. Relative to the Stalker it is still less mobile, cannot shoot air, but is much more cost and supplyefficient in straight up engagements.
Mothership core?
This unit can easily be removed. Instead, the Nexus should get a defenders advantage mechanics ability. Protoss will be able to move out on the map in the midgame anyway since the units will be fast enough to escape.
Further, you are no longer dependant on map terrain to be efficient, but instead you have a more reliable composition consisting of tanky zealots (and sentries) with higher DPS Adepts/Stalkers/Immortals in the backline.
However, since the enemy also have a stronger defenders advantage (through their own macromechanics), the protoss composition can't just end the game even if their army strenght is noticeably higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
