EPTWe think protoss is fine and people just like to complain, we are thinking about making the zealot stronger and Warpins weaker.
Community Feedback Update - July 22 - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
We think protoss is fine and people just like to complain, we are thinking about making the zealot stronger and Warpins weaker. | ||
|
SuperHofmann
Italy1741 Posts
(plz no warning, I'm really asking it) | ||
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17873 Posts
| ||
|
DuckDuckDuck
Germany8 Posts
(make Warpgate upgrade reduce unit build-times of Gateways, while maybe increasing Warpgate cooldowns ) What i think it could do: - If you want units at home to build up or defend you need Gateways (less unit build-time = less Gates) - In mid/lategame you might dedicate some Gates to harrassing (as Warpgates) while the others produce units more efficiently at home as Gateways - In an emergency you transform all your Warpgates into Gateways to produce faster - Gateway positioning on the map might be more important - When moving out you cant just warp in units as quickly without adding more Warpgates or spending your money on something else -Gateways based allins might be easier to scout - Warpgate-transformation becomes way more impactful and would be used the entire game in both ways | ||
|
timchen1017
37 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12888 Posts
I also agree with their comment about gateway unit strength a lot. The units are fine in power level imo except against terran bio ball and top tier zerg deathball. As for forcefield, I think it's generally fine. I don't see a lot of other ways to make a roach hydra vs toss army interesting imo. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17873 Posts
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. i'm glad this idea was discussed and thanks for the consensus thinking on it | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
On July 23 2015 09:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the OP should really have a link back to the original source of the information. its not like DK did a personal interview with TL.Net regarding this. TL.Net objects when some site does not reference their own work... they should extend the same courtesy. Okay, first, I forgot to add the source, sorry. Second, does anyone think that this was an original piece when did one of these with the source in the OP only 5 days ago and it's been ongoing for a while now? Everyone knows DK posts to Blizzard forums, I just copy pasted it here because it needs to be on here. Im not stealing anything here, I'm spreading the discussion. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17873 Posts
i labelled it "extending a courtesy"... did i say theft? please do not twist what i said. back to the content... its great getting Blizzard's deepest thoughts on WarpGates and about how they increase fighter unit production diversity between all 3 races... i've heard theories like "well some top guy like Pardo thought of it in 2009 and every one is afraid to change it even though everyone currently working at Blizzard SC2 dislikes the mechanic". so its great to get Blizzard's perspective to counter these almost polemic characterizations of their design processes. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On July 23 2015 10:04 Pontius Pirate wrote: This response makes me lose more hope in LotV than anything I've seen for months. Could you elaborate? | ||
|
Arvendilin
Germany1878 Posts
He probably feels like, Blizzard is too stubborn, therefor not much is going to be changed at all and the beta won't be used to its full extent for things the beta could be used for (trying out completely different stuff because you have a large playerbase testing how it would work), atleast thats my best guess =p I personally don't think it will be shit, but I also think there will be a lot of untapped potential left :/ | ||
|
starimk
106 Posts
On July 23 2015 10:04 Pontius Pirate wrote: This response makes me lose more hope in LotV than anything I've seen for months. This response to the response makes me lose more hope in TL than anything I've seen in months :/ | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
They've stated that they do not recognize there being a problem with Gateway units not really being able to defend spread-out bases and the issue with the relationship of this with their weakness to compensate for their convenient reinforcement power, and then stated that the latter is a fully-intended design. Basically "it's not a bug, it's a feature", but in terms of design philosophy. And then the comment about Stalkers being used the most en masse in current matchups somehow meaning that they're in a good place right now. Mass blink Stalkers are used because they put the greatest amount of control into the Protoss player's hands, rather than risking Colossi against nearly undefendable abducts, or going Chargelot-Archon versus a Terran who can consistently retreat over their minefield. It's not a sign that Stalkers are in a good place, it's a sign that other compositions are in a very bad place, and too often, they make the player feel helpless to determine their own destiny. Their suggested solution of warp-in energy on upgraded pylons is inelegant, and will lead to offensive Protoss play becoming very vulnerable to a simple snipe of the forward pylon, without actually significantly reducing their offensive prowess. It just increases the risk of offensive play, rather than decreases the raw strength. If anything, we should be encouraging light offensive play that is intended to just do a little bit of damage, but not be able to attempt a killing blow. Lower risks, along with lower killing power should be the goal. This leads to more action during more parts of the game, which is a huge benefit to the spectator, and in my opinion, a better player experience. | ||
|
Crackpot
58 Posts
Dont force defensive micro to survive. Defensive Micro should be rewarded and not necessary to survive or to make good trades in order to win. They don't even get the problem of the Disruptor... | ||
|
Isarios
United States153 Posts
Would it be better to jsut remove some units? We don't even really need zealots anymore: What about making Adepts have a melee/Zealot mode. So you could switch between the two. Lore wise use Adepts as new Zealots. Collosus overshadowed by Disruptors. Neither are really excellent designs yet. But now we could stand to remove one of these. Corrupters overshadowed by Vipers. Banelings are still good at certain points, but then are traded out for Lurkers. Terran: THERE ARE SOOOO MANY MECH / AIR units now. What good are Vikings? Liberators are just plain better. | ||
|
Arvendilin
Germany1878 Posts
On July 23 2015 10:18 Pontius Pirate wrote: They've stated that they do not recognize the relationship between Gateway units not really being able to defend spread-out bases and their weakness to compensate for their convenient reinforcement power, and then stated that this is a fully-intended design. Basically "it's not a bug, it's a feature", but in terms of design philosophy. And then the comment about Stalkers being used the most en masse in current matchups somehow meaning that they're in a good place right now. Mass blink Stalkers are used because they put the greatest amount of control into the Protoss player's hands, rather than risking Colossi against nearly undefendable abducts, or going Chargelot-Archon versus a Terran who can consistently retreat over their minefield. It's not a sign that Stalkers are in a good place, it's a sign that other compositions are in a very bad place, and too often, they make the player feel helpless to determine their own destiny. Their suggested solution of warp-in energy on upgraded pylons is inelegant, and will lead to offensive Protoss play becoming very vulnerable to a simple snipe of the forward pylon, without actually significantly reducing their offensive prowess. It just increases the risk of offensive play, rather than decreases the raw strength. If anything, we should be encouraging light offensive play that is intended to just do a little bit of damage, but not be able to attempt a killing blow. Lower risks, along with lower killing power should be the goal. This leads to more action during more parts of the game, which is a huge benefit to the spectator, and in my opinion, a better player experience. If I can add one thing, the whole Stalker beeing a core unit is also dishonest, because this only works in combination with lots of forcefields, this again is not a sign of Stalkers beeing good or anything, but rather that forcefields are sort of a bandaid fix for the weakness of the gateway unit (eventhough its actually the other way around), this is especially bad, because once you realise that this synergy between forcefields and Tier one is NEEDED, it becomes clear that this encourages deathballs (somethign we don't like) tremendously! | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19386 Posts
| ||
| ||
