|
I had always thought races had a certain style and thats what attracted me to SC initially. Z with sheer numbers overwhelming. P with high technology, few numbers but expensive. T were adaptive multi purpose units in between the other two races cost wise.
In that vein the sentry seemed perfect in its own way. It cost alot of gas for a t1.5 unit, for basically no dps. There is now "counter play" to that with a ravager. A unit that does DPS, and is an upgrade choice ( you make a roach, and upgrade a few as required )
But where is the protoss counter play to this? Theres a risk or it becoming circular.
I need sentrys to stem the flow of zerg units / stop surrounds (positioning)
Ravager now counters my FF, i have to retreat and my sentry (which this is literally its niche role) is redundant. (ok you have g shield but if thats all you need then you only make 1, and hallu scouting is useful early perhaps but oracle fills this role better as it can harass as well)
If you must make counter force field play then add a similar upgrade/morph tech for sentrys so they dont become dead weight.
You make roachs, i make sentrys. You morph ravagers, I transform sentrys into some new support unit that helps later (please no hard counters to 1 unit type)
Personally i think a hot pick up unit would be cool. Generally P lacks mobility and if your army gets caught its only the blink stalkers that live if you dont have a recall available.
Sentrys could fill some kind of morph role where they can move a good amount of units into nexus range or something similar - but not for free (energy)
It could cost a good amount of minerals and or gas, so you have to make the choice - is this a cost effective warp? Do i really need to save these units, if maybe just some of them, you have to micro the units into the phase field or whatever.
I think this is good for both sides as, A) protoss get some larger scale, non-offensive unit mobility, but at a mineral/gas cost which means that B) its good for the opposing side as they have forced a defensive re-position, inflicting economy "damage" (money thats not being spent on units/upgrades) without having to trade their own forces (a defensive warp cant fight back)
Your also giving the sentry a role thats still useful late into the game without makeing a "hard counter unit"
|
To clarify, I'm not opposed to the idea of separate stats for pylon power and warp-in power. I just think that it's a really bad idea to unify the two into one expensive, yet equally vulnerable structure. Like I said, this addresses the wrong issue by increasing risk while not significantly reducing reinforcement power. An example of the type of mechanic that I'd prefer to see over this combination is to have Pylons each being given a rechargeable warp-in power stat that is drained by warping in units, and then recharges at probably a shield recharge rate, after 10 seconds of not warping anything in. This way, you could tailor the energy pool and the energy cost per unit warped in to require a certain amount of mineral investment in forward pylons to support an army of a desired size.
Not only that, but you could institute a new spell at the Nexus, to compete with chronoboost, that can recharge the warp-in power of any Pylon on the map, thus providing energy competition at the Nexus. The benefit of these changes would be that sniping a forward Pylon would often wipe out one that is no more vulnerable than before, and has often already used its warp-ins. A Protoss player would then set up multiple Pylons to reinforce an army, and position them so that they have several that are in risky positions that they use for the main thrust of the attack, and several back a ways, that they can use in case of losing their forward position, or just to reinforce from further away if they ran their forward Pylons out of energy in an attack that looks promising, but hasn't succeeded yet.
This still fails to address some core issues with Protoss, but I feel it would help improve the game, which Blizzard's suggested ideas don't inspire me to believe in.
|
I loved this update, this is even better than what I thought of... I just... I think the pre-order of LotV is right now the best thing I did, I have all my faith restored on Blizz.
Like... even if they for now don't change few things, finally they are showing that they are open to test and try those sort of things. Nerfing Protoss All Ins is the best thing they could do, specially modifying Warp because the mirror itself. Then they can try to buff other things if needed.
Oh god, I can't believe I read today that Warp is gonna be touched to let Deffenders Advantage be a THING even in PvP.
|
I wanna see all these changes get implemented to be tested before I can make any judgement.
|
just make warping a unit take significantly longer than building it at a gateway. it's really that simple...
|
No mentions of protoss' massive struggle with the new economy? No mentions of how immobile the race remains against new threats and harrass options in LotV? No mentions of how to deal with Cyclones/Lurkers/Irradiate/Muta?Ravanger All-ins? Nerfing Warp-Gate while keeping gateway units mostly the same? Nerf Disruptor and more buffs to other races to make force fields worse?
I don't understand. I thought it was overall agreed that protoss is doing terrible in the beta, and this is a Protoss update that mostly only talks about nerfing Protoss? This is quite dishearting as a player to read. Protoss, in my opinion, is a broken race right now and it's quickly headed into the "unplayable" category for me, and all we get is updates on how to nerf the good parts of the race more?
-.- #endrant
Disruptor:
Mostly agreed
Force Fields
Completely disagree. This is not the direction we need to head whatsoever. We shouldn't give random upgrades to the other races to be able to deal with force fields, we should just nerf the damn thing and buff other areas of protoss' core army. Nerf the time it stays alive and the radius. Do we really need more one-off band-aid fixes to other races instead of a core change to protoss?
Warp Gate
I'm wondering who actually thinks that Warp Gates need to be nerfed while giving nothing back at all to gateway units. Because of new tools the other races are getting, and the new economy model, Protoss all-ins are already dying as we speak. Changing warp gate like this would just destroy them completely, while improving nothing else about the race. Zerg/Terran will be able to play as greedy as they want and steam roll toss going into the mid/late game, with very little opportunity for protoss to actually do anything about the greed. It'll also take away needs for other races to scout around the map and keep active with their more mobile units to snipe pylons, as there would be significantly less threat of having to deal with anything. Not good without getting anything huge in return.
Gateway Unit Strength
Another area I completely disagree with. Stalkers don't make up the bulk of an army because they're fantastic for cost, it's just because what else is supposed to be the bulk of your army? It's the only unit that has any mobility whatsoever that can shoot up and down, but it still mostly gets decimated cost-to-cost by a large variety of compositions. Don't get me wrong, a pack of well-upgraded blink stalkers are good to use, but they can't really do anything by themselves, they're certainly not like Bio for Terran. And we're talking about maybe buffing late game units for toss instead? What? HTs, Disruptors, Colossi (assuming they'll get their range back, which they should), DTs, Carriers, Void Rays... these units are all fine and quite quite strong. They don't need to be buffed or adjusted, the toss core gateway army does.
I think if the above two points receive suggested nerfs, and gateway unit strength does not change, I can't imagine a single person from any race would think that's ok. You can certainly make the argument that just buffing straight up would improve a 200/200 army, but that's such a short-sighted view.... what about GETTING to that army? As I pointed out above, nerfing force fields, warp gates, and doing nothing at all to gateway would make protoss all-ins basically non-existant, provide little to no early/mid game threat to other races, and push their macro significantly above ours, causing a cascade effect on the entire matchups. Shocking to me that blizzard's view is so short sighted in this regard.
In all, I'm actually extremely disappointed about this update. Protoss is struggling right now, and instead of focusing on areas where the race might be broken or poorly design, we instead only talk about mostly nerfs to Protoss abilities, and more band-aid fixes instead of focusing on making a good core structure for the race?
They did it so well with Zerg right now, I don't know why they just can't seem to do anything right for Protoss.
|
They didn't state anywhere that there will not be buffs to compensate.. It's pretty obvious that they won't leave Protoss to be "unplayable".
|
Canada13379 Posts
I find it interesting that they asked about buffs to the units and people said it would be too strong.
I honestly think the buffs need to be in the timing of the unit utility and not necessarily HP or damage.
Quicker blink would go a long way to helping protoss' mobility issues and if they get a touch more early stability then it could see dividends as the game moves on.
I would also like to see some changes that begin to invalidate things like photon overcharge tbh.
|
On July 23 2015 11:22 Wildmoon wrote:
They didn't state anywhere that there will not be buffs to compensate.. It's pretty obvious that they won't leave Protoss to be "unplayable".
But if you buff Protoss (gateway units which are the most underperforming right now) wouldn't early timings/all-ins with Forcefields become to strong? They are right now almost the only way to win in the beta, but they are still good, won't buffs just make that aspect way too good? It really seems to me to be a Forcefield/Design issue 
|
I am glad the Blizzard team is really trying to redefine protoss.
Disruptor is still terrible and gimmicky, and the design of the unit must be changed.
About pylones, I very much like the first idea, the second one seems gimmicky, again.
That being said, I wanna pinpoint the most problematic point I see here :
"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."
NOOOOOOOOO. GOD PLEASE NO.
Just look at hots pro games ! Harass, runbies, counter play, drops are already so powerfull ! You don't need to improve harassment. Starcraft is not only about high mobility units killing defenseless workers until one of the players doesn't have any more ressources : it's also about actual armies fighting each other ! The deathball aspect of protoss is being toned down in a good way I feel, so WHYYYY. Look at nowadays HOTS TvT : doom drops everywhere. Impossibility to early expand since it dies to gaz first builds. In ZvT, zergling runbies and counterplay is already very core. Same thing for ZvZ, with roaches, in a way.
So please, fix the structural flaws of protoss without making SC2 a game where defensive play just isn't possible anymore : I'm not a fan of defensive play, but I'm not a fan either of TvT where both players are going gaz first, to ultimately end up in a situation of base trade since both their agressions are too strong for the defense they each managed to put up.
About zealot strength as a harass unit : protoss already has the best "right clic" harass in the late game. TvP late game is avoided by pro terrans, because the protoss will just split templars on the map while warping massive rounds of zealots right clicked to a base when the terran moves out. Then the terran has to deal with the zealots, using APM and multi taking, while not being able to defend his army from random storms. In PvZ it's also the case, how many games have I seen a bunch of 10 zealots killing the hive forcing the zerg to cross the map with his remaining vipers. So no, zealot harass DOESN'T NEED A BUFF.
|
On July 23 2015 11:31 Arvendilin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 11:22 Wildmoon wrote:
They didn't state anywhere that there will not be buffs to compensate.. It's pretty obvious that they won't leave Protoss to be "unplayable". But if you buff Protoss (gateway units which are the most underperforming right now) wouldn't early timings/all-ins with Forcefields become to strong? They are right now almost the only way to win in the beta, but they are still good, won't buffs just make that aspect way too good? It really seems to me to be a Forcefield/Design issue
I think Blizzard is open to forcefield nerf. They are just against getting rid of it entirely. The new warp in may also help with that all-in issue. We will see.
|
As long as the disruptor is invulnerable when engaging, you can always pick it up with a prism from afar. It doesn't have to retreat by itself if you play it right, so the first suggestion won't change anything.
|
i like how they think ppl are being over dramatic when they say protoss needs to be reworked from the ground up... thats putting it mildly
|
On July 23 2015 08:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Just swap the timers! Normal gateways should spawn units in less time (which is good for defense because they come out faster and don't have to run far), whereas in offensive positions you get a slower warp but still faster than the units running across the map. Then that gives players the choice to pick which kind of gateway they want, and interchange them appropriately.
Or just make the transformation one-way and cost money. Maybe make WG take less time to research but put it in the Twilight Council. This has the additional benefit of nerfing blink all-ins in the process, since players would either need to chrono out both upgrades, or build two twilights.
Yeah, a simple longer cooldown of the warpgate would suffice, killing two birds with one stone as it both nerfs early all-in - by taking longer time to rally the troops at a offensive position - and bears no negative effects on later prism warp-in harassment or defensive warp-in at bases.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On July 23 2015 12:08 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Just swap the timers! Normal gateways should spawn units in less time (which is good for defense because they come out faster and don't have to run far), whereas in offensive positions you get a slower warp but still faster than the units running across the map. Then that gives players the choice to pick which kind of gateway they want, and interchange them appropriately.
Or just make the transformation one-way and cost money. Maybe make WG take less time to research but put it in the Twilight Council. This has the additional benefit of nerfing blink all-ins in the process, since players would either need to chrono out both upgrades, or build two twilights. Yeah, a simple longer cooldown of the warpgate would suffice, killing two birds with one stone as it both nerfs early all-in - by taking longer time to rally the troops at a offensive position - and bears no negative effects on later prism warp-in harassment or defensive warp-in at bases.
That wont actually change anything because WG is a front loaded build time. You get the unit now and cant make another until later. People will still use WGs even if its +5 seconds to the build times.
The simplest solution is to double warp in time away from the nexus, assuming you want to keep offensive warp ins, and keep warp in times within say PO range the same as they are now. That would be a much simpler and healthier change if you want to have the "production time" impact on WG imo
|
On July 23 2015 12:14 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 12:08 TedCruz2016 wrote:On July 23 2015 08:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Just swap the timers! Normal gateways should spawn units in less time (which is good for defense because they come out faster and don't have to run far), whereas in offensive positions you get a slower warp but still faster than the units running across the map. Then that gives players the choice to pick which kind of gateway they want, and interchange them appropriately.
Or just make the transformation one-way and cost money. Maybe make WG take less time to research but put it in the Twilight Council. This has the additional benefit of nerfing blink all-ins in the process, since players would either need to chrono out both upgrades, or build two twilights. Yeah, a simple longer cooldown of the warpgate would suffice, killing two birds with one stone as it both nerfs early all-in - by taking longer time to rally the troops at a offensive position - and bears no negative effects on later prism warp-in harassment or defensive warp-in at bases. That wont actually change anything because WG is a front loaded build time. You get the unit now and cant make another until later. People will still use WGs even if its +5 seconds to the build times. The simplest solution is to double warp in time away from the nexus, assuming you want to keep offensive warp ins, and keep warp in times within say PO range the same as they are now. That would be a much simpler and healthier change if you want to have the "production time" impact on WG imo
You do get instant forces, but in the long run, if you keep warping instead of producing them from gateways, your army supply will fall behind your opponents because of the longer build time. This solution is definitely better than warpgate warp-in and upgraded pylon because both would significantly DELAY the timing of pylon warp-in. By the time you finish building a warpgate around a proxy pylon or upgrading one, you could've already produced a prism! That would make pylon warp-in meaningless.
Also, in order to make sure that HT and DT are not affected, let the longer cooldown affect zealot, stalker, sentry and adept only. That will also nerf the zealot harassment in late game.
|
I'm not really certain warpgate, forcefields nor warpgate units are a problem, but it all just sounds fine to me anyway. I like the bit on the disruptor and the zealot's role.
|
On July 23 2015 09:49 timchen1017 wrote:
It is interesting to see David Kim finally address directly about players' concern about warp gates and force fields, since the start of WoL. Was that what, 5 years ago?
Except they aren't the concerns of players, they're the concerns of 'game design experts' on forums, which is why David Kim (and presumably most pros at the summit) dismissed them.
|
On July 23 2015 11:39 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 11:31 Arvendilin wrote:On July 23 2015 11:22 Wildmoon wrote:
They didn't state anywhere that there will not be buffs to compensate.. It's pretty obvious that they won't leave Protoss to be "unplayable". But if you buff Protoss (gateway units which are the most underperforming right now) wouldn't early timings/all-ins with Forcefields become to strong? They are right now almost the only way to win in the beta, but they are still good, won't buffs just make that aspect way too good? It really seems to me to be a Forcefield/Design issue I think Blizzard is open to forcefield nerf. They are just against getting rid of it entirely. The new warp in may also help with that all-in issue. We will see.
Since burrow-move is mentioned, I am thinking, what if burrow is given to all zerg units as a NATURAL ability that doesn't need any requirement or upgrade? Then you know, when your army is divided by FFs, you can just burrow all your units at the front line, and without any detection in the early game, your opponent will not be able to attack them.
|
Why not just add an active ability with a cool down on pylons that allow warp ins? Make it auto cast and activate from the first warp. Need to take a base? Fine build your pylon, warp in. Need to defend? Okay cool same deal right? For expansions that are far off this essentially brings protoss back to earth with everyone else. Everyone else has to rally units for defense. Protoss doesnt have to with this but they still have to be mindful of how many pylons in a given area they have AND use them strategically and it puts them on the same "oh FUCK I need units to be there now!" The other two races have.
In a main base this is less of an issue as youll have a crap ton of pylon and gateway which provide infinite power anyway. This also is an incentive for protoss to put gateways in expansions to given the other races infrastructure other than cannons and nexus to kill. It also makes it so you can focus on the gateways and pylons as a tactical choice.
The rest of it was fine, but their reasoning for adepts and zealots seems kind of nieve. Of course small hordes of zealot are used for harass. They only cost minerals late game, have huge hp and dps, and are hard as hell to kill with Terran and Zerg static defense. Zerglings are used for en mass runby because you need that many to do the maximum amount of damage and Protoss and Terran defensive options wreck them. Warp ins blink and storms combined with nexus cannon pretty much means everyone seeking to do damage to toss NEEDS to bring an army to get the job done. People dont drop toss simply to do damage, they drop and do runby to get them in base or distract them. A dropship of infantry or a ling runby left unattended wont ruin a Protoss game nearly as fast, but a warped in dt or 8 lots in a zerg or terran expansion loses bases.
Im glad theyre reading feedback and actually replying but can they actually sound like they watch the game and not just spreadsheet data?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
