|
Nothing about msc or colossus.
I dont like the sayings such as:
"how often do we see zergling harass" compared to zealot warp-in mechanic.
1) The defense is poor vs warp-in in general. Its to little risk and to high reward.
2) It dont say much about the strengths of the zealot and zergling, it mostly tells us that protoss warp-in is very good harass and that zerg harass options are lacking and pretty much always has.
Some other things i would like to have seen adressed are:
Phoenixes
Blink
Hightemplar vs Ghost dynamic - This one is really ugly imo(ugly=super dull to play)
|
On July 23 2015 17:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 17:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Sounds resonable and i especially agree with the WG solutions.
One thing i dislike is the talk about "more dmg" here and "more dmg" there (not just in this update). SC2 has already far to much dps for it's mechanics that make the battles be over in an instant. So maybe buff HP would be a better course. The game would profit a lot if they started nerfing again, instead of counterbuffing things that aren't broken yet.
This.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On July 23 2015 17:57 Foxxan wrote:
Nothing about msc or colossus.
I dont like the sayings such as:
"how often do we see zergling harass" compared to zealot warp-in mechanic.
1) The defense is poor vs warp-in in general. Its to little risk and to high reward.
Some other things i would like to have seen adressed are:
Phoenixes
Blink
Hightemplar vs Ghost dynamic - This one is really ugly imo(ugly=super dull to play)
What's the issue with phoenixes and blink stalkers? If anything, those are the two best designed units protoss has.
|
On July 23 2015 17:57 Foxxan wrote:
Nothing about msc or colossus.
I dont like the sayings such as:
"how often do we see zergling harass" compared to zealot warp-in mechanic.
1) The defense is poor vs warp-in in general. Its to little risk and to high reward.
2) It dont say much about the strengths of the zealot and zergling, it mostly tells us that protoss warp-in is very good harass and that zerg harass options are lacking and pretty much always has.
Some other things i would like to have seen adressed are:
Phoenixes
Blink
Hightemplar vs Ghost dynamic - This one is really ugly imo(ugly=super dull to play)
colossus has already been essentially nerfed to death and replaced with the disruptor.
what do you want addressed about phoenixes and blink? both are already well designed and entertaining. if you're talking about blink all-ins then the problem is the mothership core granting early high ground vision, not blink itself.
HT vs ghost interaction may change with the revised snipe ability, this needs time to be tested.
the 1 real problem here is the mothership core, it never should have been an independent unit in the first place.
|
On July 23 2015 17:30 Ketch wrote:
I like that they are showing they are considering to adjust core game mechanics
Personally, I'd like to see removal of the MSC, I still don't like the hero unit concept, by having the following ideal situation:
Nexus Changes
- keep Chronoboost
- Add small area of effect recall like Starbow
Sentry Changes
- giving sentries a more active protection / healing spell than guardian shield
This.
|
I dont like the lift on the phoenix. Its guaranteed damage in the early game versus zerg. I just feel that type of ability doesnt fit on an air unit, especially a very fast one.
Blink on stalker is to one sided imo, maybe i cant blame protoss or stalkers here since i feel the game lacks micro overall.
|
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
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.
Euh yeah, i see. So cause you theoretically have some form of counterplay in a very, very tiny part of actual gameplay it's enough to dismiss the general opinions about ff?
The problem with ff is that it's easily spamable for the most part, this is where forcefields become ugly and people rage about it. There are probably solutions to this and they surely would be better than adding an unit which pretty much makes forcefields useless.
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.
What are these "many interesting factors" ?
Asymmetry is a very poor argument for it, only because something is radically different doesn't mean it's good for the game. Warpgates AS THE MAIN way of production creates a lot of questionable side effects imo.
Why not make it a real choice instead? Maybe let some units only be built out of a gateway?
The disruptor will be very hard to get right and maybe they should just have added the reaver 
Designing a more powerful baneling which has to stay alive is just a weird concept in the end i guess.
|
|
|
To be honest, I think separating two types of Pylon powers would be confusing. It's one of the better ideas so far, with the exeption that if Pylons could have unit warp-in power only after an upgrade, then it would also impede defensive warp-ins quite a lot. So in that case, I think warp-in power should be given to the Nexus as well to protect bases.
|
This update is nothing but a huge disappointment.
No address of the band aids such as MSC.
No address of Oracle's Pulsar Beam that results in game ending damage early game.
No address of roleless Tempests and no updates on its band aid ability that K.O. any unit from the game especially Capital Ships.
People complain about Disruptor design and way of attacking and Blizzard is talking about balancing the unit and changing its status, as if we are not on the same page at all, people are talking about something and Blizzard considering something completely unrelated.
Force Fields discussion seems kinda biased. You talked about the summit discussion and referred to it as follows:
"While some players initially had strong opinions on this topic, others pointed out cool counter micro to Force Fields"
As if those who opposed force fields were minority and lacked strong arguments while those who kinda did support it had much stronger argument and you are presenting them as "cool counter micro" which we all know it is kinda not that cool. So you decided to go with the way of buffing counters to force fields to render them more useless or weaker. This keeps gateway units balanced around having forcefields. The one that pays for forcefields are actually protoss in most cases by having weaker gateway units.
Gateway Units Strength
The idea of Stalkers forming Protoss armies is wrong. Very wrong.
Stalkers by themselves are horrible in TvP unless you go blink all in, the later game goes you need more zealots and colossus than stalkers.
Stalkers with mass forcefields are used in PvZ because zerg lost their late game tech in SH, so the game is kinda stuck at mid game phase with Viper addition that can be countered with HT.
Stalkers in PvP is only early game blinking each other, the later game, colossus, archons, skytoss are the core army, Stalkers becomes more and more useless.
Zealots harass is good thanks to warp prisim, dropping like 10 zealots in empty base by passing walling can do ending damage not because zealots are strong but because warping in empty base, surprise massive harass.
Zealots and Adepts.
You aim to have Adepts the ranged units to be meat shield and Zealots the melee unit to be the damage dealer, how does that even seem logical to you?
The melee unit is the one exposed to damage not the ranged one, the meat shield should be the Zealot not the Adept. It should be the reverse, Adept damage dealer and Zealots tank the damage.
Overall: Very horrible feedback compared to what was expected.
|
Warp Gates
I cannot figure out if this is a serious idea or not.
While nerfing the offensive warp-in capabilities might seem like a decent idea overall (I disagree with that, may elaborate later), the implications for defensive warp-ins are just... "You know what Protoss struggles with the most against Terran and Zerg? Run-by, drops and their own immobility. Why don't we just make it easier for Terran to snipe the warp-in points when dropping their base so that there is no way they are ever able to defend their stuff. Sounds good? Let's propose it to the community as a solution to the Warpgate."
Like... what? I don't even...
And why should Protoss have to announce their all-in 5 minutes ahead of time by building warpgates or double-pylons close to the enemy? It's like saying "alright, Terran, in order for you to be able to pull the boys you have to build a Command Center in the front of the enemy base first".
And proxy Pylons that are used for a Zealot run-by are everything but a problem in my book. It's the Protoss equivalent to drops or a Speeding run-by, if you take those away then what is left for Protoss in order to apply pressure across the map? Spam Warpprisms and cross your fingers that they don't have Air-to-Air units to hunt them down?
Gateway Unit Strength
I want to see those armies that are primary Stalkers against stimmed Bio. Please, show me the VoD where it successfully kills Terran Bio that has access to Stim and Medivacs... I doubt you'll find any because I call bullshit on that one.
Stalkers are used because in many cases there are no alternatives during the midgame - especially against drops and the thread of a Muta switch - and because Terran/Zerg have access to too many tools that can snipe important parts of your army. The reason we see this whole Stalker/Sentry/Immortal style focused on timing attacks is due to the fact that gambling on keeping your Colossus alive just has not payed out too well in the past. And Stalkers are pretty much the only Ground-to-Air unit that we have at our disposal so yeah, we have to keep a healthy number of Stalkers in our armies. Not because we want it but because we have to.
Zealot vs. Zergling comparison when it comes to a run-by is just silly. How often DO you see Zealots or Zerglings doing those things? Could you please share the data that you have accumulated and used for your analysis? Because I see a ton of Zergling run-byes that in many cases even end the game. And let's just not talk about drops here...
And regarding that last point... I don't think that Protoss would be OP if Zealot/Stalker health would be increased by 5% while taking away the ability to warp them in across the map. I would even argue that the exact opposite is true. 5% is such a small difference...
Seriously, a lot of people in the community have asked to shift the focus of Protoss away from a few strong high-end units to a more stable core of units. Terran/Zerg essentially have an army of strong core units supported by a few high-end units whereas Protoss has a few high-end units that are being supported by the core units. If a Terran or Zerg is flying some Vikings/Corruptors over the Protoss army to snipe their tech units most people would call that a good move. If a Protoss sacrifices 20+ Blinkstalkers to kill off a few Medivacs most people would probably call him an idiot.
As a Protoss player I feel too much of the success in army engagements comes down to being able to keep your high-end units alive to the point where I have to babysit them the entire time or else I'll run the risk of losing the game right away. This is just something that is everything BUT fun. It's frustrating to get your most important parts of the army abducted and sniped by disposable enemy units without the ability to reproduce them in a reasonable amount of time.
TL;DR:
I feel like nothing that was mentioned in the post deals with the inherent frustration of playing Protoss at times. It's the lack of mobility and being too dependent on a few select units without which your army falls apart that kills my enjoyment.
Some of the things said in the post/article/whatever seem to be somewhat delusional and not really tied to reality.
If I had to sum it up in one sentence it would be this:
They are trying so hard to make Protoss more gimicky when everyone else I want them to be less gimicky.
On July 23 2015 15:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:
So what I get from this is, again - they're nerfing everything protoss because the design isn't liked by some people... and giving nothing back.
The argument that pure gateway units form armies is only really true in PvZ - and that's only when forcefields in MASS support your army and you're able to constantly pressure or defend, keeping the zerg away from higher tech and rapid expanding. Against T and P, gateway units are trash past the early game. It's all about higher tech and using your gateway units as shields for it, as well as using them for harassment.
With the pylon changes, no matter which one goes through, you'd immediately take away all counterattack potential protoss has. Do you really want terran/zerg to be able to suicide their armies into protoss economy and be perfectly fine because a protoss counterattack can't be reinforced? If anything that's far more detrimental to an RTS than anything protoss currently has.
I'm all for changes to protoss, but they need to make sense and these don't in my opinion. Not at all.
It's the exact same conclusion I came to as well. Those changes just don't seem to make any sense and I have no idea why that is. Am I completely delusional? I just don't understand the reasoning why they would propose such things, it's like they are seeing an entirely different game being played.
|
On July 23 2015 17:57 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 17:16 Big J wrote:On July 23 2015 17:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Sounds resonable and i especially agree with the WG solutions.
One thing i dislike is the talk about "more dmg" here and "more dmg" there (not just in this update). SC2 has already far to much dps for it's mechanics that make the battles be over in an instant. So maybe buff HP would be a better course. The game would profit a lot if they started nerfing again, instead of counterbuffing things that aren't broken yet. This.
What I'm missing is quality judgements by blizzard. Buffs are fine. Nerfs are fine too. Some problems are better solved by the first, others by later. Currently it is mostly buffs and letting players "figure it out", which usually means they find some one-dimensional playstyle that they have to play everygame.
We don't want Protoss to always be forced into Voidray openings because ravagers come knocking on their doors at 3mins. The problem was very well dealt with by nerfs. OK, it was overnerfed but blizzard made some great judgment in the ravager area and the current status of the unit feels quite better since the latest buff.
I understand that blizzard wants their new units to feel powerful, but I would prefer it if they tried to keep the important balance values - range, damage, speed, health - within the frame of old units. Otherwise the old units will have problems attacking, surviving against, catching or killing the new units, which will lead to a lot of bad unit interactions. And this is something blizzard has ignored so far.
Ravager, Liberator and Cyclone all have ways to attack your units without getting attacked back easily
Adepts eventually have the highest health per cost of all units in the game, making them 22% tankier than zealots and blizzard is wondering why noone plays zealots... (they had one job!)
A single liberator has 50% more dps than a battlecruiser (and hardly any armor reduction while the BC is plain garbage unupgraded vs upgraded). It has more dps than 7stimmed marines (again, without a real reduction from armor).
I applaude blizzard for really creating some new unique units and also for them trying hard to make those new units inherently fun and microdependend. But I feel like they are missing out on the question whether those units actually interact well with the rest of the game, due to their uniqueness.
|
Oh Davy...
That's not good Davy. Not good at all.
No actual suggested change to gateway units is worrying to me. The issue isn't that they're too weak (hard to disagree with the Zealot harass thing) but that you can't CAN'T CAN'T efficiently use 'em as core.
|
They refused for 4-5 years to touch the core gameplay. Now, after adding numerous bandaids and new units that are gimmicky and can decide a game on their own (ie, Oracle, Widow Mine - atrocious design), they now are willing to touch core gameplay.
This is the reason LotV is a mess, new units that continue atrocious design (cyclone, adept), in an attempt to circumvent the bandaid solutions, badly thought out design and atrocious new units of HOTS.
Solution: Get rid of new units and redesign Protoss with buff gateway units, reduce sentry effectiveness, no MSC. Then think about adding 1 unit to each race that wont decide the game on its own, but adds utility to the race as a whole.
Yeah I know Im dreaming, but at least I said it.
|
Never got why people say gateway units should be stronger but warpgate should be nerfed. Warpgate is the coolest protoss mechanic, protoss would be no different from terran if there wasn't warpgate. You have slightly weaker units, yes, can't believe david kim keeps denying that, but being able to warp in instantly and pretty much anywhere makes up for that.
Blink all ins aren't even a problem anymore, I don't see protoss warpgate all ins being too strong in any situation. The only thing that could be considered as broken are forcefields against zerg in some situations, that's it. But in LotV, with ravagers and lurkers, forcefields aren't even a problem anymore. So I don't see what has to be changed here.
|
On July 23 2015 18:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 17:57 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 23 2015 17:16 Big J wrote:On July 23 2015 17:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Sounds resonable and i especially agree with the WG solutions.
One thing i dislike is the talk about "more dmg" here and "more dmg" there (not just in this update). SC2 has already far to much dps for it's mechanics that make the battles be over in an instant. So maybe buff HP would be a better course. The game would profit a lot if they started nerfing again, instead of counterbuffing things that aren't broken yet. This. What I'm missing is quality judgements by blizzard. Buffs are fine. Nerfs are fine too. Some problems are better solved by the first, others by later. Currently it is mostly buffs and letting players "figure it out", which usually means they find some one-dimensional playstyle that they have to play everygame. We don't want Protoss to always be forced into Voidray openings because ravagers come knocking on their doors at 3mins. The problem was very well dealt with by nerfs. OK, it was overnerfed but blizzard made some great judgment in the ravager area and the current status of the unit feels quite better since the latest buff. I understand that blizzard wants their new units to feel powerful, but I would prefer it if they tried to keep the important balance values - range, damage, speed, health - within the frame of old units. Otherwise the old units will have problems attacking, surviving against, catching or killing the new units, which will lead to a lot of bad unit interactions. And this is something blizzard has ignored so far. Ravager, Liberator and Cyclone all have ways to attack your units without getting attacked back easily Adepts eventually have the highest health per cost of all units in the game, making them 22% tankier than zealots and blizzard is wondering why noone plays zealots... (they had one job!) A single liberator has 50% more dps than a battlecruiser (and hardly any armor reduction while the BC is plain garbage unupgraded vs upgraded). It has more dps than 7stimmed marines (again, without a real reduction from armor). I applaude blizzard for really creating some new unique units and also for them trying hard to make those new units inherently fun and microdependend. But I feel like they are missing out on the question whether those units actually interact well with the rest of the game, due to their uniqueness.
Yeah, some stats are out of control and some things are just broken. Liberator DPS is retarded, cyclone is too all-around and massable, adepts may be too tanky (adept compositions, which seem fine, don't worry me as much as adept all-ins, which seem to force extra committed responses from the opponent), lurkers are lurkers. And hatch tech drops make zero sense. I'd like to see those things toned down a bit (I'd like to play on a good map pool too, but that's another story) so that we get relevant information, I understand the logic too (having strong new things -> we get to see them often) but when they're too obviously stupid we don't learn much.
On July 23 2015 19:16 KingAlphard wrote:
Never got why people say gateway units should be stronger but warpgate should be nerfed. Warpgate is the coolest protoss mechanic, protoss would be no different from terran if there wasn't warpgate. You have slightly weaker units, yes, can't believe david kim keeps denying that, but being able to warp in instantly and pretty much anywhere makes up for that.
Blink all ins aren't even a problem anymore, I don't see protoss warpgate all ins being too strong in any situation. The only thing that could be considered as broken are forcefields against zerg in some situations, that's it. But in LotV, with ravagers and lurkers, forcefields aren't even a problem anymore. So I don't see what has to be changed here.
I agree. I chose Protoss because of warp-ins. This is the coolest thing we have.
That being said, I'm OK with separating pylon power and warp-in power if that helps making Protoss all-ins less powerful.
|
On July 23 2015 19:16 KingAlphard wrote:
Never got why people say gateway units should be stronger but warpgate should be nerfed. Warpgate is the coolest protoss mechanic, protoss would be no different from terran if there wasn't warpgate. You have slightly weaker units, yes, can't believe david kim keeps denying that, but being able to warp in instantly and pretty much anywhere makes up for that.
Blink all ins aren't even a problem anymore, I don't see protoss warpgate all ins being too strong in any situation. The only thing that could be considered as broken are forcefields against zerg in some situations, that's it. But in LotV, with ravagers and lurkers, forcefields aren't even a problem anymore. So I don't see what has to be changed here.
because warpgate breaks both time and position, arguably the 2 most defining aspects of RTS, it may be cool on paper, but just doesn't belong in an RTS, it's a completely out of place mechanic that causes problems in the machine that is SC2.
|
I would like to see warpgate as a spell over to the oracle or maybe the msc without the herorole and less powerful.
What i mean is, you cant warp in from gateways anymore but only from the spellcaster on pylons/warpprisms etc.
For a reasonable high mana cost(150~).
So its still there in lategame and can be used strategically and the other player can actually block it or see it coming etc.
Right now protoss can warp-in anywhere at anytime pretty much, pretty much makes it hard to be consistent with the defense or "truly" being outplayed.
|
On July 23 2015 19:29 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 19:16 KingAlphard wrote:
Never got why people say gateway units should be stronger but warpgate should be nerfed. Warpgate is the coolest protoss mechanic, protoss would be no different from terran if there wasn't warpgate. You have slightly weaker units, yes, can't believe david kim keeps denying that, but being able to warp in instantly and pretty much anywhere makes up for that.
Blink all ins aren't even a problem anymore, I don't see protoss warpgate all ins being too strong in any situation. The only thing that could be considered as broken are forcefields against zerg in some situations, that's it. But in LotV, with ravagers and lurkers, forcefields aren't even a problem anymore. So I don't see what has to be changed here. because warpgate breaks both time and position, arguably the 2 most defining aspects of RTS, it may be cool on paper, but just doesn't belong in an RTS, it's a completely out of place mechanic that causes problems in the machine that is SC2.
What do you mean that it doesn't belong in a rts? Sc2 is the only revelant rts still being developed right now. It's perfectly fine for it to be different from the others. If anything , it's the other RTS that should be inspired by sc2, not vice versa.
Positioning is still important as protoss because warp ins aren't always available. For example if you're going for warp prism harass against a terran, he has units popping out from the production facilities at any time (unless he is maxed out), so it isn't that hard for him to defend. On the other hand, if terran goes for a doom drop against a protoss player and he had just hit his warp in elsewhere, he is completely fucked. Positioning also gets more important as the game goes on and by then you are relying on robo/stargate units which can't be warped in.
Regarding time - I don't know exactly what you mean, maybe that they hit earlier than they're supposed to? Even then I don't see warpgate all ins being OP just because of warpgate. Blink all ins vs terran were considered unbalanced a year ago, but now that has been solved through MSC nerfs and map changes. Warpgate all ins vs zerg are perfectly fine, again the only issue is forcefields.
Not saying that warpgate shouldn't be changed, but it shouldn't be a complete nerf either.
|
Why not just make the Nexus itself have a Warp-In field so you can emergency warpin units in case of an attack?
Or an Area around Warpgates as well maybe? And make warpins next to pylons slower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
