|
"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)
|
China6327 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.
|
On July 23 2015 08:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: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)
My biggest problem with this is harassing with warp prisms warp-ins is nerfed.
Tbh I really like the split idea. To help taking a third the mothership core could provide warp in power.
|
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.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
While this things sounds cool, the least thing protoss needs in this game are nerfs. This would remove even more mobility from the protoss. Something can be done to nerf the all ins, but protoss desperately need some buffs.
|
On July 23 2015 08:44 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:43 ejozl wrote: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
It is interesting, however, I'm not 100% sure Adept should be the tanky one, the +shield upgrade seem a little boring to me.
|
On July 23 2015 08:50 [Phantom] wrote:
While this things sounds cool, the least thing protoss needs in this game are nerfs. This would remove even more mobility from the protoss. Something can be done to nerf the all ins, but protoss desperately need some buffs.
I don't think P needs buffs, I think some Z and T things need nerfs. That "if I have something broken and you have something broken it will even out" mentality ("buffs are good, nerfs are bad") is really bothering me. You'll win 50% of the time and I'll win 50% of the time but we're frustrated 100% of the time (current PvZ in a nutshell : I win early game with adepts or lategame with carriers, or you kill me with lurkers). 8 armor ultras, liberators, cyclones or lurkers (and probably adepts and carriers) should be toned down.
|
super hype... passion over 9000!
|
What a lovely, lovely day.
|
On July 23 2015 08:52 mishimaBeef wrote:
super hype... passion over 9000!
On July 23 2015 08:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
What a lovely, lovely day.
It's not perfect, but it's a promising day for sure.
|
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.
Okay this is interesting and I'll like to see how it pans out. Pisses me off that I had to wait til lotv beta though.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On July 23 2015 08:51 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 08:50 [Phantom] wrote:
While this things sounds cool, the least thing protoss needs in this game are nerfs. This would remove even more mobility from the protoss. Something can be done to nerf the all ins, but protoss desperately need some buffs. I don't think P needs buffs, I think some Z and T things need nerfs. That "if I have something broken and you have something broken it will even out" mentality ("buffs are good, nerfs are bad") is really bothering me. 8 armor ultras, liberators, cyclones or lurkers should be toned down.
While I kinda agree, Protoss has a very hard time with mobility still, and nerfing other rces isn't going to help that. There are some maps that for example. agaisnt an agressive zerg is very difficult to expand, and since if you don't expand you die...well.
Altough that may also be a problem caused by the weird maps, still restricting the map pool to a certain layout isnt good either.
About the warpgate, if they make the updraded pylons thing they are nerding the defense too, since you'd need a warp prism to defend an expansion or stuff like that until your research is done. The "gateways have a warp in radius" is better for defense, and it basically eliminates protoss all-ins....but it also eliminates early game pressure unless you get a war prism, because you'd need to send units from your base to the battle field to reinforce, and protoss isn't balanced around that, so Protoss would simply stay in base until they get two warp prism, giving the race even less mobility/map control.
|
I don't like the upgraded pylon change. It's basically two proxy pylons for the offense and sniping upgraded pylons would make defending drops/air harass a nightmare if you don't have units. I think this would be a bad change ; I am really interested by the other proposition as I already stated though.
|
|
|
On July 23 2015 08:57 [Phantom] wrote:
About the warpgate, if they make the updraded pylons thing they are nerding the defense too, since you'd need a warp prism to defend an expansion or stuff like that until your research is done. The "gateways have a warp in radius" is better for defense, and it basically eliminates protoss all-ins....but it also eliminates early game pressure unless you get a war prism, because you'd need to send units from your base to the battle field to reinforce, and protoss isn't balanced around that, so Protoss would simply stay in base until they get two warp prism, giving the race even less mobility/map control.
You, like a couple of other posters in this thread, are assuming that no other changes will be made to Protoss until the end of LOTV beta.
Why would you assume this?
|
Hmm I'm not sure I'm totally onboard with the Zealot Idea but it sounds cool enough sooo lets try it out, its a beta afterall!
I also like the warpgate stuff and just in general most seems to make a lot of sense.
The one thing that I dislike is the Iron will with which they clammer onto forcefields, I don't think there exists enough counterplay, the ones he said a very very situational, I also don't think the ability adds so much great stuff to the game anymore, and when he talks about how Protoss without WarpGate would be totally OP with a 5% buff to gateway units is because of the ForceField, that ability is what makes Gateway units having to be shitty, and therefor leads to them having to ball it up....
As a Protoss player this is just so frustrating because it feels like I don't enjoy the same amount of Freedom players of other races have with their army in later stages! Because its a beta I'd wish they'd just try it out, its not like there is perfect balance right now anyways especially not in PvZ just a couple of weeks without forcefields and with some buffs to see what happens!
But I suppose I'm too emotionally invested into that one stupid aspect as 90% of this was pretty damn good in my opinion sooooo I shouldn't be too negative huh? =P
|
Very disappointed by this tbh, they still completely neglect that ff are bad in their current form (imo they come too early, ff on mid to lategame units would be way more interesting)
Warpgates simply being in the game cause they are unique is just a bad reason too, warpgates being a choice for specific strategies instead of being the norm would be far more interesting and would probably be a better basis for the gameplay as well.
I also like how he says they never wanted the disruptor to be too easy to save, well making it invincible AFTER the explosion told me the exact opposite, it just makes no sense.
Yeah, pretty disappointed by LOTV overall, i don't think the standard gameplay changes will make me "shit my pants", i guess Lycan was talking about gamemodes/skins there...
|
once this patch is live, it begins 
|
On July 23 2015 09:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Very disappointed by this tbh, they still completely neglect that ff are bad in their current form (imo they come too early, ff on mid to lategame units would be way more interesting)
Warpgates simply being in the game cause they are unique is just a bad reason too, warpgates being a choice for specific strategies instead of being the norm would be far more interesting and would probably be a better basis for the gameplay as well.
I also like how he says they never wanted the disruptor to be too easy to save, well making it invincible AFTER the explosion told me the exact opposite, it just makes no sense.
Yeah, pretty disappointed by LOTV overall, i don't think the standard gameplay changes will make me "shit my pants", i guess Lycan was talking about gamemodes/skins there...
?
Lycan is casting WCS. That's what was supposed to make you "shit your pants."
|
This is nice, i'm digging these discussion The idea of re-building protoss design is too much. But small changes like this will help close the gap on the balance.
Even David Kim admit that Protoss is edging out in strength, just by a little bit.
I like the idea of an upgraded pylon, but then losing 16 supply from 1 building will be pretty crippling in the mid game.
Especially when the pylon is meant for offense, it's going to get cleaned up eventually.
|
On July 23 2015 08:12 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: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 highlights a big problem with a lot of the demands for warp gate changes: the main justification given for the change is that it allows gateway units to be buffed, and yet no-one is willing to talk about serious buffs they would accept.
There's no point thinking about warpgate changes if Blizzard aren't already considering gateway unit buffs - which may even need to be BIGGER than a 10% health boost.
|
On July 23 2015 09:27 CKSide wrote:
I like the idea of an upgraded pylon, but then losing 16 supply from 1 building will be pretty crippling in the mid game.
Especially when the pylon is meant for offense, it's going to get cleaned up eventually.
Not to mention that Nexus give 14 Supply and you'll expand faster, so can't really see how there's even gonna be enough Pylon power for production. Then drop comes in and kills the 16 supply Artosis Pylon and you have to warp in at your natural, with half the remaining Warp Gates.
|
maybe my english is too bad but TLDR :
We think protoss is fine and people just like to complain, we are thinking about making the zealot stronger and Warpins weaker.
|
So David is saying that Protoss are OP?
(plz no warning, I'm really asking it)
|
Well, this would change the game. A lot.
|
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.
|
You could also make the normal Gateway produce Units faster than the upgraded Warpgate.
(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
|
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?
|
Its not the type of changes I was expecting but sounds interesting enough.
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
thanks for adding the source.
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.
|
This response makes me lose more hope in LotV than anything I've seen for months.
|
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?
|
On July 23 2015 10:05 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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 :/
|
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 :/
|
On July 23 2015 10:05 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
No free units.No invincible units.
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...
|
WE talked about HOTS removing units, ended up not happening. But now there are SO many units, and so many overlaps.
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.
|
On July 23 2015 10:18 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 10:05 pure.Wasted wrote: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? 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!
|
Hm I came in expecting to be super disappointed and instead was surprised. Really like the offensive warpgate nerf ideas, wish they would just remove FF all together and buff to compensate but I am not shocked at all that this isn't even a consideration.
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
I prefer zealots to be meatshields. Regardless, these new coming changes will be fun.
|
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".
|
Canada13387 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.
|
Canada13387 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?
|
Oh man, I remember ideas about upgraded Pylons all the way during 2010. Warp-ins don't seem as big of an issue now as they did back then, but any idea that changes them for the better can only be good for the game.
I wish they'd talked about the Colossus sometime. Right now it's pretty much just a placeholder.
|
Warpgate power separation:
I'm not sure if separating pylon power and warpgate power is 100% good, but if they do it I think they also need to let nexii provide warpgate power (or at least provide it in conjuction w/ regular pylons) so that the expensive warpgate powering pylons don't become to vulnerable targets to drops/harass. This should also help with taking earlier 3rds.
Offensive warp in nerf:
As far as nerfing offensive warpgate rushes, this seems like it will only help with certain types of rushes like 4gates and 7gates. A 2base blink timing, for example, wouldn't be particularly weaker unless the warp in time was significantly increased, which just isn't practical if protoss is going to have a workable defense against drops. One thing that might work is increasing warp in time when warping in with a warp prism, but that might make protoss harass less viable, so I'm not really a fan of it.
Zealot harass
I think one of the main reasons that zealots tend to do game ending damage through harass, and also the reason that protoss has the best late game harass, isn't so much the strength of the zealot as it is the lack of defense from the other races. Terran in particular lack supply free vs ground static defense, and fixing that would make a lot more sense, especially if it had, say, an armory requirement so terran defense/bunker rushing doesn't get buffed. Zerg have more options since spines can work well in the late game if you have the economy for it, and before then you can sometimes use units to defend, like the 4 muta snipe squad. Solar's use of banelings was also cool, so perhaps zerg could experiment more with, say, lurkers to defend vulnerable expos. Zerg may still need more or more effective forms of counterplay vs warp prisms, but I'm not sure what.
Last but not least a big thank you to blizzard for engaging the community so much. I'm looking forward to a long and productive beta.
|
On July 23 2015 12:55 eviltomahawk wrote:
Oh man, I remember ideas about upgraded Pylons all the way during 2010. Warp-ins don't seem as big of an issue now as they did back then, but any idea that changes them for the better can only be good for the game.
I wish they'd talked about the Colossus sometime. Right now it's pretty much just a placeholder.
Colossus itself doesn't have to be changed. What it takes is somewhat a long-range single-target zero-damage disabling ability for T and Z like the lockdown in BW.
|
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC.
|
Pylons power is an interesting idea, finally no more dork protoss that take easy wins with their all ins. At least with that give a window to could react in something, even if is a little delay.
|
On July 23 2015 10:18 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 10:05 pure.Wasted wrote: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? 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.
One of the better unbiased posts in this thread.
Very astute observation and I agree completely.
DK and the team still have a long way to go to fix SC2.
|
On July 23 2015 13:23 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 10:18 Pontius Pirate wrote:On July 23 2015 10:05 pure.Wasted wrote: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? 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. One of the better unbiased posts in this thread. Very astute observation and I agree completely. DK and the team still have a long way to go to fix SC2.
They better get it done, for LotV is the final chapter of the Starcraft series.
|
On July 23 2015 13:19 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC.
Im not sure about baseball example, bcoz is boring as a kid as a grow man, the only reason people go to see baseball is bcoz they do with beers, if beers are prohibited at the stadium, probably the few people that go to see, are going to sleep. And also i guess the kind of kids of 10 years ago, are not same kids of nowdays, and according with ur baseball example, kids of today prefer playing playstation that going to play baseball. I think if blizz want to capture kids, they should give tutorials with direct and specific information of how to play the game, for example how to drop, how to use properly the hotkeys, the importance of the economy and the scouting, inject methods, etc, kids of nowdays not like to investigate or study the game, if not give them the specific information of how works the game, they just gona do other thing, the main problem is the turorials of the game i guess, they are so basic, and most of them are about test-mistake, what makes very tedious and stresful for adult, and even more for a kid.
|
Solution to problem of force-fields:
Facts: forcefields wreck zerg when used in large quantities. Roach burrow move doesn't help that much. However w/o forcefields, toss lose natural, third, choke points to things like mass ling, mass roach spam. Or even the first wave of marines/marauders.
Solution: Toss needs unit that is fast enough to keep up with speed lings, sort of like hellion. Forcefields need to cost more energy so they can't be spammed.
|
Once again they prove they don't know what the fuck they are doing, that's it, I'm out.
|
On July 23 2015 13:35 FaiFai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:19 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC. Im not sure about baseball example, bcoz is boring as a kid as a grow man, the only reason people go to see baseball is bcoz they do with beers, if beers are prohibited at the stadium, probably the few people that go to see, are going to sleep. And also i guess the kind of kids of 10 years ago, are not same kids of nowdays, and according with ur baseball example, kids of today prefer playing playstation that going to play baseball. I think if blizz want to capture kids, they should give tutorials with direct and specific information of how to play the game, for example how to drop, how to use properly the hotkeys, the importance of the economy and the scouting, inject methods, etc, kids of nowdays not like to investigate or study the game, if not give them the specific information of how works the game, they just gona do other thing, the main problem is the turorials of the game i guess, they are so basic, and most of them are about test-mistake, what makes very tedious and stresful for adult, and even more for a kid.
What freaking kid watches tutorials. Main problem is game is fickle, complicated, not very social. chess. As for baseball is followed by a lot of f-ing people. Baseball pros make a lot of f-ing moneys. As kid, I not indoctrinated with baseball, thus I be one of people going to games for only beers plus friends. However I did play on a team when young. Thus I know about baseball. Thus if invited to play baseball now by friends, would play baseball. However if kids/people never understand SC2, what will give them incentive to play.
|
This was hugely disappointing. Especially after reading about all the "NDA hype" saying that we were in for a ride.
Force fields are still as boring and as frustrating as ever. Watching someone burrow move - however rare it is - under force fields is not exciting at all in my opinion.
Warp gate was an interesting idea, however its current implementation is just bad. Reinforcements should be able to be intercepted.
|
I think David Kim and Blizzard should give us an explanation of why it is worth to revolutionize the design of a race in LotV? Don't just say it is cool or interesting. I'm not in a hurry to pick a side in this discussion(like/dislike, agree/disagree, etc). Rather, I want to contribute some concerns/thoughts on the possible outcomes of overturning designs.
Could there be a fundamentally distinct Protoss as one of the three pillars of a balanced, smooth while still interesting Starcraft? Likely. Is this truly a goal worth to realize? A valid answer to this question may consume enormous time and resources, and yet it may still not look good to everyone.
Redesigning the core mechanism of Protoss has gains and loses. While the gains are still nebulous, the loses are more clear, being that a well-tested and familiar race since 2010 is gone. If revolutionary designs are implemented in the game officially, how will the community response to it by then? Positive response by majority at this moment cannot promise an identical future. And what about the reaction of progamers? Having an experimental design discussed and tested out is essentially different than having it implemented, especially for people making a life out of it. Also, a big but related question: how would remodeling a game inside out help promote SC2 in the global market?
Here are some thoughts:
1) It seems fair for both parties while disruptor leaves its invulnerable state after the burst. Instead of using invulnerability, a temporal high speed state seems more acceptable and won't be too cost-effective.
2) There is definitely overlapping functionalities between zealot and adept. The roles zealots take in an army in HotS are clear: tanks when there are ranged damage dealers at the back; damage dealers while its upgrade is at advanced position; strikers that break the enemy's formation; and harass units in enemy's base. Except for the above roles, what does Blizzard expect adept to take? Meat shield and harass unit? Either adept is overshadowed by zealot, or zealot is overshadowed by adept. How about adept being an anti-air damage dealers while still being a specialist countering light units? Offering alternative choice to counter air units may help reducing massive use of stalkers.
3) I don't know where the concern of nerfing force field comes from. With sufficient micro and well positioning, zerg should find force field serves more as blockage against Protoss than walls against itself. With adjustment to adept for early game, we may see roach/ravager all-in since the pressure from adept is levitated. Corrosive bile plus borrow movement can make the Protoss regret ever warping in sentries. Placing Force Fields is one of the most distinguishable case that separates different levels of play skills.
4) Is massing Gateway units(stalkers plus sentries and templar in PvZ) a harmful play style for the game? Not really. In fact, I don't think this is even a valid question. SC2 is a strategic game, says David Kim as well. Because of this, massing Gateway units is only a strategic choice, and same with its countering, highly upgraded zerglings plus hydralisks. Protoss players choose this style is because its popularity, efficiency with micro and relatively lower economic burden. This style is also a development following the adjustment of swarm host. This choice is far from being IMBA(can be countered by viper and infestor) and need not to be the inducement of nerfing Gateway units/mechanism.
5) Warp-in mechanism is not as powerful as it may seem to some people. Like any mechanism, it is a blade with a sharp edge and a blunt edge. It is the essential way of reinforcing the frontline, defensing bases and harassing enemy bases, while this knife is blunt/this shield is fragile if warp-in units are scattered or the process is interrupted. It can be countered in a lot of ways. That is why as long as there is not a more dynamic and balanced mechanism to replace warp-in, I suggest it should remain intact.
|
On July 23 2015 13:45 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:35 FaiFai wrote:On July 23 2015 13:19 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC. Im not sure about baseball example, bcoz is boring as a kid as a grow man, the only reason people go to see baseball is bcoz they do with beers, if beers are prohibited at the stadium, probably the few people that go to see, are going to sleep. And also i guess the kind of kids of 10 years ago, are not same kids of nowdays, and according with ur baseball example, kids of today prefer playing playstation that going to play baseball. I think if blizz want to capture kids, they should give tutorials with direct and specific information of how to play the game, for example how to drop, how to use properly the hotkeys, the importance of the economy and the scouting, inject methods, etc, kids of nowdays not like to investigate or study the game, if not give them the specific information of how works the game, they just gona do other thing, the main problem is the turorials of the game i guess, they are so basic, and most of them are about test-mistake, what makes very tedious and stresful for adult, and even more for a kid. What freaking kid watches tutorials. Main problem is game is fickle, complicated, not very social. chess. As for baseball is followed by a lot of f-ing people. Baseball pros make a lot of f-ing moneys. As kid, I not indoctrinated with baseball, thus I be one of people going to games for only beers plus friends. However I did play on a team when young. Thus I know about baseball. Thus if invited to play baseball now by friends, would play baseball. However if kids/people never understand SC2, what will give them incentive to play.
Every game have tutorials, and is for a reason, bcoz people saw them, specially the "kids" duhhh , XD, also is the first thing the user see after click install/ click play/ showing tutorial and in some cases you have to do it even you want skipped , and even more necessary in sc if you say that the game is so complicated.
About your relation with baseball is not the same of the rest of people( i don nou what are discussing about baseball, lol), and also if you or your friends circle don see tutorials, doesnt mean other kids do.
PD: I doubt u are kid, just bcoz kids don use words like "indoctrinated", lol... , but also doubt you are an adult for ur inmature, XD.
|
On July 23 2015 14:21 FaiFai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:45 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:On July 23 2015 13:35 FaiFai wrote:On July 23 2015 13:19 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC. Im not sure about baseball example, bcoz is boring as a kid as a grow man, the only reason people go to see baseball is bcoz they do with beers, if beers are prohibited at the stadium, probably the few people that go to see, are going to sleep. And also i guess the kind of kids of 10 years ago, are not same kids of nowdays, and according with ur baseball example, kids of today prefer playing playstation that going to play baseball. I think if blizz want to capture kids, they should give tutorials with direct and specific information of how to play the game, for example how to drop, how to use properly the hotkeys, the importance of the economy and the scouting, inject methods, etc, kids of nowdays not like to investigate or study the game, if not give them the specific information of how works the game, they just gona do other thing, the main problem is the turorials of the game i guess, they are so basic, and most of them are about test-mistake, what makes very tedious and stresful for adult, and even more for a kid. What freaking kid watches tutorials. Main problem is game is fickle, complicated, not very social. chess. As for baseball is followed by a lot of f-ing people. Baseball pros make a lot of f-ing moneys. As kid, I not indoctrinated with baseball, thus I be one of people going to games for only beers plus friends. However I did play on a team when young. Thus I know about baseball. Thus if invited to play baseball now by friends, would play baseball. However if kids/people never understand SC2, what will give them incentive to play. Every game have tutorials, and is for a reason, bcoz people saw them, specially the "kids" duhhh , XD, also is the first thing the user see after click install/ click play/ showing tutorial and in some cases you have to do it even you want skipped , and even more necessary in sc if you say that the game is so complicated. About your relation with baseball is not the same of the rest of people( i don nou what are discussing about baseball, lol), and also if you or your friends circle don see tutorials, doesnt mean other kids do. PD: I doubt u are kid, just bcoz kids don use words like "indoctrinated", lol... , but also doubt you are an adult for ur inmature, XD.
Don't underestimate the Sin of Pride and overestimate the kids' patience. They reckon they are smart enough to figure out how to play this game, so they skip the tutorials, then screw it up, lose their interest and walk away.
|
On July 23 2015 13:19 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC.
12 year old kids get the 'big army fighting big army experience' on their tablets with games like Boom Beach and Clash of Clans. 12 year olds no longer spends hours on end in front of a desktop PC with the frequency they did in 2000.
back in 2000 the only place to watch giant armies fight was the desktop PC... improving technology has broken the desktop PCs stranglehold on this kind of experience.
the RTS genre is in the same position the dot-eating-maze-game genre was in around 1982.. it don't matter how good the game or who its targeted towards ... less and less people will play it no matter what...this does not have to stop a small niche community from enjoying LotV though.
Baseball is popular because it is fun to play and watch. Period.. end of story. Americans like lots of stops and starts in the action ... NFL and MLB are the 2 most popular sports... lots of stoppages and time to debate strategic decisions made in game.
Hitting a baseball is as intense an experience in a sport that you can have.
And as i type this the Oakland A's walk off the Blue Jays in extra innings... great stuff.
|
At this point, I am speechless.
Thank god for TLS.
|
On July 23 2015 14:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:19 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Nice stuff from Bliz here.
However still not addressing main issue. The game is too complex for a normal player/ 12 year old. Right now they are pandering to pros, who if you haven't noticed are quitting in large numbers. Right now Bliz is trying to sell this game to the 22-27 year old crowd, which is a crowd that is always diminishing, due to getting gf, marriages, growing up, having stressful 8-5 job.
Bliz needs to pander to 12 year-old crowd. Needs to say fuck these guys who have been playing 15 years. They old, pretty soon they quit, or get carpal tunnel from old wrists and quit. The need to say we need people with lots of time and expendable cash (which isn't going to gfs, babies, etc). We need people who influence pop culture, ie: not listening to Linkin Park or Stained or any nu-metal from early 2000s.
8 year old kids master chess. 12 year old kid should be able to get GM in SC2. Youth keep game alive. Example: baseball. Baseball is stupid and complex. If you not learn baseball as a kid, you don't play baseball now. You think baseball stupid. So if you not learn SC2 as kid, you're not going to play. So if noone taught their kids baseball, noone cares, baseball dies as sport. This means only youth can keep SC2 alive. Without kids playing game die in 5 years...this cuz all Korean pro about 20 years old. At 25 all skillz go. Look at MVP, Nestea, MC. Baseball is popular because it is fun to play and watch. Period.. end of story. Americans like lots of stops and starts in the action ... NFL and MLB are the 2 most popular sports... lots of stoppages and time to debate strategic decisions made in game. Hitting a baseball is as intense an experience in a sport that you can have. And as i type this the Oakland A's walk off the Blue Jays in extra innings... great stuff.
That's a pretty iffy metaphor to bring up, and an ironic one. Baseball as a major league sport has been hemorrhaging viewers for decades, and the average age of a baseball game goer is I believe in the upper 30s, the highest of any American major league sport. The teams have worse ticket sales, worse sponsorship offers, and few ideas on how to improve their prospects in the longterm future.
|
Austria24417 Posts
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.
|
|
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Ehm, am I blind or they did not address the hero syndrome of MSC/MS? And that MSC is pure band aid solution like FF is? Me so sad
|
So Protoss has a definite weakness in their ability to defend multiple bases from multi-pronged harass. This was made even worse through the new economy model Blizzard implemented in Lotv, which forces players to expand to more bases overall at a faster rate.
By nerfing Pylons in any of the ways mentions by Blizzard:
- Sure it might offset some "offensive warp-in" capabilities of Protoss and therefore reduce early game harass and all ins(a game mechanic that takes away a certain strategy from a game such as an all-in is a flawed game design just like how the new economy model is flawed in that it forces expansions).
- It will pretty much secure Zerg a greedy opening vs P unless the P decides to cannon rush every PvZ as an opener.
- It'll make defending expansions even harder for Protoss, because pylons at hidden expansions or bases far away will not have warp-in capabilities unless upgraded to this new pylon or having a warpgate in its proximity. And yes mentioned by David Kim, this upgrade to the new pylon will cost 100 minerals and take a considerable amount of time to upgrade.
- Mind you pylons are not that hard to snipe off even if each of these upgraded pylons are built at every base.
|
On July 23 2015 15:51 Fall.182 wrote:
So Protoss has a definite weakness in their ability to defend multiple bases from multi-pronged harass. This was made even worse through the new economy model Blizzard implemented in Lotv, which forces players to expand to more bases overall at a faster rate.
How about giving Mothership's cloaking field to nexus as a spell that cost energy as a protective measure? That would make it far more useful than it is now.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 23 2015 15:57 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 15:51 Fall.182 wrote:
So Protoss has a definite weakness in their ability to defend multiple bases from multi-pronged harass. This was made even worse through the new economy model Blizzard implemented in Lotv, which forces players to expand to more bases overall at a faster rate.
How about giving Mothership's cloaking field to nexus as a spell that cost energy as a protective measure? That would make it far more useful than it is now.
THis is a very bad solution. This is a band aid solution that doesn't solve anything. So Terran will save a scan and Zerg will build an overseer(which is usually present to scout anyway).
This is the same band aid solution as MSC in HotS or force field/vortex balance in WoL.
|
I want to start by acknowledging the good work in giving these feedback section. It does show Blizzard is trying stuff.
However I think they are looking at it all wrong. The reason they think there's nothing wrong, is because they are looking at everything in isolation. "Warp gates don't cause a need for weak units", "forcefields can be microed out of" etc. It's the whole package, which is why the race needs a redesign. That doesn't mean the redesign shouldn't keep some existing features that are good, it means you are willing to start from scratch in your thinking.
e.g. If you were to remove forcefields and warp gates, would terran have been so scared of the 7 gate blink build or zerg of 2 base all ins? If you can't warp in then your reinforcements must walk across the map and all timings are a whole cycle behind. And for zerg just like how they do against terran, will cut off reinforcing armies. Without forcefield they can surround.
Without forcefields stopping scv repairing bunkers or whole chunks of army fighting, is an allin scary at all? Medivac pickup is cute and only works in open terrain. How does it help when your already fighting at your natural and they FF your ramp? Even in open field it's fairly common for stalkers to simply sniper the medivac with the units which is worse than having the units doing some last minute damage anyway.
If you look at it more holistically yes you can buff all toss units by x% and it would still be balanced.
|
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.
I'm with you. To me, these changes don't make sense. Even though I'm still open to changes to Protoss, the changes made should address the current issues. What they suggest is like, instead of adding bricks to fill any vacant spaces that already exist on a newly built wall, they want to create some new openings for whatever reasons.
|
everything I expected but hoped would not be, idk about this, doesn't really reinforce my faith in lotv.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 23 2015 16:17 ArcticBlue wrote:Show nested quote +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. I'm with you. To me, these changes don't make sense. Even though I'm still open to changes to Protoss, the changes made should address the current issues. What they suggest is like, instead of adding bricks to fill any vacant spaces that already exist on a newly built wall, they want to create some new openings for whatever reasons.
Well, I would like to see them to tear down the wall and rebuild it. Doing so needs to remove certain skills/units and rework some mechanics(eg WG). Then the Protoss will be unplayable, but finally they would be able to balance early game, then mid game, then late game and after all the Protoss would be redesigned and balanced. But that needs to screw Protoss and screw them so hard, that they will be removed for a period of time from ladder. The question is if they aim for the right wall, because I don't think so.
|
My thoughts
Zealot vs Adepts
DK suggests to make the Zealot a DPS-unit and the Adepts a tanky unit. I don't see how that properly can work as the Adept is midranged and the Zealot melee ranged. It would make much more sense to opt for the reverse role, and I am baffled why DK isn't discussing that in his update.
Forcefields
This was very much in line with what I expected. David Kim thinks Forcefields are pretty cool but just needs a bit more counterplay. Based on reading his comments over the last couple of years, I am convinced he thinks proper ability design is mainy related to two factors:
1. Does it take skill to use the ability?
2. Is there counterplay?
However, the above two factors doesn't take into account two other essential elements:
1. Does it feel satisfcatory/fun to use?
2. How does it impact the dynamic of the game.
In the case of Forcefields, I don't think its a very fun ability to use, and I think it has very poor implications for how the game dynamic works. The issue is that the protoss army composition has a much more difficult time moving out on the map as they beocme very reliant on narrow passages. Thus they will end up playing very passively unless they go for a big all in.
The proper solution is imo to just remove Forcefield and create a Sentry that is fun to use but isn't neccasary for the protoss composition. Rather it should be a unit that can allow the race to play a style it otherwise wouldn't be capable of, but opting to not to use it at all should be 100% viable as well.
Warpgates
I guess both suggestions have their merit, though it obviously is also very important to note that just changing how the Warpgate works doesn't fix protoss as a race. You need a lot more changes and his reluctance to changing Forcefield, Immortal and Colossus are part of the problems too.
Disruptor
This was the obvious solution from the get-go and I don't really understand why it wasn't implemented from the get-go.
|
Yay, more feedback and finally Protoss gets some help!
... or does it?
I'm not saying everything here is bad, but I don't think Protoss gets better overall with these changes, neither design nor balance wise. Disruptor change is good, but that's the smallest issue.
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.
Protoss also has a hard time to keep up economy wise in LotV, maybe a 300 mineral nexus that builds 10 seconds faster could be tested? Might be OP, but hey let's test it.
Still very thankfull for all the updates! I just hope Protoss will feel good at the end of this process, whether it's playing it or against it.
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
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 much.
On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this?
Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage.
|
On July 23 2015 16:37 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +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 much. On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this? Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage.
It completely depends on the phase of the game, but yeah in the late game chargelots from a warpprism are the best harassment and often do a lot of damage I think. At least in PvZ.
Just yesterday we saw it in code A (Symbol vs Hurricane).
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 23 2015 16:37 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +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 much. On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this? Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage.
3/3 zealots can force the terran player into a fight they do not want to take it, since the terran lost too much in the main. This rarely happens though because the game doesn't get to this state very often(SCV pulls/timing attacks etc.)
In PvZ it's a horrible horrible damage. Against SH/Blord-infestor/ I used the 2 WP harass style of herO(or was it HerO? Not sure now, damn, probably the CJ one) - and it works like a charm even now and for sure it worked then. Chargelots takes down hatcheries and tech buildings so fast. But this can be denied by good positioning of buildings and some static D.
But basically not that long time ago the one good advice of "how to beat SH/viper" was - use warp prism and warp chargelots everywhere.
We don't see Zerglings do this that much often because you can wall. Defense against WP is not that easy(especially for Zergs)
|
On July 23 2015 16:50 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 16:37 BisuDagger wrote: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 much. On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this? Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage. 3/3 zealots can force the terran player into a fight they do not want to take it, since the terran lost too much in the main. This rarely happens though because the game doesn't get to this state very often(SCV pulls/timing attacks etc.) In PvZ it's a horrible horrible damage. Against SH/Blord-infestor/ I used the 2 WP harass style of herO(or was it HerO? Not sure now, damn, probably the CJ one) - and it works like a charm even now and for sure it worked then. Chargelots takes down hatcheries and tech buildings so fast. But this can be denied by good positioning of buildings and some static D. But basically not that long time ago the one good advice of "how to beat SH/viper" was - use warp prism and warp chargelots everywhere. We don't see Zerglings do this that much often because you can wall. Defense against WP is not that easy(especially for Zergs)
Agreed! We might hopefully see more of it soon, with single overlords getting morphed into dropships and real cracklings on hive tech. But before that Protoss has to survive the lurker phase.
|
On July 23 2015 16:37 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +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 much. On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this? Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage.
It's a question of what you perceive as harassment. When we talk about base-sniping with zerglings, it is 90% about sniping the third base, often before it is done. And in those scenarios that's often the whole zerg army that does this in a very upfront manner. I can very well agree if someone perceives that as frontal attack of the main army, not as harassment with zerglings.
The scenario in which zerglings actually pass by defenses are much more uncommon. Though that is obviously because the whole building layout in TvZ and PvZ has been designed to prevent it.
|
On July 23 2015 16:50 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 16:37 BisuDagger wrote: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 much. On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this? Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage. 3/3 zealots can force the terran player into a fight they do not want to take it, since the terran lost too much in the main. This rarely happens though because the game doesn't get to this state very often(SCV pulls/timing attacks etc.)
It's part of the reason the game doesn't get there.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
- Give Nexi a defensive ability that delays the attacker
for a example a area of effect spell called shield barrier that gives friendly units and buildings a "forcefield" like protective shield, delaying the attack and allowing for the Protoss to warp-in / recall units - similar to a Terran BW defensive matrix
Sentry Changes
- having time warp on sentry, instead of the forcefield
- giving sentries a more active protection / healing spell than guardian shield
|
I like the ideas they have mentioned.
Why not a universal upgrade for pylon warp in. Research warp gate on the cyber core and you can transform gateways into warp-gates and warp in next to just those warp gates. Research pylon warp in on the cyber core and you can then warp in next to pylons. The costs and timings of those two upgrades can easily be adjusted depending on when early aggressive proxy pylons should be available. This also means mid to late game warp ins can remain as they are now.
|
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.
|
your bias is showing, you expect terran to deal with an army on top of their production any better than protoss? instead of having their production cycle out of place, it's simply dead because they can't produce anywhere on the map.
time as in travel distance, having you production wherever you want at any point completely negates reinforcement time and counter play, limiting mobility options.
what I'm saying that you can fit this cog into the machine, but it breaks the machine, theres tons and tons of band-aid fixes everywhere, along with plenty of other things besides warpgate, that are the reason to how one-dimensional this game is.
|
Totally random idea. Give pylons energy? Each warpin would cost some energy. If there isn't enough energy then you would have to wait for it recharge. Pylons could form a grid and the warpin energy could be divided between "connected" pylons. That way home warping would not be a problem ever, but offensive warping would have some limits wihout removing the whole mechanism..
|
I don't think warping at home is a problem... it's not hard to have a warpgate at each nexus area, in fact it's quite common now anyways.
|
On July 23 2015 16:47 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 16:37 BisuDagger wrote: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 much. On a strictly pro level, does anyone in the thread agree with this? Zergling runbys and base sniping is extremely common. Meanwhile, unless it's late game warp prism drops you never see the same level of harassment. Zealots don't deal nearly as much high damage or game ending damage. It completely depends on the phase of the game, but yeah in the late game chargelots from a warpprism are the best harassment and often do a lot of damage I think. At least in PvZ. Just yesterday we saw it in code A (Symbol vs Hurricane).
The point is that zergling run-bys are still more powerful. Zealot harassment was working because Zerg bases often have no defence even at pro level, whereas every Protoss base will have extra investment in wall-offs and other defences because otherwise zergling run-bys are game-ending.
|
Sounds like Blizzard is listening. Curious to see what direction things will take.
|
Finally they are looking to adjust things. Hopefully it means the end of #protossed like we had in WOL with #ggLords
|
Protoss early all-in is so powerful because they have much more units than the other 2 races at certain time. Several warpgates need 75 seconds and 1 probe to build, 150 mineral each, and each warpgate can produce zealots in 28 seconds, sentry and stalkers in 32 seconds. For comparison, a barrack that can produce 2 marines (against 1 zealot) in 25 seconds needs 115 seconds and 200/50 to build, a barrack that can produce 1 marauder (against stalker) in 30 seconds needs 90 seconds and 200/25 to build, not mention the mineral a SCV can mine in 65 seconds. Zerg is more complex because Zerg player must balance the larvae use between drones and units.
Protoss gateway units are not strong by themselves. They have more HP than their counterpart but much lower DPS. But a battle between 10 stalkers and 5 zealots against 10 marines +3 marauders or 10 lings+10 roaches is always favored by Protoss. However, once Terran and Zerg got enough units, Protoss must retreat and wait for higher-tech units.
|
did anyone else catch the part about buffing zergling harass?
does anyone else think that doesn't sound all that great? protoss taking a third on almost all of the current maps is pretty tough as is, imo.
|
On July 23 2015 21:12 fenix404 wrote:
did anyone else catch the part about buffing zergling harass?
does anyone else think that doesn't sound all that great? protoss taking a third on almost all of the current maps is pretty tough as is, imo.
I'm pretty sure David Kim is talking about overlord drops and the increased damage from adrenalin glands here.
|
Well nerfing the warpin abillity whould break the balance completly. Its not fact that early warpins are to strong. It is fact that zealots, adepts and the mothership core are just super strong in early game. I dont think that in midgame any of this is an issue vs zerg. And terran laughs about every gateway unit (apart from the adept anyway). So the only right thing to do is to balance the adept and you are good to go. To do so the most logic way whould be to give adepts an extra upgrade that is required to make them stronger combat units. This way they whouldn't be that strong in phases of the game where they cant be countered accordingly. For example: early game ZvP adepts have no counter and can freely move in mineral lines. Why is that? Because roach tech is expensive and puts you behind economicaly, zerglings are weak vs high amount of adepts and in general adepts have to much HP and it takes to long to kill them. Conclusion reduce their attackspeed or dmg and give them an upgrade that has long research time so the zerg has a bit more time to prepare. This might also help terran in early game, where adepts just are to good currently.
|
On July 23 2015 21:27 Sosuka wrote:
Well nerfing the warpin abillity whould break the balance completly. Its not fact that early warpins are to strong. It is fact that zealots, adepts and the mothership core are just super strong in early game. I dont think that in midgame any of this is an issue vs zerg. And terran laughs about every gateway unit (apart from the adept anyway). So the only right thing to do is to balance the adept and you are good to go. To do so the most logic way whould be to give adepts an extra upgrade that is required to make them stronger combat units. This way they whouldn't be that strong in phases of the game where they cant be countered accordingly. For example: early game ZvP adepts have no counter and can freely move in mineral lines. Why is that? Because roach tech is expensive and puts you behind economicaly, zerglings are weak vs high amount of adepts and in general adepts have to much HP and it takes to long to kill them. Conclusion reduce their attackspeed or dmg and give them an upgrade that has long research time so the zerg has a bit more time to prepare. This might also help terran in early game, where adepts just are to good currently.
Yeah I agree they come too strong too early but are interesting. I don't know what can be made to need an upgrade so that Protoss can still use adepts early game but they're not too strong.
|
On July 23 2015 11:15 ffadicted wrote:
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.
Is there a source on this? I can't recall reading much about protoss being underpowered, save for maybe an artosis blog from like 6 months ago.
|
On July 23 2015 22:00 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 11:15 ffadicted wrote:
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. Is there a source on this? I can't recall reading much about protoss being underpowered, save for maybe an artosis blog from like 6 months ago.
Look at the tournaments if you don't trust the personal experience of people on here.
PvZ right now is almost at a stage were Protoss either all-ins or looses, and thanks to the Adept the all-ins got a lot more powerfull, so maybe it is actually close to beeing 50% winrate, but that itself is not a good thing, because Protosses only option right now, basically is to all-in which is not all that fun =3
|
It's too early to say what PvZ will be like in Legacy. Adepts are one piece of the puzzle (and likely effect more than the all-in case).
|
If you nerf offensive Warp-In you auto-Nerf the Zealot RunBy damage. if you nerf Warpgate in general, you nerf protoss instant-Remax capabilities for the ultra lategame.
Warp In Zealots, set waypoint (=Movecommand) and attack other location. They will come from an unexpected angle and force the other player into Multitasking or losing a Line of Workers. They also Honeybadger PFs (Hold command in the minerals line) and Bunkers, and everythng above 4 zealots will clear some spines and Queens NP.
If zealots are send in to the front, its no run by. If they are shift-clicked around, there is a possibility they will be spotted.
Zealots are super-effective instant reproduce Throw-away units for harassment. If it works, great, if not...meh. At least the other player is occupied for some seconds, has to split attention and army to find the Pylon.
Splitting Warpinpower and Pylonpower is weird and complicated.
Change warpgames, make the Zealot and High templar the only units that can be warped in. HT is not instant effective and Zealot is a core unit. for that you need the Archon-morphtime significantly longer.
Almost all aggressive Moves, that are not considered Cheese in protoss play involve and Army that could guard a building pylon against the opposing force already. If the protoss decides to Moveout, he most likely leaves a trace of Pylons anyway.
So warp/power pylons would only make things...strange
Make the zealot the only unit that can be warped with Warpgate. Add the "Observatory" that unlocks observers and has an upgrade "Advanced Warp-Capacitor" that allows the Warpin of all gateway units.
|
On July 23 2015 22:12 Arvendilin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 22:00 Little-Chimp wrote:On July 23 2015 11:15 ffadicted wrote:
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. Is there a source on this? I can't recall reading much about protoss being underpowered, save for maybe an artosis blog from like 6 months ago. Look at the tournaments if you don't trust the personal experience of people on here. PvZ right now is almost at a stage were Protoss either all-ins or looses, and thanks to the Adept the all-ins got a lot more powerfull, so maybe it is actually close to beeing 50% winrate, but that itself is not a good thing, because Protosses only option right now, basically is to all-in which is not all that fun =3
Yeah this is all-in before brood lord infestor is reached all over again.
|
I know that mobility is criminally underrated... But do people really believe that having 210hp units instead of 200 (5%hp buff) is stronger than reinforcing an attack at proxy pylons?
|
1°: I do play LOTV.
All of u people need to understand something first: Stop looking by ur race issue and start thinking o the general game problem.
So, lets think: Why the currently state of WG needs a nerf? Is every Toss winning by just simply making the offensive pylon? Im sure that is not. If u nerf WG, keep in mind that TOss u have no other choise than just play on defense until reach 200/200.
Looks like the game producers just stop making game tests and let this to the players. We do agree that Blizz take the rigth way when they listen to te players, but they need to assume control of the situation and stop doing a "every week test". Common, do u guys have an internal team of producers that acctually play the game? In another words, wold be so much better if they do a ton of internal tests before closing the eyes and just post your thougts.
Please keep in mind that u cannot mess the scent of the game, beacuse TOss is the technollogical race, so needs a demonstration of this. Im the currently state, Terran are so far away in tech than Toss, looking that they just prepared for war, as long toss looks like a race who dont have war strategy.
Make the units of Toss looks like warriors, not such babyes that it is. The zelot, that is the icon of Toss, just look like a suicide unit that aways say: "We cannot hold"??!! *on BW he says: "My life for aiur"
Resuming, TOss dont need any nerf, they need a war logic, like terrans and zerg, who have a struture like MMM, ling/bane/muta. Toss have Zealot/stalker/(....)?
So, whit this, no matter if u add HP or AP, the unnity design (functions) that has to make sense in terns of mobilit/power.
So, please Blizz, u have the power to make the game a legend, to raise then at the top of E-sports, please, dont waste the chance. Put ur guys to work and to think.
PS. Sorry about my bad english.
|
On July 23 2015 19:54 Meavis wrote:
your bias is showing, you expect terran to deal with an army on top of their production any better than protoss? instead of having their production cycle out of place, it's simply dead because they can't produce anywhere on the map.
time as in travel distance, having you production wherever you want at any point completely negates reinforcement time and counter play, limiting mobility options.
what I'm saying that you can fit this cog into the machine, but it breaks the machine, theres tons and tons of band-aid fixes everywhere, along with plenty of other things besides warpgate, that are the reason to how one-dimensional this game is.
The game is designed like that on purpose, where races have particular strengths. Hence timings are worked out based on these strengths and weaknesses. ie. PvT - Terran being strong in the midgame.
|
there's a difference in race specific design and design that break genre defying elements, causing tons of duct tape fixes.
|
On July 23 2015 22:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
If you nerf offensive Warp-In you auto-Nerf the Zealot RunBy damage. if you nerf Warpgate in general, you nerf protoss instant-Remax capabilities for the ultra lategame.
That's why they should separate Instant-build from Warp-In
Give Gateways and Warpgates the Instant build, but only Warpgates can Warp in anywhere under Pylon power (Gateways "warp in" on location)
Then nerf the Offensive Warp in by having a longer cooldown on Warpgates than Gateways
|
The burst damage of the post-charge zealot plays out exactly the same way as it does in HotS in terms of control from the Protoss player. Blizzard does not seem to understand:
It has the type of micro that a lot have been asking for: More positioning and movement-based, rather than ability-click based.
There is no "more positioning and movement-based [micro]." It is literally a buff to the zealot without changing the way a player controls it.
Remove concussive shells. Change Charge to just be Leg Enhancements. Increase zealot speed with Leg Enhancements more than it is passively with Charge.
|
I like the idea of Zealots as tank and adept as DPS and not the other way around. The tank should be in front soaking up damage... that is kind of the point of a tank.
If the weak units are in the front because they are melee they will just die quickly.
Also I agree that concussive shields needs to be removed if they want to implement some sort of BW style Zealot leg speed upgrade. Concussive is really what mandates charge.
|
I think Blizzard is failing to understand that force fields are just not fun.
I don't care if there's counter play or micro against them.
Do they really think the design of the Forcefield and Gateway army works so well that they point blank refuse to redesign the game?
|
On July 24 2015 00:29 DinoMight wrote:
I like the idea of Zealots as tank and adept as DPS and not the other way around. The tank should be in front soaking up damage... that is kind of the point of a tank.
If the weak units are in the front because they are melee they will just die quickly.
Also I agree that concussive shields needs to be removed if they want to implement some sort of BW style Zealot leg speed upgrade. Concussive is really what mandates charge.
It's more about balancing the tankiness out so that it won't be no zealot = paperweight dps wiped in seconds.
|
Been watching starcraft 2 continually,ever since the WOL beta, so think I have some good insight to comment here.
Please try to avoid bad language and attacking the dev team, that wont help. Secondly the team has been working on completing the single player campaign for a long time, so big drastic changes to to whole race of Protoss invalidating that work wont be happening. Saying that I agree that Protoss have problems but believe they can be fixed.
The biggest problem as I see it is how PvT and PvZ does not involve interesting skirmishes and long pushes, all over the map but rather deathballs and all-ins, why is that?
* gateway units on its own does not trade well with stimmed bio or roach/hydra, unless lots of forcefields are available
* the warp gate mechanic is according to me very interesting, but offensive warpgates negate the defenders advantage and causes all-ins to be very powerful, since the army can be reinforced quickly
* if the protoss army has committed to moving out on the field it is vulnerable to surrounds and must clump up and use force fields and/or AOE to fight effectively, meanwhile the AOE elements are not that mobile and can not retreat quickly, and if lost the remaining gateway army is often doomed
* Protoss have a hard time defending multiple locations at once, in LOTV I can see mutas becoming a big problem once again, not sure why terran was given two more AA units, and protoss none. In HOTS I quite enjoy the dymanic in TvZ with muta harass, thors and missile towers+ marines, widow mines for AA and sniping of workers, magic boxing and sniping of lone thors and siege tanks. Protoss have phoenix and stalkers, which are fine, but against large numbers of muta and tech switches they still suffer. Now with the liverator the mutas will have an even harder time against terran while protoss got nothing to help them move out on the map
* force fields works well for all in pushes but less so for skirmishes
That said I find force fields and warp mechanic interesting and it should stay but with offensive warp ins tweaked. Only warping in around upgraded pylon sounds like a bad change to me, sniping etc and does not really solve the problem with defenders advantage. I for one, quite enjoy offensive pylon placement on the map, without the need for a gateway either. Same problem here, if Protoss gets away with an unscouted gateway the all-in will be just as hard to hold as now.
Us other has suggested: increase the cool down on warp ins quite a bit! And decrease it in a normal gateways. That way you can not endlessy warp in blink stalkers for example unless you have constructed several warpgates, ie late game. That would add some needed macro to Protoss too, having to balance/change between the modes, for quick production and warp ability. That is all that is needed!!! Early game warp ins offensive warp ins become weaker while late game pushes are still strong. Lower build time on gateways means that Protoss can remax quicker at home, something that can be a problem for them if their army is lost.
I would also like to discuss the Mothership Core. As I see it, it is a band aid. The Core was supposed to help defend against early pushes and help the protoss army become mobile. Photon overcharge is great, but why not give it to the nexus? Using that energy instead? Then pushes against them slow down the teching of Protoss. The adept helps protect against early pushes too.
The problem with the recall ability is that it can only be at one place at once thereby promoting deathball play.
What if nexus gained the ability to use energy for:
* photon overcharge (could stay on the core, not crucial this change)
* RECALL to that nexus, but with much smaller area! Maybe takes a while and units still vulnerable while warping out and in, Gives protoss good mobility, availability to recall chosen units, but not just warping away the whole army freely while Surrounded.
The stalker is in a perfect position according to me, the adept is too strong with early game offensive warp ins, and the zealot could use some additional change, but late game zealot sniping of hatcheries should not become too strong, maybe just give them a first strike extra damage as suggested but only against bio units?? Since that is where Protess has difficulties, stimmed bio and zerg ground armies without force fields splash. Protoss are strong against mech already.
Also, please revert the Immortal, the hardened shield was my favorite part of SC2, why not just increase the cap to 20 or something, and give it some more health instead. alternatively make the barrier always autocast when take damage, that opens up for counterplay where you could attack forward, damage the immortal, then retreat for a while before returning when barries is down.
Protoss could use some AA with long range than own air units, phoenix they are very vulerable to Parasitic bomb, and need to clump up to fight mutaball, not sure what to do here, but I think the Tempest could fill this rule as originally intended, maybe make disintegration AOE but with less area, stopping regeneration for mutas could be included!
TLDR:
Increasing warp in cooldown quite a bit, removes almost all problems with all-ins with endlessy warping in of units.
Lower build times of units from normal gateways, to enable Protoss quicker production but without offensive advantage.
Remove Mothershipcore! Give photon overcharge and recall to each and every nexus. Recall with much smaller radius and vulnerable units while teleporting! The removal of the Core prevents early gateway pushes to be too strong eith the change above. Energy on the nexus must be balanced between chronoboost and other uses. The recall can be used to give protoss mobility which they are lacking. The current recall just promotes deathballing since the Core can only be at one place, the adept negates the need for the core as defending unit too. Timewarp can be give to another unit! Oracle?
Give zealots extra damage on first strike after charge, but only versus biological units, and not structures. Gives them strength were needed and not too strong at sniping hatcheries or against terran mech.
Give the immortal either:
* hardened shield with higher cap (20?) and more HP (not shield) to compensate
* automatic cast (cant be cancelled) of the barrier when taking damage (promotes micro from both sides)
Make widow mine cause normal damage to Immortals, not some kind of spell damage. With the barrier above the immortal could be good against lurkers, something that is needed, and not useless against widow mines.
Make the disintegration AOE but with much less damage, not enough to kill mutas, and cause it to stop regeneration and repairs for the time. Make the main attack of the tempest stronger versus massive! That way tempest get a roll as sniper of capital ships, but too expensive too fight effectively against vikings, corruptors etc. The disintegration change helps protoss against mutaball, mainly by removing regeneration, and preventing them from harassing for a while.
|
Very cool ideas! I like the stated direction and developer thoughts about Protoss. I especially like the idea of zealots being more about damage and less about tanking for the Protoss player.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Problem with Nexus calling on itself overcharge and recall means that Protoss will have to choose between chrono(which is heavily needed in the early game) and saving energy for defensive abilities. I kinda see this as wrong. You would need to rebalance economy of the whole Protoss - meaning probes need to be more efficient(since less chrono), all tech needs to have the build-research time lowered etc. Which will lead to reckless Protoss players not saving energy and heavily chronoing tech again...
Edit: Also with more efficient probes every probe kill hurts more thus you will need to change everything what harasses probes in early game... I do not see this happening. Unless it is an ability with cool-down, which is dumb IMO
|
This was rather dissappointing. Forget about FF and Waprins, the protoss race really need some big changes to be on par with other races.
|
WarpGates
about warpgates.... i dont know, they need to be changed but the 2 option they mentioned are not what i was wating for. Gateways and WG should be used for differentes scenarios during the game not like the mechanic we have now that after the upgrade Gateways dissapear from the game. it would be cool see this kind of decision making in the game of when to use each of them.
the problem with the upgraded pylon imo is in the defensive scenarios when a drop or something destroy that pylon the protoss would be in huge problem maybe receiving game ending damage because the inability do defend that precious pylon, on the other option, having WG around the maps seems weird idk about that.
FF
every time this topic comes to discussion the same defense is mention, the pick up and drop behind the FF or burrow but but the ultimate fact imo is that this ability is just way to absolute. how many times we have seen a FF in the ramp deciding a game, or a player taking a defensive position just to be forcefield into oblivion. maybe this will change in LotV with the interaction with the new units and some buff/nerfs. a posible change to this ability would improve the game.
Zealots
i wish we could see a change in Charge, speedlots like in BW would make them more micro intensive but obviously nerfing marauder in order to make them viable mid/late game.
overall i like this blog from DK
|
On July 24 2015 01:56 deacon.frost wrote:
Problem with Nexus calling on itself overcharge and recall means that Protoss will have to choose between chrono(which is heavily needed in the early game) and saving energy for defensive abilities. I kinda see this as wrong. You would need to rebalance economy of the whole Protoss - meaning probes need to be more efficient(since less chrono), all tech needs to have the build-research time lowered etc. Which will lead to reckless Protoss players not saving energy and heavily chronoing tech again...
Edit: Also with more efficient probes every probe kill hurts more thus you will need to change everything what harasses probes in early game... I do not see this happening. Unless it is an ability with cool-down, which is dumb IMO
Agreed, but even now the mothership core is not always built, and with the adept, maybe and improved zealot and quicker build times for units from the gateway without warpresearch (no need to chronoboost units out) the photon overcharge might not be needed as much, and protoss would have (and be able) to build more gateway units early game, which I think would be good for the game. If not building enough units they can still defend with overcharge but this would cost in economy and teching, cause using energy that otherwise could be used for Chronoboost.
Therefore I think, with these changes and with balanced adept + other gatewayunits, the morthership core would be unnecessary.
|
posted this in a previous warp gate thread:
one warpin per pylon per a set cool down rate. if you want to be aggressive you have to add more pylons in the same spot. at home you can strategically line up pylons at key warpin points near mineral lines or tech without extra investment, as it would just be a new form of simcity. maybe limit warp prisms but give them a higher limit like 3 or 6, which would soften insane 3/3 zealot main base destruction but keep it as a potent form of harass, and even make double warp prism and WP speed more of a thing
it's not my intent to just nerf toss, they clearly need help in other areas, but if the goal is to soften aggressive warp gate styles like people want i think my idea is decent for a starter
|
Generally pretty disappointing post, it feels like they invited the wrong Pro's and community members to the summit if DK didnt understand the point of all the issues regarding Protoss.
Unit buffs was in combination with a FF nerf(like add HP to them) or changing the Sentry in order to combat the weakness of gateway composition which clearly does exist. <-- As shown with Protoss and expansion taking in LOTV.Unable to split up the army.
Instead he focusses on single issues without seeing the whole race.
Gateway units alone are weak as hell, as you can see when you get caught without Colossi, Forcefields or HT's, your army will just melt .....instead he cherry picked PvZ all ins with mass stalkers, which only even happens AFTER the initial engagement where Protoss killed most of Zergs army due to Forcefields already and then says Stalkers alone are good..
Someone ask him to play mass stalker in PvT outside of Blink all ins, see how strang mass stalker is.
Or PvP vs Chargelot , Archon, Colossi.
|
What's really horrible about David Kim post is that it just shows how completely clueless their design team is. Some of the things said are absurd. Gateway units can't handle a buff? Stalker is a good unit? Any clue why photon overcharge is needed? Or why a hero unit like mothership is needed? How clueless can someone be? Nerf colossus, nerf immortal, nerf warp ins, nerf protoss economy, buff other races (ravager, lurker, parasitic bomb ...) and hey the adept unit, warp prism pick up and stasis mines will fix things. These guys are hopeless, just completely hopeless and they have been ALWAYS clueless about protoss and I see that hasn't changed at all. I'm gonna start practicing zerg now.
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
We can't really accuse them of being clueless until we see the changes they will make in the next patch. Grab pitchforks at the right time I always say.
|
I loved basically everything they said except that zealots deal game ending damage more often than zerglings. That is absolutely obviously wrong.
|
On July 24 2015 00:08 purakushi wrote:The burst damage of the post-charge zealot plays out exactly the same way as it does in HotS in terms of control from the Protoss player. Blizzard does not seem to understand: Show nested quote +It has the type of micro that a lot have been asking for: More positioning and movement-based, rather than ability-click based. There is no "more positioning and movement-based [micro]." It is literally a buff to the zealot without changing the way a player controls it. Remove concussive shells. Change Charge to just be Leg Enhancements. Increase zealot speed with Leg Enhancements more than it is passively with Charge.
This THIS THIS David really seems to be missing the point of the Zealot. Since Adepts outshine Zealots on almost every aspect (ranged/super beefy/ability) the Zealot being a melee unit needs to be faster to close the distance, benefit from micro more to avoid mine hits, and for Concussive Shells to be removed, at this point the ability is just crap and is limiting the design of other things for an anti micro unit.
- Remove Concussive Shell/Charge (both are micro LIMITING abilities David they LIMIT MICRO)
- Add Leg Enhancements at Twilight with a small speed buff from the get go
- Buff Marauders to not suck because even with CS they suck currently
I'm kind of disappointed with this update, I like the upgraded pylon idea but this seems to be another well crafted, "We don't really agree with the community on this one, sorry guys but we like Warp Gate."
At least they are communicating on the issue though.
|
I think I just read that marauders suck
|
On July 24 2015 04:00 BisuDagger wrote:
We can't really accuse them of being clueless until we see the changes they will make in the next patch. Grab pitchforks at the right time I always say.
I'm polishing mine and making extra torches :D <3
|
On July 24 2015 04:18 Little-Chimp wrote:
I think I just read that marauders suck
They really do man, bio of course is still strong and viable but honestly, with Lurkers and super Ultras coupled with the attack nerf I don't know if one can really deny that Marauders aren't in the best place right now, and I'm Zerg.
|
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.
|
[B]On July 24 2015 19:22 Hider wrote:
Zealot
-Less DPS more tanky
- Faster (no charge, just faster movement speed).
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
- Slightly less tanky
- More DPS
(I also would like to see the shade ability being used a ton more. Like 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 getting nerfed as blink can be very snowbally which makes it harder to buff a stalker warpgate composition. Late game, however, Stalkers could get a second upgrade to either blink or its core stats.
Completely agree with this. Good stuff :D Might even try to give my proposals later, maybe some numbers too?
Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it. I'm ok with it either way. Anyway if FF becomes weak then people will move on to hate on the other strong abilites like blink or storm (have heard "storm op" since 1999).
|
Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it
If Sentry is fine, then why do so many people dislike it? Based on the feedback, it dosn't seem that people are just satified with giving this unit more counterplay (in some situations). Instead, it seems that the unit is just generally disliked.
Anyway if FF becomes weak then people will move on to hate on the other strong abilites like blink or storm (have heard "storm op" since 1999).
Still a concern, because I don't think abilities should be weak just because they have bad implications for the game if they are strong. I much prefer abilities that feel impactful, has counterplay while being forgiving in the sense that you are not overreliant on using them well.
Even if Forcefields gets more counterplay it will still feel unforgiving, and if gets "too" much counterplay, then it will probably rarely be used.
Thus, my philosophy is to make abilities that feel very rewarding when you use them properly, but at the same time do not have any unintended/negative consequences for the gameplay.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
If you remove charge you have to remove concussive shells and it has to be mentioned, even zealots with charge without the "free" hit on the charge are useless against CS ><
|
On July 24 2015 20:38 deacon.frost wrote:
If you remove charge you have to remove concussive shells and it has to be mentioned, even zealots with charge without the "free" hit on the charge are useless against CS ><
Yeh probably should have been mentioned becasue I do ineed want it gone.
|
Very very happy with this post. It shows that they're listening to the community. Like it alot.
|
On July 24 2015 20:17 Hider wrote:If Sentry is fine, then why do so many people dislike it? Based on the feedback, it dosn't seem that people are just satified with giving this unit more counterplay (in some situations). Instead, it seems that the unit is just generally disliked.
It only seems that way because the people who don't like FFs are more vocal than those who like it. Myself and many others think it is a beatiful ability with a tremendous skill cap and lots of counterplay.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 24 2015 22:13 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 20:17 Hider wrote:Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it If Sentry is fine, then why do so many people dislike it? Based on the feedback, it dosn't seem that people are just satified with giving this unit more counterplay (in some situations). Instead, it seems that the unit is just generally disliked. It only seems that way because the people who don't like FFs are more vocal than those who like it. Myself and many others think it is a beatiful ability with a tremendous skill cap and lots of counterplay.
Force field is wonderful skill in hands of Parting. It is a pure mastery of which no other Protoss is able(not even Jest as I saw yesterday ><). But then again - because of balancing around FF you HAVE to have a ramp wide exactly on 1 force field, otherwise problems for PvX. Which is kinda dumb.
|
On July 24 2015 22:19 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 22:13 Charoisaur wrote:On July 24 2015 20:17 Hider wrote:Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it If Sentry is fine, then why do so many people dislike it? Based on the feedback, it dosn't seem that people are just satified with giving this unit more counterplay (in some situations). Instead, it seems that the unit is just generally disliked. It only seems that way because the people who don't like FFs are more vocal than those who like it. Myself and many others think it is a beatiful ability with a tremendous skill cap and lots of counterplay. Force field is wonderful skill in hands of Parting. It is a pure mastery of which no other Protoss is able(not even Jest as I saw yesterday ><). But then again - because of balancing around FF you HAVE to have a ramp wide exactly on 1 force field, otherwise problems for PvX. Which is kinda dumb.
That's not only because of protoss. Terran also needs to be able to wall of with a barrack and two depots or they'd lose every game vs zerg.
|
On July 24 2015 22:13 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 20:17 Hider wrote:Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it If Sentry is fine, then why do so many people dislike it? Based on the feedback, it dosn't seem that people are just satified with giving this unit more counterplay (in some situations). Instead, it seems that the unit is just generally disliked. It only seems that way because the people who don't like FFs are more vocal than those who like it. Myself and many others think it is a beatiful ability with a tremendous skill cap and lots of counterplay.
You could apply that logic to everything. E.g. people actually like Swarm Hosts, those who liked it just weren't so vocal. I think its pretty safe to say that Forcefield is one of the least enjoyed abilities in Starcraft.
Terran also needs to be able to wall of with a barrack and two depots or they'd lose every game vs zerg.
That's pretty easy to do though. Forcefields are much more unforgiving.
Further, an issue with Forcefields is how the game becomes balanced around protoss fighting in narrow passages. They can never take a straight up engagement in an open field (in the midgame) as Forcefield loses its value.
This helps support a dynamic where they will turtle till late game or go for a big all in.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 24 2015 22:24 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 22:19 deacon.frost wrote:On July 24 2015 22:13 Charoisaur wrote:On July 24 2015 20:17 Hider wrote:Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it If Sentry is fine, then why do so many people dislike it? Based on the feedback, it dosn't seem that people are just satified with giving this unit more counterplay (in some situations). Instead, it seems that the unit is just generally disliked. It only seems that way because the people who don't like FFs are more vocal than those who like it. Myself and many others think it is a beatiful ability with a tremendous skill cap and lots of counterplay. Force field is wonderful skill in hands of Parting. It is a pure mastery of which no other Protoss is able(not even Jest as I saw yesterday ><). But then again - because of balancing around FF you HAVE to have a ramp wide exactly on 1 force field, otherwise problems for PvX. Which is kinda dumb. That's not only because of protoss. Terran also needs to be able to wall of with a barrack and two depots or they'd lose every game vs zerg.
It is not that big since some Terrans block it with CC and some ebay shenanigans when SHTF  Also note that you cannot drop 2 supply depots and barracks in the enemy base and block him off
(edit> I play Protoss BTW, FF is a really nice skill but right now the whole game is balanced around it and that's what I do not like)
|
the narrow passage & forcefield argument is a bit over simplified, it's not even just forcefields but the entire protoss race with early forcefield, and mid colo or templar and in late both colo and templar.
and that all just because gateway units aren't a fighting force on their own thanks to warpgate.
it keeps striking me as funny that their desire to have the races be distinguishable leads to the most monotome and indistinguishable styles of play.
coming back to choke points outside of protoss match-ups, pathing is a bit to smart to have defensive styles work without chokepoints, which is a bit sad, but is still somewhat easily adjustable with maps without fucking over balance one way or another, as this tends to be not as hit or miss as protoss, partly because Z and T don't have splash that is both as long range (banelings/mines), or completely immobile (siegetanks, and soon lurkers in LotV)
|
Disruptor needs a big redesign in my opinion. First of all I hate the idea of invulnerability. Instead of making them invulnerable, maybe give them a temporary large bonus to shields and shield armor when activated, like +200 shields +3 shield armor? This bonus could remain in effect for a second or two after they detonate, giving them a better chance to escape. I guess the problem here is that unless you make a protoss unit literally invulnerable, it is easily countered by cancer mines.
I also hate that they can't be disabled by force fields, fungal, graviton beam, etc. This takes away a cool possibility for counterplay. I'd like to see it possible to disable them, and in compensation I'd like it if there's a "detonate" button for them similar to banelings.
|
On July 24 2015 20:38 deacon.frost wrote:
If you remove charge you have to remove concussive shells and it has to be mentioned, even zealots with charge without the "free" hit on the charge are useless against CS ><
You can't remove concussive shells or Stalkers could kite all day versus Marauders early in the game.
In general, I think these changes are idiotic. There are far more elegant solutions to Warp Gate than the ones Blizzard is proposing.
Warpgate provides Protoss with harassment solutions akin to Hellions and Speedlings. Where is the fast moving mineral only high DPS Protoss unit?
Protoss is going to be completely gutted by these changes and the game in general will become more turtley, as Warpgate provides Protoss a powerful defensive mechanic too.
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.
I wish Blizzard understood how logic works. Stalkers form the core of Protoss armies in HOTS because Blink is really strong, and because they are a jack of all trades unit. That doesn't suggest they are balanced, it might suggest they are completely overpowered (I don't believe this to be the case) since their role is increasing, or it could suggest a lack of useful alternatives (which is what I believe to be the case).
Stalkers are great because you can build a ton of them quickly anywhere on the map. Immortals and Colossus are great, but only if you have time to build a force of them up, and time to get them where you need them.
Warpgate gives you the immediacy of having units where you need them, even if those units are necessarily that strong. And that often is better than having better units, where you don't need them. So Stalkers indeed form the core of armies, especially in back and forth games of attrition, because of a lack of useful alternatives for the Protoss race in those conditions.
|
defensively, having a warpgate near is pretty easy.. most bases have 1+ warpgates near the nexus...
as i see it, for mid-late game, this mostly affects protoss ability to quickly counter-attack across the map... as now pylons alone won't cut it, you either have to wait for a warpgate to finish or bring a warp prism...
for early game, warp gate attack will incur a risk of some % of your production ... or if your opponent is not clearing pylons you can get an upgraded pylon in position...
these details are liable to change i'm sure, but it's looking good so far
|
On July 25 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote:
defensively, having a warpgate near is pretty easy.. most bases have 1+ warpgates near the nexus...
as i see it, for mid-late game, this mostly affects protoss ability to quickly counter-attack across the map... as now pylons alone won't cut it, you either have to wait for a warpgate to finish or bring a warp prism...
for early game, warp gate attack will incur a risk of some % of your production ... or if your opponent is not clearing pylons you can get an upgraded pylon in position...
these details are liable to change i'm sure, but it's looking good so far
How about harassment? Warpgate provides Protoss with harassment solutions akin to Hellions and Speedlings. Where is the fast moving mineral only high DPS Protoss unit?
|
don't focus on one aspect... there are many changes in Legacy.
|
Gateway forces lack power in only one real department (damage).
They can't fight for the mid-game because a small group (anywhere) is much less threatening than the opposing compositions' possible groupings (roach / hydra or lings or mutas or mmm).
If gateway compositions can't present an equal threat to base-trade and / or destroy economy and / or kill the opponent's units then they'll never be able to fight on an even keel.
-----------------
The Adept is the only place that protoss can realistically get a buff in consistent damage output.
Sentries and stalkers have too much power and utility already and zealots are simply too easily kited / killed / avoided (pick-up).
The advantages of converting the adept into a generalist DPS unit (instead of a tanky unit which totally wrecks the face of light units) are many:
- if it can shoot up and down ... then protoss has a more realistic answer than just phoenix to defending against mutas
- PO is less necessary since the most mobile unit (stalkers) are no longer also the tankiest AND most damaging unit
- recall is less necessary since damage can actually be fielded (along with tanks and support) directly at the site of a needed defense
- protoss doesn't have to death-ball (small packets of units can actually compete with opposing packets of units)
- the dependency of the race upon a few tech-units in the mid-to-late game is much lesser than previously (and thus the balance of the entire race is much easier to achieve)
and so on.
-----------------
So, yeah, Blizzard can make their changes to warp-gate and not buff stalkers. But trying to add unreliable damage to gateways and calling it a solid foundation simply won't work.
After over 4 months of beta (between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total duration based upon the release) not a single change has been made that stabilized gateway compositions.
-----------------
Even after all of the changes they've made to the entire game, Protoss just isn't fun to play in LotV. Not only do they need to make some of the planned changes to make it more fun to play against ... they need to give Protoss players something to be excited about. I doubt that the same changes that stabilize the race will immediately have this effect so ... blizzard has so little time left in the Beta to both address the core issues AND THEN invigorate life into the race.
Right now I just feel ... very, very tired. Tired like a man weary of war and its consequences who just wants to return to the simpler things of life. Tired like an activist whose put in tireless efforts to try to effect change ... only to see nothing significant happen.
I'm so tired of SC2 Protoss -- as someone who only wants to enjoy this race. If something doesn't change to actually encourage and uplift Protoss players to play the game, it seems a bleak future is ahead.
|
The Adept is the only place that protoss can realistically get a buff in consistent damage output.
Sentries and stalkers have too much power and utility already and zealots are simply too easily kited / killed / avoided (pick-up).
The advantages of converting the adept into a generalist DPS unit (instead of a tanky unit which totally wrecks the face of light units) are many:
- if it can shoot up and down ... then protoss has a more realistic answer than just phoenix to defending against mutas
- PO is less necessary since the most mobile unit (stalkers) are no longer also the tankiest AND most damaging unit
- recall is less necessary since damage can actually be fielded (along with tanks and support) directly at the site of a needed defense
- protoss doesn't have to death-ball (small packets of units can actually compete with opposing packets of units)
- the dependency of the race upon a few tech-units in the mid-to-late game is much lesser than previously (and thus the balance of the entire race is much easier to achieve)
and so on.
I concure with most of everything you wrote Edowyth, though I do question 1 thing. Pretending Blizzard actually make the Adept a consistant damage output unit, this doesn't automatically mean the Adept also need to serve as an anti-air unit.
The Stalker could work wonders as harass/anti-air unit with their speed and mobility to keep up with air units. The only thing that would need to occur would be to buff their anti-air without making the ground damage better. Heck, if Zealot/Adept/Sentry could cover the ground, the Stalker's ground attack could be nerf with like no bonus damage to armor.
Though, this is just 1 thing in regards to a much larger rework.
|
Allowing only certain units to be produced from warpgates is the coolest idea and would allow for so much diversity and strategy. It would also allow for balancing of certain units in ways that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
Something along the lines of having only zealots/stalkers/dark templar being able to be warped in. Warping in units would have an increased cooldown compared to producing from gateways. Gateways would be more ideal for army production with the decreased production cycle time and greater variety of units. Warpgates would be used for harass.
This would also add a greater differentiation between zealots and adepts as you can warp in zealots for harass, but would want to go for adepts when creating your core army. It would allow for stronger units to come out of gateways since they couldn't be warped in (possibly even immortals?). Warpgate units could be balanced separately from gateway units. Maybe even have stalkers that are made from gateways have blink, while warped in stalkers don't.
These are just random ideas but I feel like doing this would open up a lot of options to solve the issues currently at hand at add more versatility and strategy.
|
Russian Federation4 Posts
would lower the value of the building itself Nidus worm raised to Zerg buildings can connect locations Nidus
|
when are we going to get cyclone patch... its too good vs fast expanders and too shitty against air... its the last thing mech needs in TvP
|
On July 25 2015 01:31 mishimaBeef wrote:
don't focus on one aspect... there are many changes in Legacy.
So simply ignore that one aspect and divert my attention to some other change... but don't focus much on that aspect either, just try to see the big picture?
Well, I'm trying to see the forest through the trees... but every time I look at a tree, it is just a stump. Is a bunch of stumps a forest? When are we going to grow some new trees?
Or maybe some balls to stand up to Blizzard.
This Warpgate change is a horrendous idea. Can it work? Sure, the same way that the Warpgate nerf way back in patch 1.3.3 worked...it didn't kill the 4 Gate, but it did kill the 3 Gate Sentry Expand versus Zerg and opened the door for the 1-1-1 to work because Protoss couldn't punish teching Terrans early anymore. Eventually Blizzard balanced everything else out with a massive amount of changes, but they ignored good community ideas for months, only to end up implementing those same ideas months later which eventually led to the death of the 4 Gate in PvP in WOL (I watched every single PvP in the TSL4 Korean qualifiers, not a single 4 Gate succeeded).
Honestly, if Blizzard wants to change how Warpgate functions, that is fine, it could make the game better. But you can't make these massive changes without rebalancing Protoss in general. And they've been totally incapable of balancing Protoss so far in the Beta.
|
On July 25 2015 03:34 Edowyth wrote:
Gateway forces lack power in only one real department (damage).
They can't fight for the mid-game because a small group (anywhere) is much less threatening than the opposing compositions' possible groupings (roach / hydra or lings or mutas or mmm).
If gateway compositions can't present an equal threat to base-trade and / or destroy economy and / or kill the opponent's units then they'll never be able to fight on an even keel.
-----------------
The Adept is the only place that protoss can realistically get a buff in consistent damage output.
High templar, archons, and dark templar aren't supposed to be damage dealers? Hello? Can we fix the broken options first before we worry about new units?
|
Warpgate warpin time a function of distance from the nearest Nexus.
Tackling the crux of Protoss production/unit balance. This is what I think is a fair compromise that keeps Protoss identity intact.
Sentry FFs now 250hp/1 armor. Sentry 75 gas.
Another fair compromise, FFs would help Protoss against Liberator and Lurker.
MsC loses PO, gains anti-building spell PO.
Gateway needs to be good enough without PO. Can now help enable more action on the map.
Adept has new upgrade to attack air. Convert some +light to base damage.
It was always meant to be a generalist to relieve some of the burden of the Stalker, Mutas already destroy Protoss so why are we so resistant to having Adepts help with that?
Zealot gets Adept's shield upgrade. Zealot Linear Burst.
Zealot becoming the tank to distinguish itself from the Adept.
Linear Burst: Can dash in the direction you're facing, ignoring debuffs. Good for both offense and retreat. Let it smart cast so clumps don't all go to one point. Same CD.
Colossus
Regain the range, keep the DPS nerf.
HT more maneuverable.
EMP has little counterplay to it, since it's this unavoidable instant-damage spell. EMP should be reworked to be energy hadouken like Hiden's Sentry spell but on Ghost.
Stalker +2 attack per upgrade.
Their dps density needs to compete as the game goes on.
DT Blink
WoL Protoss campaign already figured this out.
Can Chrono Nexuses. Chronoboost duration increased.
Chronoboost is the weakest macrobooster by magnitude. All its X factor stuff is balanced by tech timings, which was nerfed relative to economy by advancing the worker start. The gimmicky instability we see is because the macro scaling is too different between the races, so of course the Protoss is forced to behave one way or the other.
DK, your Zealot and Zergling comparison is incomplete. You must look at every phase of the game.
Wall Phase: Zealots cannot contest control.
Cybercore Phase: Zerglings can respond to pressure and deflect control.
Runby Phase: Instant death for Protoss if wall is compromised.
Warp Phase: Zealots can snipe stuff like you say. Zerglings can drop.
Runby+ Phase: Bigger runbys for more instant deaths.
Big ball phase: Zealots are Krillin. Zergling great sweepers during the remax.
|
On July 25 2015 13:47 crown77 wrote:
when are we going to get cyclone patch... its too good vs fast expanders and too shitty against air... its the last thing mech needs in TvP
Why does the cyclone need to dominate air? You have the Thor, liberator, vikings, and uhh marines.
|
If those warp-gate changes go through then rip Protoss. This new economic model is already is already a kick in the nuts to Protoss who can't effectively hold a large amount of bases, or in PvZ, can barely take a 3rd a majority of the time. You add in the potential Zergling buffs David Kim wants and PvZ is just going to be worse than it already is.
You change warp-in mechanics and buff lings Z can just happily 3 hatch before pool into mass speedling in PvZ because P can't punish the greed effectively and from there Z is just going to throw lings at the P who can't keep up with the production.
|
Balance is something that can be played around with. What I'm mainly worried about as a Protoss player is that Blizzard is making the race less appealing. I'm not skilled or knowledgeable enough to say whether or not warp gates need a nerf, but the way Blizzard seems to approach it is by adding a chore or two in order to use something you used to be able to use (eg. upgrade pylon to have warp in power, etc). This just feels like it takes away from the race's identity more than it fixes balance.
I've mentioned before when LotV was announced that I feel Zerg and Terran look more appealing to play than Protoss in our own expansion and I'm disappointed to see that hasn't changed. As a returning player who hasn't played much since early HotS, it's demoralizing that so little is being added to Protoss so far and so much is being taken away in comparison to Zerg and Terran. I agree that radical change is needed for the game, and I like the general direction the game is heading. I just don't like what it is doing to Protoss.
I understand most of the changes are for the sake of balance, but as much as I want to play a balanced game and to play a balanced Protoss race, I want to play a FUN game with my favorite race. I don't care too much about most of the numbers as those can be changed with hotfixes; I care about having more enjoyable FEATURES to make the race and, therefore the game, interesting.
Sorry if I'm ranting, but I wanted to state this point amidst all the complaints about Protoss being "too weak" or "too strong"
|
On July 27 2015 00:53 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 13:47 crown77 wrote:
when are we going to get cyclone patch... its too good vs fast expanders and too shitty against air... its the last thing mech needs in TvP
Why does the cyclone need to dominate air? You have the Thor, liberator, vikings, and uhh marines.
Maybe he means early game - it would surely help with those Adept rushes that get followed by Oracles once all your marines are dead. Mech players keep asking for Cyclone anti-air from the off so that they don't need to go Eng Bay, Turret(s) just to deal with Oracles.
|
United States4883 Posts
I just want to chime in and give my opinion on warp gate changes. I'm excited that Blizzard is actually looking at new ways of balancing warp gates, and I like some of the ideas here like giving nexus or gateways warpin power or upgraded pylons while still allowing WP to function as the primary harassment tool for Protoss. However, I think this still sidesteps a lot of the problems that warp gate has created without actually really solving them. It pretty much annihilates the ability for Protoss to do any aggressive all-ins or pushes out on the map until they have a warp prism anyway because they can't just hop from pylon to pylon. At the same time, though, it doesn't really open any new options for Protoss to use, and that can be really problematic. For a race that's already really limited in early game mobility and expenses as well as the tech delay in the LotV economy, I think it would be a terrible idea to implement these ideas into the game without giving Protoss some sort of compensation for it.
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag".
|
buffing zerglings harrasment what? zerglings are better than zealots for harrasment.
Zealots should deal like a 0.5s stun after the initial charge. Yeah like spiritbreaker
|
On July 24 2015 19:52 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 19:22 Hider wrote:
Zealot
-Less DPS more tanky
- Faster (no charge, just faster movement speed).
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
- Slightly less tanky
- More DPS
(I also would like to see the shade ability being used a ton more. Like 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 getting nerfed as blink can be very snowbally which makes it harder to buff a stalker warpgate composition. Late game, however, Stalkers could get a second upgrade to either blink or its core stats.
Completely agree with this. Good stuff :D Might even try to give my proposals later, maybe some numbers too? Sentry is fine IMO. Blizz won't remove FF ever, maybe nerf it. I'm ok with it either way. Anyway if FF becomes weak then people will move on to hate on the other strong abilites like blink or storm (have heard "storm op" since 1999).
Ok here's my terrible atempt at helping gateway units , of course numbers might be totally broken and could be tweaked after testing. With the offensive warp-in nerf, these might be ok:
[b]Zealot
+20hp +10shields (zealot really needs to be the tank imo) so it would be 120hp 60sh. Profits more from armor upgrade.
The new speed upgrade makes them slightly slower than stimmed bio and immune to concussive shells, charge removed.
-1 damage (x2) serious damage nerf tho :/
Adept
The new upgrade adds 30 shields, not 50.
-1 range
+2 damage against everything, -2 bonus against light. From 13+10 to 15+8. Makes it a bit more generalist, while still a good bonus vs light.
New upgrade gives +1 range.
Stalker
-20hp +10 shields. Small nerf to the hp because it's a bit too tanky for a fast generalist unit with blink. Rewards good blink micro but gets less profit from the armor upgrade.
+1 damage against all, -1 bonus against armored.
Blink upgrade takes 30 more seconds to research.
New upgrade gives +1 range.
New upgrades: "Body enhancement" and "Ranged attack enhancement" (or some epic protoss name you come up with)
Body enhancement: Basically a combination of Zealot speed upgrade and Adept +30 shield upgrade. Sounds a bit wonky but the idea is that it buffs the "tank "(zealot) and makes the adept more tanky too. 250/250 cost at cyber core. Long time research. It is the two combined because there would be too many upgrades for gateway units otherwise, really.
Ranged attack enhancement: This gives +1 range to both adepts and stalkers. Adepts would need the proposed -1 native range, but stalkers would actually become long range with this. 200/200 cost, at twilight council. Not too long time research. Considering it's on the same building as blink, it should not be that much of an issue (I hope). It's probably a "must get" upgrade just like stim or the old dragoon range upgrade.
Edit: changed a couple numbers. Adepts really need to 2shot workers imo.
|
On July 27 2015 10:24 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 00:53 Little-Chimp wrote:On July 25 2015 13:47 crown77 wrote:
when are we going to get cyclone patch... its too good vs fast expanders and too shitty against air... its the last thing mech needs in TvP
Why does the cyclone need to dominate air? You have the Thor, liberator, vikings, and uhh marines. Maybe he means early game - it would surely help with those Adept rushes that get followed by Oracles once all your marines are dead. Mech players keep asking for Cyclone anti-air from the off so that they don't need to go Eng Bay, Turret(s) just to deal with Oracles.
I dont know what race u play Little-Chimp but I play T and I played T literally since BW. I have been trying to make mech work since wings.... finally lotv provides terrans with the tools to do so... unfortunately mech does not have the anti air to hold off a simple oracle.... or the strength to pressure a fast expanding protoss.... if instead of investing money into ebay turrets marines and vikings... to simply not lose 12 workers to an oracle would give mech the ability to start playing around with some of the BW builds we loved... factory expand... 2 factory aggression.... I would be so stoked if I could do a 4 - 6 factory timing attack like we could in the good old BW day... mech is finally mobile and has the ability to move out on the map before all bases are mined out.... the only thing we need is to not die to ridiculous early game flying units.... David Kim said in his community feedback July 10 post that they will let the cyclone shoot up without an upgrade as soon as it comes out of the factory (upgrades to make it better) but the point is Terran's now have reliable anti air on tier 2 and that will completely change mech for the better making it more mobile and less rock paper scissory across the board in all three matchups but particularly TvP mech. David Kim please update the next balance patch!
|
On July 23 2015 11:38 JackONeill wrote:
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.
You realize that DK is saying zealots are GOOD at harass already...and that Blizzard decided to buff the ZERGLING in the lategame with a true adrenal so that they could be good at harass too? He is NOT saying they want to buff zealots more...
For heaven's sake, Zerg has needed a true adrenal for a long time. Now, finally, we can use zergling based armies in the lategame and stay baneling free.
On another note? Has anyone noticed that the hotkey priorities in LOTV are super twitchy? As in, you can press a hotkey once while spamming in the early game and accidently jump to a scouting overlord when you just meant to tap it. Or a hatchery...etc.
I have reported this on BNET but few people have responded. Few people seem to notice it, it seems, unless they spam camera hotkeys along with their normal control groups. I really wish the hotkey "jump" priority would be reverted to HOTS.
|
any idea when the next up date will be? im finding it hard to ladder when i know all the matchups will change so drastically for mech with the next changes (hopefully)
|
On July 27 2015 11:06 SC2John wrote:
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag".
I really like this idea.
Making choices to stay close to home while massing units and then slow production by changing the mode of your gates and reenforcing across the map could create many cool and different subtle styles of play (or so I imagine).
These kind of changes are the perfect changes imo. It would be very simple to implement and test this, and it leaves lots of room for creativity. Simple change - leads to - diversity in strategies.
|
On July 28 2015 12:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 11:06 SC2John wrote:
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag". I really like this idea. Making choices to stay close to home while massing units and then slow production by changing the mode of your gates and reenforcing across the map could create many cool and different subtle styles of play (or so I imagine). These kind of changes are the perfect changes imo. It would be very simple to implement and test this, and it leaves lots of room for creativity. Simple change - leads to - diversity in strategies.
I like that idea a lot as well, but I can't say the same about David Kim. When there occurs a problem, he always gives hot fixes other than a thorough cure. In this case, his idea is to delay the timing of the first wave of warp-in units rather than a longer cooldown of the warpgate. Does he think that doing so would make the protoss salt lose its flavor?
|
On July 28 2015 13:30 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 12:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 27 2015 11:06 SC2John wrote:
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag". I really like this idea. Making choices to stay close to home while massing units and then slow production by changing the mode of your gates and reenforcing across the map could create many cool and different subtle styles of play (or so I imagine). These kind of changes are the perfect changes imo. It would be very simple to implement and test this, and it leaves lots of room for creativity. Simple change - leads to - diversity in strategies. I like that idea a lot as well, but I can't say the same about David Kim. When there occurs a problem, he always gives hot fixes other than a thorough cure. In this case, his idea is to delay the timing of the first wave of warp-in units rather than a longer cooldown of the warpgate. Does he think that doing so would make the protoss salt lose its flavor?
It's true Protoss = salt in LOTV 0_0
|
On July 28 2015 15:10 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 13:30 TedCruz2016 wrote:On July 28 2015 12:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 27 2015 11:06 SC2John wrote:
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag". I really like this idea. Making choices to stay close to home while massing units and then slow production by changing the mode of your gates and reenforcing across the map could create many cool and different subtle styles of play (or so I imagine). These kind of changes are the perfect changes imo. It would be very simple to implement and test this, and it leaves lots of room for creativity. Simple change - leads to - diversity in strategies. I like that idea a lot as well, but I can't say the same about David Kim. When there occurs a problem, he always gives hot fixes other than a thorough cure. In this case, his idea is to delay the timing of the first wave of warp-in units rather than a longer cooldown of the warpgate. Does he think that doing so would make the protoss salt lose its flavor? It's true Protoss = salt in LOTV 0_0
That was but an old biblical saying which I used to describe P's unique way of unit production through the warpgate. The idea of that is really creative and it has become somewhat a racial identity that makes Protoss Protoss. If the cooldown becomes longer and subsequently results in a lower army supply than the enemy's, it may be in danger of being ditched as players would rather use gateway all the time to build a deathball, then P would be producing all units from production facilities like T does.
|
Not sure where to post this. Is anybody else under the impression that air units clump a lot harder (since the last patch?). They fixed something with the attacks and that feels smoother, but it also feels like they played with the separation radius and I really don't like it.
|
On July 28 2015 21:52 Big J wrote:
Not sure where to post this. Is anybody else under the impression that air units clump a lot harder (since the last patch?). They fixed something with the attacks and that feels smoother, but it also feels like they played with the separation radius and I really don't like it.
Yeah i think this was the way they fixed the moving shot problem.
Is there a specific reason you don't like it? I only played with mutas so far though, was fine imo
|
On July 28 2015 22:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 21:52 Big J wrote:
Not sure where to post this. Is anybody else under the impression that air units clump a lot harder (since the last patch?). They fixed something with the attacks and that feels smoother, but it also feels like they played with the separation radius and I really don't like it. Yeah i think this was the way they fixed the moving shot problem. Is there a specific reason you don't like it? I only played with mutas so far though, was fine imo
Mainly my mutas getting splashed to death by liberators and it being very hard to do the usual magic boxing micro against few splash opponents. They just don't behave as I expect them to behave which annoys me. 
Not sure though if they actually changed a lot or it's just in my brain. It's just my gut feeling in some situations that some mutas stack together for too long when I'm trying to magic box.
|
On July 28 2015 15:27 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 15:10 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 28 2015 13:30 TedCruz2016 wrote:On July 28 2015 12:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 27 2015 11:06 SC2John wrote:
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag". I really like this idea. Making choices to stay close to home while massing units and then slow production by changing the mode of your gates and reenforcing across the map could create many cool and different subtle styles of play (or so I imagine). These kind of changes are the perfect changes imo. It would be very simple to implement and test this, and it leaves lots of room for creativity. Simple change - leads to - diversity in strategies. I like that idea a lot as well, but I can't say the same about David Kim. When there occurs a problem, he always gives hot fixes other than a thorough cure. In this case, his idea is to delay the timing of the first wave of warp-in units rather than a longer cooldown of the warpgate. Does he think that doing so would make the protoss salt lose its flavor? It's true Protoss = salt in LOTV 0_0 That was but an old biblical saying which I used to describe P's unique way of unit production through the warpgate. The idea of that is really creative and it has become somewhat a racial identity that makes Protoss Protoss. If the cooldown becomes longer and subsequently results in a lower army supply than the enemy's, it may be in danger of being ditched as players would rather use gateway all the time to build a deathball, then P would be producing all units from production facilities like T does.
I believe you could balance the advantage of warping in across an entire map, with a slightly enhanced production from regular gates.
When you attack I don't think anyone would prefer to run zealots across something like whirlwind, when you can warp them in at a slightly reduced rate. If you can change gates back and forth people will just switch modes to whatever suits the moment. It makes push a little less strong, buffs defenders advantage, and possibly boosts push timings. Also proxy gets a buff. I think an option like this offers diversity.
Way better than, "lets give zealots another 3 points of health," or a suggestion of that nature.
|
On July 29 2015 01:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 15:27 TedCruz2016 wrote:On July 28 2015 15:10 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 28 2015 13:30 TedCruz2016 wrote:On July 28 2015 12:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 27 2015 11:06 SC2John wrote:
For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag". I really like this idea. Making choices to stay close to home while massing units and then slow production by changing the mode of your gates and reenforcing across the map could create many cool and different subtle styles of play (or so I imagine). These kind of changes are the perfect changes imo. It would be very simple to implement and test this, and it leaves lots of room for creativity. Simple change - leads to - diversity in strategies. I like that idea a lot as well, but I can't say the same about David Kim. When there occurs a problem, he always gives hot fixes other than a thorough cure. In this case, his idea is to delay the timing of the first wave of warp-in units rather than a longer cooldown of the warpgate. Does he think that doing so would make the protoss salt lose its flavor? It's true Protoss = salt in LOTV 0_0 That was but an old biblical saying which I used to describe P's unique way of unit production through the warpgate. The idea of that is really creative and it has become somewhat a racial identity that makes Protoss Protoss. If the cooldown becomes longer and subsequently results in a lower army supply than the enemy's, it may be in danger of being ditched as players would rather use gateway all the time to build a deathball, then P would be producing all units from production facilities like T does. I believe you could balance the advantage of warping in across an entire map, with a slightly enhanced production from regular gates. When you attack I don't think anyone would prefer to run zealots across something like whirlwind, when you can warp them in at a slightly reduced rate. If you can change gates back and forth people will just switch modes to whatever suits the moment. It makes push a little less strong, buffs defenders advantage, and possibly boosts push timings. Also proxy gets a buff. I think an option like this offers diversity. Way better than, "lets give zealots another 3 points of health," or a suggestion of that nature.
Fairly speaking, there's no doubt that a longer cooldown would nerf the early push, but it may cause some problems in mid and late game. If the primary forces are destroyed, P, compared to the other two races, has near-zero chance of a comeback. Luckily more or less this disadvantage is offset by the warp-in mechanism and chronoboost as you can quickly reassemble an army of instant gateway units by warping them in. I think that's the original intention of the design of it. It's what P has to compete with mass larvas and reactors. With a longer cooldown, though, that near-zero chance will be reduced to zero. I think the solution is an upgrade that shortens the longer cooldown to normal build time, so it won't affect P's resilience in late game.
.
|
Here's an idea - that may have been posted before - if we're going to make special warp in pylons alongside regular pylons: a certain range around Nexi (e.g. nexus cannon range) could always have warp in power to help out Protoss players in defending harassment etc.
|
In all seriousness, how often does a defensive warp in actually saves a Protoss player against Terran especially. In most instances you need to move chunks of your army into position to defend against the drop in the first place.
If you see the drop and warp in a bunk of zealots, either:
1. it arrives before unload and the Terran player boosts his drop to his main army and now you have 16 supply of zealots/stalkers not with your main army which is going to get engaged; or
2. It doesn't unload and they die meaningless
If you warp in stalkers, either:
1. It arrives in time, but really stalkers especially with blink move fast enough you can position existing stalkers in that amount of time; or
2. It doesn't unload and again they die
I think people overestimate/discuss the defensive power of warp ins. I would trade more mobile units for warp in any day of the week.
|
On July 30 2015 08:33 Dracover wrote:
In all seriousness, how often does a defensive warp in actually saves a Protoss player against Terran especially. In most instances you need to move chunks of your army into position to defend against the drop in the first place.
If you see the drop and warp in a bunk of zealots, either:
1. it arrives before unload and the Terran player boosts his drop to his main army and now you have 16 supply of zealots/stalkers not with your main army which is going to get engaged; or
2. It doesn't unload and they die meaningless
If you warp in stalkers, either:
1. It arrives in time, but really stalkers especially with blink move fast enough you can position existing stalkers in that amount of time; or
2. It doesn't unload and again they die
I think people overestimate/discuss the defensive power of warp ins. I would trade more mobile units for warp in any day of the week.
When I ladder, it occurs that I start warping in while units are already unloading. I'm only a diamond league player, but I'd wager that it happens to pros as well.
As for your statement on trading warping in for more mobile units: my initial reaction was to agree with you. However, warpins are currently not only a defense mechanism, they are also a harassment tool. Furthermore, warp gates serve as a "secondary macro booster", much like hatcheries can hold more larvae than 3 + the amount of 1 inject and much like reactors allow to build two units at a time. Finally, imagine the Protoss deathball with increased mobility... now there is something I'm sure everyone would struggle with.
|
On July 30 2015 23:42 linuxguru1 wrote:
When I ladder, it occurs that I start warping in while units are already unloading. I'm only a diamond league player, but I'd wager that it happens to pros as well.
Yes so defensively warp ins allow you to stop a drop inefficiently. It's a very minor defensive tool but DK talks about it like it allows toss to spread out because it's a god send defensive mechanic.
On July 30 2015 23:42 linuxguru1 wrote:
As for your statement on trading warping in for more mobile units: my initial reaction was to agree with you. However, warpins are currently not only a defense mechanism, they are also a harassment tool.
Offensively, i completely agree with blizzards proposal to remove warps ins. So you are left with warp-ins have very little effect defensively. It is hugely effective offensively but lets remove the offensive ability, so why have it at all.
On July 30 2015 23:42 linuxguru1 wrote:
Furthermore, warp gates serve as a "secondary macro booster", much like hatcheries can hold more larvae than 3 + the amount of 1 inject and much like reactors allow to build two units at a time.
Warp-ins are not a macro booster, all they do is change the timing of your units from the start of the cycle to the end. It changes timing it does not allow for a boost of units at a point in time.
On July 30 2015 23:42 linuxguru1 wrote:
Finally, imagine the Protoss deathball with increased mobility... now there is something I'm sure everyone would struggle with.
Yes that's why you will need to rebalance the units as a result. No one is saying do one thing to one feature and let it be.
|
On July 31 2015 15:59 Dracover wrote:
Warp-ins are not a macro booster, all they do is change the timing of your units from the start of the cycle to the end. It changes timing it does not allow for a boost of units at a point in time.
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that.
|
On July 31 2015 16:33 TedCruz2016 wrote:
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that.
But they want to kill that. Which was my whole point. It doesn't really help defensively. Lets kill it's offence. So why not just kill it and rebalance around it.
|
On July 31 2015 17:01 Dracover wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 16:33 TedCruz2016 wrote:
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that. But they want to kill that. Which was my whole point. It doesn't really help defensively. Lets kill it's offence. So why not just kill it and rebalance around it.
What they want to kill is just proxy pylon, while prism wrap-in will still be untouched and the cooldown still significantly shorter than normal build time. Just take a look at the adept's stats - 38 sec build time, yet only 28 sec cooldown!
|
On July 31 2015 17:01 Dracover wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 16:33 TedCruz2016 wrote:
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that. But they want to kill that. Which was my whole point. It doesn't really help defensively. Lets kill it's offence. So why not just kill it and rebalance around it.
Of course it helps defensively. A lot. It was one of the first big feedbacks of profesional players when they played with the original LotV warpgate nerfs: "Protoss is now much weaker at defending harass."
Even the extra damage while warping in is very noticeable. For example in LotV with mutalisks it is nearly always a good idea to try and kill warping stalkers while in HotS most of the time you just use the few seconds before the unit can atta k to kill a few more probes and get out.
|
On July 31 2015 18:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 17:01 Dracover wrote:On July 31 2015 16:33 TedCruz2016 wrote:
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that. But they want to kill that. Which was my whole point. It doesn't really help defensively. Lets kill it's offence. So why not just kill it and rebalance around it. Of course it helps defensively. A lot. It was one of the first big feedbacks of profesional players when they played with the original LotV warpgate nerfs: "Protoss is now much weaker at defending harass." Even the extra damage while warping in is very noticeable. For example in LotV with mutalisks it is nearly always a good idea to try and kill warping stalkers while in HotS most of the time you just use the few seconds before the unit can atta k to kill a few more probes and get out.
Meanwhile look at the side of the offensive use, warp-in is actually buffed, because in LotV you'll probably gonna have a prism or two following your death ball like T's medivac in order to "rescue" your disruptor, immortal or colossus with the new distant pickup feature, so that means wherever your death ball goes, you can immediately teleport your reinforcement there by warping them in. That would really save the traveling time.
|
On July 31 2015 18:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 17:01 Dracover wrote:On July 31 2015 16:33 TedCruz2016 wrote:
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that. But they want to kill that. Which was my whole point. It doesn't really help defensively. Lets kill it's offence. So why not just kill it and rebalance around it. Of course it helps defensively. A lot. It was one of the first big feedbacks of profesional players when they played with the original LotV warpgate nerfs: "Protoss is now much weaker at defending harass." Even the extra damage while warping in is very noticeable. For example in LotV with mutalisks it is nearly always a good idea to try and kill warping stalkers while in HotS most of the time you just use the few seconds before the unit can atta k to kill a few more probes and get out.
It's not just the time it takes to walk from the gateway to the rally point and increased LotV hitpoints that make warpgate strong defensively. Warpgate allows you react instantly should your opponent throw something at you when you've already commited to something else.
For example, say you start an engagement with a maxed out army in the middle of the map and your opponent counterattacks. You don't have to wait for a production cycle to finish before units are ready to defend.
One can argue that Terran and Zerg are in the same boat and that they are capable of dealing with it. However, don't forget that Protoss units have significantly longer buildtimes than Terran and Zerg units. I hope we can agree that - especially when combined with the mobility/distance-to-rally issue - Terran and Zerg are in very different boats than Protoss.
Rebalancing the entire Protoss race is indeed a solution, although a very time- and labour-intensive one and hence a less realistic one.
EDIT:
On July 31 2015 23:28 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 18:39 Big J wrote:On July 31 2015 17:01 Dracover wrote:On July 31 2015 16:33 TedCruz2016 wrote:
It definitely is. Don't ignore the fact that it saves the traveling time for the units from the warpgate to the rally point. No other production facility can do that. But they want to kill that. Which was my whole point. It doesn't really help defensively. Lets kill it's offence. So why not just kill it and rebalance around it. Of course it helps defensively. A lot. It was one of the first big feedbacks of profesional players when they played with the original LotV warpgate nerfs: "Protoss is now much weaker at defending harass." Even the extra damage while warping in is very noticeable. For example in LotV with mutalisks it is nearly always a good idea to try and kill warping stalkers while in HotS most of the time you just use the few seconds before the unit can atta k to kill a few more probes and get out. Meanwhile look at the side of the offensive use, warp-in is actually buffed, because in LotV you'll probably gonna have a prism or two following your death ball like T's medivac in order to "rescue" your disruptor, immortal or colossus with the new distant pickup feature, so that means wherever your death ball goes, you can immediately teleport your reinforcement there by warping them in. That would really save the traveling time.
So you would remove warpins offensively all together? What about defensively? Can you think of a way to make up for the hit harassment takes? Or is it your opinion that Protoss has enough harassment tools already?
|
Anyone has problem with this patch when trying to queue? It says "You are running an outdated version of the game and must apply a recent patch ... etc."
|
On July 31 2015 23:40 Nerchio wrote:
Anyone has problem with this patch when trying to queue? It says "You are running an outdated version of the game and must apply a recent patch ... etc."
Same here...
|
On July 31 2015 23:28 TedCruz2016 wrote:
So you would remove warpins offensively all together? What about defensively? Can you think of a way to make up for the hit harassment takes? Or is it your opinion that Protoss has enough harassment tools already?
I didn't suggest that. I think the nerf is just for pylon warp-in, while prism warp-in is actually buffed because prism is more useful than ever before thanks to the addition of the distant pickup, therefore it's probably gonna appear more often in frontal engagement other than warp-in harassment. Just a prediction, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
