|
I think you missed one of the biggest problems with the Colossus. One is the death ball, but as others have suggested I think this problem is by necessity, not by convenience of the colossus.
The second is that colossus introduce a rather binary relationship. Let's look at PvT, where the terran has a bio force and some vikings that are trying to snipe colossi beforehand and the protoss is trying to pick off the vikings with stalkers that need to stay away from the bio ball and a bio ball that needs to stay away from colossus/sentry/zealot/archon/whatever.
In HotS, In many of my games the terran player either has enough vikings to kill the colossi, and then the rest of the protoss army gets completely shredded like it's funny, or they don't and can defend their colossi as they shred the bio to pieces. This interaction is almost entirely a numbers game. It can sometimes feel like a positional game, but positioning buys you maybe 30 seconds, and an extra volley or two from the colossi/vikings. But one or two volleys is not the difference between victory and defeat. The battles completely snowball, and whoever wins that fight wins by a huge margin of supply and wins the game. How often do you see a protoss and terran army trade equally?
How often do you see two protoss armies trade equally? It's a similar issue.
So perhaps this problem could also be fixed by a stronger gateway force, and protoss would be less reliant on AOE.
The disrupter introduces a little bit of a difference because it has such strong burst. One or two extra hits or one or two fewer hits from a few disruptors is a MAJOR difference. So that might make positioning and repositioning and posturing more powerful, but disruptors do so much to mess up the positioning of the terran that this becomes an even more volatile relationship.
Blizzard's solution thus far has been to decrease the effectiveness of the disruptor, but I think that this will introduce similar problems that the HotS colossus had, namely that it becomes entirely a numbers game and dramatically reduces incentive to trade armies.
The adept, by being so tanky, might enable the leftover protoss ground force to go head to head with the bio, as might the buffs to the zealot. People talk about disliking zealot charge, and I think one major reason for this is because it so heavily tips the zealot towards attacking. With ling/baneling vs bio you can pull back and decide to engage later, particularly on creep, as can stimmed bio (unless they're deep into creep). This enables a wonderful positioning game with series of trades.
I think charge is here to stay... so I'm not sure what else to do about this. It does mean that I think their call to have the zealots be the damage dealers is very intelligent. Since you're going to commit them to a fight anyways, and it's a terrible decision to pull them back, making them be the damage dealers almost turns them into something like banelings, where once you commit past a certain point you need to keep trying, but would pull back as soon as all of them are used up and proceed to create more (morph vs warpin, both localized production).
|
I think the colo we have in LotV could be fine... if it was less expensive. The unit in itself doesn't feel that useless tbh, but it's just not worth the price.
|
On July 26 2015 01:27 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I think the colo we have in LotV could be fine... if it was less expensive. The unit in itself doesn't feel that useless tbh, but it's just not worth the price.
Yeah I agree
A simple "smaller"(lower cost, lower damage output) colossus might be a more elegant solution than adding yet another active skill
|
On July 26 2015 01:46 Yiome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 01:27 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I think the colo we have in LotV could be fine... if it was less expensive. The unit in itself doesn't feel that useless tbh, but it's just not worth the price. Yeah I agree A simple "smaller"(lower cost, lower damage output) colossus might be a more elegant solution than adding yet another active skill
It's not active 
|
On July 26 2015 01:57 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 01:46 Yiome wrote:On July 26 2015 01:27 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I think the colo we have in LotV could be fine... if it was less expensive. The unit in itself doesn't feel that useless tbh, but it's just not worth the price. Yeah I agree A simple "smaller"(lower cost, lower damage output) colossus might be a more elegant solution than adding yet another active skill It's not active
I was referring to what I wrote earlier actually ><
It goes something like this:
A shield-like skill, when active, decrease incoming range damage but give colossus a collision size with ground unit(like placing force fields around colossus), thus give colossus more survivability at the cost of de-deathball the army
|
I think it's mostly the Colossus's attack that's boring, especially compared to other aoe units. Redesign the attack to something more exciting, then rebalance the unit around that new attack.
|
On July 26 2015 04:13 eviltomahawk wrote:
I think it's mostly the Colossus's attack that's boring, especially compared to other aoe units. Redesign the attack to something more exciting, then rebalance the unit around that new attack.
Maybe slow down it attack animation a little to allow opponent to dodge its line of fire? Like the way Lurkers work.
|
On July 26 2015 04:13 eviltomahawk wrote:
I think it's mostly the Colossus's attack that's boring, especially compared to other aoe units. Redesign the attack to something more exciting, then rebalance the unit around that new attack.
At first I thought so too, but I've started to think a bigger issue is its static positioning within the army. Regardless of whatever attack shape or path of motion the Colossus beam takes, if it has to fire at the same cooldown with the same total area of effect for the same damage, the net result probably won't be very different. Realistically players will have about the same chance of dodging and playing around the new Colossus beam as they did before. In WoL beta the Colossus attack was actually changed from a larger burst and longer cooldown to what we have today; Blizzard must have decided that its current attack speed/damage/other stats were optimal for providing a dynamic player experience.
So I don't think changing the Colossus attack will be as productive as changing its defensive stats and positioning. Because really, at the end of the day, the goal is to kill the Colossus before it does too much damage. So I think creating mechanisms that force both the Colossus and the opposing army to make a cost-effective analysis on how far they want to charge forward to inflict maximum damage to each other - such as the one I've created  - is the optimal line of design thought.
|
|
|
Philippines2589 Posts
wait... didn't know Collo was nerfed lol. whats the diff from the HotS collo?
|
On July 26 2015 08:47 shin_toss wrote:
wait... didn't know Collo was nerfed lol. whats the diff from the HotS collo?
I believe that it has 1 less range and has its damage reduced by 20%.
|
Philippines2589 Posts
On July 26 2015 09:00 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 08:47 shin_toss wrote:
wait... didn't know Collo was nerfed lol. whats the diff from the HotS collo? I believe that it has 1 less range and has its damage reduced by 20%.
oh lol thats why lurkers are killing my collo all the time -__- wtf
|
Colossus should be removed and the disruptor should be replaced with more reliable and less gimmicky unit. We don't need 2 AoE on Robo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
