EPT[A] Starbow - Page 320
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
I'm trying to cut down on my opinions/suggestions in this thread for as long as I don't feel like me and my opponent are not using their races full potential. However you put a lot of effort into that post and a lot of stuff what you write makes a lot of sense. I agree with a lot of your analysis, especially the ZvP part. Yet I'm not completely sold that there isn't just a very standard way to play a very dynamic PvZ as a Protoss with a corsair opening with a lot of zealots and an decently timed third. And then transition into whatever you want/need. As I said yesterday, Zerg and Protoss are two races that are hard to matchup by unit design on the ground. Zerg is just way superior in terms of mappresence and I don't see how to change that, given that we don't cut the zealot and/or the stalker and start from scratch with basic unit design. However, zerg can be pressured in the air (the overlord dynamic makes this a really potent playstyle vs zerg - and corsairs cut one of the strongest zerg options in form of the mutalisk just out of the gameplay). I'd encourage all Protoss players to explore the viability of such a playstyle where you open up with a small amount of corsairs (and scouts?) that is just good enough to harass and scout and see whether it is possible to hold a third with it. Before we make final calls on the state of the matchup without bigger changes. My TvP understanding is probably not at the level of many other players around, still I can definitely replicate much of your thoughtprocess(es). It feels really hard to kill or even damage an opponent that just macros decently and doesnt make major mistakes. To suggested units in specific. My main problem with those units is, that they fill roles that are already filled - just that the units that are currently in that spot (marine, ghost, stalker, reaver) have vulnerabilities that you want to overcome. Rightfully so. However, the current unit setup doesn't feel like it needs those units for other reasons than balance. F.e I think a marauder would be more interesting, if the marine was a specialized antilight unit. The Immortal would be more interesting if it wasn't just another beefy ranged Protoss unit with different damage. Additionally, I always believe that there are more interesting ways to design a new unit in terms of micro than to make it singlefire+stats unit. That's why my last suggestion for an Immortal was to make it a Sentinel spell (The immortal is a boring unit, I don't think anybody wants to build it, as it restricts you to boring gameplay. Making it a spell makes it an option for when you need it). And my suggestions for the marauder tries to implement an interesting attack (splash, dodgeable... stuff like that). | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Ideas Unfortunately, to apply this idea, we must take a step back, but I am very confident in this: Zealot (80 shield, 80 hp = 160) with upgrade, is as before: when activated, increased movement speed for 5 or 8 sec, reusable after a cooldown. When this ability is activated, zealot shield are restored. Userfull for make as tank, or escape... Stalker (70 shield, 70 hp = 140). When blink is used, restored stalker shield. Userfull for attack or escape. If is necessary, reduced range of blink from 8 to 6. I wanted to increase shields spontaneously, to increase the effectiveness of the shield (in order to justify their high cost). Now an army a-click move, it will be less effective than an armed microed. Upgrades are now more important for mid-late game, without worrying of early game that remains almost unchanged. If is too strong, make shield are partially regenerated by blink and charge (from 100% to 50%) I think this is a pleasure to play and to watch... sometimes it takes imagination. Thoughts? Gl hf I do not like upgrading a permanent life. A better ability to restore the shields, and the fact that a momentary speed boost, from really exciting moments (as hots medivak). Maybe stalker if you feel too strong, it could reduce the attack range of the weapon, from 6 to 5. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
I agree with a lot of your analysis, especially the ZvP part. Yet I'm not completely sold that there isn't just a very standard way to play a very dynamic PvZ as a Protoss with a corsair opening with a lot of zealots and an decently timed third. And then transition into whatever you want/need. As I said yesterday, Zerg and Protoss are two races that are hard to matchup by unit design on the ground. Zerg is just way superior in terms of mappresence and I don't see how to change that, given that we don't cut the zealot and/or the stalker and start from scratch with basic unit design. However, zerg can be pressured in the air (the overlord dynamic makes this a really potent playstyle vs zerg - and corsairs cut one of the strongest zerg options in form of the mutalisk just out of the gameplay). I'd encourage all Protoss players to explore the viability of such a playstyle where you open up with a small amount of corsairs (and scouts?) that is just good enough to harass and scout and see whether it is possible to hold a third with it. Before we make final calls on the state of the matchup without bigger changes. I agree, I just see it this way; There should be two overall styles for protoss to play in PvZ. The corsair one as you mentioned which grants protoss map control, and the gateway heavy style as I talked about in this post. I don't really understand the corsair balance well enough to comment on that one, but I think there are problems with the gateway heavy style which IMO needs to be reworked. To suggested units in specific. My main problem with those units is, that they fill roles that are already filled - just that the units that are currently in that spot (marine, ghost, stalker, reaver) have vulnerabilities that you want to overcome. Rightfully so. However, the current unit setup doesn't feel like it needs those units for other reasons than balance. F.e I think a marauder would be more interesting, if the marine was a specialized antilight unit. The Immortal would be more interesting if it wasn't just another beefy ranged Protoss unit with different damage. I don't think that either the immortal or the maurauder will be that interesting in them selves. I can see potential for target firing and a bit extra micro, but overall, the unit control experience won't drastically improve for either the protoss nor the terran player. But what instead can happen, if we balance things accordingly, is a much more fundamentally sound gameplay. Further, I don't think that anything will be taken away from anyone; Protoss will still have the strong gateway army they want, but terran players also have the midgame (but not lategame) viability of bio that they want. When that is said, I am a bit confused from the comments. The marine would be more interesting if it was antilight with the maurauder as anti-armored, but applying the same concept to the stalker and the immortal makes them uninteresting? But please take away from my post, that this isn't about "unit design" in it self, but a lot more about "match up design" (is it fun to play for both races + spectators to watch?). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
(1) Both unit designs are clunky and forced, and revolve around stupid passive upgrades that if we take away, meet might as well change the name. (2) Both designs are slightly redundant, overlapping with the stalker and marine respectively, and I'm sure smile would agree with me on this one. (3)We are changing too much usually, we need to sit back and change stats, think about simple redesigns, elegancy is a huge arrow that points to what is right. If something feels wrong when you first see it, it usually is a bad idea, and because of the above, I just feel like we'd be wasting time implementing such units. 1) There are no passive upgrades here. The name of the unit really doesn't really matter for whether this unit should be implemented or not. 2) Both the stalker and the immortal will have different roles, and it will be quite intuitive which unit you want to use in the specific situation. What instead will be rewarded is scouting - Right now protoss will just pump out blink stalker + reaver vs anything bio related. With this change, scouting and reacting (in terms of getting the correct mix of immortals vs stalkers vs zealots) will become even more important. 3) I already discussed why I think things will just get even worse in the future - Mostly in TvP mech. In ZvP it really doesn't matter what will happens once players get betters as it without a doubt is easier to play as zerg than toss. Kinda the same logic can be applied to TvP bio. Basically Starbow needs to be easy to play and understand for new players (intutive), and what will happen in temrs of balance on the "highest level" doesn't really matter for the current design proces. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
Fen1kz
Russian Federation216 Posts
On July 06 2013 03:36 JohnnyZerg wrote: Blink is a skill with great potential. The problem of the stalker, is not so much its mobility, but its resistance. We need to decrease hp / shield. In return we give an advantage to reward micro. I dont think this is right desicion. Are you basically say "Let's nerf stalkers so players will micro with them" ? all my gameplay experience says this is wrong design desicion. because if you nerf unit i wont think like "oh he wants me to use micro, i better now go practice with them more". i'd better use another unit, or swap race if you nerf all units to make me micro. Rewarding micro is not just something "lets make them sick mobility and lower hp" | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
I will give my opinion and views regarding adding these two units to the game. First of all, I have historically been against them, and stated many times why I do not like them. But since I started Starbow, I have constantly learnt new stuff, tried to seen stuff from different and new angles, heard interesting thoughts from many of you, regarding what makes Starcraft fun and good. I have changed my mind often due to new input. And I am starting to do it again regarding this topic. As you say Ulose, I have generally prefered simple and clean solutions. And I am starting to think that this is in fact the most simple and elegant solution, and would actually improve the match-ups a lot. Here is a comment I often hear, and I have stated many times myself, regarding why these units should NOT be implemented: >>>+ Show Spoiler + My beef with immo and marauder is how fast they take down static D and walls. A big part of why you couldn't just run someone over so easily in BW was because you actually needed the right units in the right position to break through. You had to get that siege tank up to start hammering down the spine crawlers, or you wanted to get the reaver out. Mobile lower tier units that are high damage vs buildings are problematic, it exasperates the "I am ahead, I'm going to roll you over now" syndrome that is present in SC2. Absolutely. They are insanely good at doing that in SC2. Starbow is different in that regard, since positional units are supposed to be stronger. How good can we allow the Immortal and Marauder to be? I assume the Hydralisk has the highest DPS vs buildings among Tier 1 units in Starbow. 10 damage per shot vs structures, 0,83 attack speed, buildings armor prevent 1 damage. - This equals 650 damage per minute vs buildings and armored units. Compare it to the stimmed SC2 Marauder. 20 dmg per shot vs structures, 1 second attack speed, building armor prevents 1 damage. - This equals 1140 damage per minute vs buildings and armored units! So maybe shall the Immortal and Marauder not exceed the Hydralisk. Or at least be within the same range of damage. And that is ofc possible to balance! Thoughts regarding what the Marauder and Immortal can add to the game, after the last days of discussions: + Show Spoiler + Immortal A much needed core unit for Protoss. Now we can nerf Stalkers. (Which are still super strong in almost all situations in all match ups.) PvP: Right now we see mass Stalkers vs mass Stalkers. Air units are not viable atm since the opponent is so Stalker heavy anyway. Reavers are crucial. With the Immortal, we will see more Zealots > Immortal > Stalker > Zealot. And this opens up for much more variations. PvT: As Hider described very well, mass Blink Stalkers are so strong and leads to a lame game dynamic. This was not a problem in BW because Dragoons could not Blink. (And no Warp in...) Just as in PvP, Protoss can mass Stalkers in PvT which shuts down Reaper/Vulture run-by/Banshee/Dropplay/pushes very easily. With Immortals, we bring back some of the Dragoon dynamic - a stronger but slower unit vs Terran. (But if so, we must make Immortals needed vs Terran.) PvZ: Immortals will not play a large role in PvZ with the current balance. Many players, including myself, says the Immortal is boring. Which is true, if we look at it in isolation. It is not as fun to control as a Stalker. But is that really a problem, after all? Protoss does not lose any micro potential if we add this unit. Instead it helps to create more interesting match-ups. I think the Immortal can be quite simple and straightforward. + Show Spoiler + Marauder: This one is more controversial. People think I am kidding when I say I consider to add the Marauder. HOW CAN SUCH A BADLY DESIGNED UNIT ADD SOMETHING TO THE GAME? It is the same way as with the Immortal/Stalker. The Marauder itself is not exciting. But it help us release the Marine. Currently Marines are suppose to be viable in all match-ups. Its the only realistic bio option. It works fine in TvZ. But not at all in TvP and TvT. Just as in BW... We need to go beyond that. TvT: Bio will never ever work. Marines are worthless in TvT. One Vulture can kill 2-3 Marines alone... 1 Reaper can kill 2 Marines... Marines have no place. We will see mech forever. With the Marauder we get an early unit who can fight vs enemy Vultures and Reapers. Something that allows Bio to apply pressure. Something that makes Bio a viable opening vs mech. At the same time, if the enemy Terran opens Marauders, getting Marines for defence all of a sudden become viable... TvP: With the Marauder, Bio will become a viable opening, which requires more units from both races. Protoss can not go mass Stalkers anymore. Zealots > Marines Stalker <> Marine (Depends on Micro) Stalker > Vulture Vulture > Zealot Spider mines > Stalker Marines > Immortal Marauder > Stalker Immortal > Marauder, Siege tank As I mentioned above, how can we make the Immortal useful in PvT? If Marauders are a viable threat vs Stalkers, Immortals + Zealots become more needed. If Stalkers become weaker vs Tanks, Immortals are now more useful. And this open up more room for air units from both sides.. TvP: Depending on how we balance it, Marauder might get a role here too. Maybe we can shift so Marines are NOT insane vs everything. Other thoughts: + Show Spoiler + "Ok, so you want the Maruader and the Immortal to just A-move into Siege lines and Lurker lines?" No. Absolutely not. This is why we need to be careful with the balance. Spider mines + Siege tanks will still destroy an enemy Bio army. Bio will just be more useful BEFORE the enemy player reaches a critical amount of Tanks. If we keep the Marauder at maybe 80 HP, Lurkers will 4-shot them.. (They 3-shot Marines now...) Immortals shall not have Hardened Shield. (Instead Protoss has Safeguard now.) So Immortals will NOT just destroy Lurkers + Tanks who are in great positions. "Ok, but why not add the Roach then?" Because Zerg is already dynamic. Hydras are NOT useful vs everything. (Which we make Stalker and Marine to be..) "Why not add back the G-4 Charge to the Reaper?" Or to the Ghost as Johnny suggested? Nothing is wrong with that ability. It might make a comeback. But I don´t think that is enough to solve the match-up problems. As Sumadin said: Bio needs a unit who can actually deal and take damage. Not more fancy micro tricks. G-4s are nice. But if we want the races to feel somewhat similar in difficulty, we can not let Terran have insanely weak Bio units who must rely on heavy micro to even function. "Shall we really see Bio blobs vs Protoss all game long?" No. Bio will be strongest in the early/mid game vs Protoss and Terran. Mech stronger in mid/ late game. When Terran reaches enough Tanks/Spider mines, or when Protoss reaches Reavers/Psi Storm, Bio will have a hard time. Just as we see now. Except that Bio will be stronger in the early/mid game than it currently is. Last thoughts: I do not see any other solution to Bio. With only Marine as the core unit, Bio will be extremely inferior to mech in TvT and TvP. Without any other Protoss core unit, Stalkers will dominate almost all match-ups. By adding those two hated units, and balance the game from that point, I think we will reach a much needed last piece of the puzzle. These are just my thoughts this evening. Comments? Flaws in my reasoning? What do you see that I do not see? | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
Depending on how we balance it, Marauder might get a role here too. Maybe we can shift so Marines are NOT insane vs everything. " Which match up are you really talking about here? Marauders will not add anything to ZvP believe me  (oh, I guess TvZ...)I'm still iffy about marauders, but with the right stats... let's try it! Make sure though, that mech will still be the stronger, but less mobile option for terran or mech will be completely useless. I'll do some math on scv-calldown tomorrow. Remind me if I forget | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
| ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
Constant worker production should be rewarded, but, there are certain dynamics in the mu's that make you unable to keep expanding quick, which are actually pretty normal and will always be there. In a general game of mine in a midgame pvz, when my fourth finishes, i pull overstock probes from my other expansions, i usually easily have 30+ workers selected that aren't getting me any extra income if i were to stay on three bases. So the point is, oversaturation comes waaay too quickly, T has the same problem in tvp, because P is even more mobile than in BW so it's hard to expand fast. A zerg that barely drones in pvz is not economically punished. My theory is that the racial imbalances are purely economical issues. You should be able to turtle when you are weak and not fall incredibly hard behind. When watching the game of flash vs best i noticed another thing, gascounts. Due to the easy oversaturation of minerals in starbow, you easily have excessive gas, tech units dominate hard and get easily massed. In starbow 4base protoss stocks up tons of gas if he goes pure stalker with a couple reavers. In the game you see from BW, we can see best in mid/lategame is mainly producing zealot/stalker with a few ht's and a few arbiters. This means that if he would go pure stalker, he'd get an overstock on minerals! So the easiest way to work away the current imbalances are to just buff the amount of mineral patches and the mineral counts. The immobile race's main runs dry when he's able to secure a fourth, by the time he secures his fifth, he will have run out on his natural and so on... this means that the immobile race will never be on a greater economy than a 3base one. Kabel's has made a great game out of starbow, but this is the one thing he messed up. On one hand he wants to reward expanding play, on the other hand he likes many of the dynamics of brood war. Securing bases in brood war was also hard, you cannot mix the two, unless you try to make a slow paced game. Something like a 12 mins early game, then the immobile race takes his third, then midgame starts, immobile race takes a fourth around 20 mins and after that we get the start of the endgame where there are fights all over the place for securing bases, zone control and what not. TLDR: I believe adding other units like the marauder and the immortal are never gonna solve the issues starbow has, this is merely an imbalance in the economy system. ps: Kabel, if i'm unable to convince you, PM me for a discussion. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
But maybe we need to make adjustements both to the economy and to the races? Would not the addition of these two extra units help to create a more diverse and deeper meta game, with more options, playstyles, build orders, and counters available for all match-ups? Are me and Hider wrong in the positive effects we predict these units will add to the game? Or will an adjusted economy, and small balance adjustements, be enough to make Starbow as good as it can be? These are sincere questions. I need to understand it better, before I do any changes. So please continue to bring your view and suggestions for solutions. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
Now a couple of things to say. First of all i largely agree with the notion that Immortal is needed if for nothing else because it adds more to the robotics tech. Rememper my gross generalization of the Terran unit comps? Well here is my "not-so-gross generalization" for robotics. Observer: Scouting Sentinel: Support? Who knows... Warp prism: Transport Reaver: KILL EVERYTHING!!! See there is a distinct lack of killing power before teching futher to robotics bay, infact there is not even a single land unit. I think this "tech hole" is some of the reason why protoss have such a hard time holding their thirds. Now you cannot forget of course that Gateway units are there to add the killing power, but problems arise when Zerg starts getting their very potent tech units(lurkers), and the mandatory tech for protoss have nothing to add at the time when protoss needs it the most. Yes robotics is the mandatory tech option you need them observers. That is where the Immortal could come in. It is not a stalker that both pay hybrid tax and mobility tax in terms of damage, it is a bloody immortal. It got somewhat equivilant mobility to a garbage truck stuck in Londons traffic. It deals raw single target damage, no AOE. Meaning it WILL kill a lurker faster than a lurker shooting back will kill the immortal. So you need to keep some support for the lurkers instead of just letting them be at the front and scaring the protoss army off. Now as for making it more intresting, i am going to resuggest something i came up with a while ago. Basicly the immortal would only be able to take shield damage once per second rather than only being able to take 10 shield damage per attack. It means that we can preserve safeguard and it brings a new twist to the immortal. From my initial analysis it would reward micro more as you would want to only allow one to be hit at the time. This design will also means that you can't just dance into a line of siege tanks or reavers, you have to mind your micro. It does however have the potential to be very broken vs Zerg, so you might wanna consider this version of Hardened shield to be a Robotics bay research. To end this i wanna start the topic of protoss scouting. Terran and Zerg have all the tools of HOTS to figure out everything that is going on. Meanwhile we have stripped Protoss of every single early scouting tool they had avaliable. Mothership core? GONE Phoenix hallu? GONE(as early tech). And this is what keeps the Robotics mandatory, even if it is the least desireable tech option. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
What is the obsession with making pure bio viable? If we add the Marauder, then it seems like players will either go for an MMM composition, or a Mech composition. Ideally, we should be seeing players have a mix of these units - we want ***Biomech*** to be viable. I don't see how the Marauder is supposed to help with that. What does it add to the Terran race that tanks do not already accomplish? Personally, I think we should forget the Marauder. The Immortal, on the other hand, is different. Because of the unique mechanics of Hardened Shields, it actually rewards Terran for mixing in Marines with their Tanks to focus fire them! Immortals would keep pure Mech somewhat in check, without hardcountering it completely given the right balance of numbers on their cost-effectiveness. There's a million other things I've been thinking about, like the current Viper and how we could bring Infestors back and a way to implement Sentries that's much less awful than SC2, but I'll save it for another time. Just wanted to chime in on the TvP situation brewing here. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
1. It will be produced from the gateway. Yes, a 1,5 tier unit like the stalker. No robo-tech. This is suppose to be the third core unit of Protoss. Only in this way can we nerf the stalker. (imo) 2. It will have very different stats as a result of 1. It should have lower range, slower, and not shoot air, more hp, and more dmg vs armorer than the stalker. And it won't have hardened shields. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
On July 06 2013 10:45 SmileZerg wrote: I've been lurking for awhile now, because I've been very busy and things have been moving extremely fast, but I think it's time to chime in again. What is the obsession with making pure bio viable? If we add the Marauder, then it seems like players will either go for an MMM composition, or a Mech composition. Ideally, we should be seeing players have a mix of these units - we want ***Biomech*** to be viable. I don't see how the Marauder is supposed to help with that. What does it add to the Terran race that tanks do not already accomplish?. Aggression. That is actually the core issue for Terran in TvP. It is not so much making bio viable as being able to take the agressive stance and take the fight to the protoss. It is also a matter switching up the matchup TvP instead of letting its initials stand for Totally Predictable. "Welcome to this cast of TvP. We will see stalkers, we will see Tanks, The terran player will be the defender until his mech army is big enough. GG WP everyone" As for Starbow TvT i actually think it is a degraded experience from SC2 TvT. We see Bio vs Mech all the time, transitioning into the sky in SC2. In Starbow it is just mech vs mech. On July 06 2013 15:23 Xiphias wrote: OK. Let's make two things perfectly clear. If the immortal is added to the game it will be very different from the SC2 immortal. 1. It will be produced from the gateway. Yes, a 1,5 tier unit like the stalker. No robo-tech. This is suppose to be the third core unit of Protoss. Only in this way can we nerf the stalker. (imo) 2. It will have very different stats as a result of 1. It should have lower range, slower, and not shoot air, more hp, and more dmg vs armorer than the stalker. And it won't have hardened shields. I think you are overeager to implement Onegoals solution. What exactly would the Immortal add to the early game of Protoss? What T1 armored units is there to fight? Queens? Stalkers? OG have both the marauder and roaches(at T2). They also essentially just had it switch places with the sentry which does an infinitely better job as support than our Sentinel. So i will say it again, we need to add flavor to the robo tech because right now there isn't much. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 06 2013 04:12 Hider wrote: I agree, I just see it this way; There should be two overall styles for protoss to play in PvZ. The corsair one as you mentioned which grants protoss map control, and the gateway heavy style as I talked about in this post. I don't really understand the corsair balance well enough to comment on that one, but I think there are problems with the gateway heavy style which IMO needs to be reworked. I don't think that either the immortal or the maurauder will be that interesting in them selves. I can see potential for target firing and a bit extra micro, but overall, the unit control experience won't drastically improve for either the protoss nor the terran player. But what instead can happen, if we balance things accordingly, is a much more fundamentally sound gameplay. Further, I don't think that anything will be taken away from anyone; Protoss will still have the strong gateway army they want, but terran players also have the midgame (but not lategame) viability of bio that they want. When that is said, I am a bit confused from the comments. The marine would be more interesting if it was antilight with the maurauder as anti-armored, but applying the same concept to the stalker and the immortal makes them uninteresting? But please take away from my post, that this isn't about "unit design" in it self, but a lot more about "match up design" (is it fun to play for both races + spectators to watch?). The difference between marine as antilight + marauder as antiarmored and stalker as antilight + immortal as antiarmored is for me, that marine+marauder would be the core bio composition. They are the biounits you build to fullfill core combat roles and nothing else. Unlike marines and marauders which have to be capable of combating most things on their own, stalkers and immortals are not the end all solutions of their respective techpaths. The Stalker and the Immortal both share their roles with a long list of Protoss ground combat units that you already mix into the ground composition. Reaver and Archon are both kind of similar to immortal and stalker - apart from the higher tech requirements, they fullfill core ranged combat roles. The zealot also plays a role in this, as it is a core combat unit and quite a strong counter to certain units in itself, while synergizing well with ranged combat units to begin with. Therefore, I find it hard to see the real need for another Protoss core unit in the immortal, especially from the gateway. I rather have the feeling that there are at least 3 other units - namely I could give solutions for the Archon, the Sentinel and the Reaver, but other people may also come up with solutions for other units - that could be adapted to fill the same hole in Tier 2 unit balance without giving Protoss another situational combat unit. About the unit design: I just believe that you can have all of what you write in matchup dynamics from a marauder/immortal that are interesting in itself as well. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On July 06 2013 17:58 Big J wrote: The difference between marine as antilight + marauder as antiarmored and stalker as antilight + immortal as antiarmored is for me, that marine+marauder would be the core bio composition. They are the biounits you build to fullfill core combat roles and nothing else. Unlike marines and marauders which have to be capable of combating most things on their own, stalkers and immortals are not the end all solutions of their respective techpaths. The Stalker and the Immortal both share their roles with a long list of Protoss ground combat units that you already mix into the ground composition. Reaver and Archon are both kind of similar to immortal and stalker - apart from the higher tech requirements, they fullfill core ranged combat roles. The zealot also plays a role in this, as it is a core combat unit and quite a strong counter to certain units in itself, while synergizing well with ranged combat units to begin with. Therefore, I find it hard to see the real need for another Protoss core unit in the immortal, especially from the gateway. I rather have the feeling that there are at least 3 other units - namely I could give solutions for the Archon, the Sentinel and the Reaver, but other people may also come up with solutions for other units - that could be adapted to fill the same hole in Tier 2 unit balance without giving Protoss another situational combat unit. About the unit design: I just believe that you can have all of what you write in matchup dynamics from a marauder/immortal that are interesting in itself as well. I see reavers and HT/archons as something completely different. They are the late midgame/late game units which makes the protoss army less immobile than bio/zerg lair, but increases their cost efficiency in the late game. They are very to provide an incentive for the bio + zerg player to army trade/harass so he the protoss player doesn't have an easy time teching to them. The ultralisk/infestor combo in HOTS gives terran bio the same incentive. Terran in HOTS benefits quite a bit from army trading against the zerg player which creates so much action. But unlike in HOTS, the current protoss gateway unit lineup against zerg isn't strong enough for army tranding to be "fair". But instead of nerfing the zerg players tools of army trading (which would reward stalemales), I suggest we add the immortal to the game, which will make it possible for us to balance the PvX matchups in a much more healthy way. If for instance we had just buffed the stalker and the zealot straihgt up by like 10-15%, then that would likely have had severe uninteded conseqences for the PvT matchup. However, with the immortal in the game, we can make the stalker better vs hydras (and mutas) while maintaing/improving balance in PvT. The immortal simply gives us the chance to design all of the matchups in a healthy way, and that's why I believe it is needed. So to sum up; 1) Protoss gateway + sentinel is the midgame army which should be significantly buffed vs zerg. 2) Reaver + HT/Archon are the later game units which gives an incentive for the zerg to armytrade against the protoss player. Thus units scale better in larger numbers. 3) Teching super early (say pre 12-13) minute mark to thus late game units shouldn't be viable as protoss as it will take away midgame action by providing a too strong defenders advantage too early in the game for the protoss player. I imagine that if gateway units are buffed in the matchups by 10-15% and BT/cost of reaver tech is unchanged, then players will just have an easier time teching to reavers on 3 bases while making sure that the zerg can't really army trade efficiently. Therefore the key is to make the tech cost very expensive/risky to do on 2-3 bases and instead make it possible for protoss to stay longer on gateway + sentinel units. Coming to think about it: Making the immortal more gas-intensive might be the simplest way to delay the viability of teching to reavers + HT's. Btw if anyone missed it: I am not suggesting an immortal at robo, but it will be an immortal at gateway (the onegoal approach). Immortal at robo won't really fix the core problems as we will still need to have the stalker as too much of an allround unit. Further the key point in PvT is to reduce the ratio of stalkers/protoss army value significantly, as too many stalkers does a too good job of preventing anything from happening. About the unit design: I just believe that you can have all of what you write in matchup dynamics from a marauder/immortal that are interesting in itself as well. That's really very possible. But my immediate response to the spell-thing is that it seems to be something which likely would be a lot harder to make it work in the intended way than my suggestion. At this point, I am more inclined to just opt for the simplest "boring" unit design to make the overall matchups fun and dynamic. I think later on, I will be more willing to look into areas where we can make the unit more fun to use, while keeping the game gameplay dynamics it creates. OK. Let's make two things perfectly clear. If the immortal is added to the game it will be very different from the SC2 immortal. 1. It will be produced from the gateway. Yes, a 1,5 tier unit like the stalker. No robo-tech. This is suppose to be the third core unit of Protoss. Only in this way can we nerf the stalker. (imo) 2. It will have very different stats as a result of 1. It should have lower range, slower, and not shoot air, more hp, and more dmg vs armorer than the stalker. And it won't have hardened shields. I agree, but I am not sure about the inability to shoot air. It could simply make lurker into mutalisks transitions too strong. Not that immortals would be particularly good against mutalisks, but if you had 5 of them and 7 blink stalkers, then a 10 mutalisk transition would be really strong without the ability of the immortal to shoot at the mutalisks. My theory is that the racial imbalances are purely economical issues. You should be able to turtle when you are weak and not fall incredibly hard behind. Yes this is definitely true, and Starbow is at the moment flawed in that regard. But let's look at out options going forward; 1) Change to an Sc2/BW economy 2) Buff those units that are currently required to take a 3rd for the weak race. 3) A combination The latter seems to the best option and the economy is already slight buffed by changing the amount of mineral pathes to 10/9. By adding in the immortal in the game it makes it possible to make a signifciant buff to those units that are required to take a 3rd while keeping a healthy dynamic in all of the matchups. Are further/other chances needed? Possibly What I actually fear most about PvZ (with these suggestions) is that stalkers will be just good enough to make poking with hydras not viable. Since lurker tech first comes into the game relatively "late", then I think protoss players might have an easy time sticking to heavy stalker play vs zerg early game which creates a stalemale'ish situation untill lurkers are out. But I think that can be adjust by looking at stalkers damage vs normal armor (is 15 too high? - should the immortal be the unit be better instead vs normal?) Alternatively though, we could also see another type of scenario where the protoss player now becomes aggressive out on the map with heavy stalkers (and few zealots with HP upgrade) untill lurkers are out. That would actually be a quite interesting dynamic and would definitely be a positive uninteded consequence. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
IF these units, or one of them, are implemented, then I want to keep them as simple and clean as possible. Immortals will not have anti air... Immortals will preferably be built from the Robotic facility. IF the Immortal is built from the Gateway, then maybe we could adapt this old solution to Warp gate/ Gateway: - Gateway produces Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, Dark Templar and High Templar. - Warp Gate produces Zealot, Stalker, Dark Templar. Same build time for units. Gateway offers the "raw power". Warp gates offers the quicker units. A good advantage / disadvantage with each building. And we do not have to see Immortals being warped in... (Which also might be hard to balance..) The Immortal traits can be something as Xiphias describes it above. MAYBE have some kind of weaker shield ability. (Not necessary.) @Economy I think with small adjustements we would be able to "fix" the economy. Lets look at the system: - Workers are VERY rewarded by being spread out on many bases. (Few workers on many bases are great.) - It is very easy to reach the maximum cap at a base. (2 workers on each mineral patch and nothing more gives income.) - Workers collect income as fast as in BW. But due to SC2 macro mechanics, bases are saturated MUCH faster now. - Half of the mineral patches at each base have 1500 minerals, the other half has 1000 mineral patches. What does this lead to? - The maximum income from a base is lower than in BW/SC2, which leads to players grabbing more bases. (?) - The game risk to be over if the third base is denied quite early in the game. (And it is important to expand early.) What can be done? - Make 1 and 2 bases economy a bit more viable, after all. (Which they now are with the extra added mineral patches.) - Lower the mining time of workers by a little bit. This means that players can now support more than 2 workers per mineral patch, and gain a small extra boost by it. (But still it is better to spread out workers.) | ||
| ||
