EPT[A] Starbow - Page 325
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Weerwolf
75 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On July 11 2013 17:39 decemberscalm wrote: I heard micro was a pretty good method of killing workers with your harassment. Yes! Do not chance priorities please. I will also mess things up if you attack with your whole army. Micro should be needed for good harassment. The strength of the vultures are their speed. If protoss is sloppy and only places down 1-2 canons then 5-6 vultures can kill quite few workers, if microed before they have to retread. If we keep the marauder for now, then I like these changes. I also would not mind if tanks two-shot stalkers. Protoss needs units that do not counter tanks. We have speedlots, corsairs, immortals and arbiters for that... Also: Sure we want (at least some) bio in PvT and TvT, but we don't want another deathball bio. We want "fun" bio. That's what I'm a little bit afraid of with the marauder. The m&m&m - ball becoming too efficient (and hence boring..) | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
I think the most exciting bio vs mech microelment is when bio drops on top of tanks (rather than just stimming in). Currently that is ineffective for two reasons; 1) Vikings too good - IMO this unit just needs lower damage vs non-light units (this is also relevant in tvp). 2) Dropped units unload too quickly on top of tanks. Forcing players to manuially click each individual unit out of the dropship isn't realistic. I suggest that we give dropships an option to turn off the quick unload mode, so that it returns to the normal Sc2 unload rate. With a slightly stronger maurauder, weaker turrets, and adding SV's to the bio mix, I think bio heavy play will feel more right in tvt. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
Also, goliath dmg / range vs ground might be too strong... | ||
|
Lynx801
Croatia15 Posts
On July 11 2013 08:31 SmileZerg wrote: I've said it a thousand times, but pure Bio has no right to be a viable composition. And this isn't just about the gameplay. Traditionaly in sci-fi culture ever since movies like Aliens and Starship troopers and many others, common theme was humans fighting against arthropod bug like creatures(xenomorph etc.). And what you always saw in those movies and shows is groups of foot soldiers(marines) armed with futuristic assault rifles fighing against bugs. With bio being viable against zerg we honor that old sci-fi tradition. On the other hand if humans were attacked by an advanced techologically superiror race you wouldn't wanna throw a bunch of guys with rifles at them, cause that probably wouldn't work. What you wanna do is try to blow them up with explosives. In movies where aliens come in advanced starships it's always about shooting at them with rockets or infiltrating the ship and placing explosives. By making spider mines and siege tanks staple against protoss we honor the tradition of blowing up technologically advanced races. However even gameplay wise it's better to have one matchup be about bio and one about mech. It's boring to just watch bio all he time. Like in sc2 every match is about mmm. Little diversity is good. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Stalker damage 12 vs armored, 14 vs all & light. (Instead of 10 vs armored, 15 vs all & light) Stalker range upgrade cost 100/100 instead of 150/150. Immortal 5 range instead of 6. Marauder dmg increased to 10+6 vs armored. (From 8+6 vs armored.) Requires no tech lab. Stim pack build time reverted to 170 seconds. Reaver damage reduced from 100 to 80 vs all, 60 vs light. Viking damage reduced from 22 to 20. Goliath damage reduced from 14 to 13. Banshee cloak research time 110 seconds instead of 140. When activated, lasts 15 seconds instead of 10. 30 seconds cooldown instead of 40. Nerve Jammer energy cost increased to 125 from 100. When cast on the ground, it takes 3 seconds to "deploy" it. (Gives a chance for enemy re-micro.) Fixed some bugs. I think this was it. Thoughts? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
On July 11 2013 21:27 Kabel wrote: Stuff I consider to upload today: Stalker damage 12 vs armored, 14 vs all & light. (Instead of 10 vs armored, 15 vs all & light) Stalker range upgrade cost 100/100 instead of 150/150. Build time 140 seconds instead of 110. Immortal 5 range instead of 6. Marauder dmg increased to 10+6 vs armored. (From 8+6 vs armored.) Requires no tech lab. Stim pack build time reverted to 170 seconds. Reaver damage reduced from 100 to 80 vs all, 60 vs light. Viking damage reduced from 22 to 20. Goliath damage reduced from 14 to 13. Banshee cloak research time 110 seconds instead of 140. When activated, lasts 15 seconds instead of 10. 30 seconds cooldown instead of 40. Nerve Jammer energy cost increased to 125 from 100. When cast on the ground, it takes 3 seconds to "deploy" it. (Gives a chance for enemy re-micro.) Fixed some bugs. I think this was it. Thoughts? Dropship pick up tanks  Also not sure if energy increase and deploy time at the same time are correct nerfs. I think it can stay at 100 energy. Besides, I am not sure I really understand the reasoning for the stalker damage changes. What are these changes supposed to obtain in terms of desired gameplay? It seems to me that 14 damage instead of 15 damage vs bunkers is actually quite a nerf for stalker harass viability vs terran ? | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
(Everytime we see Stalker pressure/early harass, it is when the range upgrade is researched. Atm the research is an expensive investment.) If we make the range upgrade cheaper to research, we add more micro potential to Stalkers early, which might lead to more potential for early action. But at the same time, I fear it will be unfair if the Stalker has high damage AND cheap range upgrade. With 15 dmg vs light and normal armor, they 3-shot Marines, 4 shot SCVs, 6-shot Vultures etc. That combined with a cheap range upgrade early in the game might be broken. If we lower the damage to 14, it is still stronger vs Hydra/Mutas compared to pre-patch when they only did 13. And if we lower the normal/light damage value, we can increase the damage vs armored a little bit. Right now Stalkers are worthless at fighting vs armored air units, like Vessel, Banshee, BC, Carrier, Scout etc. (Unless we start to rearrange all armor classes on the air units.) I think it shall be rewarding to Blink and catch a Vessel out of position. And it is very hard with only 10 dmg vs armored... Summarize: - Stalker get acess to higher range early. (Potential for more early pressure/harass?) - To balance it vs enemy early units, the damage vs normal/light armor is lowered by 1. (Still higher than pre-patch.) - By increasing the damage vs armored a little bit, Stalker becomes a bit better as the Protoss ground unit vs enemy air. (Since there is no alternative.) Thoughts? Ps. I know many of you want me to seperate the Stalker/Immortal even more from each other in terms of stats. I just want to take careful steps at first. Ps2. The reason I keep Stalker range as an upgrade at all is due to the lower range of units in Starbow. If Stalkers had acess to such high ranged value from start, compared to the other low ranged units, things would probably be very unbalanced. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
Immortals... Are you sure they shouldn't be a robo unit? Having them be this "gateway-only" unit and even hit High templars so the mechanic doesn't seem too forced is dumb. Just give them a faster production time, if you are worried protoss can't get enough of them. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
If Immortals are built from the Robotic, it will be harder for Protoss to get more of them. Since they are now more of a core unit, rather than an expensive special unit, it maybe fits better in the main production building. But who knows. If it turns out to be unnecessary, then maybe they will be built in the Robotic facility again. I am uploading the patch now, since no other suggestion for values/stats got posted. Further changes/adjustements will come in the near future instead. Edit: It is now uploaded. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
Then if necessary we continue to shave health off of the Stalker, so that ultimately we end up with a fast, glass sniper unit, that can pick away at targets from afar and use Blink to escape when they pursue. The Immortal on the other hand, will be a tough front-line brawler, Thoughts? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Or just make it so that in general you are going to use warpgates after the research, as the stalker is now less of a combat unit. So after the transformation: Zealots, Stalker, DT warpable (but buffed cooldown from now, and maybe slight adjustments if needed) HT, Immortal still work with the queue but on warpgate (normal build time) High Templar Energy Upgrade (Khaydarian Amulet) introduced, as there is no warpin for templars anyways I've always thought transforming back and forward to be really boring (gameplaywise) and impractible (are you really going to transform them back?), and I think it just turns out in Protoss overbuilding warpgates later on (+/- 3 warpgates isn't that expensive), while not using warpgates at all early on. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
In fact, I've been thinking about this lately. I don't think there is enough encouragement currently for Protoss players to keep their Gateways as Gateways - the lower build time doesn't seem to compensate enough. They're all sticking with the lazy SC2 habit of instantly transforming every Gate to a WG and leaving it like that. Perhaps we should make Warped-in units cost an additional 25 minerals so there is an actual cost attached to the positional advantage? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
On July 12 2013 01:33 SmileZerg wrote: I think the best way we can differentiate Stalkers and Immortals, besides mobility, is with range. The reduction on Immortals from 6 range to 5 is a start, but I honestly think we should just go nuts and - wait for it - buff Stalker range after the upgrade to 7. Probably also buff starting range from 4 to 5, because a range upgrade of +3 feels a little absurd. Then if necessary we continue to shave health off of the Stalker, so that ultimately we end up with a fast, glass sniper unit, that can pick away at targets from afar and use Blink to escape when they pursue. The Immortal on the other hand, will be a tough front-line brawler, Thoughts? Immortal IMO isn't supposed to be tough. That's imo the zealots role. Zealot = Tank/buffer unit ( atm. I think it needs a +20 HP upgrade) Stalker = Weak high DPS vs light and normal, mobile. Immortal = Decent HP, high DPS vs armored, immobile. I don't think a shorter range in it self really add that much to the playing experience of the immortal. For instance is roach/hydra a lot more fun and exciting to watch/play than pure hydra? I feel like its mostly the same tbh, because you control them very similarly (get a good arc and then a-move). | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
The Immortal is designed almost explicitly around the concept of being tough to kill. Its name is "Immortal" for a reason. It's core identity was tied with Hardened Shields as well. If anything, the high DPS is where Blizz fucked up on that unit. I agree though that Roach/Hydra controls too similarly, and Stalker/Immortal will do the same without more differentiation between the units and the way they move and handle. Maybe the range isn't the correct solution. We might need some sort of support ability on the Immortal to really give it its stride. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
@Marauder: while i'm not a fan, if you intend to keep it: matrix and marauder health overlap, either keep marauder with less health and more dps or remove it. @stalker/immortal: I agree with dec and xiph, i'd rather see a fragile stalker with good dps (rewarding good blinkplay) and having the dragoon instead of the immortal, the immortal feels pretty dull in terms of micro and feels very sc2ish. Atm a weak stalker and an immortal without anti-air has made me wanna go stargate/cannons to defend against harass, that doesn't seem like a good sign. @vessel: I think making nerve jammer have a setting up time is a good idea, atm you can denie killing the jammers by throwing down more in the face of the stalkers. @marauder: keep it with techlab imo. @bio: I repeat, this composition shouldn't be viable straight up versus splash damage, if you're trying to balance bio vs splash out then you're getting the sc2 balance in tvp, we don't want that. Bio should be viable for an early push pre-splash or dropping in the mid/earlygame, what should differentiate a biodrop from a vulturedrop? Vulturedrop should be mainly to kill probes, biodrops should be better at taking out buildings (pylons!). @TvT: I feel you're approaching this the wrong way, we don't need a whole variety of compositions available (so no, bio shouldn't be viable per se, which will be pretty impossible vs well played mech anyway, mines+tanks hardcounter bio). A good matchup should be entertaining and have lots of action in the game, now mech vs mech when played right gives us what we want. Vulturerun-by's, mine fields as traps, constant moving of the siegeline, tank drops on ledges, ... gol/viking dynamic, amount of vessels added, ... There is no 1 good way to play mech in TvT and that gives us the variety that we want in that matchup. Please don't make pure bio viable other than using it to drop. @templar: either reïntroduce the amulet or make them able to warp in. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
http://www.twitch.tv/kanban85 | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:05 SmileZerg wrote: A Tank and a Buffer are not necessarily the same thing. The Zealots role is to force the opponent to micro/kite or take a ton of melee DPS to the face - being resilient is what allows them to last long enough to close the distance and be effective in that role. The Immortal is designed almost explicitly around the concept of being tough to kill. Its name is "Immortal" for a reason. It's core identity was tied with Hardened Shields as well. If anything, the high DPS is where Blizz fucked up on that unit. I agree though that Roach/Hydra controls too similarly, and Stalker/Immortal will do the same without more differentiation between the units and the way they move and handle. Maybe the range isn't the correct solution. We might need some sort of support ability on the Immortal to really give it its stride. Let's give it another name than immortal then. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
The arguments I've seen previously are that the Stalker was too good all-around for the amount of mobility it has, but if that's the case just smack its DPS with the nerf bat a little bit. I don't think we need to overspecialize it. | ||
| ||
