|
On July 17 2013 20:35 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
@Kabal
Look at my suggestion to lower the Marauders range and sharpen its design to destinct it more from the Marine. It could even be given some form of concussive shell if it has a range of only 3-4 (I would also suggest nerfing SC2 concussive to single target stacking slow instead of AOE to promote micro)
Maurauder was implemented to give terran natural map control. 3-4 range maurauder doesn't grant that - Even with Stim and concussive shell, mass blink stalkers with micro would likely just beat that.
|
On July 17 2013 21:13 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 20:35 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
@Kabal
Look at my suggestion to lower the Marauders range and sharpen its design to destinct it more from the Marine. It could even be given some form of concussive shell if it has a range of only 3-4 (I would also suggest nerfing SC2 concussive to single target stacking slow instead of AOE to promote micro) Maurauder was implemented to give terran natural map control. 3-4 range maurauder doesn't grant that - Even with Stim and concussive shell, mass blink stalkers with micro would likely just beat that.
Then were stuck with having added one of the worst designed units from SC2 into Starbow without changing anything that could make it have interesting interactions. Its really just there in SC2 to beat a lot of stuff Protoss has. It has no natural weaknesses apart from lacking anti air, and nessesitates counter units to keep the balance in check.
The SC2 Marauder can only be one of three things depending on balance: Useless, boring or overpowered. You need to radically change stats to make it something else.
|
On July 17 2013 21:29 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 21:13 Hider wrote:On July 17 2013 20:35 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
@Kabal
Look at my suggestion to lower the Marauders range and sharpen its design to destinct it more from the Marine. It could even be given some form of concussive shell if it has a range of only 3-4 (I would also suggest nerfing SC2 concussive to single target stacking slow instead of AOE to promote micro) Maurauder was implemented to give terran natural map control. 3-4 range maurauder doesn't grant that - Even with Stim and concussive shell, mass blink stalkers with micro would likely just beat that. Then were stuck with having added one of the worst designed units from SC2 into Starbow without changing anything that could make it have interesting interactions. Its really just there in SC2 to beat a lot of stuff Protoss has. It has no natural weaknesses apart from lacking anti air, and nessesitates counter units to keep the balance in check. The SC2 Marauder can only be one of three things depending on balance: Useless, boring or overpowered. You need to radically change stats to make it something else.
It is weak against anti-armored units (immortal), vs non-armored units and in terms of scaling poorly (due to high supply cost, reavers and tanks). In terms of gameplay dynamic the maurauder has the potential to work very well in Starbow.
EDIT: And I also forgot it has no AA.
Don't worry - This unit has plenty of weakness's.
|
Ofc its weak to anti armoured units... they are counter units. Those units should be kept at a minimum in the game.
It also has good scaling, but not great like splash units naturally have.
I state again what are the non counter unit weaknesses of this unit? Its range is good, its damage is ok, its hp is good, its mobility is amazing and it has a reasonable cost.
It has nothing that makes you think - oh yea I can abuse that. Most other units have a thing or two for the opponant to abuse.
The reason I suggested range was that its the natural weakness of a unit that is supposed to be in the front line soaking damage. Every other damage soak in the game has melee or very short range. The only relatively tough long ranged units at least have poor mobility, and are valuable targets for your opponant.
|
On July 17 2013 21:46 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Ofc its weak to anti armoured units... they are counter units. Those units should be kept at a minimum in the game.
It also has good scaling, but not great like splash units naturally have.
I state again what are the non counter unit weaknesses of this unit? Its range is good, its damage is ok, its hp is good, its mobility is amazing and it has a reasonable cost.
It has nothing that makes you think - oh yea I can abuse that. Most other units have a thing or two for the opponant to abuse.
The reason I suggested range was that its the natural weakness of a unit that is supposed to be in the front line soaking damage. Every other damage soak in the game has melee or very short range. The only relatively tough long ranged units at least have poor mobility, and are valuable targets for your opponant.
It has bad scaling (not good), so it rewards players for army trading. A 200 supply army of bio is probably the least effective maxed army in the game, so you really don't wanna turtle as a bio player. Instead, your rewarded for army trading and eventually transitioning into mech.
You "abuse" the maurauder heavy player either through air harass (sentinel, banshee are really good), and through defending since the clock is on the bio player. Thus the bio player needs to drop, army trade - Otherwise your army gets better than his and he loses.
This type of gameplay rewards lots of small-army play which seems to be what most spectators want more of in Sc2. For various reasons, I expect that the Maurauder (wants vairous stats gets tweaked correctly) to work better than it does in Sc2.
Its important to note that gamedesign comes before individual unit design. Stalker wasn't changed cus it was boring to use or because there was no counter to it. But it had to be changed because it resulted in a bad game-dynamic where turtling was rewarded.
If we could improve the unit design of the maurauder/immortal, that would be great and desireable, but only if;
- The gameplay dynamic of all matchups are maintained or improved upon.
- The design is simple and intuitive.
|
So, since it scales so badly, how come most lategame TvP armies in WoL consisted of Marines and Marauders with support?
They do really well against anything that isn't designed to specifically counter them, and against air you still have accces to marines really easily when building Marauders.
Even ignoring all this - what does a Marauder without concussive do that a siege tank does not apart from soak damage?
What weakness can be abused about a Marauder? (In battle)
What units does Marauders have interesting interactions with? (Stalkers? were moving away from them being the main component of the Protoss army)
How is the Marauder in any way shape or form an interesting unit when its stats are ALL average or above average?
The only standart of standart unit that ever succeded in being interesting was the dragoon, and that still had a clucky model and poor attack delay.
There is a reason the units most critizised in SC2 are the Colossus, Infestor, Roach and Marauder (with honerable mentions to Immortal and Broodlord). You have to acknowledge what might be inherently wrong with a unit before doing a blind copy/paste.
|
@Hiders suggestions for balancing the Immortal/Marauder
1) Do we want bio to have relatively slow produciton but cost effective vs protoss gateway units?. This will reward various 4-5 rax "deathball'ish" timings rather than dropbased play.
2) Do we want to make bio slightly cost ineffective/equally cost effective vs protoss, but increase its production speed instead? This will reward dropbased play and multitasking.
But this actually brings us away from the Marauder.
If we want to reward multitasking and dropplay, and NOT make Bio strong vs Gateway units, then what is the point of Marauders in PvT?
Yes, Marauders force Protoss to NOT only build Stalkers, and instead get Immortals, which reduces P´s army mobility.
This leads to Bio being the more mobile, but weaker, army, and thus we can see Terran get bio units and play something else besides pure mech in every game.
But this effect can be achieved by:
- Bringing back G-4 Charges ability to the Reaper, which are great for harassmen even vs static defence, but horrible in pure fights vs Gateway armies.
- Make Marines stronger from start (No range upg for example) but slightly weaker vs light units. If properly balanced, this forces P to get slower Zealots to tank for the Stalkers.
- Just make Dropships/Starport even cheaper..
Another old problem we had in TvP was Stalkers could just surround Terrans base. As soon as T pushed out, Stalkers blinked into T´s base. Ths lead to games where neither player did anything in the mid game.
With the new Stalker damage, where they are weaker vs armored units, it is even easier to push out with Tanks. Unsieged tanks are stronger vs Stalkers... Just as Marauders are suppose to be...
If this is not enough to make Terran able to be aggressive, we can give a cheap energy upgrade to Medics, so they can use Matrixe AND have energy to heal. Or we can just make Matrix stronger overall. Or add Combat shield upg to Marines.
Another old problem was that Stalkers could just kite all day vs the Marines who pushed, and at the end the Medics had no energy left, and Stalkers just attacked and won. It was so easy to stop Bio in this way. With a cheap energy upgrade to Medics, this problem is not a problem anymore. (And besides, it is more fun to watch Stalkers shoot at bio, back away, shoot, back away, shoot, then it is to see Immortals just standing still and killing the Bio ball, or vice versa, depending on who has the biggest blob.)
We do not need to make the Stalker a Dragoon. The Stalker can be weak, because Protoss now has the (finally) completed Sentinel. It can use Safeguard to make P able to attack. It can use Null Wards for map control, since weaker Stalkers will not be as strong at doing so anymore.
And another problem was that Protoss HAD to rely on midgame Reavers vs this.
But why was that bad, after all?
Reavers are fun as fuck to watch and play with.
Why is it more fun to see Protoss get 6 Stalkers/6 Immortals/6 Zealots and move them around in a slow blob vs Terran in the mid game?
And if Reavers were too good/important, we could do something more with the Scout/Archon to make them more viable as alternatives.
Regarding Immortal:
The real problem is it just overlaps too much with Sentinel/Reaver in every way, except being easier to control. So if it gets properly balanced, then chances are that bad players will still use it, but top players will skip it as they have the APM to use Sentinel/Reavers instead.
Isn´t this a sign that the Immortal is redundant then, since it just overlaps with units already in the game?
This version of the Sentinel can already do everything the Immortal is suppose to do, but with more finesse.
Maurauder was implemented to give terran natural map control. 3-4 range maurauder doesn't grant that - Even with Stim and concussive shell, mass blink stalkers with micro would likely just beat that.
But Terran can get map control vs Protoss now, with Stalkers being Stalkers.
If it is not enough, I think we can do small tweaks to make Terran able to do it.
I ask again:
We now have the Marauder/Immortal in the game. We see how it works. We discuss how we can improve it for the next patch. What type of great gameplay can those units help us to reach, that we can not reach without them?
Edit: And the stuff above is not my ideas. It is what you all in this thread have said over and over again.
|
On July 17 2013 22:13 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
So, since it scales so badly, how come most lategame TvP armies in WoL consisted of Marines and Marauders with support?
They do really well against anything that isn't designed to specifically counter them, and against air you still have accces to marines really easily when building Marauders.
Even ignoring all this - what does a Marauder without concussive do that a siege tank does not apart from soak damage?
What weakness can be abused about a Marauder? (In battle)
What units does Marauders have interesting interactions with? (Stalkers? were moving away from them being the main component of the Protoss army)
How is the Marauder in any way shape or form an interesting unit when its stats are ALL average or above average?
The only standart of standart unit that ever succeded in being interesting was the dragoon, and that still had a clucky model and poor attack delay.
There is a reason the units most critizised in SC2 are the Colossus, Infestor, Roach and Marauder (with honerable mentions to Immortal and Broodlord). You have to acknowledge what might be inherently wrong with a unit before doing a blind copy/paste.
1) I am talking about Sbow here. Reavers/immortals/Ht's are just a better combo than collosus/HT
2) Mech is significantly better here in Sbow, so in terms of relatively scaling your better off going into mech.
3) Bio late game in Sc2 is probably also protoss favored.
All your concerns about how maurauders works in battle etc. are related to unit design (rather than gameplay dynamic). If you go back and read the previous post, I have always been completely aware that the maurauder aren't particularly exciting units by them selves, but it is a matter of prioritizing. Personally I think deathball/stalemale games are the most boring thing ever. So the maurauder and the immortal is there to give each unit composition clear weakness's/strenghts which will reward a more desireable gampleay if/when stats gets tweaked correctly.
|
- Bringing back G-4 Charges ability to the Reaper, which are great for harassmen even vs static defence, but horrible in pure fights vs Gateway armies.
- Make Marines stronger from start (No range upg for example) but slightly weaker vs light units. If properly balanced, this forces P to get slower Zealots to tank for the Stalkers.
- Just make Dropships/Starport even cheaper..
Reaper G4 charges is more of a 4base + unit I think. Not so much about early midgame.
- Will marines do a good enough job of securing map control by them selves given they do relatively low damage to stalkers kiting them? Would require maybe a stim movement speed buff along with no range upgrade as you suggest.
But these changes along with immortal at robo could possibly work in TvP. But it would require a signiciant stalker nerf vs light, and wouldn't that just mess up the new PvZ dynamic (which seems pretty good so far).
Isn´t this a sign that the Immortal is redundant then, since it just overlaps with units already in the game?
This version of the Sentinel can already do everything the Immortal is suppose to do, but with more finesse.
We can never balance the game around the Sentinel (it can't be a neccesity-unit), as it is too unintuitive with high learning costs. Sentinel is a unit for "experienced" Sbow players, not for new players IMO.
Besides, there is a huge difference between balancing the game around protoss player staying on relatively low tech with for instance, 8 zealots, 15 stalkers, 7 immortals at one point during the game, and balancing the game around immortal at robo fac. The latter would give the protoss the infastructure for faster reavers, and is more likely to require more all-round'ish stalkers (than the former). So instead, we will be more likely to see 8 zealots, 18 stalkers, 2 immortals and 2 reavers with a warp prism at the same point in the game if immortal is a robo-unit.
That is likely to do a better job of stagnating the game once the protoss is on 3 bases as stalkers with reaver in warp prism is quite a mobile army.
Thus, I highly prefer that the game gets balanced around;
- Stalkers being relatively weak vs lurkers
- Stalkers being strong vs hydras and lings as long as zealots buffer.
- Immortals being pretty good vs lurkers and somewhat easily produceable and reaver tech being quite expensive - This will reward players who doesn't get reavers pre 15 minute mark.
|
@Hider
1)This is not the Marauder itself that has problems with scaling, thats splash damage units with supirior scaling to ALL single target units.
2)And this affacts the Marauder interaction in what way?
3)Yes, but that is again because of better Protoss power units, there is nothing about the Marauder changes here other than being a blob unit to do the grunt work
Yes I focus on unit design. If a unit like the Marauder is needed to make good gameplay its fine to add it. But as you say yourself the unit is flawed, and there are no reason we should not try to fix these flaws.
@Kabel I think the overlap with Reaver/Sentinel if it becomes more like a improved Dragoon. Make it a tiny bit faster and do its damage in more faster shots and it will work as the core unit of Protoss compositions. Protoss will get Zealot/immortal, Immortal/Stalker or Zealot/Stalker (or mixing appropriately) depending on playstyle. It still allows the stalker to be more specialized as the protoss still has the immortal to provide a main attack force.
The sentinel really does not overlap much with the immortal, and it can be distinguished from the Reaver with better speed and being more massable with more reliable damage.
|
On July 17 2013 22:39 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
@Hider
1)This is not the Marauder itself that has problems with scaling, thats splash damage units with supirior scaling to ALL single target units.
2)And this affacts the Marauder interaction in what way?
3)Yes, but that is again because of better Protoss power units, there is nothing about the Marauder changes here other than being a blob unit to do the grunt work
Yes I focus on unit design. If a unit like the Marauder is needed to make good gameplay its fine to add it. But as you say yourself the unit is flawed, and there are no reason we should not try to fix these flaws.
@Kabel I think the overlap with Reaver/Sentinel if it becomes more like a improved Dragoon. Make it a tiny bit faster and do its damage in more faster shots and it will work as the core unit of Protoss compositions. Protoss will get Zealot/immortal, Immortal/Stalker or Zealot/Stalker (or mixing appropriately) depending on playstyle. It still allows the stalker to be more specialized as the protoss still has the immortal to provide a main attack force.
The sentinel really does not overlap much with the immortal, and it can be distinguished from the Reaver with better speed and being more massable with more reliable damage.
EDIT: sorry, misunderstood your post.
The maurauder isn't flawed. There is a big difference between "boring" unit design and flawed unit design. Besides, I don't really disagree with anything in your post.
But as I outlined in the previous post, it's possible that the design of the maurauder (or a similar type of unit) can be improved upon. But it is definitely not easy, and I suspect that Starbow has been looking for that solution for 1½ years, and so far hasn't really found it.
Some times the easy "boring" solution is preferable.
|
@ Kabel
Some people say immortal is boring, but which type of unit composition will likely be disliked the least;
Unit composition A;
- 8 stalkers
- 6 zealots
- 5 immortals
(maybe sentinels)
Unit compostion B
- 9 stalkers
-14 zealots
-2 immortals
(less likely to have sentinels)
I would be inclined to say unit composition A seems more fun, as zealot is probably the least microable unit in the game. So if the goal is to reduce mobility, then immortal at gateway is likely to be more "fun" than immortal at robo as it reduces the optimal amount of zealots in the composition.
I expect that when people say immortal is boring, it's becasue they rather want to use the stalker. But if the alternative is the zealot, then I think the immortal-option probably is more fun.
Another argument in favor of immortals is that it is probably also easier to add micro-tricks/abilities to this unit eventually (once we get some good ideas). But with the zealot, adding any type of micro-ability seems impossible (I refer to the charge-discussion).
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Reaper G4 charges is more of a 4base + unit I think. Not so much about early midgame.
- Will marines do a good enough job of securing map control by them selves given they do relatively low damage to stalkers kiting them? Would require maybe a stim movement speed buff along with no range upgrade as you suggest.
But these changes along with immortal at robo could possibly work in TvP. But it would require a signiciant stalker nerf vs light, and wouldn't that just mess up the new PvZ dynamic (which seems pretty good so far).
Isn´t this a sign that the Immortal is redundant then, since it just overlaps with units already in the game?
This version of the Sentinel can already do everything the Immortal is suppose to do, but with more finesse.
We can never balance the game around the Sentinel (it can't be a neccesity-unit), as it is too unintuitive with high learning costs. Sentinel is a unit for "experienced" Sbow players, not for new players IMO.
Besides, there is a huge difference between balancing the game around protoss player staying on relatively low tech with for instance, 8 zealots, 15 stalkers, 7 immortals at one point during the game, and balancing the game around immortal at robo fac. The latter would give the protoss the infastructure for faster reavers, and is more likely to require more all-round'ish stalkers (than the former). So instead, we will be more likely to see 8 zealots, 18 stalkers, 2 immortals and 2 reavers with a warp prism at the same point in the game if immortal is a robo-unit.
That is likely to do a better job of stagnating the game once the protoss is on 3 bases as stalkers with reaver in warp prism is quite a mobile army.
Thus, I highly prefer that the game gets balanced around;
- Stalkers being relatively weak vs lurkers
- Stalkers being strong vs hydras and lings as long as zealots buffer.
- Immortals being pretty good vs lurkers and somewhat easily produceable and reaver tech being quite expensive - This will reward players who doesn't get reavers pre 15 minute mark.
There are many assumptions from you in the post above. Which is good, cause we can not know what would work best.
We try to accomplish as good gameplay as possible. The units, abilities, balance etc are just the tools we use as the base for the game.
But I ask again, because this is an important question: What type of great gameplay can the Immortal and Marauder help us to reach, that we can not reach without them?
You advocate a lot of balance changes with those units in the game. Why should I make all of these changes, just to keep those two units in the game? What will we gain from it, that we can not get without them, after all?
Take your time to this question. Otherwise I will answear it for you.
|
You advocate a lot of balance changes with those units in the game. Why should I make all of these changes, just to keep those two units in the game? What will we gain from it, that we can not get without them, after all?
Can they? For how long time have bio been really bad vs protoss? Why haven't we just fixed stuff if we "easily" could get the desired state without introducing new units?
When I mention that list of balance changes and how to tweak stats, that's not really the flaw of the immortal or the mauruader. That's a flaw of the balance-maker of not taking his time/having the correct methodology for making sure that the matchup worked in the desireable way doing standard builds.
If all of the matchups can work in a desireable way by doing other types of tweaks - then sure - try that approch using a well structured methodology. Be sure to know what your testing off for every matchup.
|
+ Show Spoiler +@ Kabel
Some people say immortal is boring, but which type of unit composition will likely be disliked the least;
Unit composition A;
- 8 stalkers
- 6 zealots
- 5 immortals
(maybe sentinels)
Unit compostion B
- 9 stalkers
-14 zealots
-2 immortals
(less likely to have sentinels)
I would be inclined to say unit composition A seems more fun, as zealot is probably the least microable unit in the game. So if the goal is to reduce mobility, then immortal at gateway is likely to be more "fun" than immortal at robo as it reduces the optimal amount of zealots in the composition.
Silly question. Totally out of context.
I can not tell what people will like. I can only tell what I will like, and what type of game I believe in.
But I will reply. None of the above suggestions feels funnier than the other. This unit composition sounds most interesting to both play with and watch:
- 8 stalkers
- 6 zealots
- 1 Reaver
- 3 Sentinels
Why does the army become more interesting if it looks like this?
- 8 Stalkers
- 3 Immortals
- 6 Zealots
- 1 Reaver
- 3 Sentinels
Why do you want to delay Reaver tech to the late game? It is one of the most fun units in the game, and adds a lot of excitement to the gameplay.
----------------
Look, the reason I go so hard at the Immortal and Marauder now, and ask you so much about it, is because I have to be brutal to the game. I gave the Marauder and Immortal a shot. I am willing to try them some more. I am just not convinced by them. But I will continue and try them.
We need to be absolutely certain why we should continue on this path. We need to understand what we want to reach. And why we should continue to use these units, and balance the game around it. That is why I discuss so heavily now ^^
|
I don't know about the Marauder, but the immortal does help give protoss a sense of choise of unit composition. I also makes it possible to change the stalker into more of an early game harass unit (Something that protosses have been wanting for ages).
Immortals also give the BW protoss dynamic of having a lot of targets for the opponents to target fire. Every immortal is an investment, and losing one is going to hurt a lot more than losing a hydralisk or marine.
If the Immortal is not in the game we end up with protoss having to rely on stalkers as the backbone of the army again. This will keep the Stalker stuck in limbo between mobile tactical unit and main damage dealer.
The marauder is not needed imo, but it could be interesting if its changed somehow. I just don't see what it can bring in its SC2 form that is not achieved by changing protoss a bit, or giving the orther bio units some love.
|
On July 17 2013 23:12 Kabel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@ Kabel
Some people say immortal is boring, but which type of unit composition will likely be disliked the least;
Unit composition A;
- 8 stalkers
- 6 zealots
- 5 immortals
(maybe sentinels)
Unit compostion B
- 9 stalkers
-14 zealots
-2 immortals
(less likely to have sentinels)
I would be inclined to say unit composition A seems more fun, as zealot is probably the least microable unit in the game. So if the goal is to reduce mobility, then immortal at gateway is likely to be more "fun" than immortal at robo as it reduces the optimal amount of zealots in the composition. Silly question. Totally out of context. I can not tell what people will like. I can only tell what I will like, and what type of game I believe in. But I will reply. None of the above suggestions feels funnier than the other. This unit composition sounds most interesting to both play with and watch: - 8 stalkers - 6 zealots - 1 Reaver - 3 Sentinels Why does the army become more interesting if it looks like this? - 8 Stalkers - 3 Immortals - 6 Zealots - 1 Reaver - 3 Sentinels Why do you want to delay Reaver tech to the late game? It is one of the most fun units in the game, and adds a lot of excitement to the gameplay. ---------------- Look, the reason I go so hard at the Immortal and Marauder now, and ask you so much about it, is because I have to be brutal to the game. I gave the Marauder and Immortal a shot. I am willing to try them some more. I am not convinced by them. I have not seen a single game where I think "Oh, great we added those units!" Maybe it will come. We need to be absolutely certain why we should continue on this path. We need to understand what we want to reach. And why we should continue to use these units, and balance the game around it. That is why I discuss so heavily now ^^
What do you expect me to answer? Clearly the immortal/maurauder is the easy solution to creating great gameplay and as I told you previously, we can't expect anyone to like these units, because people think you can have units that are fun, simple, intuitive and that reward fantastic gameplay throughout the entire game. But in reality, that is an utopia, and you have to priortizie.
If another type of solution implies more zealots into the mix to reduce mobility, then I will question whether people would find that more fun. How is that not an extremly relevant question/debate?
So if my concerns (regarding the above) are correct, then a different (and better) solution has these characteristica;
- Protoss players can still mass stalkers in all matchups (as it is a fun unit)
- Reavers now reward action on 2-3 base (currently they do a good job of preventing action as it is almost impossible to attack/drop into reavers as reavers in a warp prism is relatively mobile and really cost effective).
- Mass stalkers now reward action, small army play and a diverse dynamic.
But how on earth do we get there? I don't see it tbh.
|
Random thought (as an alternative to Marauder, or independently)
Have you ever considered giving marine a prone firing position (like in some old c&c) ? Ennemies then would have x% mis-chance while marine benefit from +y armor and +z range...
I think it could have an interesting dynamics because while a big ball of marines in prone position cannot dodge strom and other aoe and thus is pure cannonfoder, a nicely set-up arc at a strategic point is hard to clear.
It would be a way to allow bio to hold groud and boost its defensive utility, maybe ?
|
On July 17 2013 23:17 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I don't know about the Marauder, but the immortal does help give protoss a sense of choise of unit composition. I also makes it possible to change the stalker into more of an early game harass unit (Something that protosses have been wanting for ages).
Immortals also give the BW protoss dynamic of having a lot of targets for the opponents to target fire. Every immortal is an investment, and losing one is going to hurt a lot more than losing a hydralisk or marine.
If the Immortal is not in the game we end up with protoss having to rely on stalkers as the backbone of the army again. This will keep the Stalker stuck in limbo between mobile tactical unit and main damage dealer.
The marauder is not needed imo, but it could be interesting if its changed somehow. I just don't see what it can bring in its SC2 form that is not achieved by changing protoss a bit, or giving the orther bio units some love.
If there is another way to give terran "natural map control" in TvP without any unintended consequences for other matchups (while keeping bio as an inutivie playstyle without high learnings costs for new players) - then Yes, maurauder isn't needed.
But is there? And if that involves protoss getting more zealots, is that even desireable?
|
Clearly the immortal/maurauder is the easy solution to creating great gameplay
All I say is: What method is the best one to use in order to reach the desired gameplay?
For example, you mentioned above that Bio should not be too strong vs Gateway units. Instead Bio should be rewarded by mobility etc. Sounds resonable. But why the Marauder then, which kinda goes against that concept? Thats why I brought up an alternative solution, that a a lot of other people in this thread have presented together. So we can evaluate if it in fact is better and easier, after all.
And thereby my repeted question: What other advantages do we get by having the Immortal/Marauder in the game?
I do see some advantages. Zaphod above said some. So I will not remove the Marauder/Immortal all of a sudden. Now I added them to the game, and it takes time to get it right. But I still think it is important that we question ourselfes, and evaluate what we have in the game atm. And most importantly, what we try to reach.
Thats all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
