EPT[A] Starbow - Page 339
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Weerwolf
75 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 23 2013 22:52 Weerwolf wrote: Someone else offered the idea somewhere before, but to make warpgates a bit less of the go-to option, you could consider to make each warp in cost 25 additional minerals. This is still not a lot, so maybe even 50? I think there are three main differences between that suggestion and my suggestion; 1) With that suggestion players will be less likely to use it for harass purposes as it is less efficient. 2) With that suggestion, players are more likely to use it do defend off harass (compared to my suggestion) as the addiitonal costs is easily worth it if you can reduce probe losses. 3) With my suggestion, warp tech is superior to gateway, which means that players evenutally will transition their gateways into warpgates when/if they can afford it. The two first are unambigiously bad. The latter is more unclear. Players having only warp gates late late game isn't neccesarily bad, and actually it may just give the opponent an incentive to attack before the protoss has transformed all his gateways into warpgates. This is probably a good thing for TvP mech, where the terran should never attack at the moment. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
The big disadvantage I see with each Gateway / Warpgate costing resouces to transform is the "Wtf" - factor. Something players are used to do freely in the game suddenly costs resources. Warp gate upgrade finishes - I transform 5 Warp gates, all of a sudden 500 gas or whatever is drained from my bank. (Depends on how expensive they are. If they are really cheap, then it is no big deal to "missclick" and lose resources.) If something like this is added, there must be a way to make players aware of it. (I think it might even be hard for long time Starbow players to remember it, since transforming Warp gates is such essential thing to do as Protoss in SC2.) For this reason, I think a small extra resource cost on each warped in unit might be more interesting and easier. (Not as punishing if players "forget" about it and warp in extra units.) 1) With that suggestion players will be less likely to use it for harass purposes as it is less efficient. . Why is it less efficient to use it for harass purposes? 25 extra minerals to get a Zealot inside the enemy base? Sounds like a good deal to me. Compare it to if each Warpgate is expensive in resources to get. THAT makes harassment more of a commitment. (Unless Warpgates are cheap to transform ofc.) 2) With that suggestion, players are more likely to use it do defend off harass (compared to my suggestion) as the addiitonal costs is easily worth it if you can reduce probe losses. Yes, but this means that they must have a couple of Warpgates available all the time, which in the long run is more costly to macro from, if each unit costs 25 extra minerals. (Unless they invest in extra Gateways they purely macro from, and just keeps a couple of Warpgates "just in case.") What is the problem with that then? Sounds interesting IMO, to see more macro styles from Protoss. In the same way, the extra cost of transforming the Gateway into Warpgate for a price, as you suggest Hider, can also be a good investment to prevent harass from happening. (Since that reduces Probe losses) 3) With my suggestion, warp tech is superior to gateway, which means that players evenutally will transition their gateways into warpgates when/if they can afford it. Well, this is both good and bad, I guess. In the lategame, with your suggestion, Protoss will probably have only Warpgates in the late game. With the extra-resource-per-warped-unit, there will always be a upside and downside to Warpgates/gateways, all game through, depending on how Protoss chooses to play. Sounds interesting to me at least. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
Why is it less efficient to use it for harass purposes? 25 extra minerals to get a Zealot inside the enemy base? Sounds like a good deal to me. Compare it to if each Warpgate is expensive in resources to get. THAT makes harassment more of a commitment. (Unless Warpgates are cheap to transform ofc.) Because its a variable cost, while my suggestion is more fixed; So when you have warp tech (which you gradually will get), then you will use it. With extra mineral cost, you will only use it when its neccesary or when the opponent has absolutely no defense against warp in harass. Yes, but this means that they must have a couple of Warpgates available all the time, which in the long run is more costly to macro from, if each unit costs 25 extra minerals. (Unless they invest in extra Gateways they purely macro from, and just keeps a couple of Warpgates "just in case.") What is the problem with that then? Sounds interesting IMO, to see more macro styles from Protoss. In the same way, the extra cost of transforming the Gateway into Warpgate for a price, as you suggest Hider, can also be a good investment to prevent harass from happening. (Since that reduces Probe loss Maybe it sounds interesting that great players can defend of potential harass easily by having only a couple of warp gates, but for gameplay purposes, IMO its terrible. I think great players should be rewarded for doing things that makes games more exciting and interesting rather than doing stuff that stales the game. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Anyway, based on my TvP game vs Desive yesterday (and some other games as well vs him and Alpha), I feel like there are the following issues with TvP mech currently; Problem 1: Mech is way way too good in a straight up fight. They should be good, but at the moment it is too extreme. Solution: Immortals with normal armor (takes a bit less damage vs tanks) and zealots with a "weak" charge ability so you can drag mines better with zealots. Problem 2: Early warp prism drops too strong/unforgiving if terran has an unrefined build. Solution; Buff tanks in unsieged mode. Problem 3: Warp tech is just bad for the matchup dynamic for a variety of reasons. It should primarily be used as an harass/multitaskbased based option in the mid/late game. At the moment it is too good to kill off drops and vulture runbys. I think the combination of; A) Static defense as harass killers B) Having a lot of warp gates, C) No significant mobility disadvantage compared to your opponent, creates a terrible game dynamic where the opponent is punished if he does anything else but turtles to 200 supply. At least one of them has to go, I previously focussed a lot on static defenses, but redeisgning (or perhaps removing) warp tech might be a more effective and simple option. In Sc2 protoss was mostly the defender (low mobility), so warp tech didn't have such a terrible affect on the gameplay. I would also argue that warp tech is a pretty decent thing in ZvP Starbow as zerg is the more mobile race in the mid/late game. Another problem with early warp tech + warp prism is that it makes it a neccesity for the terran player to invests in a relatively early turret ring + 1-2(3) vikings due the the warp prism inside the terrans base threat. This makes it unrealistic for him to harass him self as his army value is so low. Solution: Make it a requirement that you have to pay for each gateway you want to transition into a warpgate. Problem 4: Map issues that rewards stale games/turtling; Breakout, Aldaris Betrayal and the map with highgrounds to 3rd/natural (forgot the name). Solution: Rework them/remove them. In a previous post 2 pages back (or so) I listed specific suggestions. Problem 5: Protoss can deny drops a bit too easily if he gets an advantage. I think this is kind of a "momentum" effect. If you get ahead, it just snowballs a bit too much for my taste. The problem is that once the protoss gets ahead he can afford to invest into "prevent stuff", like pylon spotters, extra observers, cannons, scouts. Basically, I believe this should occur; Protoss gets ahead: We see awesome gameplay Terran gets ahead: Wee some awesome gameplay Even game: Awesome gameplay I don't wanna see awesome gameplay only if the players have very refined builds and get even into the midgame. Comebacks should be made possible by aggression rather than just turtling. Solution: Scouts movement speed reduced and warp tech weakened (see my previous suggestion) Slightly slower Scout speed sounds resonable. Stronger unsieged tanks too. Warpgate/Gateway mechanic might be adjusted too. Modify/rework the maps can I not do. I suggest you to PM Terranlover, or write in the Starbow map thread to discuss how the map can be improved. Edit: Hider, are you a ninja? 2 minutes after I made my long post, you reply ^^ Because its a variable cost, while my suggestion is more fixed; So when you have warp tech (which you gradually will get), then you will use it. With extra mineral cost, you will only use it when its neccesary or when the opponent has absolutely no defense against warp in harass. But is that necessarily a bad thing? The 10 second slower production we´ve had in Starbow for a long time did the same thing - made Warpgates useful when necessary, and not as a general way to macro. Maybe it sounds interesting that great players can defend of potential harass easily by having only a couple of warp gates, but for gameplay purposes, IMO its terrible. I think great players should be rewarded for doing things that makes games more exciting and interesting rather than doing stuff that stales the game. Yes, I think we all agree on that. But what prevents them from investing in 3-4 Warpgates with your suggestion, and then keep the rest as Gateways? We will see the same scenario - warp in units to fend of harassment. Warpgates overall suffer from this problem. One way to overcome it is to simply make warped in units take longer time to be finished. Makes it harder to just warp-in on top of the enemy harassment. (Same solution that was applied to Rift at Nexus) | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 24 2013 00:15 Kabel wrote: Regarding problems in TvP: + Show Spoiler + Anyway, based on my TvP game vs Desive yesterday (and some other games as well vs him and Alpha), I feel like there are the following issues with TvP mech currently; Problem 1: Mech is way way too good in a straight up fight. They should be good, but at the moment it is too extreme. Solution: Immortals with normal armor (takes a bit less damage vs tanks) and zealots with a "weak" charge ability so you can drag mines better with zealots. Problem 2: Early warp prism drops too strong/unforgiving if terran has an unrefined build. Solution; Buff tanks in unsieged mode. Problem 3: Warp tech is just bad for the matchup dynamic for a variety of reasons. It should primarily be used as an harass/multitaskbased based option in the mid/late game. At the moment it is too good to kill off drops and vulture runbys. I think the combination of; A) Static defense as harass killers B) Having a lot of warp gates, C) No significant mobility disadvantage compared to your opponent, creates a terrible game dynamic where the opponent is punished if he does anything else but turtles to 200 supply. At least one of them has to go, I previously focussed a lot on static defenses, but redeisgning (or perhaps removing) warp tech might be a more effective and simple option. In Sc2 protoss was mostly the defender (low mobility), so warp tech didn't have such a terrible affect on the gameplay. I would also argue that warp tech is a pretty decent thing in ZvP Starbow as zerg is the more mobile race in the mid/late game. Another problem with early warp tech + warp prism is that it makes it a neccesity for the terran player to invests in a relatively early turret ring + 1-2(3) vikings due the the warp prism inside the terrans base threat. This makes it unrealistic for him to harass him self as his army value is so low. Solution: Make it a requirement that you have to pay for each gateway you want to transition into a warpgate. Problem 4: Map issues that rewards stale games/turtling; Breakout, Aldaris Betrayal and the map with highgrounds to 3rd/natural (forgot the name). Solution: Rework them/remove them. In a previous post 2 pages back (or so) I listed specific suggestions. Problem 5: Protoss can deny drops a bit too easily if he gets an advantage. I think this is kind of a "momentum" effect. If you get ahead, it just snowballs a bit too much for my taste. The problem is that once the protoss gets ahead he can afford to invest into "prevent stuff", like pylon spotters, extra observers, cannons, scouts. Basically, I believe this should occur; Protoss gets ahead: We see awesome gameplay Terran gets ahead: Wee some awesome gameplay Even game: Awesome gameplay I don't wanna see awesome gameplay only if the players have very refined builds and get even into the midgame. Comebacks should be made possible by aggression rather than just turtling. Solution: Scouts movement speed reduced and warp tech weakened (see my previous suggestion) Slightly slower Scout speed sounds resonable. Stronger unsieged tanks too. Warpgate/Gateway mechanic might be adjusted too. Modify/rework the maps can I not do. I suggest you to PM Terranlover, or write in the Starbow map thread to discuss how the map can be improved. Edit: Hider, are you a ninja? 2 minutes after I made my long post, you reply ^^ But is that necessarily a bad thing? The 10 second slower production we´ve had in Starbow for a long time did the same thing - made Warpgates useful when necessary, and not as a general way to macro. Yes, I think we all agree on that. But what prevents them from investing in 3-4 Warpgates with your suggestion, and then keep the rest as Gateways? We will see the same scenario - warp in units to fend of harassment. Warpgates overall suffer from this problem. One way to overcome it is to simply make warped in units take longer time to be finished. Makes it harder to just warp-in on top of the enemy harassment. (Same solution that was applied to Rift at Nexus) I think with my suggestion players will have relatively few warpgates in the ealier parts of the midgame (lets say for the first 15-17 mintes), which is the period where the protoss player is "supposed" to be the most vulnerable as he will have to take a quick 3rd and a quick 4rd in order to put him self in a position where he can army trade efficiently against the mech'ing terran in the late game. During this period the terran should have strong tools in order to reduce the economic advantage of the protoss player. However, with cheap warp tech, he can't do this. With a variable cost per warped in unit, he still can't do it as the protoss player will use warped units as "back-up plan". For instance if 6 vultures run past his gateway units or if he didn't spot a dropship in time, he is likely to just warped in units to fend of the harass even though this may cost him 100-300 minerals extra (but it is easily worth it if he can efficiently deal with the harass). Thus, he won't warp in units preemptively, but only as a response to once he see the dropships. This is a very important difference from my suggestion. With my suggestion you have to make a large fixed preemptive investment, which will be a very big investment in the early game, and since you don't know whether your opponent will opt for an harass based style, it will often times be a big risk to make this investment. So basically, the variable cost per warped in unit allows the protoss player to always make the correct response to aggression from the opponent - Thus terran agression early midgame will still be underpowered. My suggestion is differenct as I expect that it will be too expensive to have more than 2-4 warp gates in the midgame, which isn't/won't efficiently deal with harass. Especially since the protoss will be more likely to use those for harass-purposes (since it is cheaper), which often means that they will be on cooldown, and thus not ready to warp in units if harass occurs. So while there could be scenarios where players will use the warp tech to nullify harass - that likely won't be optimal (with the correct cost of course) in the early midgame which is the most important part of the game. In late game, yes terran harass will be less efficient, but at that period we have the positional game with tanks being spread thinly which is awesome. Thus we don't need terran harass to be particularly strong during that period. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
Rather, I think that with my suggestion most players are just not gonna bother with warp tech before they have a super strong eco, where they will transform all gateways into warpgates. So instead, I propose this; - Remove warp tech - Add a warp in upgrade at robo bay that allows warp prism to warp in units from gateways. Cost 100/100. - When a gateway has been used to warp in a unit, it gets locked for the next 30-50 seconds (or something like that), where no units can be produced. This will make sure that warp tech is mainly used for harass purposes and that gateways are used for main production. Macro will still be simple, which makes it possible for players to use their APM/focus on more interesting stuff. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 24 2013 02:29 Xiphias wrote: Might work, but it makes more sense to have that kind of an upgrade at the twilight counsel (since it upgrades gateway units...) Maybe - warp prism is a robo unit though. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
On July 23 2013 19:20 Kabel wrote: I couldn´t sleep last night, so I tried to look for a solution with the Immortal/Marauder in the game. I found nothing good yet, so I drew a potential solution for Starbow without the Marauder and Immortal instead. (I just have to do the opposite of what we have in the game..  )I do NOT say I will implement this. I just want to share what I wrote, as a future way to go IF we end up failing with the Immortal and Marauder. What were the problems we had in the game, before we added Immortal/Marauder? + Show Spoiler + - Bio units were completely useless in TvT (MAYBE 1 early Reaper or a few Ghosts in the late game) - Bio could not push out in TvP (So easy for Stalkers to just kite the Marine push and dwindle it down one by one) - Marines+Medic were the only bio units needed in TvZ (No need for Ghost or Reapers.. Maybe 1-2 early) - Bio drops were too weak in TvT and TvP - Stalkers with Blink were too strong, especially in TvP since T could not leave his base due to the risk of being Blinked - Stalkers could "contain" Terran so neither T could push out, or P could push in. Led to lame games. - Stalkers were the only core unit needed in PvP and arguably in TvP- - Banelings could just A-move vs Terran bio (Since everything is so fragile.. And it was quite lame to watch) Changes to overcome this, with the old line-up of units (No Immortal/Marauder) + Show Spoiler + First of all, all units in the game: >>>+ Show Spoiler + Barrack: Marine, Medic, Reaper, Ghost Factory: Vulture, Tank, Goliath Starport: Viking, Dropship, Banshee, Science Vessel, BC Gateway/Warpgate: Zealot, Stalker, HT, DT Robotic facility: Observer, Warp Prism, Sentinel, Reaver Stargate: Corsair, Scout, Carrier, Arbiter Zergling, Baneling, Hydra, Lurker, Mutalisk, Scourge, Viper, Guardian, Devourer, Defiler, Ultralisk The values I present is just a rough assumption. I will explain further down what it is supposed to lead too. Changes: Bio - Marines + Medic slightly faster BT - Marines start with range 5 instead of 4. - Marine damage changed from 6 to 5+1 vs armored. - Medics start with 75 energy instead of 50. - Reaper can upgrade G-4 Charges, which allows them to either place a bomb on the ground, or throw a bomb at the enemy unit/Structure. After 5 seconds, it explodes and deal decent dmg vs armored units and structures. - Upgrades at Barrack: Stimpack, Reaper bombs, Combat shield, +25 additional energy for Medics Mech - Vulture deals no extra damage vs light units from the start. Only 10 to all. Instead they start with higher movement speed. - In the Factory, Vulture can research an upgrade that gives them +8 dmg vs light. (No speed bonus upgrade) - Unsieged Tanks deal higher damage vs armored units. - Spider mine damage changed FROM 75 vs all, 100 vs armored TO 50 vs light, 75 vs medium, 100 vs armored (Might not be necessary) Protoss - Photon cannon damage changed FROM 20 vs all, TO 18 vs light, 20 vs all, 22 vs armored - Stalker damage can remain as it currently is in the game (14 vs light and "medium", 12 vs armored) - Maybe even stronger Archons - Scout Phase Missile can be used on any unit. It deals ca 60-100 damage to one target. If that target has energy, ca 60-100 energy is drained AND deals splash damage to units nearby. (Otherwise the Phase Missile deals no splash) Enemy units can "run" away from the Missile, since it only lasts X seconds in the air. Zerg - Baneling armor changed to Light (Makes Reaper good vs them) - When Banelings are morphed, they last ca 30-60 seconds before they detonate by themselfes. (Might not be necessary) What would all of this lead to? + Show Spoiler + Lets look at the problems again: - Bio units were completely useless in TvT (MAYBE 1 early Reaper or a few Ghosts in the late game) - Bio could not push out in TvP (So easy for Stalkers to just kite the Marine push and dwindle it down one by one) - Marines+Medic were the only bio units needed in TvZ (No need for Ghost or Reapers.. Maybe 1-2 early) - Bio drops were too weak in TvT and TvP - Slightly faster build time for Medics + Marines, better Marines from start (5 range instead of 4), better Medics from start (75 energy instead of 50) will make them more efficient early, and a larger threat vs the enemy in all match-ups. - If we reduce their dmg from 6 to 5+1 vs armored they will not be broken vs Zerg, while still remain strong vs Stalkers/Tanks/Banshee etc. - By adding 75 energy to Medics, it will be harder for Protoss to just dwindle down the Marine push so easily as it previously was with Stalkers. - If Marines are slightly worse vs light units, we make Reapers more important in the army mix. (Since they now have better DPS vs light units, compared to the Marine) - If Reapers gain back the old G-4 Charge ability, they become good at destroying static defence and enemy workers. (This makes them even stronger as harassing mobile units in the mid game.) If we make them take only 1 slot in Dropships, they can become strong to drop too, since they can easily take out Cannons etc. (Even if the enemy has a Turret ring around the base, Reapers can jump over the cliffs and destroy the Turrets, then send in the Dropship) - If Marines have Combat shields, they will become a bit better in the midgame, and not completely hard countered as easily by Storm, Reavers, Siege tanks, Spider mines. (Still countered ofc, but not insanly weak.) Just as we try to do with the Marauder - make it still viable in the mid game in TvT and TvP. - If Cannons deal 18 vs light, 20 vs normal, 22 vs armored, Marine drops become stronger vs Cannons since it takes 3-shots to kill them, 4 shots if Marines have Combat shield. - If Vultures deal no extra damage vs light from start, they can not 3-shot Marines anymore. (Need the upgrade first) But they do have faster movement speed, which would probably still make them to be efficient harassment units early, and 4-shot workers, instead of 2 or 3-shot them. I think we all want Bio to be quite viable in the early/mid game in all match-ups. As the game progresses, it will be hard to just rely on pure Bio, and additional higher tech units must be added for Terran. We also want Bio to be strong when dropped/harassed at multiple locations. Lets look at the remaining problems: - Stalkers with Blink were too strong, especially in TvP since T could not leave his base due to the risk of being Blinked - Stalkers could "contain" Terran so neither T could push out, or P could push in. Led to lame games. - Stalkers were the only core unit needed in PvP and arguably in TvP- - Banelings could just A-move vs Terran bio (Since everything is so fragile.. And it was quite lame to watch) Stalkers are now much weaker vs armored units, and have less shields. - At the moment, with the current values, Blink Stalkers does not seem to be a problem in the game? - Stronger unsieged Tanks, and stronger Marines, helps Terran push out on the map vs Stalkers who "contain" Terran. - Stalkers alone will can not handle Terran pressure. Weaker Marines vs non-armored will make Zealots play a more important role. - If Archons become stronger, especially so they are great vs Stalkers, they might become a good alternative to Reavers + Stalkers vs Reavers + Stalkers. If Scouts get a reworked Phase Missile, so they can snipe units, Stargate play might become more important in the meta-game as a way to counter Warp Prism + Reaver - If Banelings get "timed life", Zerg must be careful and clever how he chooses to use them. (Since it is quite lame to watch large armies of Banelings+Mutas roam the map and instanly defeat enemy Bio armies) Just some short thoughts on how the match-up dynamics might look like + Show Spoiler + PvZ Will probably remain as dynamic and fun as it is, since the only change compared to the current game state is the removal of the Immortal. One problem can be how Protoss counters Lurkers, since Stalkers are now worse vs armored? - Better Archons? - Scout with better Phase Missile? (Maybe also better ground damage vs armored units) - Sentinels with Safeguard? TvZ Seems to be a dynamic and fun match-up too in the game atm. Will that remain with the removal of the Marauder? Weaker Marines vs Zerglings/Banelings might force more Reapers into the army. If Banelings get a timed life, there might not be a need for a Bio unit that "tanks" damage from Banelings? One problem might be that early Medic+Marine pushes are too strong, but if Marine dmg is lower, maybe it is balanced. PvT - With Maruaders, we want to force Protoss to build Zealots, Stalkers and Immortals. (Which slows down the mobility, and makes them more vulnerable to dropplay and Banshees etc) - With stronger Marines and better unsieged Tanks vs armored, we force Protoss to build more Zealots, which slows down the Protoss mobility, and maybe makes them more vulnerable to dropplay and Banshees etc. Will Terran be able to play a "Bio Dropstyle"? Will Protoss have to rely too heavily on Sentinels? TvT Maybe will weaker Vultures, and stronger early Bio production and Bio units, make it more risky to tech straight to Tanks. (Opens up a vulnerable spot for Terran who plays "greedy") In the mid and late game, Bio will need to transistion into Tanks + other stuff. Will this be enough to make Terran able to play "Bio Dropstyle"? Will this be enough to make Bio pressure viable early? PvP We will probably still see Stalkers as the core unit. Maybe can Zealots need some kind of boost so we see more Zealots + Stalkers vs Zealot + Stalkers, followed up by Reavers, Sentinels, Archons, Scouts and maybe Carriers. (If we find a good balance so all alternative tech routes are possible to get) Potential boost for Zealots: The Charge upgrade for Zealots gives permanent speed, as now, but ALSO a small activated ability. (Increases speed further for 2-3 seconds, with long cooldown) Would make them stronger at engaging Stalkers, Hydras and run into Spider mines to drag them into enemy tanks. Oh well, I just wanted to share this. I do not say this is perfect or anything. Maybe Marauder and Immortal add much more to the game. This was merely a potential way of "solving" the old gameplay problems, while at the same time try to keep the current good match-up dynamics. But if Marauder and Immortal can add more depth to the game, we shall continue on that road. I will try to look for a solution. Sounds really awesome! In pvt vs mech you just mass immortals atm, removing immo would make the toss need to invest in tier 2 units in the midgame, like getting a lot of sentinels/corsairs/scouts. If you're reducing the scouts movement speed, then also reduce the viking's movement speed, at the moment a warp prism without speed is dead once you find it with a viking, same for banshee, 15 seconds cloak and 30 seconds noncloaked, that means that when you come in with banshee, you cloak and after 5 seconds you'd need to fly away already if you don't want to lose your banshee to the enemies viking. This is the main reason why banshee is bad in tvt, 1 viking hardcounters it. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 24 2013 02:59 SolidSMD wrote: Sounds really awesome! In pvt vs mech you just mass immortals atm, removing immo would make the toss need to invest in tier 2 units in the midgame, like getting a lot of sentinels/corsairs/scouts. If you're reducing the scouts movement speed, then also reduce the viking's movement speed, at the moment a warp prism without speed is dead once you find it with a viking, same for banshee, 15 seconds cloak and 30 seconds noncloaked, that means that when you come in with banshee, you cloak and after 5 seconds you'd need to fly away already if you don't want to lose your banshee to the enemies viking. This is the main reason why banshee is bad in tvt, 1 viking hardcounters it. immortal is a tier 2 unit. Agree with viking - I don't think it needs more than a unit movement speed of 3 or so. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 24 2013 03:04 SolidSMD wrote: it was t1-ish on gateway and still feels t1 even when it's on robo, how is it an interesting unit when you just use it to a-move, sentinel/corsair/scout makes room for cool micro (or shall i say actual micro). Stargate is an easy counterable tech tree if that's the only threat. Protoss needs a strong ground unit threat that doens't break the game (like strong mobile stalkers do). Do you also think the collosus feels like a tier 1 unit since you just a-move it? | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
So here is the gist of it. Make Warp gate baseline! Now in the start the cooldown will be obsurdly long, maybe 20 second or so longer than normal gateway production so you won't be in doupt about how each building relate. Then at the cybernetics core we will have a new upgrade "Void stabilizers"-something that reduces both gateway and warp gate time by 50%. Thus also reducing the gap between gateway and warpgate by 50%. Now this is a huge buff for Protoss but ultimately just means they will need to build less gateways. Shouldn't affect timings too much. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
On July 24 2013 03:16 Hider wrote: Stargate is an easy counterable tech tree if that's the only threat. Protoss needs a strong ground unit threat that doens't break the game (like strong mobile stalkers do). Do you also think the collosus feels like a tier 1 unit since you just a-move it? It has splash, so ofcourse it's not t1...still a dull uninteresting unit, there is a reason i barely play normal sc2 anymore. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
The immortal has made P much more deathball-ish than before, that's for sure. | ||
|
Imperator x8x
United States69 Posts
First, mass siege tanks is OP against Protoss. You know this already, and just reading through the thread I have seen a variety of suggestions for dealing with it. Personally, I think giving Immortals a weakened form of hardened shields would do wonders. Maybe reduce all damage above 30 to 30? This would very little effect outside of PvT. You could even have it be a researchable upgrade from the robo bay. This would allow mass immortals (and they are not difficult to mass) to potentially break through mass tanks. This would also encourage the use of bio to clear away immortals, which would force the Protoss player to use HT or reavers to clear the bio. This could make for some interesting positional engagements. That's basically a whole lot of theorycrafting though, the more experienced players can feel free to bash my idea to pieces. Earlier in this thread someone brought up making the scout slower in exchange for a better spell. I approve of this, Scouts currently are very fast but have little effect in a pitched battle. A improved missile would allow them to contribute more to engagements. On July 24 2013 03:20 Sumadin wrote: Well i had another idea. In SC2 it is rather simple to understand the relation between gateway and warpgate... Warp gate is superior no matter what. In starbow we want it to be different, but people need to easy be able to learn of this relation and it needs to be clear through gameplay how this works. So here is the gist of it. Make Warp gate baseline! Now in the start the cooldown will be obsurdly long, maybe 20 second or so longer than normal gateway production so you won't be in doupt about how each building relate. Then at the cybernetics core we will have a new upgrade "Void stabilizers"-something that reduces both gateway and warp gate time by 50%. Thus also reducing the gap between gateway and warpgate by 50%. Now this is a huge buff for Protoss but ultimately just means they will need to build less gateways. Shouldn't affect timings too much. I do like this idea, with the exception of the part that warpgate is baseline. I would prefer leaving Gateway as the baseline, but making warpgate free with the drawbacks you mentioned. Simply because I feel like the Gateway, as the "Standard" building, should be the first thing available. Also, the upgrade you mention seems strong for a cybercore upgrade, and we have a lot of upgrades on the cybercore already. I would suggest having this upgrade on the Templar Archives, and calling it "Enhanced Teleportation Matrixes." This would A- Prevent Storm from getting lonely as the only upgrade at the archives, and give another reason besides Templar Tech to build it B- Make the super gateways unavailable until the late-game. Hope this was helpful. BTW, are there any plans to publish Starbow on the American Server? | ||
|
Nero1618
Korea (South)17 Posts
First, mass siege tanks is OP against Protoss. I'll just comment on this. I'm no expert, but I can add something. PvT me vs Desive A standard PvT without much fluff. Siege tank/goliath gets beaten by immortal/chargelot/stalker with arbiters and reavers (in shuttle). Terran didn't play perfect, neither did protoss. I didn't use sentinels at all, so that would have tipped everything even further in my direction. I don't think mass siege tank is OP vs protoss, but it requires quite a deal of diversity to beat. | ||
|
Weerwolf
75 Posts
On July 24 2013 01:03 Hider wrote: During this period the terran should have strong tools in order to reduce the economic advantage of the protoss player. However, with cheap warp tech, he can't do this. With a variable cost per warped in unit, he still can't do it as the protoss player will use warped units as "back-up plan". For instance if 6 vultures run past his gateway units or if he didn't spot a dropship in time, he is likely to just warped in units to fend of the harass even though this may cost him 100-300 minerals extra (but it is easily worth it if he can efficiently deal with the harass). Thus, he won't warp in units preemptively, but only as a response to once he see the dropships. This is a very important difference from my suggestion. With my suggestion you have to make a large fixed preemptive investment, which will be a very big investment in the early game, and since you don't know whether your opponent will opt for an harass based style, it will often times be a big risk to make this investment. So basically, the variable cost per warped in unit allows the protoss player to always make the correct response to aggression from the opponent - Thus terran agression early midgame will still be underpowered. That last part is quite crucial, and I see that you have come to the same conclusion in later posts. This is a fundamental element of the warp gate mechanic. Your conclusion is then to therefore remove the warpgate mechanic. Personally, I don't see the warpgate mechanic as that much of a problem. If a protoss would warp in units as an 'Oh I screwed up' action, it will still cost him. He can still somewhat save a situation (which is fundamental to the warp gate mechanic), but this can easily cost him the minerals of 4 probes if 8 units are warped in. If he uses it as a way to get a harrass attack started he pays for not having to bridge the gap. Adding the mineral cost will also make it more costly to harass via warpgate early game, since this can easily cost you 2 zealots in minerals, which will quickly add up. Keep using your warpgates, and you can be a thousand minerals behind in no time. Yes, adding a cost to each warp-in changes the way it will be used. This is the main point of a change to warpgate right? There are two options of using warpgate: Freely or in restricted situations. Currently, the cooldown does not really make you restricted. With the added mineral cost, it would only be used in restricted situations and make harrass less strong. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 24 2013 16:00 Weerwolf wrote: That last part is quite crucial, and I see that you have come to the same conclusion in later posts. This is a fundamental element of the warp gate mechanic. Your conclusion is then to therefore remove the warpgate mechanic. Personally, I don't see the warpgate mechanic as that much of a problem. If a protoss would warp in units as an 'Oh I screwed up' action, it will still cost him. He can still somewhat save a situation (which is fundamental to the warp gate mechanic), but this can easily cost him the minerals of 4 probes if 8 units are warped in. If he uses it as a way to get a harrass attack started he pays for not having to bridge the gap. Adding the mineral cost will also make it more costly to harass via warpgate early game, since this can easily cost you 2 zealots in minerals, which will quickly add up. Keep using your warpgates, and you can be a thousand minerals behind in no time. Yes, adding a cost to each warp-in changes the way it will be used. This is the main point of a change to warpgate right? There are two options of using warpgate: Freely or in restricted situations. Currently, the cooldown does not really make you restricted. With the added mineral cost, it would only be used in restricted situations and make harrass less strong. But the problem is that we just change it from being always used to only used to promote bad/boring gameplay. Anyway, protoss kinda need the warp tech atm with the current balance. TvP just need to have new fundamentals (once again - nerf something/buff redesign other stuff). The basic problem is that it is really hard to make this matchup interesting. In many ways Sc2 suffers from the same problems. Basically, I wanna see this; Protoss changes - Warp tech removed. Warp prism with upgrade can warp in - Stalker movement speed increased from 2.95 to 3.25 - Stalker HP reduced from 100/50 to 100/40. - Immortal changed from armored to normal armor (more buffy vs mauruader/tank). - Stasis reworked/nerfed. - Small activateable charge for zealots (so they can drag mines into tanks) - Scouts movement speed reduced from 2.85 to 2.5. - Phase missile can be used on all units. - Sentinel's nullsphre has a more reliable attack. Terran changes - Unsieged tanks better - Vulture movement speed upgrade removed. - Vulture mine AI reworked (units autokill them). - Viking damage vs non-light units and movement speed reduced. - Goliaths range upgrade adds +2 instead of +3 (buffs carriers --> late game incentive for terran to attack). - Marine starts with 5 range. No upgrade needed. - Cost of starport tech reduced by 50 minerals. - Matrix is a 100/100, 60 second upgrade that requires armory Effects on gameplay - Protoss can be out on the map during the entire game with a mix of gateway units/immortals/sentinels. - Terran can harass cus there is no easy "prevent-stuff" in terms of mass blink stalkers and warp tech. But instead, of relying on mass cannons (2 per expo is probably neccesary though in the midgame) it is my hope that stalkers now will be mobile enough to catch up to vulture. But at the same time, protoss won't/shouldn't have enough stalkers to effectively "surround" the terrans bases (the prepatch problem). Instead, him having just a medium amount of very mobile blink stalkers to deal with mobile drop play/runby's will hopefully create a more fair and interesting dynamic than previously. - Siege tank drop play will be pretty good without warp tech, but I think that is a good thing as that type of drop play is forgiveable in the sense that you can be out on the map with your main units, but when you see the siege tank drop, you can react by sending a speed prism with two immortals to your own base and drop on top of tanks. I think that type of gameplay is quite interesting. In TvP bio, these changes will hopefully create a new dynamic where terran has more production, but less cost effective due to no early matrix and stronger immortals. Thus, he will have to invest into dropship tech which is a bit cheaper now. Will this fix all problems? Very unlikely. I previously thought that we could fix the problems by reducing the mobility of the protoss units and while it did add more action and multtiasking in the early midgame (if protoss didn't use mass warp tech) it just created more frustration as protoss had no way of dealing with vulture runbys and drop plays without warp tech and heavy static defense. I hope that gets changed now, and I want to see both players with strong harass options with protoss having map control, but as I previously said, getting this matchup "right" is really challenging. | ||
| ||
