|
Wait and see how zerg can react properly against the reaver, scourges and vipers need to be tested more, if the warpprism is way to fast take a slight look at it if that is the case
Abduct is an upgade though, and it almost feels like you need to rush for that and consume in order for the viper to be enough when your under so much pressure in the early game.
Regarding scourge, I think warp prism atm is too fast for this to be viable. I would consider to remove movement speed upgrade of warp prism.
|
On August 18 2013 00:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Wait and see how zerg can react properly against the reaver, scourges and vipers need to be tested more, if the warpprism is way to fast take a slight look at it if that is the case Abduct is an upgade though, and it almost feels like you need to rush for that and consume in order for the viper to be enough when your under so much pressure in the early game. Regarding scourge, I think warp prism atm is too fast for this to be viable. I would consider to remove movement speed upgrade of warp prism.
I feel you need to build vipers everygame versus protoss
And with ensnare, scourge can maybe someway reach the warpprism
I dont see a huge problem with abduct as an upgrade, the problem if there is an problem, you need to make vipers everygame. Still just theory
|
Anyone up for playing some games now?
I am online now at least
|
|
|
Kabel what are your thoughts on unit roles for protoss?
At the moment it seems that Archons/reavers dominates immortals and HT's/DT's in too many instances.
I suggested to make reavers a lot worse vs armored units to make the reaver less dominant vs lurkers mainly. Regarding archons, I suggested to give them a clear weakness against banshee's, however the archon is prob a bit too good in both matchups, and since it is an a-move unit it shouldn't be such a strong option.
So either we give both terran (banshee) and zerg (some type of unit) a way to counter it that doesn't counter other protoss units such as immortals and reavers at the same time.
While abduct is good vs it at the moment, it seems problematic that it also works very well vs reavers and pretty decently against immortals at the same time. I would prefer that archons had another type of weakness which would require a different response than building Vipers.
Alternatively, we could simply make it alot weaker overall, and instead only make it really usefull when your HT's are out of energy or when opponent has enough detection.
|
We did play a lot of games yesterday. Almost 7 hours non-stop with only short breaks. Some thoughts from me:
- Archons really are strong against everything. Both in PvT and especially in PvZ. It A-moves and it melts the enemy. It shall ofc be strong, but it really feels like the ultimate unit. And that is quite lame. In BW I got the impression that it was possible to micro vs them wiith Hydras. Here it feels like no unit can engage the Archon. Hydras just melt too. I will look into that, compare the Archon to the BW Archon, and see how micro can be improved.
Anyway, if we shall open up more room for other Protoss units, I think a small rearrangement in the Archon damage values might be enough. Instead of 30 vs everything, maybe we can have 20 vs armored, 25 vs medium, 30 vs light, or something. In PvZ, this would make them good for dealing with Zerglings, fight under Dark swarm, deal with Mutas and still quite good vs Hydras. But it would not be as insane vs Lurkers and Ultralisks, where instead the Immortal will be better. (Or Reaver micro.) I think Banshees can get a damage bonus vs massive. It might open up more use for late game Banshee play in TvZ and TvP.
- I am not sure that Abduct being good vs both Reaver, HT, Immortal and Archon is that big of a problem, since Vipers are still counterable from the Protoss player with Scouts.
But if it looks too one-sided, aka just get one Zerg unit vs all important Protoss units, then Abduct can be set to not affect massive units. It can not pull: Archons, Ultralisk, Carrier & BC. Not sure what Zerg should do vs Archons then.
- I am not sure that the Reaver requires new damage values. After all, they do require a lot of micro, each shot costs minerals, and they are quite expensive. But I do consider to increase their cost from 100/200 to 200/200, just because they are really really strong atm, especially with 100 dmg vs everything. It is true that they melt Lurkers too. But that requires a lot of micro from the P player. If Z attacks with Lurkers, or any units, at two locations, it is hard for P to micro Reavers on both locations. And if Z makes more room between his Lurkers, Storm & Reavers become less efficient. But I will keep an eye on this. Maybe it turns out that the BW values I use for the Reaver do not fit. Maybe the splash radius needs a tweak. (Where it deals 100% dmg, 50% dmg, 25%dmg etc)
I will share some concerns when I am home again later today.
|
- I am not sure that Abduct being good vs both Reaver, HT, Immortal and Archon is that big of a problem, since Vipers are still counterable from the Protoss player with Scouts.
Problem is that we then get into the "domination-problem", where two or more units has similar weakness's, but where one unit just has superior strenghts. The immortal currently suffers from this problem. My theory is that either you give the immortal a clear strenght relative to archons/immortals or you give it a different type of weakness.
I am not sure that the Reaver requires new damage values. After all, they do require a lot of micro, each shot costs minerals, and they are quite expensive.
This wasn't really about balance. Instead, it is related to the domination-problem. Why would one bother with immortals if reavers just counter hydra/lurkers much harder.
I think its a cleaner solution if we make sure that units on the same tech have very different strenght and weakness's;
So if you only have robo tech, you get
- Immortals vs lurkers
- Reavers vs hydra's
- Stalkers vs. mutas + damage dealers vs hydras + lings.
- Zealots as buffer units.
If we do not change damage values, then we will almost always get into a stage where the reaver either will be OP/UP relative to immortals vs zerg. At the moment, there is no reason to get immortals as reavers in warp prism are more mobile and more cost efficient vs hydra/lurker than immortals.
If we increase cost, then we either get into the stage where reavers are still slightly better or just slightly worse vs that unit composition. But there won't be any advantages of mixing the units together since reavers still deal really really with lurkers (esp if toss also have archons).
|
First:
The micro, this needs to be improved hardcore imo, i really feel this.
Changing the pathing back to sc2 or something else, i dont care just do something about it
It feels clumpsy and rather unfun right now and it screws the game alot more than is seen, we dont see what the true relationships are right now
Second:
Hardcounters are rather dull, especially over the long run and especially if there are spellcaster against spellcaster.
What if scout>viper for example, that would be rather dull
Third:
This is in realtionship with first but the micro battles, i miss them.
Hydra against zealot for example
Right now its almost as one side backs off because he will lose it, he have so small power of the outcome
Fourth:
Taking a look at the aoe spells, like reaver, hightemplar, maybe even siegetank.
The game is faster than broodwar, they are more clumped up.
It doesnt work excactly the same in this game as in broodwar
Scenario:
What is fun, what is boring?
I will tell you my opinion of this
Fun:
The hightemplar, he storms in one place and now the enemy wanna dodge that thing on the ground
Fun because: The enemy needs to focus, he have power of the outcome and he will need to use some improvisation and micro skills
Boring:
Ensnare from viper: He casts a spell which slows the enemy more and more overtime
Boring because: the enemy cant really dodge this, he is rather powerless
Some suggestions for now:
Remove creep movement speed from zerg, I hate this crap, its bad in sc2 to
If zerg have creep with him in battle, he has the upperhand always.
Its only offcreep it becomes neutral.
----
Make immortal immune to abduct, through a passive or redesign his ability to cover this part instead, would be
rather cool tbh.
|
On August 18 2013 23:17 Foxxan wrote:
Second:
Hardcounters are rather dull, especially over the long run and especially if there are spellcaster against spellcaster.
What if scout>viper for example, that would be rather dull
Read my post a few pages back on unit attributes and how they make the units more fun when done right.
I don't see the Reaver as a problem right now. Its the fact that Protoss has such an easy time getting Reavers after 2 gate pressure. There was a short discussion a few pages back about the Protoss economy being a tad too strong in comparison to Terrans; maybe its just the same issue in PvZ. Increasing hte cost might also be good for promoting the Immortal.
Archons might need a slight do-over though. They are supposed to be mainly limited by their high cost and low range, but have the strength of having super high damage, fairly high attack speed, beeing tanky and having splash.
The number of strong points on an Archon is staggering, so the weaknesses needs to be huge to balance this out. I think the issue is that they either have slightly too long range, slightly too big splash or slightly too high movespeed.
If we want them to not compete with Stalkers for base defence, lower the movespeed a bit.
If they are too strong compared to Immortals in big engagements, lower the range or change the way they deal damage.
|
On August 18 2013 23:17 Foxxan wrote:
First:
The micro, this needs to be improved hardcore imo, i really feel this.
Changing the pathing back to sc2 or something else, i dont care just do something about it
It feels clumpsy and rather unfun right now and it screws the game alot more than is seen, we dont see what the true relationships are right now
I think Kabel is looking into this atm. I think the magic box size is more of the problem here than the pathing system. Especially in scenarios like trying to split bio vs banelings.
|
To differentiate Archon and Immortal, reduce the Archon's range for sure. It probably shouldn't be higher than 2.
Increasing the cost of Reavers sounds good as long as they aren't too vulnerable to being sniped, but I would still like to see Immortals on the Gateway.
Removing the Zerg speed bonus on Creep? What? Then what would be the point of spreading Creep? We want more defender's advantage in Starbow, Zerg is supposed to have the upper hand on creep.
Do not go back to the SC2 pathing system, for fuck's sake. It's one of the absolute worst things about the game. I'd rather have the archaic BW pathing than that crap.
I would still like to see the Viper's Consume ability changed to Siphon. It both allows for a new form of harass and differentiates Vipers from Defilers further.
Speaking of Defilers, has no one thought of a way to implement Burrow for them yet? I know they don't have an animation but it shouldn't be too hard to just have some kind of dirt cloud as a placeholder and then use a custom model for the burrowed form.
|
Hmm hard to come up with stuff when i dont know what pathing is gonna be chosen.
For example, with the sc2 pathing, lets try and take a look at what we can do with the aoe spells
The hightemplar:
Relatively easy to redesign, just make the storm last longer on the ground with same damage.
From 4 seconds to 8, same damage.
With more clumped up units, will probably still be very good aoe unit.
Makes it easier to dodge it without heavy loss to your units
The reaver, siegetank.
These are very hard, one solution is to give a fixed maximum aoe value
Or take a look at the radius
Or limiting the maximum units hit by their aoe attacks
The spidermines:
Hm relatively easy to fix and not a big of a problem imo
However, right now they block the movement of the opponent to much, which makes it hard to zealot runby for example.
That needs to take a look at with sc2pathing or any pathing
The lurker:
Seems fine, if is in a line
Maybe will be need to be looked at
Maybe even do some redesign to some aoe units and stuff(would be hard but can work), just try and adapt to the pathingsystem, take that into considderation.
Since we all know with the sc2 pathing the aoe is to bursty and to big radius, then adapt toward that for example
------------
Viper:
Ensnare: Give it a 2sec cast animation or something along those lines. Even make the opponent see where he is gonna cast it on the ground.
Gives more micro to both parts. RIght now i feel the spell is a nobrainer and very powerful
-----
Can you take a look at the creepspread? I really believe it ruins the gameplay alot.
We will sometimes see creepspread cross half the map, also the argument for it is it gives defenders advantage, but at what cost? Gives way to much defenders advantage here is why i think that:
Zealot arrives outside zergs base and now he face hydras so now instead of doing an attack he backs home because he has no chance against those hydras while on creep
(opponent is to powerless)
Another example: Terran arrives with bio on creep. How can he micro against zerg since zerg units which are so incredible fast?
Powerless more or less
Only reason to do an fight on creep is if you have an advantage, is this good for the game?
Creepspread is to good imo,
queen could maybe walk faster on it for example, maybe even give some sort of teleportation to zerg that only works on creep.
It still gives vision which is nice to and burroed staticdefence also walks faster, it still gives something
--------------------------
I loved the sc2bw economy, i absolutely loved it.
Waiting for a good economy to kick in very soon, it made the game feel very fun and fastpaced. The economy is really important.
-------------------------
Hard to really try and fix stuff when the core is not done yet (pathing, economy).
I would actually like the bw attacksystem also, i believe it makes the game deeper but i hate the bw pathing and sc2bw pathing, its disgusting!
Edit: Some thoughts of the immortal, tell me what you think
A redesign:
First mode:
Attacktype: 5sec casttime, makes a spot on the ground (ground only)
Range: 7-9
Damage: around 70 in a small aoe radius
passive effect: Heavy(immune to abduct)
positive: Good versus immobile and superslow units: siegetank, burroed lurker, and reaver. Can work well to take out heavy defended locations
negative: Needs to be microed to be effective. Bad versus fast and semifast units.
Second mode:
Casttime 1-2sec (air only)
Range: 1
Damage: 40(?)aoe. i have no idea yet.
positive: Good defensive antiair unit, works well together with cannons
negative: Hard to be used offensively at all
The second mode is mainly against mutas, since protoss have a hard time against it and instead of relying on corsairs everytime you have this unit as addition or instead of to add more dynamic
Also with this unit in mind, cut the stalker entirely and add the dragoon in.
What you think gossen? Is it terrible?
|
Can you take a look at the creepspread? I really believe it ruins the gameplay alot.
We will sometimes see creepspread cross half the map, also the argument for it is it gives defenders advantage, but at what cost? Gives way to much defenders advantage here is why i think that:
This is an interesting discussion. I think some people in this forum always assumes that defenders advantage = good, which IMO is a fallacy. Instead, I believe defenders advantage is only good when it;
1) Makes it possible to abuse the defenders advantage by splitting up the army
2) or when it reduces the snowball-effect of losing an army (allows comebacks to be possible).
I'd say its highly unlikely that creep-spread makes any of the above possible. Rather, it simply means that the engaging/poking offensively with hydra's is more risky/less efficient than defending with them. At the moment, I feel like you have to play defensively with zerg untill you have lair tech units out, and due to creep spread advantages, toss can't really attack you when you have a decent amount of hydra's out. Thus, there is a period in the early midgame where the matchup feels somewhat stale.
So yeh, I would probably agree that removing creep spread and slightly buffing hydra's instead (maybe by giving them one of the upgrades for free) could provide better gameplay.
Ensnare: Give it a 2sec cast animation or something along those lines. Even make the opponent see where he is gonna cast it on the ground.
Gives more micro to both parts. RIght now i feel the spell is a nobrainer and very powerful
I think the projectile idea for fungal growth in HOTS worked suprisingly well. No reason not to steal/get inspired by what worked for Blizzard.
|
#hider
Yes, taking a look at the movement speed of units would actually be good i believe, especially the hydralisk
I played sc2bw yesterday and there the hydralisk had movementspeed 3.17, zealot had 3.37, and vulture had 5.6,
it felt much nicer overall and with the attacksystem it encourage small micro battles alot more and more frequent
Also the hydralisk were smaller, they were so cool there
Hider, have you played sc2bw anything?
I am curious what you think of the attacksystem in broodwar/sc2bw?
I think the projectile idea for fungal growth in HOTS worked suprisingly well. No reason not to steal/get inspired by what worked for Blizzard.
Yes more inspired though than stealing, iam not a fan of the way they did it entirely,
i was thinking the viper stops to cast their ensnare, 2-3 second casttime and they see where they are gonna throw it on the ground,
i would like to see how this would turn out.
Also maybe even make it that if it gets damage while in the casttime they get interrupted....
|
From what I remember creep already provides regen for zerg units. I see nothing wrong with removing bonus speed as long as we will compensate it with base speed bonuses. Creep spread is already very important due to vision provided. Also faster units off creep could really encourage more action.
About pathing. I do think only real issue imho is size of magic box. Units move smoothly but they end up in weird spots due to keeping formations and maps issues (probably). I think going back to sc2 pathing is gonna be huge step back.
|
On August 20 2013 02:28 Danko__ wrote:
From what I remember creep already provides regen for zerg units. I see nothing wrong with removing bonus speed as long as we will compensate it with base speed bonuses. Creep spread is already very important due to vision provided. Also faster units off creep could really encourage more action.
About pathing. I do think only real issue imho is size of magic box. Units move smoothly but they end up in weird spots due to keeping formations and maps issues (probably). I think going back to sc2 pathing is gonna be huge step back.
No they dont. How can you say that?
Also the sc2 pathing is used right now to try it out
|
They only slow eachother down, not stop on every move. They react immediately to orders
|
I agree with Danko here. Let's look at the magic box first. If it's still crap, then we try a pathless patch.
|
What do you like about that pathing btw?
What do it encourage?
What do it fix? Compared to sc2 pathing?
|
The pathing gives a natural defenders advantage to any player who meets an army which is a-moved into his since moving units slowly form a line. I like that. It makes it easier to come back even if you lose some engagements. I think it is the custom magic box size that makes it difficult to micro units, but I might be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
