|
On November 02 2011 20:54 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 20:35 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:24 Dommk wrote:But not only that: Gateway is a complete tech path. It has tank units (archons, zealots), antiair units (stalkers), casters (sentry/templar), damage dealers (zealot, templar, archon), mineraldump units (zealot), harass units (stalker, dt). Baracks is not. As opposed to Tank units (Marauders), antiair units (Marines, Ghosts), Casters (Ghosts), Damage Dealers (Marines,Marauders), mineral dump units (Marines), harass units (Marines, Marauders) ?? Read the full comment. Also Marauders aren't tank units. They have 125life for 100/25 costs. Stimmed they have 105life. Zealots have 150life, 50 in shields and cost 100 (also lesser passive costs, because they don't require tech labs). Marauder are tank units with medivac support, which are no baracks unit. Also Marines and Marauders are no harass units. Marine/Marauder drops are, which again requires a Starport. I was hoping you would see how ignorant your argument is by by pointing out something in such a ridiculous fashion. EDIT: I'm just going to make this simple. Marines, Marauders, Stim, Combat Shield, Concussive Shell, Ghosts and Reapers are all T 1.5 Tech, but Templars, Archons, DT's, Blink and Charge are not. Terrans OFTEN tech safely to Starport tech on a SINGLE base where as Protoss can barely even tech to Templars on two. Hell, by the time Protoss actually manages to get everything needed it is usually 20mins+ into the game on 3/4 bases. Different races are different and you cannot simply compare something that comes out of a barracks to something that comes out of a Gateway because Protoss and Terran ARE NOT THE SAME And when was the last time you have seen a Protoss win without Colossus? The unit is a necessity
We are talking about starcraft and not C&C, try again with a better argument. In C&C T3>T2>T1. In Starcraft not. All those Tier 1,2,3 arguments are just simplyfications to make talking about implied tech (costs) and time to get the tech out simpler.
Example:
+ Show Spoiler +150/0+150/100+150/100+50/25+150/150 = 650/375 are the passive costs for a battlecruiser.
250/0+150/100+150/100+250/200+100/150 = 900/550 are the passive costs for a broodlord.
If we define battlecruiser as T3, then broodlords are T5.
But that's really not very useful when talking about nonmirror matchups. As long as you don't build Colossi, Templar or Carriers, "T1" Marines counter every protoss unit, no matter what "tier" they are. (I'm not saying that one can't rely on defensive mechanisms like FFs against them! But in direct engagments the marine wins)
Just think about Mech ("T2" and "T3" mixture) in PvT and Bio ("T1" and "T2" mixture). Guess which one has proven to be playable and which hasn't?
|
On November 02 2011 21:15 Toadvine wrote:In any case, if HotS is supposed to add units that shore up weaknesses of the races, then the Terran and Zerg units do make sense in this context. Terran units serve to make mech a viable playstyle in all matchups, for example by giving Hellions the option to act as proper meatshields for Tanks. Zerg units allow them to break entrenched positions more easily, and generally achieve pressure without sacrificing tons of units. In light of this, the new Protoss units are a total joke, they don't solve Protoss problems at all. Well, you can Replicate a Siege Tank and maybe defend 1/1/1, so that's nice I suppose. :/
HotS is not supposed to do anything but sell well for blizzard.
If you argue that further, it means that it should be interesting to buy it, so the game should be fun to play and balanced on high level of play. What the game doesn't need, is 3races that all have no weaknesses and play similar.
Zergs and Terrans also don't just get units that counteract weaknesses that are intended to be there. But Mech was intended to be playable in TvP, giving them battlehellions and warhounds might fix that.
Mass Thor in ZvT wasn't intended to be playable, that's why the Thor has to go and make space for a unit that is worse vs roaches.
And Zerg was intended to be one of the more aggressive races. In the alpha and beta days when people weren't that great at that game, the general opinion was that zerg was THE pressuring race, running all over the place and denying expos.
Protoss was intended to work well on Stargate tech, that's why they are trying to fix that with oracles and tempests.
Also, Protoss ground tech gets HUGE buffs through the mass recall. Like artosis said: In the current state of the game, he would ALWAYS build an extra Nexus just to have ONE mass recall, because then he could just be out on the map and harass the hell out of everything, for 400 extra minerals...
|
On November 02 2011 21:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 20:54 Dommk wrote:On November 02 2011 20:35 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:24 Dommk wrote:But not only that: Gateway is a complete tech path. It has tank units (archons, zealots), antiair units (stalkers), casters (sentry/templar), damage dealers (zealot, templar, archon), mineraldump units (zealot), harass units (stalker, dt). Baracks is not. As opposed to Tank units (Marauders), antiair units (Marines, Ghosts), Casters (Ghosts), Damage Dealers (Marines,Marauders), mineral dump units (Marines), harass units (Marines, Marauders) ?? Read the full comment. Also Marauders aren't tank units. They have 125life for 100/25 costs. Stimmed they have 105life. Zealots have 150life, 50 in shields and cost 100 (also lesser passive costs, because they don't require tech labs). Marauder are tank units with medivac support, which are no baracks unit. Also Marines and Marauders are no harass units. Marine/Marauder drops are, which again requires a Starport. I was hoping you would see how ignorant your argument is by by pointing out something in such a ridiculous fashion. EDIT: I'm just going to make this simple. Marines, Marauders, Stim, Combat Shield, Concussive Shell, Ghosts and Reapers are all T 1.5 Tech, but Templars, Archons, DT's, Blink and Charge are not. Terrans OFTEN tech safely to Starport tech on a SINGLE base where as Protoss can barely even tech to Templars on two. Hell, by the time Protoss actually manages to get everything needed it is usually 20mins+ into the game on 3/4 bases. Different races are different and you cannot simply compare something that comes out of a barracks to something that comes out of a Gateway because Protoss and Terran ARE NOT THE SAME And when was the last time you have seen a Protoss win without Colossus? The unit is a necessity We are talking about starcraft and not C&C, try again with a better argument. In C&C T3>T2>T1. In Starcraft not. All those Tier 1,2,3 arguments are just simplyfications to make talking about implied tech (costs) and time to get the tech out simpler. Example: + Show Spoiler +150/0+150/100+150/100+50/25+150/150 = 650/375 are the passive costs for a battlecruiser.
250/0+150/100+150/100+250/200+100/150 = 900/550 are the passive costs for a broodlord.
If we define battlecruiser as T3, then broodlords are T5. But that's really not very useful when talking about nonmirror matchups. As long as you don't build Colossi, Templar or Carriers, "T1" Marines counter every protoss unit, no matter what "tier" they are. (I'm not saying that one can't rely on defensive mechanisms like FFs against them! But in direct engagments the marine wins) Just think about Mech ("T2" and "T3" mixture) in PvT and Bio ("T1" and "T2" mixture). Guess which one has proven to be playable and which hasn't?
Seriously? You harp on like one part of one line as my "argument"? I just used Tiers as an easy way to explain the relative timings.
The part where I explain how Terran often get to Starport tech one a single base where as Protoss generally only get to Templar by 3bases should have been enough.
And your use of Tiers is just as awful. That isn't even what I meant
But what does it matter than Mech hasn't been proven vs Protoss? Terran have a viable way to play that is extremely effective
.
The point still stands, races aren't the same, you can't compare anything that comes from the barracks to anything that comes from the gateway, that isn't how the game is built
|
On November 02 2011 21:58 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:34 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:54 Dommk wrote:On November 02 2011 20:35 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:24 Dommk wrote:But not only that: Gateway is a complete tech path. It has tank units (archons, zealots), antiair units (stalkers), casters (sentry/templar), damage dealers (zealot, templar, archon), mineraldump units (zealot), harass units (stalker, dt). Baracks is not. As opposed to Tank units (Marauders), antiair units (Marines, Ghosts), Casters (Ghosts), Damage Dealers (Marines,Marauders), mineral dump units (Marines), harass units (Marines, Marauders) ?? Read the full comment. Also Marauders aren't tank units. They have 125life for 100/25 costs. Stimmed they have 105life. Zealots have 150life, 50 in shields and cost 100 (also lesser passive costs, because they don't require tech labs). Marauder are tank units with medivac support, which are no baracks unit. Also Marines and Marauders are no harass units. Marine/Marauder drops are, which again requires a Starport. I was hoping you would see how ignorant your argument is by by pointing out something in such a ridiculous fashion. EDIT: I'm just going to make this simple. Marines, Marauders, Stim, Combat Shield, Concussive Shell, Ghosts and Reapers are all T 1.5 Tech, but Templars, Archons, DT's, Blink and Charge are not. Terrans OFTEN tech safely to Starport tech on a SINGLE base where as Protoss can barely even tech to Templars on two. Hell, by the time Protoss actually manages to get everything needed it is usually 20mins+ into the game on 3/4 bases. Different races are different and you cannot simply compare something that comes out of a barracks to something that comes out of a Gateway because Protoss and Terran ARE NOT THE SAME And when was the last time you have seen a Protoss win without Colossus? The unit is a necessity We are talking about starcraft and not C&C, try again with a better argument. In C&C T3>T2>T1. In Starcraft not. All those Tier 1,2,3 arguments are just simplyfications to make talking about implied tech (costs) and time to get the tech out simpler. Example: + Show Spoiler +150/0+150/100+150/100+50/25+150/150 = 650/375 are the passive costs for a battlecruiser.
250/0+150/100+150/100+250/200+100/150 = 900/550 are the passive costs for a broodlord.
If we define battlecruiser as T3, then broodlords are T5. But that's really not very useful when talking about nonmirror matchups. As long as you don't build Colossi, Templar or Carriers, "T1" Marines counter every protoss unit, no matter what "tier" they are. (I'm not saying that one can't rely on defensive mechanisms like FFs against them! But in direct engagments the marine wins) Just think about Mech ("T2" and "T3" mixture) in PvT and Bio ("T1" and "T2" mixture). Guess which one has proven to be playable and which hasn't? Seriously? You harp on like one part of one line as my "argument"? I just used Tiers as an easy way to explain the relative timings. The part where I explain how Terran often get to Starport tech one a single base where as Protoss generally only get to Templar by 3bases should have been enough. And your use of Tiers is just as awful. That isn't even what I meant But what does it matter than Mech hasn't been proven vs Protoss? Terran have a viable way to play that is extremely effective . The point still stands, races aren't the same, you can't compare anything that comes from the barracks to anything that comes from the gateway, that isn't how the game is built
Because my argument doesn't fall if you replace "Tier X" with "starport tech".
Also there are Protoss 2gate 1robo openings. Protoss dt openings. Protoss Stargate openings in PvT. (all of 1base)
And Protoss have viable ways to play play PvT, PvP and ZvP with or without colossi. (though I'd always say that in standard play you always want to be able to have each tech available in lategame)
Terrans don't have viable ways to play TvP without Stargates. And they don't have viable ways to play lategame (=standard, else someone just made a mistake) TvZ or TvT on pure baracks. That's why I say that gateway is a more complete tech path than Barracks.
And my point still stands: I'm pretty certain that due to the in the quotes mentioned arguments, "Protoss reapers" would have to suck even more than Terran reapers (and they suck pretty hard right now).
|
Voidrays in PvZ is really redudant if you make phoenix, it is worse than killing workers than phoenix, phoenix also kills undefended overlords. Void ray is a huge gas resource sink in the early game, and void rays are not something you want in the mid game sure it is good late game against corruptor, brood lords. In general they don't add anything to harassment that the phoenix couldn't had done, unless it is response to seeing a zerg take an early third or a zerg all in.
You say the Oracle is one-dimensional but that is just a false statement, it can harass mineral lines, phase out building to prevent upgrades or units production and phase out static defenses to aid timing pushes. That is not what you call one-dimensional.
Warp prism, is still underused and storm drops is not something you see that often eventhough it is really good, even dropping zealot is a mild harassment which has great benefit. Pulling worker is also lost incomed, could even force turret. Successful harassment is not to kill all of the workers.
Besides I do not see any need for a harass units for toss in the first place, all I see is protoss players not being active with any unit until they got a deathball.
|
Pheonix Harass is denied by turrets. Oracles can "stun" turrets, making pheonix harass more viable and less easily shut down. The unit provides good synergy and opens up more potential in stargate play. It is a great idea.
|
On November 02 2011 13:58 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:
Without getting in to why I like the Oracle. Can I ask you something?
Why is the Dark Templar not included in your list of Protoss Harassment options? It should be. But it's pretty simple: DT's are good if your opponent isn't prepared. Otherwise, they're expensive archons. Either way, they're not consistent harass options because your opponent will certainly be prepared the second time.
The same could be said about any harassment unit. Sure the DT is more of a dedication tech wise but I don't think you can leave it out as a harassment unit because that it pretty much what it is designed to do.
|
On November 02 2011 21:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:15 Toadvine wrote:In any case, if HotS is supposed to add units that shore up weaknesses of the races, then the Terran and Zerg units do make sense in this context. Terran units serve to make mech a viable playstyle in all matchups, for example by giving Hellions the option to act as proper meatshields for Tanks. Zerg units allow them to break entrenched positions more easily, and generally achieve pressure without sacrificing tons of units. In light of this, the new Protoss units are a total joke, they don't solve Protoss problems at all. Well, you can Replicate a Siege Tank and maybe defend 1/1/1, so that's nice I suppose. :/ HotS is not supposed to do anything but sell well for blizzard. If you argue that further, it means that it should be interesting to buy it, so the game should be fun to play and balanced on high level of play. What the game doesn't need, is 3races that all have no weaknesses and play similar.
Races in SC2 aren't supposed to have no weaknesses and play similar. But they also aren't supposed to be WoW classes that are only good at one thing, and have glaring holes in their arsenal. The weaknesses we do want are the ones that produce interesting gameplay. Zerg not being able to break a turtling Terran even when at a huge advantage was a bad weakness that led to stupid games. An entire Terran tech tree being unusuable in TvP was a bad weakness, so units were added to help that.
Protoss had no effective means to harass in the early to mid game, and were extremely reliant on expensive tech to keep them on par with core Zerg/Terran units. This is a bad weakness, because it produces boring gameplay, where the Protoss sits in his base with no map control and just defends and masses up. So, units were added to help this... oh wait.
On November 02 2011 21:54 Big J wrote:
Zergs and Terrans also don't just get units that counteract weaknesses that are intended to be there. But Mech was intended to be playable in TvP, giving them battlehellions and warhounds might fix that.
Mass Thor in ZvT wasn't intended to be playable, that's why the Thor has to go and make space for a unit that is worse vs roaches.
And Zerg was intended to be one of the more aggressive races. In the alpha and beta days when people weren't that great at that game, the general opinion was that zerg was THE pressuring race, running all over the place and denying expos.
Protoss was intended to work well on Stargate tech, that's why they are trying to fix that with oracles and tempests.
Also, Protoss ground tech gets HUGE buffs through the mass recall. Like artosis said: In the current state of the game, he would ALWAYS build an extra Nexus just to have ONE mass recall, because then he could just be out on the map and harass the hell out of everything, for 400 extra minerals...
Recall is actually one great thing about HotS, and is way better than our new units combined. I'd trade all of them just to keep the current Recall in the game, which will no doubt get nerfed hard at some point in the beta.
However, the point about Stargate tech is retarded. The problem with Stargate was that the units weren't very good in direct army vs army engagements. So, this problem is solved by adding a unit that doesn't attack, and a unit that is only good vs mass air?
|
On November 02 2011 22:06 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:58 Dommk wrote:On November 02 2011 21:34 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:54 Dommk wrote:On November 02 2011 20:35 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:24 Dommk wrote:But not only that: Gateway is a complete tech path. It has tank units (archons, zealots), antiair units (stalkers), casters (sentry/templar), damage dealers (zealot, templar, archon), mineraldump units (zealot), harass units (stalker, dt). Baracks is not. As opposed to Tank units (Marauders), antiair units (Marines, Ghosts), Casters (Ghosts), Damage Dealers (Marines,Marauders), mineral dump units (Marines), harass units (Marines, Marauders) ?? Read the full comment. Also Marauders aren't tank units. They have 125life for 100/25 costs. Stimmed they have 105life. Zealots have 150life, 50 in shields and cost 100 (also lesser passive costs, because they don't require tech labs). Marauder are tank units with medivac support, which are no baracks unit. Also Marines and Marauders are no harass units. Marine/Marauder drops are, which again requires a Starport. I was hoping you would see how ignorant your argument is by by pointing out something in such a ridiculous fashion. EDIT: I'm just going to make this simple. Marines, Marauders, Stim, Combat Shield, Concussive Shell, Ghosts and Reapers are all T 1.5 Tech, but Templars, Archons, DT's, Blink and Charge are not. Terrans OFTEN tech safely to Starport tech on a SINGLE base where as Protoss can barely even tech to Templars on two. Hell, by the time Protoss actually manages to get everything needed it is usually 20mins+ into the game on 3/4 bases. Different races are different and you cannot simply compare something that comes out of a barracks to something that comes out of a Gateway because Protoss and Terran ARE NOT THE SAME And when was the last time you have seen a Protoss win without Colossus? The unit is a necessity We are talking about starcraft and not C&C, try again with a better argument. In C&C T3>T2>T1. In Starcraft not. All those Tier 1,2,3 arguments are just simplyfications to make talking about implied tech (costs) and time to get the tech out simpler. Example: + Show Spoiler +150/0+150/100+150/100+50/25+150/150 = 650/375 are the passive costs for a battlecruiser.
250/0+150/100+150/100+250/200+100/150 = 900/550 are the passive costs for a broodlord.
If we define battlecruiser as T3, then broodlords are T5. But that's really not very useful when talking about nonmirror matchups. As long as you don't build Colossi, Templar or Carriers, "T1" Marines counter every protoss unit, no matter what "tier" they are. (I'm not saying that one can't rely on defensive mechanisms like FFs against them! But in direct engagments the marine wins) Just think about Mech ("T2" and "T3" mixture) in PvT and Bio ("T1" and "T2" mixture). Guess which one has proven to be playable and which hasn't? Seriously? You harp on like one part of one line as my "argument"? I just used Tiers as an easy way to explain the relative timings. The part where I explain how Terran often get to Starport tech one a single base where as Protoss generally only get to Templar by 3bases should have been enough. And your use of Tiers is just as awful. That isn't even what I meant But what does it matter than Mech hasn't been proven vs Protoss? Terran have a viable way to play that is extremely effective . The point still stands, races aren't the same, you can't compare anything that comes from the barracks to anything that comes from the gateway, that isn't how the game is built Because my argument doesn't fall if you replace "Tier X" with "starport tech". Also there are Protoss 2gate 1robo openings. Protoss dt openings. Protoss Stargate openings in PvT. (all of 1base) And Protoss have viable ways to play play PvT, PvP and ZvP with or without colossi. (though I'd always say that in standard play you always want to be able to have each tech available in lategame) Terrans don't have viable ways to play TvP without Stargates. And they don't have viable ways to play lategame (=standard, else someone just made a mistake) TvZ or TvT on pure baracks. That's why I say that gateway is a more complete tech path than Barracks.
This is such a ridiculous argument
What does it matter that you have to produce a Starport? Protoss may have a tech tree that complements the gateway well but to reach that requires a 20min+ game. Terran can safely get to Starport on a single base. Not to mention in the current metagame it is no longer possible to play a soley gateway tech game
What defines play styles like Mech is HOW the style is played, not where the units are made.
And my point still stands: I'm pretty certain that due to the in the quotes mentioned arguments, "Protoss reapers" would have to suck even more than Terran reapers (and they suck pretty hard right now).
That is something play testing would decide
|
[B]
Kcdc is not saying the Oracle is bad, or useless. Truthfully, it takes a lot of effort to design a completely useless unit. The Oracle does present some interesting options, and it will almost surely be used in its current incarnation. The point is, it is not what Protoss needs.
Some of you have posted stuff akin to "Well, if you phase out the Roach Warren/Pool as your timing attack hits, it's going to be so powerful!". Do you really think it's good for Protoss to have even more powerful timings? Is that a good thing for the race, and for the game? Think about it.
Well, I guess I don't read Kcdc's post the way you do. While you ask the question if this is what the Protoss needs, and if it is good for the race, I find kdcd's post mostly stating how 'one dimensional' he finds the Oracle, and how he can see little use for it since it doesn't do damage and is built out of the starport.
+ Show Spoiler +
The oracle can't shoot and is one-dimensional. Even if the oracle is balanced in such a way that it surpasses the harassment value of the phoenix and void ray, it lacks even the limited combat utility of its stargate peers. If Protoss already can't afford to get phoenixes or void rays against Terran, how can we expect them to afford a dedicated harassment unit that offers even less defensive value? Moreover, unlike the void ray (or the banshee or mutalisk), the oracle is only capable of raiding, and cannot be recycled into other functions after the harass has been defended. The mark of a robust unit design (like the void ray) is that it retains its value in many roles and is over-powered in none of them. Because the oracle is exceptionally one-dimensional, its harassment ability needs to be extremely strong in order to justify its cost. Blizzard is painting itself into a corner where the oracle's single function will need to be overpowered in order to offset its failings across the board.
-The oracle, as prosposed at BlizzCon, is ridiculously expensive. Gas is the lifeblood of the Protoss force that allows sentries, colossi, archons, storm, void rays, stalkers, etc. Beyond the mid-game, minerals are largely a throw-away resource dumped on spawning zealots to distract the opponent or lines of cannons to shore up expansions. For the cost of an oracle, Zerg can afford an expansion, and because a Protoss that has built an oracle will have too little gas invested in their army, he will be unable to punish the Zerg's expansion. Compare this to a zealot drop which costs no gas, is available from a more streamlined tech path, and achieves the same purpose of preventing workers from mining at a mineral line until a force returns to the base.
Kcdc (to me at least) seems to focus very much on that a harass unit must have direct combat utility to worthwhile both offensively and defensively, disregarding the fact that hindering the minining/splitting armies (needing to send units to kill off entombs)/forcing static defences (to prevent entombs and phasing)/delaying tech and unit production (phase building) can be very powerful tools both offensively and defensively.
It may not be what the Protoss NEEDS (of that I have no opinion), but I think it might be a bit early to make the call that it is one-dimensional and cannot fill any role that you cannot fill with Voids/Warp Prism+zealot/Phoenix or that it would be better with a protoss Hellion variant, that's all.
|
On November 02 2011 22:38 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:54 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 21:15 Toadvine wrote:In any case, if HotS is supposed to add units that shore up weaknesses of the races, then the Terran and Zerg units do make sense in this context. Terran units serve to make mech a viable playstyle in all matchups, for example by giving Hellions the option to act as proper meatshields for Tanks. Zerg units allow them to break entrenched positions more easily, and generally achieve pressure without sacrificing tons of units. In light of this, the new Protoss units are a total joke, they don't solve Protoss problems at all. Well, you can Replicate a Siege Tank and maybe defend 1/1/1, so that's nice I suppose. :/ HotS is not supposed to do anything but sell well for blizzard. If you argue that further, it means that it should be interesting to buy it, so the game should be fun to play and balanced on high level of play. What the game doesn't need, is 3races that all have no weaknesses and play similar. Races in SC2 aren't supposed to have no weaknesses and play similar. But they also aren't supposed to be WoW classes that are only good at one thing, and have glaring holes in their arsenal. The weaknesses we do want are the ones that produce interesting gameplay. Zerg not being able to break a turtling Terran even when at a huge advantage was a bad weakness that led to stupid games. An entire Terran tech tree being unusuable in TvP was a bad weakness, so units were added to help that. Protoss had no effective means to harass in the early to mid game, and were extremely reliant on expensive tech to keep them on par with core Zerg/Terran units. This is a bad weakness, because it produces boring gameplay, where the Protoss sits in his base with no map control and just defends and masses up. So, units were added to help this... oh wait.
Stargate openings vs Zerg? It's just that it seems like this techpath isn't viable further. That's why they try to make it more viable.
Also: why should they give Protoss a pure early(gateway) harassment unit, that is
a) hard to balance, due to warp gates
b) overlapping with the dt in later stages of the game
c) something terrans have; zergs partly have (zerglings harass, but they are not a unit purely designed to do so); so giving it to protoss would just mean that they "want each race to open with hellions vs zerg". It's a unique thing to have hellion openings as terran. Don't let them ruin the game with each race having the same basic strategy, just with different units.
d) not necessary if they already make a spell like mass recall, which will basically make your whole army a big harrassment composition
On November 02 2011 22:38 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:54 Big J wrote:
Zergs and Terrans also don't just get units that counteract weaknesses that are intended to be there. But Mech was intended to be playable in TvP, giving them battlehellions and warhounds might fix that.
Mass Thor in ZvT wasn't intended to be playable, that's why the Thor has to go and make space for a unit that is worse vs roaches.
And Zerg was intended to be one of the more aggressive races. In the alpha and beta days when people weren't that great at that game, the general opinion was that zerg was THE pressuring race, running all over the place and denying expos.
Protoss was intended to work well on Stargate tech, that's why they are trying to fix that with oracles and tempests.
Also, Protoss ground tech gets HUGE buffs through the mass recall. Like artosis said: In the current state of the game, he would ALWAYS build an extra Nexus just to have ONE mass recall, because then he could just be out on the map and harass the hell out of everything, for 400 extra minerals... Recall is actually one great thing about HotS, and is way better than our new units combined. I'd trade all of them just to keep the current Recall in the game, which will no doubt get nerfed hard at some point in the beta. However, the point about Stargate tech is retarded. The problem with Stargate was that the units weren't very good in direct army vs army engagements. So, this problem is solved by adding a unit that doesn't attack, and a unit that is only good vs mass air?
So in SC:BW Protoss players only went corsairs because they were so good vs hydralisks? No.
Zerg players go for mass muta play vs terran because they are obviously soooo strong vs marines the main unit in standard biomech compositions? HELL NO!
The problem isn't that Stargate tech is bad in combats. The problem is that Stargate tech and the complete airfleet that a Protoss invested into becomes useless in the midgame. (unlike corsairs in SC:BW) An Oracle would definatly help, because an oracle does never get useless, assuming that it doesn't die from 3spore shots. A Tempest is at least a try to give Protoss a flaggship that is playable. The carrier is not. So it has to go. The Tempest is at least a unit that will be fooled around with anew, before people decide if it is viable or not.
|
I respect posts like the OP due to the thought that goes into them- you clearly thought about it, you clearly put effort into making it reasonable and educated, and your points are justified.
WP
I agree with your points, and would like to add that it wouldn't be unlike Blizz to be unreasonable like that  <3
|
This is ridiculous. You spent time writing out your thoughts, which is great, but come on. It's fun to think about how units might be used, but creating a thread that details why they are bad units and why Blizzard should "give us something else"???? How is that even possible!? It's illogical. How can one complain about a unit without having seen it used in higher level games for some extended period of time? What if it turns out that contrary to OP's opinion, oracles are actually really really good, and in fact need to be nerfed somewhat due to their power? We can theorycraft and invent a bunch of situations in which we could call the oracle "OP", but likewise why do that before the game is out?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 02 2011 22:38 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:54 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 21:15 Toadvine wrote:In any case, if HotS is supposed to add units that shore up weaknesses of the races, then the Terran and Zerg units do make sense in this context. Terran units serve to make mech a viable playstyle in all matchups, for example by giving Hellions the option to act as proper meatshields for Tanks. Zerg units allow them to break entrenched positions more easily, and generally achieve pressure without sacrificing tons of units. In light of this, the new Protoss units are a total joke, they don't solve Protoss problems at all. Well, you can Replicate a Siege Tank and maybe defend 1/1/1, so that's nice I suppose. :/ HotS is not supposed to do anything but sell well for blizzard. If you argue that further, it means that it should be interesting to buy it, so the game should be fun to play and balanced on high level of play. What the game doesn't need, is 3races that all have no weaknesses and play similar. Races in SC2 aren't supposed to have no weaknesses and play similar. But they also aren't supposed to be WoW classes that are only good at one thing, and have glaring holes in their arsenal. The weaknesses we do want are the ones that produce interesting gameplay. Zerg not being able to break a turtling Terran even when at a huge advantage was a bad weakness that led to stupid games. An entire Terran tech tree being unusuable in TvP was a bad weakness, so units were added to help that. Protoss had no effective means to harass in the early to mid game, and were extremely reliant on expensive tech to keep them on par with core Zerg/Terran units. This is a bad weakness, because it produces boring gameplay, where the Protoss sits in his base with no map control and just defends and masses up. So, units were added to help this... oh wait. Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 21:54 Big J wrote:
Zergs and Terrans also don't just get units that counteract weaknesses that are intended to be there. But Mech was intended to be playable in TvP, giving them battlehellions and warhounds might fix that.
Mass Thor in ZvT wasn't intended to be playable, that's why the Thor has to go and make space for a unit that is worse vs roaches.
And Zerg was intended to be one of the more aggressive races. In the alpha and beta days when people weren't that great at that game, the general opinion was that zerg was THE pressuring race, running all over the place and denying expos.
Protoss was intended to work well on Stargate tech, that's why they are trying to fix that with oracles and tempests.
Also, Protoss ground tech gets HUGE buffs through the mass recall. Like artosis said: In the current state of the game, he would ALWAYS build an extra Nexus just to have ONE mass recall, because then he could just be out on the map and harass the hell out of everything, for 400 extra minerals... Recall is actually one great thing about HotS, and is way better than our new units combined. I'd trade all of them just to keep the current Recall in the game, which will no doubt get nerfed hard at some point in the beta. However, the point about Stargate tech is retarded. The problem with Stargate was that the units weren't very good in direct army vs army engagements. So, this problem is solved by adding a unit that doesn't attack, and a unit that is only good vs mass air?
Toadvine explains the problems with the HotS units most succinctly. Zerg are being given a host of new options to solve their current problems (ultralisk/hydra ups, siege breaker, awesome spellcaster etc.). Terran are being given options to mech vs Protoss and more flexibility all round in Warhounds as well as a hilarious zoning unit with the Shredder (because it was TERRAN that lacked zoning units...).
Protoss are being given... a super-expensive harrasser that doesn't kill anything. Since when do we need that? The point is already that all our harrass options are very expensive... An extremely gas-heavy, niche unit in the Tempest, and a unit that isn't even really Protoss in the replicant.
Nexus recall as it stands is by many orders of magnitude the best thing Protoss could be getting. Harrass becomes viable with this and we don't have to pay through our nose for it. Amazing! This actually helps solve a problem Protoss has.
|
On November 02 2011 22:38 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 22:06 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 21:58 Dommk wrote:On November 02 2011 21:34 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:54 Dommk wrote:On November 02 2011 20:35 Big J wrote:On November 02 2011 20:24 Dommk wrote:But not only that: Gateway is a complete tech path. It has tank units (archons, zealots), antiair units (stalkers), casters (sentry/templar), damage dealers (zealot, templar, archon), mineraldump units (zealot), harass units (stalker, dt). Baracks is not. As opposed to Tank units (Marauders), antiair units (Marines, Ghosts), Casters (Ghosts), Damage Dealers (Marines,Marauders), mineral dump units (Marines), harass units (Marines, Marauders) ?? Read the full comment. Also Marauders aren't tank units. They have 125life for 100/25 costs. Stimmed they have 105life. Zealots have 150life, 50 in shields and cost 100 (also lesser passive costs, because they don't require tech labs). Marauder are tank units with medivac support, which are no baracks unit. Also Marines and Marauders are no harass units. Marine/Marauder drops are, which again requires a Starport. I was hoping you would see how ignorant your argument is by by pointing out something in such a ridiculous fashion. EDIT: I'm just going to make this simple. Marines, Marauders, Stim, Combat Shield, Concussive Shell, Ghosts and Reapers are all T 1.5 Tech, but Templars, Archons, DT's, Blink and Charge are not. Terrans OFTEN tech safely to Starport tech on a SINGLE base where as Protoss can barely even tech to Templars on two. Hell, by the time Protoss actually manages to get everything needed it is usually 20mins+ into the game on 3/4 bases. Different races are different and you cannot simply compare something that comes out of a barracks to something that comes out of a Gateway because Protoss and Terran ARE NOT THE SAME And when was the last time you have seen a Protoss win without Colossus? The unit is a necessity We are talking about starcraft and not C&C, try again with a better argument. In C&C T3>T2>T1. In Starcraft not. All those Tier 1,2,3 arguments are just simplyfications to make talking about implied tech (costs) and time to get the tech out simpler. Example: + Show Spoiler +150/0+150/100+150/100+50/25+150/150 = 650/375 are the passive costs for a battlecruiser.
250/0+150/100+150/100+250/200+100/150 = 900/550 are the passive costs for a broodlord.
If we define battlecruiser as T3, then broodlords are T5. But that's really not very useful when talking about nonmirror matchups. As long as you don't build Colossi, Templar or Carriers, "T1" Marines counter every protoss unit, no matter what "tier" they are. (I'm not saying that one can't rely on defensive mechanisms like FFs against them! But in direct engagments the marine wins) Just think about Mech ("T2" and "T3" mixture) in PvT and Bio ("T1" and "T2" mixture). Guess which one has proven to be playable and which hasn't? Seriously? You harp on like one part of one line as my "argument"? I just used Tiers as an easy way to explain the relative timings. The part where I explain how Terran often get to Starport tech one a single base where as Protoss generally only get to Templar by 3bases should have been enough. And your use of Tiers is just as awful. That isn't even what I meant But what does it matter than Mech hasn't been proven vs Protoss? Terran have a viable way to play that is extremely effective . The point still stands, races aren't the same, you can't compare anything that comes from the barracks to anything that comes from the gateway, that isn't how the game is built Because my argument doesn't fall if you replace "Tier X" with "starport tech". Also there are Protoss 2gate 1robo openings. Protoss dt openings. Protoss Stargate openings in PvT. (all of 1base) And Protoss have viable ways to play play PvT, PvP and ZvP with or without colossi. (though I'd always say that in standard play you always want to be able to have each tech available in lategame) Terrans don't have viable ways to play TvP without Stargates. And they don't have viable ways to play lategame (=standard, else someone just made a mistake) TvZ or TvT on pure baracks. That's why I say that gateway is a more complete tech path than Barracks. This is such a ridiculous argument What does it matter that you have to produce a Starport? Protoss may have a tech tree that complements the gateway well but to reach that requires a 20min+ game. Terran can safely get to Starport on a single base. Not to mention in the current metagame it is no longer possible to play a soley gateway tech game What defines play styles like Mech is HOW the style is played, not where the units are made. Show nested quote +
And my point still stands: I'm pretty certain that due to the in the quotes mentioned arguments, "Protoss reapers" would have to suck even more than Terran reapers (and they suck pretty hard right now).
That is something play testing would decide
Really, "how something is played" is more important than where and from which tech it is made (my point all along)?
So why do you keep arguing that Terrans can build a Starport of 1base, while protoss needs a 20min game to get all the tech they need to kill a complete bio composition. Matter of the fact is, that Protoss can play very active through all those 20mins. (with dts, with blink, with allins, with warp prisms) At least once you are high enough level to have a decent amount of multitasking for that.
|
I disagree with the bit about blink stalkers. They are a perfectly effective harassment tool in PvZ and unless the zerg gets infestors, you can always retreat.
The purpose of the oracle is to give the protoss detection through the stargate so that you aren't fucked for avoiding robo.
|
Warp prisms, stargates, and DTs actually gives protoss a lot of harassment options I think there just needs to be some small tweaks to what we have rather than a new unit. Even though I think the oracle is a cool unit I would prefer having DTs and HTs be available from 1 tech building than having another harass unit.
|
I think the phase shift ability is a bit silly. If it becomes popular enough then zergs are just going to build an additional roach warren and spawning pool in another base. True, you could scout that with observers and then build more oracles to also lock those down, but it seems like a risky strategy.
Dark templars are bad design, imo. If they get detected you do no damage. I wish they would get an activated ability that was: 6 seconds of invulnerability, guaranteed death at the end, so they could always do some damage.
|
So you make an Oracle to lock down your zerg opponent's roach warren.
How much does the oracle cost?
Okay, now how much does it cost the zerg to build a second roach warren when he scouts your oracle? Oh, less than the cost of the oracle? Okay.
|
Phoenix, Voidrays and Dts are all countered by very few turrets/spores.. we dont need another unit that gets countered by those static defenses. One could argue that the oracle beats static defenses but as long as we talk about low numbers of oracles in early-midgame they obviously dont.
We need a protoss-like reaper, terrans dont want him anyway.
low hp/range and high dps will make them weak in deathballs but strong at harassing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
