|
Man, this is a phenomenal post. Applause to OP for taking the time to write such a well thought out and level-headed analysis.
Thoughts:
I like the idea of moving up the tech tree and creating more limitations to (but not fundamentally changing or removing) both sentries and warpgate. Propositions for Immortal and Stalker are extreme (and so I would imagine not going to happen at least not that such an extent), but an interesting direction to consider with the tweaks to sentry/warpgate. And I mean... yeah it seems a little silly but... Immortals... aren't... robots...? But sentries... are... robots. So... that would make... sense?
I really like the idea of motherships producing a power field. Opens up really interesting possibilites for play, and just kind of makes sense.
I just want to say that when the tempests were first introduced when the beta was released, aside from ANYTHING else, I just thought the 22 range was the coolest thing ever. Forget about how well the unit worked, or its dps, or cost tech blah etc. I just thought that kind of extreme range was unlike anything else in the game and extremely interesting. Can anybody explain to my why it doesn't/wouldn't work (with appropriate adjustments obviously) to have something in the neighborhood of 17-22 range? Because it just seems like it would be awesome. From a fun-oriented perspective. As a player and a viewer.
Changing stalkers to bonus vs. light instead of armored seems like it would cause problems as stalkers are valuable when trying to snipe down things like Brood Lords, Colossus, Vikings, Corruptors, etc. What about... So change stalker health/shields to 60/100 - minor direct engagement nerf as shields don't take the armor bonus, but goes in line with this hit-and-run philosophy, and change damage to 12 + 2? (not sure if the damage to armored should be kept at 14 or not but), as then 0/0 stalkers would 4-shot 0/0 marines same as they would with the 10+4 vs light. Idk that might be idiotic, just putting that idea out there.
Another thought on warpgate, has it ever been suggested to simply... make warp-ins take LONGER? Not the cool-down but the actual time it takes for a unit to complete the warp-in process in the field. I mean I feel like that must have been discussed somewhere, but wouldn't an adjustment like that do something about this whole defender's advantage shenaniganry? But yeah, I always wondered why there would be NO incentive to have gateways over warpgates. Seems to just take away a potentially interesting decision making / strategy feature.
|
I fucking love the proposed changes. I fully support them. How can we do so, that we attract even more attention from Blizzard ?
At OP, I know it is very hard work, however could you and some other people form a team, so you can succesfully implement those changes in a test map, where the other races are left untouched,so people will find out what effect those changes would have ? And if they are good, we will really open Blizzard's eyes.The theory is insanely good, however I doubt Blizzard will really think much of it, if this theory is all that you have done.Just to say, I am not criticising, I just think that people who are good at map making should help you implement to changes to a map.
|
Do we have any idea how long until a test map is available with the changes in the OP's articles (all three, not just this one)?
|
i like the warp gate idea more or less but don't really get the immortal or stalker changes
|
On October 14 2012 05:22 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
i like the warp gate idea more or less but don't really get the immortal or stalker changes
The idea for a smaller Immortal and an anti light stalker would be to provide Protoss with a stronger early army that would be less dependent on Force Fields and Warp Gate.
|
On October 13 2012 17:51 MagmaPunch wrote:
I fucking love the proposed changes. I fully support them. How can we do so, that we attract even more attention from Blizzard ?
At OP, I know it is very hard work, however could you and some other people form a team, so you can succesfully implement those changes in a test map, where the other races are left untouched,so people will find out what effect those changes would have ? And if they are good, we will really open Blizzard's eyes.The theory is insanely good, however I doubt Blizzard will really think much of it, if this theory is all that you have done.Just to say, I am not criticising, I just think that people who are good at map making should help you implement to changes to a map.
There will be a PTR map for us to test different combinations of these changes.
|
On October 14 2012 16:56 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 17:51 MagmaPunch wrote:
I fucking love the proposed changes. I fully support them. How can we do so, that we attract even more attention from Blizzard ?
At OP, I know it is very hard work, however could you and some other people form a team, so you can succesfully implement those changes in a test map, where the other races are left untouched,so people will find out what effect those changes would have ? And if they are good, we will really open Blizzard's eyes.The theory is insanely good, however I doubt Blizzard will really think much of it, if this theory is all that you have done.Just to say, I am not criticising, I just think that people who are good at map making should help you implement to changes to a map. There will be a PTR map for us to test different combinations of these changes.
Do you mean a real PTR supported by Blizzard, with Hots models? That would be simply amazing.
Anyway i think i support every change you did propose for the 3 races.
What about the Oracle, role and spells? I couldn't find any info on it, but i'm sure you have some ideas on it  .
I'd personally really love to see Phase shift come back, limited to static defences *_*
|
The PTR would not be supported by Blizzard, but after a period of testing (with enough replays), I would send our findings to Blizzard for consideration. This project is about establishing a more open dialogue between Blizzard and its community during the design process and doing so in the most constructive manner.
The Oracle and Colossus are both getting articles. The Colossus is tricky and is here to stay, I think there are adjustments that can make it more fun and skill intensive, without killing it for lower level players. For better and worse, there will be no Reaver in SC2.
|
I really hope the PTR will be published on several servers, if thats possible. Even if you have you get a friend to do it. I really would test these changes thoroughly. Any sense of when the PTR will be available?
|
This is a pointless effort.
First of all a TON of factors are completely ignored to make this comparision totally useless. Damage in BW and SC2 is not comparable like that, you should be comparing DPS, armor type / bonusses matter a lot, support units differ etc etc.
The role of protoss is different in sc2 and BW but why should that be problematic? The games are way too different than to try and make such a change that will solve issues. Yes I agree BW is many ways better as far as units and interesting tactics go but it;s also just terribly worse in a lot of other aspects. Stop trying to compare them too much..
Most changes suggested here such as moving units around to much, reversing the role of stalker etc. etc. are plain terrible and won't work. Among the changes are a few good ones though, I like the voidray, tempest and carrier changes though.
Shortly put I don't think changing too much in the framework for protoss is possible anymore at this point, you can't just change around warpgate and all other stuff around anymore, the game is already settled upon that now. Small changes to later tech units should be possible though and are generally much easier to balance, specifically I'd like to see a chance to stargate in general (something along the lines in the OP possibly) and to the colossus (just to make it more interesting unit microwise, possible replace the projectile with the reaver projectile..)
|
I respectfully disagree. These suggestions are useless without real data and community support. Look at the Carrier as an example. The data eventually showed that Carriers could be viable in some contexts, this combined with the community outcry for the iconic capital ship was enough to secure the unit's place in SC2. Same thing happened with the Warhound, a unit that Blizzard was pretty happy with as was, until the data and community said otherwise. If these were half-assed suggestions with no follow through, that would be one thing. However, I am pretty sure some of these changes could result in a better game in the long run.
|
On October 15 2012 05:33 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
I respectfully disagree. These suggestions are useless without real data and community support. Look at the Carrier as an example. The data eventually showed that Carriers could be viable in some contexts, this combined with the community outcry for the iconic capital ship was enough to secure the unit's place in SC2. Same thing happened with the Warhound, a unit that Blizzard was pretty happy with as was, until the data and community said otherwise. If these were half-assed suggestions with no follow through, that would be one thing. However, I am pretty sure some of these changes could result in a better game in the long run.
Completely agree. I like a lot of changes, some of them I don't, but oh well, it comes down to the personal preference. And btw, Blizzard pretty much used your changes for the Tempest, well, kind of. :D
|
i read all 3 of your post with T and Z and i like all three. Not sure about Blizzard because they don't take big steps. The only chance for them to test this is in beta. I hope they try these changes for a month or two.
|
10387 Posts
Lol blizz should hire this guy
|
On October 15 2012 07:17 boomudead1 wrote:
i read all 3 of your post with T and Z and i like all three. Not sure about Blizzard because they don't take big steps. The only chance for them to test this is in beta. I hope they try these changes for a month or two.
Hopefully FoxyMayhem and I will have something for you guys soon.
|
On October 15 2012 14:09 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:17 boomudead1 wrote:
i read all 3 of your post with T and Z and i like all three. Not sure about Blizzard because they don't take big steps. The only chance for them to test this is in beta. I hope they try these changes for a month or two. Hopefully FoxyMayhem and I will have something for you guys soon.
I'd try it out. I'm pretty sure it'd be broken, and I don't see the other races stopping 2-base Colossus play - but I'd try it, if only to prove my point.
|
I like the ideas. Maybe not all of them but it would be nice to try them out in a ptr.
I like the concept of adjusting the units to how they are currently used now in wol. When the units for the game was designd for wol blizzard didnt really know how everything would play out.
Right now we see stalkers fighting mostly marines and mutas and adding light damage bonus would make allot of sense. Also switching the sentry around with the immortal solves allot of problem.
Blizzard have said them self that forcfield makes it hard for new/low lvl players, by making it a tech chose instead of a core choice it will allow those players to play with out it if they want. The extra punch of a weaker immortal actually gives protoss a good balanced anti armor unit. Maybe the numbers of everything need to be tweaked but most of the concepts are nice xD.
Giving voidrays bonus against biological instead of armored might be better. Since the tempest with is range is a better counter for tanks. Makes the voidray a better option then tempest against zerg.
|
Impressive! And you got a response from Dustin Browder!?
GJ 
Your argument for the "feel" of the protoss is great, really awesome. And it made me realize something that I was missing.
About your changes: I totally agree with the warpgate changes. If you have a tradeoff between a) instant almost anywhere reinforcements vs b) quick army production that can only help the game.
Part of the other proposals you made seem to have been addressed in a way by the last patches. The oracly is now a perfect glass cannon, great against unprotected buildings.And timewarp helps a gateway army while being more forgiving than ff.
I think the current oracle and tempest are really good though and if the void ray is tweaked to find a new role, things are starting to look up for the protoss.
My personal suggestions would be these:
1. Robotics facility requires warpgate instead of cybernetics core
2. Zealot charge is researchable at the cybernetics core
These are two simple changes that could help a lot with early game protoss while hopefully not breaking too much.
I also vote for your gateway change and agree that it might makes sense to at least try out to push the availability of force fields a bit back in the tech tree.
Maybe just give hallucination for free and make FF an expensive research?
Anyways, great post!
|
Oh yeah and the stalker proposal somehow feels incredibly fascinating as well although that's really a huge change.
It would totally break mass marine and muta vs toss. Lings might become worthless vs toss.
Instead it will probably encourage mech or roach play.
|
Hey guys this is my very first post on TL and I'm very excited to become a part of this community.
First off I love these changes specifically mostly change set 1&2. Ive always wondered since launch why there is no downside to warpgates. Giving pros and cons as you proposed OP gives choice and with choice much more interesting gameplay.
On October 15 2012 00:13 Markwerf wrote:
Shortly put I don't think changing too much in the framework for protoss is possible anymore at this point, you can't just change around warpgate and all other stuff around anymore, the game is already settled upon that now. Small changes to later tech units should be possible though and are generally much easier to balance
I dont understand posts like these. Such changes as the OP suggests are possible to be patched in WOL however unlikely. The fact that HOTS isn't released yet makes it far more likely. As for the 'beta' being settled as you say, so what? You rather have a worse off game just because you dont want to upset the "settled" players who are playing the beta? I agree small changes are easier, but if mechanics are broken or inherently boring, no amount of small changes will rectify that. You need some drastic changes. I think you forget that this is an expansion no mere patch, they could do whatever they want and furthermore close the beta to implement these changes in need be.
At worst, these changes can be made post launch if its deemed balanced but that would be overall undesirable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
