|
I think that Gateway units can be very, very deadly. It's just a matter of when. Stalkers with blink are very powerful and Zealots with charge are very dangerous as well.
-Dustin Browder
This quote from SC2's lead designer came in response to requests from players to re-design Protoss from the ground up to make gateway units less dependent on high-tech support to trade evenly with their low-tech Terran and Zerg counterparts. It seems that Blizzard's position is that gateway units are already strong enough, and that gameplay can be improved without launching into the sorts of difficult fundamental redesigns that players have requested. In this article, I'll explore the cost-efficiency of gateway units, how the Protoss army functions at various points in the game, and the gameplay impacts of the Protoss design mechanics for the other races.
To begin, I'd like to directly address Dustin's statement that gateway units can be "very, very deadly." Here's what survives if you smash equal cost forces of 29 fully upgraded chareglots into 50 marines and 2 medivacs.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fVDzC.png)
Yep, even without kiting, the zealots merely dent the marine ball. And for humor’s sake, here's what equal cost forces of roaches vs stalkers and immortals looks like.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gWFum.png)
Even with blink micro against a-moved roaches, the fight isn't close. Simply put, Protoss's basic units are much weaker for cost than the basic units for Zerg and Terran.
So how does Protoss win games in WoL? The answer is a combination of forcefied use, Protoss-favored maps, and tech units. The basic Protoss gameplan is to survive with forcefields unitl colossi or storm come out, build up enough gateway mass to protect your tech units, and then move onto the map. If there are too few tech units, the gateway core is overwhelmed by their more efficient Terran and Zerg counterparts. If there are too few gateway units, the tech units will be picked off and the Protoss force will be stomped even harder.
How does this pattern impact gameplay more broadly? Most obviously, Protoss plays as a turtly race that wants to defend efficiently until they can force one big fight with all their forces. Hence, the familiar sight of the “Protoss deathball” with every unit Protoss has built all game packed together under one guardian shield. Nobody likes the deathball, but there are more fundamental gameplay problems that arise from Protoss’s weak T1.
Perhaps the worst problem is that weak gateway units force convergence in map design to the point that every tournament-quality map plays more or less the same for the first 15 minutes. In order to play a competitive macro game, Protoss needs a tight choke leading into their natural so that they can defend with just a couple sentries, and in PvZ, Protoss also needs to be able to defend their natural and third bases simultaneously with forcefields. The result is that every modern map has a freebie natural expansion and a closed off third base tucked right next to the natural. Entombed Valley is the poster-child for this layout, but you see the same features on Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, Metropolis, and Condemned Ridge. Maps that deviate from this layout (think Korhal Compound or Dual Sight) don’t allow Protoss to take a third on remotely even economic terms, and force Protoss to play 1-base and 2-base all-ins.
This map convergence not only produces stale play where a single build can be fitted to every single map, but because competitive maps must allow 3 bases to be defended by forcefields, every race gets three easily defended bases. Optimal mining income can be achieved on three bases, so players are not forced to expose themselves to attack until 15 or 20 minutes into the game. The result is a monotonous, boring beginning to the vast majority of games. Players and spectators hate “No Rush 15,” but the Protoss-mandated map features too often force it.
The last major point I want to touch on is the binary battles that result from the combination of weak gateway units, strong tech units and forcefields. Remember how lopsided the chargelot vs marine battle at the top of this article was? It turns out that if you add just one storm to that fight, the chargelots win while taking almost no losses. Without a storm, the marines win with almost no losses; with a storm, the zealots win with almost no losses. Similar effects happen with colossi and forcefields in many other situations against both Terran and Zerg, and I think it’s safe to say that they are the #1 cause of smashed keyboards in the SC2 community.
These binary battles are almost always game-deciding, and they feel profoundly unfair to both sides of the fight. Protoss players hate that they instantly lose if their HT are EMP’d or if their forcefields are a half-second too late, allowing roaches to get in range. Terran players hate that they instantly lose because they EMP’d a half-second too late or because they didn’t discover Protoss’s hidden colossus transition. And Zerg players hate that they literally can’t fight back if Protoss hits perfect forcefields during an immortal-sentry all-in. Protoss simultaneously feels unbeatably strong and unwinnably weak.
As for what to do about these issues, I fear that the required changes may be too significant and risky for Blizzard to undertake. Nonetheless, I hope they’re willing to be bold and consider altering the balance of strength between core gateway units, tech units and forcefields. Gameplay is stale and frustrating for all three races, and players would greatly appreciate it if Blizzard would at least take a crack at the underlying problems. My suggestions for a starting point would be to:
-slightly increase marine and hydralisk collision radius to reduce the AoE damage they take from colossi and storms
-nerf or remove forcefield
-buff zealots and stalkers relative to marines, marauders, roaches and zerglings (may require a direct roach nerf)
I don’t think the changes would be as game-warping as one might fear. Already, Protoss players are gravitating away from sentries in PvT building only enough to survive a stim timing before their tech comes online. And in PvZ, sentries are only built as a counter to roaches. If Protoss players could deal with roaches any other way, they’d happily invest those resources elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the changes would allow more open maps with more opportunities to harass and attack earlier in the game. Additionally, Protoss would finally be able to split their forces, and you wouldn’t see as many deathballs. And best of all, the battles wouldn’t be so damn binary. Stronger zealots might narrowly lose to stimmed marines. And because storms would deal less AoE damage to marines, the battle supplemented by a storm would also be less lopsided in favor of the zealots.
|
I'd like to adress two things:
Maps/3 base: Am I really the only one who thinks that the "old" way was kinda nice? Every race (exept maybe zerg) played one base builts and slowly got more and more econ. Today everythings starts with two bases - hell terran has 3cc builts!? I understand that terran was sick as f*** with 2 rax pressure but making the maps bigger and now as you mentioned 3 bases closer together... at the end we just wait until we have 200/200 armies and kill each other, because it needs 2 hours to get to your opponent.
Leading to my other point: Everyone is currently talking about making T1 protoss more viable. IF and only IF(!) Z-lots and stalkers get better and are on even, or slightly better ground then other t1 units, why would i make t3? I am able to warp in 20 zlots at the enemies base who trade nicely - or better then terran t1. T3 would be overkill. If we now consider stim, upgrades etc. Then T3 gets WAY to strong.
So buffing T1 = nerf T3. The same concept as terran. mmm > T3 units.
---
I like the idea with forcefields. I hate it to rely on them so much as Protoss. But thats how protoss is played currently. You need perfect FF, storm, perfect Mothership control, perfect splits, perfect blinkmicro to make anything happen. Otherwise you will get stomped (master and above) because of macro alone.
The risk = gain factor is only there with storm. One nice storm deals nice dmg. But everything else is a neccessity not to die. Remember the 200 roach timing days, where every protoss had to play perfectly with FF and blink to hold (not win) this.
I don't know if you consider this "discussion" but in BW you cannoned up as toss to get to your higher tier units. A cannonbuff (+ light) would help with lings/marines/muta who are currently the biggest threads in these stages of the game.
Lingsrunbys kill bases if they are on hold, or focussed on the nexus ignoring the cannons, and with proper dmg, you could nexus first against terran without loosing to 2rax or anything similar. + mutas are easier to deal with.
Guess in another thread someone mentioned this buff for stalker, which is also a good idea.
But yeah: If there is a way to hold without ff - pls give us the opportunity for 1 base AND macro based play + nerf t3 protoss units. (actually the whole anti-lossus argument could be mentioned here as well)
|
This is such a great post and I agree with everything you said.
The only thing that I would add is that buffing Protoss tier 1 would also require Warp Gate to be made a higher level tech (possibly tier 3) so as to limit 4/6gate type strategies from becoming unbeatably strong.
|
On October 12 2012 07:14 FeeLdAfuRy wrote:
This is such a great post and I agree with everything you said.
The only thing that I would add is that buffing Protoss tier 1 would also require Warp Gate to be made a higher level tech (possibly tier 3) so as to limit 4/6gate type strategies from becoming unbeatably strong.
Good idea.
|
I agree with your overall point of making gateway units stronger than they currently are but your examples are very questionable. Chargelots vs Marines? Marines are suppose to do fine in that example and the same goes for you roaches vs gateway immortal with no sentries(even assuming you were fighting in open space the force fields would still help a lot)
As for my opinion on your suggestions
- I've never liked the idea of messing with the pathing to spread out units as keeping you units spread is one of the few mechanically challenging things in the game that distinctly separates players, in this case, in terms of unit control. Making Protoss aoe weaker (while making gateway units stronger) could be a good idea, I would just rather not see it happen this way.
- Seems ok in a world where zealots and stalkers don't suck as much
-The only problem that comes to mind is TvZ playing vs mech would be somewhat forced to play in passive rush to hive style instead of having the option to be aggressive with roaches. There's probably more wrong with a roach nerf but I can't think of any atm.
|
I really like your post and couldn't agree more. I really love the Protoss race well from BW anyway the feel and the lore and the style are my favorite. So I play Protoss in SC2 but they are the Gimmick Race, If that proxy pylon dies or the warp prism sniped Protoss either runs away or loses right there. Can't get aggressive without sentries if you don't have a huge army with colossus or ht or both.
I have been playing beta a lot and mothership core kind of helps you be aggressive in the early game but it loses it's effectiveness very fast as it has low hp and short range. Queens and marines both can take them down pretty quickly.
I don't know what Blizzard needs to do but they need to do it quick. I stopped playing WOL something I never thought I would do but it's just boring and I don't get that rush from playing it anymore, and that makes me very sad.
|
I'm a little outraged at Dustin's pathetic attempt to sidestep the core issue in his response.
For example I don't believe that "Gateway units are weak because of warp-in." I do agree that Sentry is core to Gateway and that Gateway units are balanced around the use of Sentry. What makes this worse is that Sentries are hard to use. Guardian Shield isn't too difficult to manage, but Force Fields can be very difficult to use correctly. We are talking about ways to make the Sentry easier to use so more Protoss players can get value out of him.
He acknowledges the why but fails to respond in any real way to it. He just tangents on to why the sentry should be "easier to use" which could mean a lot of things. Later in the thread David Kim clarifies that they've thought of removing hallucination research or something useless like that.
But the real problem has been aptly described by the op and I just hope blizzard continues to watch the hots forums here too. I rarely ever post anywhere but I'm fired up by the developers' negligence of this issue that could fundamentally alter the game in an unbelievably positive way.
Edit: Someone please post this on hots forums.
|
To be fair, Zerg should have an advantage supply for supply in an open field. That is something that was established in BW and continues in SC2. I think the issue is that the Roach is so durable and larva efficient that early Protoss units have no choice but to use gas heavy tech units like Colossi (and Immortals/Sentries to a lesser extent)
|
On October 12 2012 07:37 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
To be fair, Zerg should have an advantage supply for supply in an open field. That is something that was established in BW and continues in SC2. I think the issue is that the Roach is so durable and larva efficient that early Protoss units have no choice but to use gas heavy tech units like Colossi (and Immortals/Sentries to a lesser extent)
Yeah, I'm fine with Zerg winning an open field fight. It just shouldn't be as lopsided as it is, and on the reverse side, it shouldn't be lopsided in favor of Protoss if Protoss gets perfect forcefields. This gets back to the binary nature of PvX battles. Protoss gets utterly crushed unless they have the right combination of tech and forcefields, and they utterly crush their opponent if they do have that combination.
|
On October 12 2012 07:31 Ao wrote:I'm a little outraged at Dustin's pathetic attempt to sidestep the core issue in his response. Show nested quote +For example I don't believe that "Gateway units are weak because of warp-in." I do agree that Sentry is core to Gateway and that Gateway units are balanced around the use of Sentry. What makes this worse is that Sentries are hard to use. Guardian Shield isn't too difficult to manage, but Force Fields can be very difficult to use correctly. We are talking about ways to make the Sentry easier to use so more Protoss players can get value out of him. He acknowledges the why but fails to respond in any real way to it. He just tangents on to why the sentry should be "easier to use" which could mean a lot of things. Later in the thread David Kim clarifies that they've thought of removing hallucination research or something useless like that. But the real problem has been aptly described by the op and I just hope blizzard continues to watch the hots forums here too. I rarely ever post anywhere but I'm fired up by the developers' negligence of this issue that could fundamentally alter the game in an unbelievably positive way. Edit: Someone please post this on hots forums.
I'm hoping to get beta access in the next wave, and if I do, I'll post in on the HoTS forums.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 12 2012 06:44 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +I think that Gateway units can be very, very deadly. It's just a matter of when. Stalkers with blink are very powerful and Zealots with charge are very dangerous as well.
-Dustin Browder This quote from SC2's lead designer came in response to requests from players to re-design Protoss from the ground up to make gateway units less dependent on high-tech support to trade evenly with their low-tech Terran and Zerg counterparts. It seems that Blizzard's position is that gateway units are already strong enough, and that gameplay can be improved without launching into the sorts of difficult fundamental redesigns that players have requested. In this article, I'll explore the cost-efficiency of gateway units, how the Protoss army functions at various points in the game, and the gameplay impacts of the Protoss design mechanics for the other races. To begin, I'd like to directly address Dustin's statement that gateway units can be "very, very deadly." Here's what survives if you smash equal cost forces of 29 fully upgraded chareglots into 50 marines and 2 medivacs. Yep, even without kiting, the zealots merely dent the marine ball. And for humor’s sake, here's what equal cost forces of roaches vs stalkers and immortals looks like. Even with blink micro against a-moved roaches, the fight isn't close. Simply put, Protoss's basic units are much weaker for cost than the basic units for Zerg and Terran. So how does Protoss win games in WoL? The answer is a combination of forcefied use, Protoss-favored maps, and tech units. The basic Protoss gameplan is to survive with forcefields unitl colossi or storm come out, build up enough gateway mass to protect your tech units, and then move onto the map. If there are too few tech units, the gateway core is overwhelmed by their more efficient Terran and Zerg counterparts. If there are too few gateway units, the tech units will be picked off and the Protoss force will be stomped even harder. How does this pattern impact gameplay more broadly? Most obviously, Protoss plays as a turtly race that wants to defend efficiently until they can force one big fight with all their forces. Hence, the familiar sight of the “Protoss deathball” with every unit Protoss has built all game packed together under one guardian shield. Nobody likes the deathball, but there are more fundamental gameplay problems that arise from Protoss’s weak T1. Perhaps the worst problem is that weak gateway units force convergence in map design to the point that every tournament-quality map plays more or less the same for the first 15 minutes. In order to play a competitive macro game, Protoss needs a tight choke leading into their natural so that they can defend with just a couple sentries, and in PvZ, Protoss also needs to be able to defend their natural and third bases simultaneously with forcefields. The result is that every modern map has a freebie natural expansion and a closed off third base tucked right next to the natural. Entombed Valley is the poster-child for this layout, but you see the same features on Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, Metropolis, and Condemned Ridge. Maps that deviate from this layout (think Korhal Compound or Dual Sight) don’t allow Protoss to take a third on remotely even economic terms, and force Protoss to play 1-base and 2-base all-ins. This map convergence not only produces stale play where a single build can be fitted to every single map, but because competitive maps must allow 3 bases to be defended by forcefields, every race gets three easily defended bases. Optimal mining income can be achieved on three bases, so players are not forced to expose themselves to attack until 15 or 20 minutes into the game. The result is a monotonous, boring beginning to the vast majority of games. Players and spectators hate “No Rush 15,” but the Protoss-mandated map features too often force it. The last major point I want to touch on is the binary battles that result from the combination of weak gateway units, strong tech units and forcefields. Remember how lopsided the chargelot vs marine battle at the top of this article was? It turns out that if you add just one storm to that fight, the chargelots win while taking almost no losses. Without a storm, the marines win with almost no losses; with a storm, the zealots win with almost no losses. Similar effects happen with colossi and forcefields in many other situations against both Terran and Zerg, and I think it’s safe to say that they are the #1 cause of smashed keyboards in the SC2 community. These binary battles are almost always game-deciding, and they feel profoundly unfair to both sides of the fight. Protoss players hate that they instantly lose if their HT are EMP’d or if their forcefields are a half-second too late, allowing roaches to get in range. Terran players hate that they instantly lose because they EMP’d a half-second too late or because they didn’t discover Protoss’s hidden colossus transition. And Zerg players hate that they literally can’t fight back if Protoss hits perfect forcefields during an immortal-sentry all-in. Protoss simultaneously feels unbeatably strong and unwinnably weak. As for what to do about these issues, I fear that the required changes may be too significant and risky for Blizzard to undertake. Nonetheless, I hope they’re willing to be bold and consider altering the balance of strength between core gateway units, tech units and forcefields. Gameplay is stale and frustrating for all three races, and players would greatly appreciate it if Blizzard would at least take a crack at the underlying problems. My suggestions for a starting point would be to: -slightly increase marine and hydralisk collision radius to reduce the AoE damage they take from colossi and storms -nerf or remove forcefield -buff zealots and stalkers relative to marines, marauders, roaches and zerglings (may require a direct roach nerf) I don’t think the changes would be as game-warping as one might fear. Already, Protoss players are gravitating away from sentries in PvT building only enough to survive a stim timing before their tech comes online. And in PvZ, sentries are only built as a counter to roaches. If Protoss players could deal with roaches any other way, they’d happily invest those resources elsewhere. Meanwhile, the changes would allow more open maps with more opportunities to harass and attack earlier in the game. Additionally, Protoss would finally be able to split their forces, and you wouldn’t see as many deathballs. And best of all, the battles wouldn’t be so damn binary. Stronger zealots might narrowly lose to stimmed marines. And because storms would deal less AoE damage to marines, the battle supplemented by a storm would also be less lopsided in favor of the zealots.
"Your comments should by written why is it that I cannot just A-Move and win every single game?-
I'm so frustrated that the game actually requires me to change my style rather than me being able the change the game to suit how I want to play."
If you just did a simple rush like charge archon, stalker blink, sentry robo, phoenix/void/zealot. You don't have have to wait until the 15 minute deathball to attack. You would have a different timing for each.
IMO Warp is the problem more than anything. PVP is one base forever because of it, but also I love pvp cause its all about controlling units.
I still think protoss is the strongest race in the game at the moment. If you have blink the stalkers win that engagement only loosing like 2-3 stalkers. if you have 50 zealots vs a ton of marines you have so much unspent gas which could have been used on archons. chargelot/archon/templar wins marine/medivac. I really think that you shouldn't complain about how the game should better follow your style and focus more on how you should change your style to best play the game. Try using templar/archons more, you'll win more games sooner. Practice feedback more than writing these threads complaining that you don't want to take advantage of the slightly imba race.
A lot of people complain that zergs have become to strong. The problem is that if you don't build infestor, basically every strat in the game is designed to counter your army. Your entire goal should be killing infestors. (especially before broods)
Destiny literally became somewhat competitive just by learning to use them.
Another thing is that a lot of terrans struggle with tier three games, but you watch and the trend has not been to use ghosts or ravens. WTF?!!!! Watch MVP, byun, taeja and marineking own with these units. EMP is sooo sick. You can cast two emps and remove all shields/ 12 infestors energy. vs broods get like 4-5 ghosts snipe overseer, stim marines- broods die, or raven viking sooo sick.
I definitely think you should try to work on timing builds more that writing threads like this.
|
On October 12 2012 07:31 Ao wrote:I'm a little outraged at Dustin's pathetic attempt to sidestep the core issue in his response. Show nested quote +For example I don't believe that "Gateway units are weak because of warp-in." I do agree that Sentry is core to Gateway and that Gateway units are balanced around the use of Sentry. What makes this worse is that Sentries are hard to use. Guardian Shield isn't too difficult to manage, but Force Fields can be very difficult to use correctly. We are talking about ways to make the Sentry easier to use so more Protoss players can get value out of him. He acknowledges the why but fails to respond in any real way to it. He just tangents on to why the sentry should be "easier to use" which could mean a lot of things. Later in the thread David Kim clarifies that they've thought of removing hallucination research or something useless like that. But the real problem has been aptly described by the op and I just hope blizzard continues to watch the hots forums here too. I rarely ever post anywhere but I'm fired up by the developers' negligence of this issue that could fundamentally alter the game in an unbelievably positive way. Edit: Someone please post this on hots forums.
Wait i dont get why removing of hallucination should solve something ?
|
People honestly think they'll change something as core to the game as gateway units? They're never going to do this. It'd be like changing pawns in chess to do something different just because.
Blizzard did say they're willing to look at older units when they feel they have all of the new units in a good place, so they could look at ravens, broodlords infestors, sentries etc. later on but it's highly doubtful they're going to ever change gateway units and they don't really need to...it's not a problem.
The game is how it is now, and it's even debatable whether gateway units are actually weaker than brood wars because they can literally be warped in anywhere on the map, and have things like blink/charge, etc.
I don't really understand your vacuum examples either. In an actual game anyone that just 1A's only zealots into marine medivac like that is basically a bronze league player. The game doesn't work in a vacuum so why do your examples matter at all for the arguments your making? Protoss relies on forcefield, that's just how the game works. You can claim they are weaker because of it, others could say Protoss is even stronger because of it because the game can sometimes be in the hands of the person using forcefields that stops the opponent from microing.
|
On October 12 2012 07:53 YosHGo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:31 Ao wrote:I'm a little outraged at Dustin's pathetic attempt to sidestep the core issue in his response. For example I don't believe that "Gateway units are weak because of warp-in." I do agree that Sentry is core to Gateway and that Gateway units are balanced around the use of Sentry. What makes this worse is that Sentries are hard to use. Guardian Shield isn't too difficult to manage, but Force Fields can be very difficult to use correctly. We are talking about ways to make the Sentry easier to use so more Protoss players can get value out of him. He acknowledges the why but fails to respond in any real way to it. He just tangents on to why the sentry should be "easier to use" which could mean a lot of things. Later in the thread David Kim clarifies that they've thought of removing hallucination research or something useless like that. But the real problem has been aptly described by the op and I just hope blizzard continues to watch the hots forums here too. I rarely ever post anywhere but I'm fired up by the developers' negligence of this issue that could fundamentally alter the game in an unbelievably positive way. Edit: Someone please post this on hots forums. Wait i dont get why removing of hallucination should solve something ?
This is off-topic, but the idea was to remove the research requirement so that noobs could use hallucinated zealots as a poor man's forcefield.
|
On October 12 2012 07:54 avilo wrote:
People honestly think they'll change something as core to the game as gateway units? They're never going to do this. It'd be like changing pawns in chess to do something different just because.
Blizzard did say they're willing to look at older units when they feel they have all of the new units in a good place, so they could look at ravens, broodlords infestors, sentries etc. later on but it's highly doubtful they're going to ever change gateway units and they don't really need to...it's not a problem.
The game is how it is now, and it's even debatable whether gateway units are actually weaker than brood wars because they can literally be warped in anywhere on the map, and have things like blink/charge, etc.
I don't really understand your vacuum examples either. In an actual game anyone that just 1A's only zealots into marine medivac like that is basically a bronze league player. The game doesn't work in a vacuum so why do your examples matter at all for the arguments your making? Protoss relies on forcefield, that's just how the game works. You can claim they are weaker because of it, others could say Protoss is even stronger because of it because the game can sometimes be in the hands of the person using forcefields that stops the opponent from microing.
Thanks Avilo for turning this into a balance discussion. I'm not saying that reliance on forcefield and high-tech units is good or bad for Protoss strength. It's obviously both. What I am saying is that it's bad for gameplay because it forces maps to converge in a boring way, limits activity and creativity for the first 15 minutes of the game, and creates binary battle results.
|
That Marine vs. Chargelot scenario bothers me because you added Medivacs using Healing but did not add Sentries using Guardian Shield.
|
Those are terrible examples. In what game would I expect my Chargelots to win against a Marine ball of that size with stim and medivac support? My Stalker heavy Stalker/Immortal ball will lose to a Roach army which is able to get a concave on my army in an open field. I am not sure why I should expect otherwise. Biased examples do not help your post.
As to your point regarding the overwhelming nature of victories in SC2 is not specific to Protoss. "Terrible, terrible damage" is a feature of the game - although, admittedly, it may be emphasized in Protoss. But this is also due to our reliance on AOE once opposing armies research their significant upgrades and/or have substantive unit advantages.
I have no comment on your suggestions. They have all been done before in various threads.
And where HotS is concerned, the Beta is still in its infancy. Maybe once the Beta is more settled, tweaks with WOL units, like those you suggest, etc can be implemented. But, right now. Blizzard has other things to focus on than "fixing" Protoss.
|
On October 12 2012 08:01 willoc wrote:
That Marine vs. Chargelot scenario bothers me because you added Medivacs using Healing but did not add Sentries using Guardian Shield.
It's actually more lopsided with just marines (because I added 4 extra zealots to balance the cost of the medivacs), but the picture isn't as pretty because all the marines are yellow health after the stim.
And yes, that fight doesn't happen in a real game. If for some reason Protoss did choose to stay on gateway tech, they'd at least use guardian shield and forcefields. Meanwhile, Terran would kite. The end result is the same tho--marines rock zealots unless P has storm or colossi.
|
On October 12 2012 07:49 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 12 2012 06:44 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +I think that Gateway units can be very, very deadly. It's just a matter of when. Stalkers with blink are very powerful and Zealots with charge are very dangerous as well.
-Dustin Browder This quote from SC2's lead designer came in response to requests from players to re-design Protoss from the ground up to make gateway units less dependent on high-tech support to trade evenly with their low-tech Terran and Zerg counterparts. It seems that Blizzard's position is that gateway units are already strong enough, and that gameplay can be improved without launching into the sorts of difficult fundamental redesigns that players have requested. In this article, I'll explore the cost-efficiency of gateway units, how the Protoss army functions at various points in the game, and the gameplay impacts of the Protoss design mechanics for the other races. To begin, I'd like to directly address Dustin's statement that gateway units can be "very, very deadly." Here's what survives if you smash equal cost forces of 29 fully upgraded chareglots into 50 marines and 2 medivacs. Yep, even without kiting, the zealots merely dent the marine ball. And for humor’s sake, here's what equal cost forces of roaches vs stalkers and immortals looks like. Even with blink micro against a-moved roaches, the fight isn't close. Simply put, Protoss's basic units are much weaker for cost than the basic units for Zerg and Terran. So how does Protoss win games in WoL? The answer is a combination of forcefied use, Protoss-favored maps, and tech units. The basic Protoss gameplan is to survive with forcefields unitl colossi or storm come out, build up enough gateway mass to protect your tech units, and then move onto the map. If there are too few tech units, the gateway core is overwhelmed by their more efficient Terran and Zerg counterparts. If there are too few gateway units, the tech units will be picked off and the Protoss force will be stomped even harder. How does this pattern impact gameplay more broadly? Most obviously, Protoss plays as a turtly race that wants to defend efficiently until they can force one big fight with all their forces. Hence, the familiar sight of the “Protoss deathball” with every unit Protoss has built all game packed together under one guardian shield. Nobody likes the deathball, but there are more fundamental gameplay problems that arise from Protoss’s weak T1. Perhaps the worst problem is that weak gateway units force convergence in map design to the point that every tournament-quality map plays more or less the same for the first 15 minutes. In order to play a competitive macro game, Protoss needs a tight choke leading into their natural so that they can defend with just a couple sentries, and in PvZ, Protoss also needs to be able to defend their natural and third bases simultaneously with forcefields. The result is that every modern map has a freebie natural expansion and a closed off third base tucked right next to the natural. Entombed Valley is the poster-child for this layout, but you see the same features on Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, Metropolis, and Condemned Ridge. Maps that deviate from this layout (think Korhal Compound or Dual Sight) don’t allow Protoss to take a third on remotely even economic terms, and force Protoss to play 1-base and 2-base all-ins. This map convergence not only produces stale play where a single build can be fitted to every single map, but because competitive maps must allow 3 bases to be defended by forcefields, every race gets three easily defended bases. Optimal mining income can be achieved on three bases, so players are not forced to expose themselves to attack until 15 or 20 minutes into the game. The result is a monotonous, boring beginning to the vast majority of games. Players and spectators hate “No Rush 15,” but the Protoss-mandated map features too often force it. The last major point I want to touch on is the binary battles that result from the combination of weak gateway units, strong tech units and forcefields. Remember how lopsided the chargelot vs marine battle at the top of this article was? It turns out that if you add just one storm to that fight, the chargelots win while taking almost no losses. Without a storm, the marines win with almost no losses; with a storm, the zealots win with almost no losses. Similar effects happen with colossi and forcefields in many other situations against both Terran and Zerg, and I think it’s safe to say that they are the #1 cause of smashed keyboards in the SC2 community. These binary battles are almost always game-deciding, and they feel profoundly unfair to both sides of the fight. Protoss players hate that they instantly lose if their HT are EMP’d or if their forcefields are a half-second too late, allowing roaches to get in range. Terran players hate that they instantly lose because they EMP’d a half-second too late or because they didn’t discover Protoss’s hidden colossus transition. And Zerg players hate that they literally can’t fight back if Protoss hits perfect forcefields during an immortal-sentry all-in. Protoss simultaneously feels unbeatably strong and unwinnably weak. As for what to do about these issues, I fear that the required changes may be too significant and risky for Blizzard to undertake. Nonetheless, I hope they’re willing to be bold and consider altering the balance of strength between core gateway units, tech units and forcefields. Gameplay is stale and frustrating for all three races, and players would greatly appreciate it if Blizzard would at least take a crack at the underlying problems. My suggestions for a starting point would be to: -slightly increase marine and hydralisk collision radius to reduce the AoE damage they take from colossi and storms -nerf or remove forcefield -buff zealots and stalkers relative to marines, marauders, roaches and zerglings (may require a direct roach nerf) I don’t think the changes would be as game-warping as one might fear. Already, Protoss players are gravitating away from sentries in PvT building only enough to survive a stim timing before their tech comes online. And in PvZ, sentries are only built as a counter to roaches. If Protoss players could deal with roaches any other way, they’d happily invest those resources elsewhere. Meanwhile, the changes would allow more open maps with more opportunities to harass and attack earlier in the game. Additionally, Protoss would finally be able to split their forces, and you wouldn’t see as many deathballs. And best of all, the battles wouldn’t be so damn binary. Stronger zealots might narrowly lose to stimmed marines. And because storms would deal less AoE damage to marines, the battle supplemented by a storm would also be less lopsided in favor of the zealots. "Your comments should by written why is it that I cannot just A-Move and win every single game?- I'm so frustrated that the game actually requires me to change my style rather than me being able the change the game to suit how I want to play." If you just did a simple rush like charge archon, stalker blink, sentry robo, phoenix/void/zealot. You don't have have to wait until the 15 minute deathball to attack. You would have a different timing for each. IMO Warp is the problem more than anything. PVP is one base forever because of it, but also I love pvp cause its all about controlling units. I still think protoss is the strongest race in the game at the moment. If you have blink the stalkers win that engagement only loosing like 2-3 stalkers. if you have 50 zealots vs a ton of marines you have so much unspent gas which could have been used on archons. chargelot/archon/templar wins marine/medivac. I really think that you shouldn't complain about how the game should better follow your style and focus more on how you should change your style to best play the game. Try using templar/archons more, you'll win more games sooner. Practice feedback more than writing these threads complaining that you don't want to take advantage of the slightly imba race. A lot of people complain that zergs have become to strong. The problem is that if you don't build infestor, basically every strat in the game is designed to counter your army. Your entire goal should be killing infestors. (especially before broods) Destiny literally became somewhat competitive just by learning to use them. Another thing is that a lot of terrans struggle with tier three games, but you watch and the trend has not been to use ghosts or ravens. WTF?!!!! Watch MVP, byun, taeja and marineking own with these units. EMP is sooo sick. You can cast two emps and remove all shields/ 12 infestors energy. vs broods get like 4-5 ghosts snipe overseer, stim marines- broods die, or raven viking sooo sick. I definitely think you should try to work on timing builds more that writing threads like this.
I think the entire point of the OP was lost on you. First of all OP is a fairly knowledgeable poster who has made plenty of great posts about SC2 strategy and he was not complaining about balance. His entire point was how weak T1 of toss makes for a very volatile matchup and leads to deathballs. You only have to see the latest GSLs to see that is true. Most PvTs are decided off one engagement pretty much. It is unlike ZvT where you have back and forth battles with counter attacks, harass and multiple play styles for each race.
BTW most people hate PvP. If you run a poll I think majority would just tune off streams during PvPs. They are one dimensional and boring with everything getting decided in one engagement be it 1 base or 3 bases. The only good matchups are ZvT and TvT at the moment.
Is the game balanced ?... Sure .. But is it fun to play ? ... if you are a protoss or play against a protoss then no.
|
On October 12 2012 08:03 aZealot wrote:
Those are terrible examples. In what game would I expect my Chargelots to win against a Marine ball of that size with stim and medivac support? My Stalker heavy Stalker/Immortal ball will lose to a Roach army which is able to get a concave on my army in an open field. I am not sure why I should expect otherwise. Biased examples do not help your post.
You shouldn't expect to win either of those fights--it's actually guaranteed that you won't win either of those fights. My point was simply to illustrate that Protoss depends on forcefields and tech units to win battles. If they don't have the right combination of forcefields and tech units, they lose badly even if they match their opponent's army value. That's not to say that Protoss is weaker than the other races--they just have to play to take advantage of forcefields and tech units. And I think the consequences of that requirement are bad for the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
