|
On October 12 2012 12:28 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:08 boxman22 wrote:
Your examples, as people have mentioned before, are really really biased just to "prove" your point. This is exactly when protoss is at its weakest. How about trying some smaller food comparisons? Wanna guess who wins between 2 chargelots and 4 stim/combat shield marines? How bout 2 stim/conc marauders vs 1 chargelot 1 stalker? How bout 1 immortal 1 zealot vs 4 roaches 2 speedlings? 1 immortal 1 stalker vs 5 roaches?
You could also use the same method to prove zerglings REALLY REALLY need buffing because a similar number of marines and medivacs would decimate an equal cost number of zerglings.
Edit: Also roaches need a buff because 8 marauders 2 medivacs can beat 14 roaches. That's cute and all, but you'll notice he didn't send zealots against roaches, he sent Immortals and Stalkers. And you'll notice that he used charge-zealots against marines and not stalkers against Marauders. The point I'm making is that these are the units you tend to *want* to use against marines and roaches - whereas you never want to use lings against marines. Regarding your smaller army comparisons, they're a bit silly because those army sizes don't exist when you have charge, or Immortals, or stim/combat shields. It might be comforting for you to know that 3 microed marauders beat a Colossus by itself, but it also might not - because when does this ever happen in a real game?
Since when would you EVER want to send that many chargelots against a marine ball? How about that 6 chargelots beat 8 stim/combat shield marines and a medivac unmicroed? That's even a real game situation unlike the dumb chargelots running at a huge marine only ball.
Edit: And just to add. My point was not to prove that toss is op or anything at all like that. It was to show it's dumb to make most of these types of comparisons. I personally don't think gateway units are as underpowered as people somehow seem to believe.
|
A very good post. Agree that the emphasis here is not to show imbalances, but the Protoss gameplay that limited the game as a whole.
|
I tested them all. Without any micro every case the toss wins. Even with micro toss wins both cases of zerg. And not sure who would win with stutter stepping the marines. My attempt at stutterstepping the lots still won.
I'm quite sure that with micro, as in targeting and stuttering/avoiding chargelot the roaches would win. But if i'm wrong, then I stand corrected. However you must remember that Zerg generally has a whole base of income's worth on top of what the Protoss usually has, and Zerg units are designed to be inefficient while Toss units are supposed to be efficient.
Seeing as how the Toss units are meant to counter the roaches, cost more/harder to obtain, require production facilities and whatnot, and still lose/hardly win, it's quite clear what race has the advantage in a real situation.
|
On October 12 2012 12:34 Yaeryn wrote:Show nested quote +
I tested them all. Without any micro every case the toss wins. Even with micro toss wins both cases of zerg. And not sure who would win with stutter stepping the marines. My attempt at stutterstepping the lots still won.
I'm quite sure that with micro, as in targeting and stuttering/avoiding chargelot the roaches would win. But if i'm wrong, then I stand corrected. However you must remember that Zerg generally has a whole base of income's worth on top of what the Protoss usually has, and Zerg units are designed to be inefficient while Toss units are supposed to be efficient. Seeing as how the Toss units are meant to counter the roaches, cost more/harder to obtain, require production facilities and whatnot, and still lose/hardly win, it's quite clear what race has the advantage in a real situation.
He showed that "stalker immortal loses to roaches". No it does not. It does in high food count situations, hence the roach max.
Edit: Also weren't people annoyed that you can just max roaches? Do people really want to make it so you can just mass gateway units?
|
Is this thread already degenerating into a discussion over whether zealots and stalkers are weak for cost without high-tech support or forcefields? This issue seems pretty cut and dry to me.
|
On October 12 2012 12:37 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:34 Yaeryn wrote:
I tested them all. Without any micro every case the toss wins. Even with micro toss wins both cases of zerg. And not sure who would win with stutter stepping the marines. My attempt at stutterstepping the lots still won.
I'm quite sure that with micro, as in targeting and stuttering/avoiding chargelot the roaches would win. But if i'm wrong, then I stand corrected. However you must remember that Zerg generally has a whole base of income's worth on top of what the Protoss usually has, and Zerg units are designed to be inefficient while Toss units are supposed to be efficient. Seeing as how the Toss units are meant to counter the roaches, cost more/harder to obtain, require production facilities and whatnot, and still lose/hardly win, it's quite clear what race has the advantage in a real situation. He showed that "stalker immortal loses to roaches". No it does not. It does in high food count situations, hence the roach max.
But it does. Hence the roach max beating stalker immortal.
|
On October 12 2012 12:38 kcdc wrote:
Is this thread already degenerating into a discussion over whether zealots and stalkers are weak for cost without high-tech support or forcefields? This issue seems pretty cut and dry to me.
In any mu a zealot and stalker on the field off 1 gate holds map control. The protoss 200/200 deathball is already far and away the strongest. You'd have to MASSIVELY nerf both colossi and storm if you do anything at all to buff gateway units. Probably have to get rid of forcefield. Maybe nerf the immortal. What do you do with the warp prism?
|
On October 12 2012 12:43 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:38 kcdc wrote:
Is this thread already degenerating into a discussion over whether zealots and stalkers are weak for cost without high-tech support or forcefields? This issue seems pretty cut and dry to me. In any mu a zealot and stalker on the field off 1 gate holds map control. The protoss 200/200 deathball is already far and away the strongest. You'd have to MASSIVELY nerf both colossi and storm if you do anything at all to buff gateway units. Probably have to get rid of forcefield. Maybe nerf the immortal. What do you do with the warp prism?
I really don't want to get into balance discussions here. You're right that in the very early game, a single stalker is pretty powerful and a zealot tanks a lot of damage. As you get into mid-game, stalkers and zealots are weak for cost against their Terran and Zerg counterparts, so Protoss needs forcefields and tech units to compete. Let's all agree to leave it at that.
As for how much to nerf colossi and storm, do it until it's balanced. The only ground units that colossi and storm truly hard counter are marines and hydralisks (and zerglings and banelings, but it's okay for those units to be bad vs Toss). If you increased their collision radius (between current marine size and current roach size) so that they took less AoE damage, that would go a long way toward balancing a gateway buff. The rest of the balance can be determined through testing.
|
Maybe stalker should get scratched and instead immortal becomes gateway unit replacement for stalker? It's certainly strong enough, but warpgate should definitely be moved up to T3 for it to even look balanced.
|
On October 12 2012 12:43 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:38 kcdc wrote:
Is this thread already degenerating into a discussion over whether zealots and stalkers are weak for cost without high-tech support or forcefields? This issue seems pretty cut and dry to me. In any mu a zealot and stalker on the field off 1 gate holds map control. The protoss 200/200 deathball is already far and away the strongest. You'd have to MASSIVELY nerf both colossi and storm if you do anything at all to buff gateway units. Probably have to get rid of forcefield. Maybe nerf the immortal. What do you do with the warp prism?
In PvZ it is always the zerg who has map control thanks to lings.
It's also been said many times by pros that a maxed broodlord infestor army is way too hard for the protoss to deal with, at least it is relative to the difficulty of controlling broodlord/infestor. Still, this topic isn't about zerg, and i'm going to stop responding to your silly posts.
|
A great post here,
"Protoss simultaneously feels unbeatably strong and unwinnably weak."
Great quote, exactly how I feel when I play vs P. This is the last thing you want in any RTS is a race that is purely gimmicky, yet thats what we get in SC2.
Bottom line, Its not fun to play vs Toss, and it is certainly not fun to be toss.
A reworked Protoss, could solve a lot of the issues the game has.
|
On October 12 2012 12:49 Yaeryn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:43 boxman22 wrote:On October 12 2012 12:38 kcdc wrote:
Is this thread already degenerating into a discussion over whether zealots and stalkers are weak for cost without high-tech support or forcefields? This issue seems pretty cut and dry to me. In any mu a zealot and stalker on the field off 1 gate holds map control. The protoss 200/200 deathball is already far and away the strongest. You'd have to MASSIVELY nerf both colossi and storm if you do anything at all to buff gateway units. Probably have to get rid of forcefield. Maybe nerf the immortal. What do you do with the warp prism? In PvZ it is always the zerg who has map control thanks to lings. It's also been said many times by pros that a maxed broodlord infestor army is way too hard for the protoss to deal with, at least it is relative to the difficulty of controlling broodlord/infestor. Still, this topic isn't about zerg, and i'm going to stop responding to your silly posts.
1 gate expo the zerg does not hold map control thanks to lings until after the zealot and stalker poke then return home. It takes speed to really matter to the stalker and the zealot helps force many many more lings to be able to deal with forcing the stalker away.
|
On October 12 2012 07:42 kcdc 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. I'm hoping to get beta access in the next wave, and if I do, I'll post in on the HoTS forums.
Why do you not have access?????
You have well earned it.
|
United States4883 Posts
I just have a few things to address:
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.
WHAAAAT? Condemned Ridge is a map designed with protoss in mind? Have you ever played this game on that map?? It's got a hugeass, wide open natural 1 cannon BARELY covers, a gigantic ramp, and a 3rd that, once again is really open and impossible to wall off. This means that it's nearly impossible to defend both your natural and your 3rd at the same time.
On a side note, narrow chokes, at least at the ramp leading down to the natural, are also relevant in ZvT and ZvZ with queen blocks. And while I do agree that, when confined to 2 bases, protoss doesn't have a lot of choices, this is mostly because of the way the protoss gateway army works together. With recall being an easily usable ability, I think we'll see protoss be able to assume more choices than a) all-in and maybe win or b) sit in base and cry about how impossible it is to move out. As far as the midgame goes, I feel like templar are filling this role nicely right now, although storm could be a little more powerful (we won't talk about how it balances against MMM and will instead assume that terran army compositions will change over time).
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.
We've seen quite often that zealot/archon is actually a really strong, cost efficient army against MMM or roach/ling in small numbers. As long as zealot/archon is coupled with early upgrades, it becomes significantly stronger than the other races counterparts in small numbers. If we focus on NOT the deathball or, in better terms, if we pretend like we're talking about HotS instead of WoL.
I DO agree that protoss needs a unit that can stand toe to toe better with other races, but I don't think the zealot, stalker, or immortal should be this. If anything, protoss needs a type of warhound at the gateway that kicks in at T2; this would allow protoss to deal with ridiculous things like maxed roach pushes and MMM balls and such. The archon is good, but protoss needs another mid-tier gateway unit as stalkers and zealots are just way too fragile. A meatier unit like the dragoon would go a long way in allowing protoss to choose between a really strong, immobile, meaty army versus a more lightweight, attacking army.
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.
This may be the first time I've seen an argument for less diverse armies in SC2.
It's certainly a problem that protoss has to RELY on certain spells in order to win even early fights, but I don't think that having to use storm or adding in colossus makes protoss, or even the game at that, bad. Having to use a more diverse group of units makes the game interesting and exciting. Instead of trying to get rid of the diversity, we should try to add to it, which, in my opinion, means protoss needs another gateway unit.
Some thoughts.
BTW, as a shoutout, I love PvP! Day9 does too! :p
|
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.
I proposed a fix many months ago, and now Starbow uses it, so I'm really pumped and loving it.
Here is the fix:
Make Warpgates have a LONG cooldown. Make gateways produce units MUCH faster. So that means you use Gateways to macro, and only a few warpgates for quick defense, late game warm prism harass, or whatever else. Doing this makes having tons of warpgates macro suicide, because you can't produce fast enough. Warpgates would still be situationally useful, but not the CLEARLY better option.
So... this is clearly a nerf to the warpgate mechanic. So, you buff gateway units a ton. And get rid of forcefields....
This is a great fix, and if you don't believe me, go watch a Starbow match.
|
On October 12 2012 12:54 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:42 kcdc wrote: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. I'm hoping to get beta access in the next wave, and if I do, I'll post in on the HoTS forums. Why do you not have access????? You have well earned it.
Ah I mentioned earlier that I already posted the link to this on the HotS forums, but it hasn't been getting many replies. Would you like me to delete it?
|
How do you delete posts on this thing..?
|
On October 12 2012 12:57 Beef Noodles wrote:Show nested quote +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. I proposed a fix many months ago, and now Starbow uses it, so I'm really pumped and loving it. Here is the fix: Make Warpgates have a LONG cooldown. Make gateways produce units MUCH faster. So that means you use Gateways to macro, and only a few warpgates for quick defense, late game warm prism harass, or whatever else. Doing this makes having tons of warpgates macro suicide, because you can't produce fast enough. Warpgates would still be situationally useful, but not the CLEARLY better option. So... this is clearly a nerf to the warpgate mechanic. So, you buff gateway units a ton. And get rid of forcefields.... This is a great fix, and if you don't believe me, go watch a Starbow match.
This has been tried before but it promoted proxy gates too much. With buffed gateway units and reduced build times proxy gates would be way too hard to stop.
|
On October 12 2012 13:00 Yaeryn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:57 Beef Noodles wrote: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. I proposed a fix many months ago, and now Starbow uses it, so I'm really pumped and loving it. Here is the fix: Make Warpgates have a LONG cooldown. Make gateways produce units MUCH faster. So that means you use Gateways to macro, and only a few warpgates for quick defense, late game warm prism harass, or whatever else. Doing this makes having tons of warpgates macro suicide, because you can't produce fast enough. Warpgates would still be situationally useful, but not the CLEARLY better option. So... this is clearly a nerf to the warpgate mechanic. So, you buff gateway units a ton. And get rid of forcefields.... This is a great fix, and if you don't believe me, go watch a Starbow match. This has been tried before but it promoted proxy gates too much. With buffed gateway units and reduced build times proxy gates would be way too hard to stop.
You can't look at major changes like "restructuring protoss gateways completely" in a vacuum. Any good change will have major repercussions, but you can fix those as well. 1) maps can help to fix things like proxi gates. Also, consider buffing the other races' early game (zerg already has the queen range buff, so they might be able to hold proxi gate).
But also, proxi gating should still be an option that has a high chance of winning if it goes unscouted and the other player plays greedy.
That's how RTS works. If proxi-gating becomes a big deal, consider minor tweaks, or scout better. Overall, seems like a minor issue, and the fix still seems like a great one imo.
|
Canada13406 Posts
On October 12 2012 08:00 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree. I wish that space control could be managed without the sentry so that the maps could be made differently. In PvZ, roaches can be maxed due to the crazy econ of a zerg and their safe 3 base which protoss needs forcefields and close third with a choke to be able to win.
I don't mind vetoing maps that are bad or I prefer not to play on. But some are literally impossible because of the way protoss is designed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
