|
0. Introduction
Nearly all Protoss players of the community, and many players of other races, like the concept of an alien high tech race which is technological superior against its enemies but are unhappy (to say the least) with the way Protoss has to be
played in WOL to be successful. But is the reason the Protoss race seems boring in WOL, which is only a shadow of the Aiur-spirit of the past, really the warpgate? Or is it something else, something even more disturbing?
I. The Warpgate
Almost all of the concerns are concentrating on the gameplay-mechanic of the warpgate. The argumentation is that warpgates allow, with their quick cooldown (and which can produce even faster with chronoboost), a reinforcing advantage against other races. In combination with a pylon, which can be placed nearly everywhere on the map with the exception of on creep, the Protoss can reinforce nearly anywhere on the map very quickly which negates the defender's advantage. Also, counterattacks can be taken care of with quick warp ins without splitting up the Protoss main army.
Following this argumentation Blizzard balanced this advantage of the Protoss race against the others by balancing the earlygame units, which are weaker compared to earlygame units of the other races, looked at it from an equal cost point of view. So, in order to survive the earlygame, Protoss must either go all in with a timing push or rely heavily on the sentry's spell Force Field to hold the enemy out of their bases long enough to tech up to a healthy amount of expensive lategame units.
II. General design concept of the Protoss race.
The general overlaying design concept of the race is that the protoss units are very weak in the earlygame; without extensive micro and spell usage of Force Field and Blink. But if they survive long enough and are able to take 3 bases they can accumulate enough resources to build their expensive but very strong lategame-units such as Colossi, Archons, Immortals and the Mothership.
So:
Weak when not micro'd correctly in the earlygame, but strong in the lategame.
Important to know is , that this decision was not a design accident made by Blizzard, they wanted to design it that way. A race which is technological superior and has units that are stronger, but more expensive than the units of the other races. Balancing this concept so that all races have similar chances of winning, is very difficult and lead to the design toss is known for in WOL.
And that design is generally not a bad idea but the way Blizzard implemented it was not optimal because the lategame units are all strong but very boring to use because they are all non-microintensive-a-movers (Colossus, Immortal and Archon). It wouldn't be a bad idea that earlygame units are weak and must rely on support units if the lategame units are strong if the lategameunits would be more micro intensive and multidimensional. This would differ the way Protoss is played clearly form the other races. It creates a tension of surviving the earlygame and then, if you managed that, it's payback time.
So even if the warpgate would be a lategame upgrade in the twilight council or would be completely taken out of the game it would lead to the same unit composition in the lategame:
1. x Stalkers + 5-6 Colossi + Mothership against ground based armies.
2. x Stalkers + y Archons + Mothership against air based armies.
Because these two combinations are the most effective way to deal with the most unit compositions of the enemy. Only change there would be, if for instance warpgate were to be taken out and Stalker would be buffed, is that we would see more early Stalker + Sentry deathballs instead of Colossi + Stalker deathballs. But a deathball is a deathball.
Their is no reason for toss to go anything else, except maybe some immortals against a meching Terran.
III.Conclusion
And that leads to a situation in which nearly all Protoss games look the same. It's the bad and boring unit ideas, with the Colossus as a too powerful all-round unit, which hurt protoss gameplay and diversity in lategame unit compositions, not warpgates. The decision of being weak when not micro'd correctly earlygame but strong lategame would be good if the units would be more versatile and would lead to more different openings and more potent lategame compositions so that for example airplay would be an option. If i start Phoenix airplay in WOL it's a loss in most games if the enemy is on an even skill level because of the weakness of toss air units in the followup (carriers are a joke against target-firing vikings/corruptors).
Think about it. Which units of the protoss race in WOL are really fun to play ?
In my opinion only the Sentry, Phoenix, Warp Prism and High Templar are deep in design and benefit from good micro. All the lategame units are boring because they all a-move.
Poll: Should there be an drastic overhaul of core protoss gameplaymechanicsYes it should. (9) 69% No it should not. (3) 23% Im not sure. (1) 8% 13 total votes Your vote: Should there be an drastic overhaul of core protoss gameplaymechanics (Vote): Yes it should.
(Vote): No it should not.
(Vote): Im not sure.
Poll: Which unit has to be redone out of all existing WOL protoss units?Colossus (206) 65% Carrier (36) 11% Void Ray (24) 8% Sentry (18) 6% None of them , they are all good the way they are (maybe a little tweaking in numbers). (18) 6% Stalker (6) 2% Zealot (3) 1% Dark Templar (2) 1% Archon (2) 1% Phonix (2) 1% High Templar (1) 0% Immortal (1) 0% 319 total votes Your vote: Which unit has to be redone out of all existing WOL protoss units? (Vote): Zealot
(Vote): Stalker
(Vote): Sentry
(Vote): High Templar
(Vote): Dark Templar
(Vote): Immortal
(Vote): Colossus
(Vote): Archon
(Vote): Phonix
(Vote): Void Ray
(Vote): Carrier
(Vote): None of them , they are all good the way they are (maybe a little tweaking in numbers).
Poll: Is the warpgate-mechanic an important part of protoss gameplay ?Yes, its unic , like creepspread or flying buildings. Its ok that earlygame units are weaker then. (32) 35% I like it, but it shoud be an upgrade in the lategame and therefore early units shoud be stronger. (31) 34% The cooldowntime shoud be longer, as an tradeoff for the warpin, so that early units can be stronger (11) 12% Mechanics which mess around with basic rts designrules , like defender's advantage shoudnt be part. (11) 12% The warpin shoud cost additional minerals and/or gas or be only able on special, expensive pylons. (7) 8% 92 total votes Your vote: Is the warpgate-mechanic an important part of protoss gameplay ? (Vote): Yes, its unic , like creepspread or flying buildings. Its ok that earlygame units are weaker then.
(Vote): I like it, but it shoud be an upgrade in the lategame and therefore early units shoud be stronger.
(Vote): The cooldowntime shoud be longer, as an tradeoff for the warpin, so that early units can be stronger
(Vote): Mechanics which mess around with basic rts designrules , like defender's advantage shoudnt be part.
(Vote): The warpin shoud cost additional minerals and/or gas or be only able on special, expensive pylons.
This leads to the conclusion that most of the protoss units in WOL need a serious redesign and NOT the warpgate in the first place.
1. Nerf the Colossus heavily (make the lasers into a cast ability and give the colossus
energy to increase its micro and lower its damage output, perhaps let the laser fire in
a straight line away from the Colossus) and add therefore a micro-intensive
lategame unit with high damage output and low HP which is very difficult to micro. It could be the Reaver but if it must
not it can also be some new unit.
2. Protoss needs more support units like a mobile shieldbattery or teleporter which can
be also used for quick earlygame harass. The Oracle would be good for that purpose
if it had useful spells, which it doesn't the way it is now.
3. Give the protoss more expensive high tech units and especially buildings , like
cloaked probes (lategame) or Mothership Core transforming into a mobile Nexus
which can be set up in an mineral field. It can mine out of it and can flee if the
enemy is coming.
Plz discuss.
|
Re-do carrier so it has the same leash micro mechanics as it did in BW.
|
On October 16 2012 03:24 Mo0Rauder wrote:
Re-do carrier so it has the same leash micro mechanics as it did in BW.
Agreed, especially when NoNY showcased exactly the differences between SC2 carrier vs the BW version.
definitely carrier should be brought to be the same as the BW version as per Tyler's suggestions. More choices/options for protoss is a good thing, so that the Collosus is not always the go-to choice.
|
I like how the comments say carriers but the votes say collossus.
Thinking of all the relevent MU's:
PvP Collosus wars are stupid and uninteresting to watch
PvT If Terran doesn't get Vikings and/or a good engagement they lose vs Collossus, also due in part to the warp in mechanic
PvZ Collosus is VERY hard to deal with when in a deathball especially considering how early some players get them
|
well i think we had already like 10+ polls which showed that almost noone likes the design of the colossus...
but it's such a core unit, that it would require drastic changes of the protoss race if they change the colossus... so i doubt blizzard will do this...
sc2 without the colossus could only get better imo :D
|
The thing at the end of the day, is especially in PvT. If Protoss DON'T get the ridiculous aoe splash units (Colossi, Templar), they melt in absolutely every single engagement. The problem isn't with the unit itself, the problem is the REASON behind it. If Protoss don't get Colossus (and or HT's) they lose the game past early blink pushes.
Colossi are very one directional, boring, extremely strong units, but if we don't have them, we can't win. The problem lies deeper within the Protoss design.
|
Reduce the damage, build time, resource and food cost, and size of the colossus; but increase speed and redo the attack animation to make it trigger faster; they could be used for more cliffing / risky harassment and retreat functions, but still augment the army with splash later... but die easier and require more colossus, splash is less focused.
OR just replace the unit with the reaver and be good to go.
|
Protoss would be fine if they had a reaper-like unit. Then there would be different styles of playing protoss while fitting the Dark Templar theme of "assassin" units, and the other two races (even in mirrors) would have to decide on how to play the game rather than just watch and see if P is going to warpgate push, go ht, or go colossus. Colossus is fine, it's a hard and dumb unit which there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is that in replacing the reaver it lost its harassment potential due to cost and linear splash. In HotS this should have been addressed by a unit that comes from the gateway, not from the stargate. Making a unit like the oracle from the stargate is a very poor design choice that repeats the problem of limited tech choices for Protoss and the inability to engage efficiently outside of a deathball situation.
|
Can't believe people voted for stalkers. Low dps, high mobility, good micro potential. Good unit IMO
|
my biggest reason for hating the colossus is because when zerg/terran counter it, they are already denying any air transition.
lol, out of the 9 units in the robotics+stargate, 8 can be hit by AA weapons.
|
I'd be curious to see how much of a difference changing the Colossi attack from an Arc to a straight directional attack (like the Hellions) would have.
The biggest issue with Colossi as I understand it is how much their AOE scales when in large numbers. But that's not because of the fact it's an AOE attack but rather how much they overlap with other Colossi shots making it near impossible to engage without taking massive damage in one section of an army.
Having a directional attack (like the Hellions) would promote mirco so that your Colossi would hit as many units as possible rather than 1 at a time.
---
Perhaps someone could set up a custom map to test this? I know nothing of the map editor so it's not something I can do lol
|
On October 16 2012 04:45 lost_artz wrote:
I'd be curious to see how much of a difference changing the Colossi attack from an Arc to a straight directional attack (like the Hellions) would have.
The biggest issue with Colossi as I understand it is how much their AOE scales when in large numbers. But that's not because of the fact it's an AOE attack but rather how much they overlap with other Colossi shots making it near impossible to engage without taking massive damage in one section of an army.
Having a directional attack (like the Hellions) would promote mirco so that your Colossi would hit as many units as possible rather than 1 at a time.
Would be way to weak against a bio ball IMO. I think having a flying slow simple splash shot(kinda like a flying baneling,but not with such a huge splash) would be better. It shouldnt be to fast since it would encourage splitting against it to avoid high damage. But i dont know the design sounds kinda lame lol
|
On October 16 2012 04:51 Bam Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 04:45 lost_artz wrote:
I'd be curious to see how much of a difference changing the Colossi attack from an Arc to a straight directional attack (like the Hellions) would have.
The biggest issue with Colossi as I understand it is how much their AOE scales when in large numbers. But that's not because of the fact it's an AOE attack but rather how much they overlap with other Colossi shots making it near impossible to engage without taking massive damage in one section of an army.
Having a directional attack (like the Hellions) would promote mirco so that your Colossi would hit as many units as possible rather than 1 at a time. Would be way to weak against a bio ball IMO. I think having a flying simple splash shot(kinda like a flying baneling) would be better. It shouldnt be to fast since it would encourage splitting against it to avoid high damage. But I don't know the design sounds kinda lame lol
There's also storm for that. Rather than going going robo > robo bay you can go a chargelot Archon build which are already proven to be good vs BIO. Researching storm is the same as getting Thermal Lance in cost and then it's just a matter of getting a few HT out (storm also researches 30 seconds faster). Granted you still need Robo tech at some point for Obs but that's something you have to integrate as you're going.
|
On October 16 2012 04:44 rpgalon wrote:
my biggest reason for hating the colossus is because when zerg/terran counter it, they are already denying any air transition.
lol, out of the 9 units in the robotics+stargate, 8 can be hit by AA weapons.
Such a good point.... Extremely poor foresight on Blizzard's part IMO.
|
On October 16 2012 05:03 lost_artz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 04:51 Bam Lee wrote:On October 16 2012 04:45 lost_artz wrote:
I'd be curious to see how much of a difference changing the Colossi attack from an Arc to a straight directional attack (like the Hellions) would have.
The biggest issue with Colossi as I understand it is how much their AOE scales when in large numbers. But that's not because of the fact it's an AOE attack but rather how much they overlap with other Colossi shots making it near impossible to engage without taking massive damage in one section of an army.
Having a directional attack (like the Hellions) would promote mirco so that your Colossi would hit as many units as possible rather than 1 at a time. Would be way to weak against a bio ball IMO. I think having a flying simple splash shot(kinda like a flying baneling) would be better. It shouldnt be to fast since it would encourage splitting against it to avoid high damage. But I don't know the design sounds kinda lame lol There's also storm for that. Rather than going going robo > robo bay you can go a chargelot Archon build which are already proven to be good vs BIO. Researching storm is the same as getting Thermal Lance in cost and then it's just a matter of getting a few HT out (storm also researches 30 seconds faster). Granted you still need Robo tech at some point for Obs but that's something you have to integrate as you're going.
Storms are good yes nobody denied that. But having an alternative that is not screwed up once a few emps fly around is pretty handy. Though i feel like some smarter warp prism play with HT would be pretty good against ghost
|
What about the whole concept in SC2 about building "counter units".
Both terran and zerg have dedicated anti-air flyer units with 9 range which can outrange ground armies and deal with colossus and flying units alike with ease. I dont recall any such units in BW.
And HT vs Ghost fights are stupid. This isn't so much micro as it is who can catch the other guy off guard and cast the spells the quickest. Again, Ghost EMP was made to counter HT. Competitive games cant be about X > Y unit type matchups, it needs to be able X vs X unit and whoever has the better decision making, micro, and unit composition comes out on top.
|
It is like always 
Everybody hates the Colossus and is totally right about it, but Blizzard does not listen. To improve Protoss just gameplaywise you have to consider the following units:
1. Collossus: Get Rid of A-Move ability, I wont go into details, because there are plenty of suggestions for the collosus out there.
2. Carrier: Useless but so easy to fix (leash range micro)
3. Voidray: Well yes it might be okay, but it is most of the time not very effective. Remember the neat little Micro that was possibile with them (keeping the charge) Fixing the Voidray might be the easiest of all listed
4. Phoenix: Still relativly unused. How I wish they would be able to get their overpower ability back again.
|
Fix for blizzard: Remake SC:BW using SC2 engine and sell it for $10.
|
IMO, Colossus is the very reason WOL is only a shadow of BW. Colossus' design FORCES other races to have a dull air-to-air superiority fighter, thus making Protoss' own air force weak in comparison - try to mass any combination of air units as Protoss vs Viking/Corrupter armies and see what happens. Do I have to mention how interesting late game 'war of the worlds' are in PvPs?
I once thought about changing the Colossus into more of a support unit, instead of the main damage dealer. Here's an old post of mine.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s5ZjA.jpg) Let's call the unit a Ravager. I don't really know if it should be attackable from both air and ground or what it's movement speed should be - but probably not faster than the colossus so microing it with warp prisms would be rewarding. The main point is that it would shoot a wide beam of energy in a straight line that would deal minimal damage and apply a stacking debuff to every enemy unit on its path. The units affected by the debuff would receive increased damage for a short amount of time - be it a percentage increase or X damage per hit increase like Devourer in brood war did. The unit could possibly have an ability that would shot a beam dealing a lot more damage, but firing it would cost resources and require a channel time before the improved beam is shot. So, in a nutshell, it's a slow hellion with pathetic-dps, siege-range beam attack that makes units affected more vulnerable. It doesn't do much damage on its own, but combined with stalkers and zealots it is a deadly threat. Here are some example stats that will probably be heavily op or up: -hp, shields, armor, resource cost and build time the same as colossus -attack damage: 12(+1) -attack range: 10 -beam width: 1 (hellion's is 0.15 and storm's aoe is 1.5) -cooldown: 2 seconds -projectile speed: let's say a half of the tempest's one, so you can perhaps use blink micro or dodge it with stimmed bio -every attack applies a debuff that increases damage taken by 1 per stack, stacks 3 times. ability overcharge: costs 75 minerals, 6 seconds channeling time before fire, beam width and range the same as in Ravager's normal attack deals 60 damage + 80 vs armored and buildings - you can wreck some serious havoc in the worker line or quickly kill defensive buildings; the enemy can see the direction where the beam will travel, so it won't be so easy to kill workers with it, unless you catch the enemy by surprise.
The design isn't perfect, but it at least solves the PvP issue. But with proper balancing and testing it would make the game more interesting to play (The enemy makes Colossi? No problemo, just produce a bunch of Vikings/Corrupters and a-move them while your deathballs are engaging. A pinnacle of micro and strategy I say!) and there would no longer be need for Vikings/Corrupters in their current, dull form.
|
Do something with the colossus. It's everything wrong with the game. It pretty much has to be in a deathball and has little to no capacity for micro beyond basic repositioning and focus firing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
