On October 24 2012 08:03 link0 wrote: Carriers DO build too slowly, which is their greatest weakness. However, because they are so multipurpose (carriers are ridiculousy good vs all terran units except Yamato BCs and Marines, which are nullified by HTs) and yet decent vs vikings, I fear that vikings would need a buff to their versatility (since they are laughable on the ground) as well.
Kiting Vikings trade evenly or better with Carriers en masse. A Viking fights evenly or better vs Roaches and Stalkers. Hell, they're not even that bad vs Marauders. All units those are cheaper, yes, but lack the mobility of Vikings and have the same supply cost.
The real weakness of Carriers is that 10 of them crinkle and fold to 3 chained fungals. Even Hold Pos Thors focusing interceptors en masse clean up quick.
Didn't read the whole thread, but I definitely agree that these skills are dumb and should be reworked. I think Forcefields are by far the worst of the three though.
On November 05 2012 18:25 Zaurus wrote: maybe change fungal to a region where units can't cast spells and DOT in the field. Infested field or something. I don't know why Zerg keep linking fungals to forcefield. Toss absolutely need it. Zerg dont have to use it all the time. They can still win games without it. I don't know how some Zerg players can use this point to justify the existence of Infestors.
Protoss dont "absolutely need it", because they could simply use other strategies like walling themselves in more tightly and waiting more for Colossi. In late game hardly any Protoss has Sentries anymore which kinda "proves" that Protoss DONT need that spell to win. They might need it to "win early" or "survive without cannons", but there are alternatives in the game.
Both spells are linked together, because both "change the battlefield" by limiting the micro of their opponent. Terrible idea as a design concept.
On November 05 2012 18:56 MoonCricket wrote: The Mothership needs to be removed, the Cloaking field needs to be added to the Oracle (researched at Fleet Beacon), Carrier build time needs to be reduced, Templar Archives and Dark Shrine need to be consolidated and then Protoss would be in good shape from a design perspective.
Having multiple sources for a cloaking field is a terrible idea and there are far fewer detectors in SC2 compared to BW. Overlords dont detect anymore and the energy of an Orbital is needed for MULE; only Protoss have remained the same in that regard ...
Protoss need sentries to hold off speed roaches, early terran pressure and some other early aggression. Sentries are needed for defensive purpose. Offensively they can be countered and not unstoppable. Their uses diminish towards the mid-game. Without FUNGALS zerg can do the following in mid game:
1) Roach and Speedlings 2) Hydras, Roach and Corruptors 3) Mutalisk and Lings 4) Ling and Banelings 5) Pure Roach
I feel infestors can afford to have another support spell to help out. But fungals are too much.... Putting the sentries debate aside if you dont agree with me, but fungals need to go or be modified.
Why are they needed? The only reason I can see is that Protoss are too miserly to build a sufficient number of cannons early on[*]. Sure they arent "offensive" because they cant move, but they have a bigger range than Roaches and Marines and dont require supply or Gateway time to be built. They absolutely do NOT cost any gas like the Sentries, so the only "valid" reason seems to be that you want to be able to WIN with Forcefield by going out of your base.
Oh and when it comes to building static defenses you should always keep in mind that "when you try to make a point, do it in a way so that no one misses it!" Build more than a cannon or two, build 4-5 and some units to block off your wide natural ramp. If those Roaches come and kill a few cannons they dont kill Probes and you win because of the economy and saved gas.
[*] Day[9] has been criticized by me for a long time for his "that is a Spine Crawler which he didnt want to build" mantra, because the thought process behind it is based upon BW numbers. ONE static defense absolutely doesnt cut it in SC2 due to the mass production capability of all the three races and the tight formations and unlimited unit selection, which make mass attacks very much possible early on already. So one stupid Spine or Cannon wont help you survive much.
Man did you ever play protoss? Even now protoss is incredibly boring, because you basically either have to hang back and defend with FF until collossus and/or storm or make an all-in.
Gateway units are balanced around sentries/forecefield and warpgates. That's why they are so incredibly bad. They also cannot run away from zerg (speedlings) or terran troops (concussive shell).
And you say we should just sit in our base and wall and be content? Do you even have any idea of how boring games would become?
Not to mention that that zerg will just outexpand and massacre you and terran can just storm you with stimmed marauder which just walk over cannons. Are you even being serious? We want more interesting gameplay and more tactical options not dumb down the game and make protoss even worse.
Forcefield is a shitty spell but it's superpowerful, if it is removed gateway units will need a huge buff.
On November 05 2012 18:25 Zaurus wrote: maybe change fungal to a region where units can't cast spells and DOT in the field. Infested field or something. I don't know why Zerg keep linking fungals to forcefield. Toss absolutely need it. Zerg dont have to use it all the time. They can still win games without it. I don't know how some Zerg players can use this point to justify the existence of Infestors.
Protoss dont "absolutely need it", because they could simply use other strategies like walling themselves in more tightly and waiting more for Colossi. In late game hardly any Protoss has Sentries anymore which kinda "proves" that Protoss DONT need that spell to win. They might need it to "win early" or "survive without cannons", but there are alternatives in the game.
Both spells are linked together, because both "change the battlefield" by limiting the micro of their opponent. Terrible idea as a design concept.
On November 05 2012 18:56 MoonCricket wrote: The Mothership needs to be removed, the Cloaking field needs to be added to the Oracle (researched at Fleet Beacon), Carrier build time needs to be reduced, Templar Archives and Dark Shrine need to be consolidated and then Protoss would be in good shape from a design perspective.
Having multiple sources for a cloaking field is a terrible idea and there are far fewer detectors in SC2 compared to BW. Overlords dont detect anymore and the energy of an Orbital is needed for MULE; only Protoss have remained the same in that regard ...
Protoss need sentries to hold off speed roaches, early terran pressure and some other early aggression. Sentries are needed for defensive purpose. Offensively they can be countered and not unstoppable. Their uses diminish towards the mid-game. Without FUNGALS zerg can do the following in mid game:
1) Roach and Speedlings 2) Hydras, Roach and Corruptors 3) Mutalisk and Lings 4) Ling and Banelings 5) Pure Roach
I feel infestors can afford to have another support spell to help out. But fungals are too much.... Putting the sentries debate aside if you dont agree with me, but fungals need to go or be modified.
Why are they needed? The only reason I can see is that Protoss are too miserly to build a sufficient number of cannons early on[*]. Sure they arent "offensive" because they cant move, but they have a bigger range than Roaches and Marines and dont require supply or Gateway time to be built. They absolutely do NOT cost any gas like the Sentries, so the only "valid" reason seems to be that you want to be able to WIN with Forcefield by going out of your base.
Oh and when it comes to building static defenses you should always keep in mind that "when you try to make a point, do it in a way so that no one misses it!" Build more than a cannon or two, build 4-5 and some units to block off your wide natural ramp. If those Roaches come and kill a few cannons they dont kill Probes and you win because of the economy and saved gas.
[*] Day[9] has been criticized by me for a long time for his "that is a Spine Crawler which he didnt want to build" mantra, because the thought process behind it is based upon BW numbers. ONE static defense absolutely doesnt cut it in SC2 due to the mass production capability of all the three races and the tight formations and unlimited unit selection, which make mass attacks very much possible early on already. So one stupid Spine or Cannon wont help you survive much.
cannons do not hold roaches, blings, marines, marauders, even speedlings. more importantly, on open field withotu sentries toss cant hold itself against anything.
your accusations of wanting to "win" is very silly
This is the solution to the infestor problem, maybe the projectile itself needs to be twice as fast. It should be able to stopped by a PDD and the opponent should have the opportunity to dodge it.
On November 06 2012 05:22 sona wrote: This is the solution to the infestor problem, maybe the projectile itself needs to be twice as fast. It should be able to stopped by a PDD and the opponent should have the opportunity to dodge it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PjfJQ04H9I
AHAHAHA. yeah right so no good player gets ever hit by fungal again and PDD stops 20 (!!!) fungals. they already tried making it an projectile and its just bad.
they need to make fungal a slow and buff some other zerg units.
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
Slow definitely has strategic benefits. While many people bitch about the marauder's conc, it creates situations where you are wary to engage the enemy because of it and causes different courses of action. Deterrence isn't a terrible thing if it's not extreme. It creates situations where target firing enemy important units can increase your own utility, such as slowing incoming banelings via target firing allowing your marines to split. Zerg knowing this may occur has to approach the situation differently than simply "I'll just attack head on." This definitely adds tactical value.
The value is rapidly diminished when the slow/snare effect is too extreme. It's one the to diminish the utility of another unit vs decreasing it to zero. FF's can often section off armies so they can't move whatsoever nor participate in the battle whatsoever. That's when it's bad. Same thing with fungal trapping units that can't even fire back, that's when it's bad.
Conc has the effect that it often "forces a fight" of an individual unit. Fungal and to a lesser effect FF have the effect that it locks down units so they can't even fight or have any worthwhile utility.
Someone who knows how should make a map that alters unit sizes, forcefield sizes, and vortex size and length. Bigger unit sizes means less fungal efficiency. Smaller forcefield size means more energy required for space control. You would have to dedicate to more sentries to get more FFs. Smaller and shorter vortex means less shit will get dragged in and the fight will still be ongoing when it is cast and released.
Did someone already make something like this or test these things out?
On November 05 2012 16:46 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
Slow definitely has strategic benefits. While many people bitch about the marauder's conc, it creates situations where you are wary to engage the enemy because of it and causes different courses of action. Deterrence isn't a terrible thing if it's not extreme. It creates situations where target firing enemy important units can increase your own utility, such as slowing incoming banelings via target firing allowing your marines to split. Zerg knowing this may occur has to approach the situation differently than simply "I'll just attack head on." This definitely adds tactical value.
The value is rapidly diminished when the slow/snare effect is too extreme. It's one the to diminish the utility of another unit vs decreasing it to zero. FF's can often section off armies so they can't move whatsoever nor participate in the battle whatsoever. That's when it's bad. Same thing with fungal trapping units that can't even fire back, that's when it's bad.
Conc has the effect that it often "forces a fight" of an individual unit. Fungal and to a lesser effect FF have the effect that it locks down units so they can't even fight or have any worthwhile utility.
Agreed. It's one thing to lose a few units to concussive shell as you retreat from a bad engagement. It's another to have your whole army permanently locked in that bad position by fungal or forcefield so that you lose the game right then and there.
You want to design the game to strike the right balance between rewarding aggressive play and giving the defender some means to get ahead if they defend well. I think concussive shell hits that balance. As Protoss, I might try to dart up and pick off a base, but if Terran gets there in time, I'll lose some zealots to the marauder slow. Against fungal, however, I'd risk losing my entire army, so I'll usually choose not to take that risk. If fungal were instead a slow, maybe I'd try those attacks more often.
On November 05 2012 16:46 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
Slow definitely has strategic benefits. While many people bitch about the marauder's conc, it creates situations where you are wary to engage the enemy because of it and causes different courses of action. Deterrence isn't a terrible thing if it's not extreme. It creates situations where target firing enemy important units can increase your own utility, such as slowing incoming banelings via target firing allowing your marines to split. Zerg knowing this may occur has to approach the situation differently than simply "I'll just attack head on." This definitely adds tactical value.
The value is rapidly diminished when the slow/snare effect is too extreme. It's one the to diminish the utility of another unit vs decreasing it to zero. FF's can often section off armies so they can't move whatsoever nor participate in the battle whatsoever. That's when it's bad. Same thing with fungal trapping units that can't even fire back, that's when it's bad.
Conc has the effect that it often "forces a fight" of an individual unit. Fungal and to a lesser effect FF have the effect that it locks down units so they can't even fight or have any worthwhile utility.
Agreed. It's one thing to lose a few units to concussive shell as you retreat from a bad engagement. It's another to have your whole army permanently locked in that bad position by fungal or forcefield so that you lose the game right then and there.
You want to design the game to strike the right balance between rewarding aggressive play and giving the defender some means to get ahead if they defend well. I think concussive shell hits that balance. As Protoss, I might try to dart up and pick off a base, but if Terran gets there in time, I'll lose some zealots to the marauder slow. Against fungal, however, I'd risk losing my entire army, so I'll usually choose not to take that risk. If fungal were instead a slow, maybe I'd try those attacks more often.
Mhmmm. That's exactly the difference I'm talking about. Fungal just locking a huge ass group of blink stalkers because you can get fungals off.... not to mention conc doesn't prevent blink... templars can still morph into archons if caught, dts can still escape detection if not killed by getting out of radius.... and chargelots still benefit from their charge if you're going to attack anyways....
I wonder how having a cooldown on fungal would work, say like 8 seconds. Would prevent a single infestor from going up to a huge group of blink stalkers and fungaling the entire group - you'd only be able to lockdown one group max (as is, you can just cast it once on one part and then insta cast it on a second part). During those four seconds you can wait for the second infestor to come in. I think it'd make a huge difference, not to mention it would make it much harder to chain fungals as well.
Do we even know if Blizzard thinks fungal is a concern?
the VR range increase seems WAY too big 8 range is alot
wouldnt marine size increase make it harder for Zerg to kill the marines since banelings and fingals would simply hit less of them so wed need alot more banelings and fingals to deal with the same amount of marines? especially since it now becomes impossible to catch marines out of position and theyll always have a good split?
Zerg really needs the AoE to deal with marines and making them immune to root and take up more space means we need to spend ALOT more gas and supply on AoE meaning less gas for teching and upgrades
On November 05 2012 16:46 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
Slow definitely has strategic benefits. While many people bitch about the marauder's conc, it creates situations where you are wary to engage the enemy because of it and causes different courses of action. Deterrence isn't a terrible thing if it's not extreme. It creates situations where target firing enemy important units can increase your own utility, such as slowing incoming banelings via target firing allowing your marines to split. Zerg knowing this may occur has to approach the situation differently than simply "I'll just attack head on." This definitely adds tactical value.
The value is rapidly diminished when the slow/snare effect is too extreme. It's one the to diminish the utility of another unit vs decreasing it to zero. FF's can often section off armies so they can't move whatsoever nor participate in the battle whatsoever. That's when it's bad. Same thing with fungal trapping units that can't even fire back, that's when it's bad.
Conc has the effect that it often "forces a fight" of an individual unit. Fungal and to a lesser effect FF have the effect that it locks down units so they can't even fight or have any worthwhile utility.
Agreed. It's one thing to lose a few units to concussive shell as you retreat from a bad engagement. It's another to have your whole army permanently locked in that bad position by fungal or forcefield so that you lose the game right then and there.
You want to design the game to strike the right balance between rewarding aggressive play and giving the defender some means to get ahead if they defend well. I think concussive shell hits that balance. As Protoss, I might try to dart up and pick off a base, but if Terran gets there in time, I'll lose some zealots to the marauder slow. Against fungal, however, I'd risk losing my entire army, so I'll usually choose not to take that risk. If fungal were instead a slow, maybe I'd try those attacks more often.
Mhmmm. That's exactly the difference I'm talking about. Fungal just locking a huge ass group of blink stalkers because you can get fungals off.... not to mention conc doesn't prevent blink... templars can still morph into archons if caught, dts can still escape detection if not killed by getting out of radius.... and chargelots still benefit from their charge if you're going to attack anyways....
I wonder how having a cooldown on fungal would work, say like 8 seconds. Would prevent a single infestor from going up to a huge group of blink stalkers and fungaling the entire group - you'd only be able to lockdown one group max (as is, you can just cast it once on one part and then insta cast it on a second part). During those four seconds you can wait for the second infestor to come in. I think it'd make a huge difference, not to mention it would make it much harder to chain fungals as well.
Do we even know if Blizzard thinks fungal is a concern?
Another thing I don't like about fungal is that it's a built-in escape hatch for the infestor. A lot of times you'll see the opponent make a good play to isolate a pack of infestors, and you're thinking, "Oh shit! This is gonna be a huge swing!" And then the infestors blow a fungal and scurry away untouched.
That's not something that can or should be changed really, but it does annoy me. If I let a pack of HT's get caught ungaurded, they're all dead. Maybe I'll feel differently with recall.
Also, why do infestors have to be so damn fast? Do they really need to be as fast as stalkers on creep? I want to catch and kill you, infestors! Please slow down and stop shooting goo at me!
On November 05 2012 16:46 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
Slow definitely has strategic benefits. While many people bitch about the marauder's conc, it creates situations where you are wary to engage the enemy because of it and causes different courses of action. Deterrence isn't a terrible thing if it's not extreme. It creates situations where target firing enemy important units can increase your own utility, such as slowing incoming banelings via target firing allowing your marines to split. Zerg knowing this may occur has to approach the situation differently than simply "I'll just attack head on." This definitely adds tactical value.
The value is rapidly diminished when the slow/snare effect is too extreme. It's one the to diminish the utility of another unit vs decreasing it to zero. FF's can often section off armies so they can't move whatsoever nor participate in the battle whatsoever. That's when it's bad. Same thing with fungal trapping units that can't even fire back, that's when it's bad.
Conc has the effect that it often "forces a fight" of an individual unit. Fungal and to a lesser effect FF have the effect that it locks down units so they can't even fight or have any worthwhile utility.
Agreed. It's one thing to lose a few units to concussive shell as you retreat from a bad engagement. It's another to have your whole army permanently locked in that bad position by fungal or forcefield so that you lose the game right then and there.
You want to design the game to strike the right balance between rewarding aggressive play and giving the defender some means to get ahead if they defend well. I think concussive shell hits that balance. As Protoss, I might try to dart up and pick off a base, but if Terran gets there in time, I'll lose some zealots to the marauder slow. Against fungal, however, I'd risk losing my entire army, so I'll usually choose not to take that risk. If fungal were instead a slow, maybe I'd try those attacks more often.
Mhmmm. That's exactly the difference I'm talking about. Fungal just locking a huge ass group of blink stalkers because you can get fungals off.... not to mention conc doesn't prevent blink... templars can still morph into archons if caught, dts can still escape detection if not killed by getting out of radius.... and chargelots still benefit from their charge if you're going to attack anyways....
I wonder how having a cooldown on fungal would work, say like 8 seconds. Would prevent a single infestor from going up to a huge group of blink stalkers and fungaling the entire group - you'd only be able to lockdown one group max (as is, you can just cast it once on one part and then insta cast it on a second part). During those four seconds you can wait for the second infestor to come in. I think it'd make a huge difference, not to mention it would make it much harder to chain fungals as well.
Do we even know if Blizzard thinks fungal is a concern?
Another thing I don't like about fungal is that it's a built-in escape hatch for the infestor. A lot of times you'll see the opponent make a good play to isolate a pack of infestors, and you're thinking, "Oh shit! This is gonna be a huge swing!" And then the infestors blow a fungal and scurry away untouched.
That's not something that can or should be changed really, but it does annoy me. If I let a pack of HT's get caught ungaurded, they're all dead. Maybe I'll feel differently with recall.
Also, why do infestors have to be so damn fast? Do they really need to be as fast as stalkers on creep? I want to catch and kill you, infestors! Please slow down and stop shooting goo at me!
I don't have a problem with infestor speed at all. And in fact, I think that for whatever fungal nerf they get (because they NEED to get one), they should increase the range of NP by 1. It fucking sucks right now, despite me always researching it because "why the hell wouldn't I at least have it available when I made 15 infestors." I mean, I remember it being retarded at 9 range, but it's at like 6 right now? I think 7 would make it much more scary and powerful. But as is, there's absolutely NO reason to give any MORE incentive to build the infestor than already exists...
I still stand by my suggestion of trying to make fungal have a lockdown of all abilities rather than movement, as I posted a little bit back. But others don't seem to share my preference.
Instead of removing Forcefield altogether, how about just giving it HP, a la Entomb? Then, Forcefield would still be a very useful defensive spell, but much weaker than it's current incarnation (because it provides a merely tough wall, not an impenetrable one), and Protoss could have other buffs (make some units besides the immortal, like stalkers, tankier against roaches?) to balance them out
On November 05 2012 16:46 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
There is a difference between a unit that is inherently slow and an ability that is designed to lower the skill level of your opponent.
On November 05 2012 16:46 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
On November 05 2012 15:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Yes, it limits micro. The main difference is that with a slow, regardless of the amount of the slow, your ability to escape a chain fungal increases at a ridiculous amount, and at the same time zealots become ridic more effective. Even at 80% slow, you can still attempt to split your fungaled marines in those four seconds and cause the second fungal to only kill say 75% of the amount instead of 100%. Say your vikings are super clumped for some retarded reason, because it needs four fungals to die, you'll be able to save a ton (as well as ravens). 3 clumped medivacs being caught can split in 3 ways, causing 3 times more fungals to be used, etc. Phoenix will actually be able to escape most likely. I think the biggest benefit would be particularly to sentry/stalker/immortal armies, where after the first fungal you could realize what's happening, FF all the infestors off, and prevent the third chain fungal from ever hitting via retreat. That's absolutely HUGE.
Right, but you could micro even more if it did not slow at all. Slows and stuns and other types of "crowd control" abilities have one purpose: to bring the skill level of your opponent down to a manageable level. Marines and Blink Stalkers and etc. are too effective when they are controlled by a skilled player; so, Fungal Growth is used to eliminate that skill advantage. A slow would serve the same purpose. Force Field is often used in the same way and that is completely backwards. Abilities should force you to play better, not prevent you from doing so. That is some casual, MMO "leveling the playing field" type nonsense that has no place in a game that is supposed to be played competitively.
It honestly boggles my mind that these abilities are still in the game. It just doesn't make sense.
I think this is a completely silly notion. It's only bad when it's at extremes, slow is not inherently a bad thing. Simply changing a unit speed changes the flow of the game and how you will approach a situation. By your logic, all units should be extremely fast, because the slower they are, the more micro is inhibited.
Slow definitely has strategic benefits. While many people bitch about the marauder's conc, it creates situations where you are wary to engage the enemy because of it and causes different courses of action. Deterrence isn't a terrible thing if it's not extreme. It creates situations where target firing enemy important units can increase your own utility, such as slowing incoming banelings via target firing allowing your marines to split. Zerg knowing this may occur has to approach the situation differently than simply "I'll just attack head on." This definitely adds tactical value.
The value is rapidly diminished when the slow/snare effect is too extreme. It's one the to diminish the utility of another unit vs decreasing it to zero. FF's can often section off armies so they can't move whatsoever nor participate in the battle whatsoever. That's when it's bad. Same thing with fungal trapping units that can't even fire back, that's when it's bad.
Conc has the effect that it often "forces a fight" of an individual unit. Fungal and to a lesser effect FF have the effect that it locks down units so they can't even fight or have any worthwhile utility.
Agreed. It's one thing to lose a few units to concussive shell as you retreat from a bad engagement. It's another to have your whole army permanently locked in that bad position by fungal or forcefield so that you lose the game right then and there.
You want to design the game to strike the right balance between rewarding aggressive play and giving the defender some means to get ahead if they defend well. I think concussive shell hits that balance. As Protoss, I might try to dart up and pick off a base, but if Terran gets there in time, I'll lose some zealots to the marauder slow. Against fungal, however, I'd risk losing my entire army, so I'll usually choose not to take that risk. If fungal were instead a slow, maybe I'd try those attacks more often.
Mhmmm. That's exactly the difference I'm talking about. Fungal just locking a huge ass group of blink stalkers because you can get fungals off.... not to mention conc doesn't prevent blink... templars can still morph into archons if caught, dts can still escape detection if not killed by getting out of radius.... and chargelots still benefit from their charge if you're going to attack anyways....
I wonder how having a cooldown on fungal would work, say like 8 seconds. Would prevent a single infestor from going up to a huge group of blink stalkers and fungaling the entire group - you'd only be able to lockdown one group max (as is, you can just cast it once on one part and then insta cast it on a second part). During those four seconds you can wait for the second infestor to come in. I think it'd make a huge difference, not to mention it would make it much harder to chain fungals as well.
Do we even know if Blizzard thinks fungal is a concern?
Another thing I don't like about fungal is that it's a built-in escape hatch for the infestor. A lot of times you'll see the opponent make a good play to isolate a pack of infestors, and you're thinking, "Oh shit! This is gonna be a huge swing!" And then the infestors blow a fungal and scurry away untouched.
That's not something that can or should be changed really, but it does annoy me. If I let a pack of HT's get caught ungaurded, they're all dead. Maybe I'll feel differently with recall.
Also, why do infestors have to be so damn fast? Do they really need to be as fast as stalkers on creep? I want to catch and kill you, infestors! Please slow down and stop shooting goo at me!
I don't have a problem with infestor speed at all. And in fact, I think that for whatever fungal nerf they get (because they NEED to get one), they should increase the range of NP by 1. It fucking sucks right now, despite me always researching it because "why the hell wouldn't I at least have it available when I made 15 infestors." I mean, I remember it being retarded at 9 range, but it's at like 6 right now? I think 7 would make it much more scary and powerful. But as is, there's absolutely NO reason to give any MORE incentive to build the infestor than already exists...
I still stand by my suggestion of trying to make fungal have a lockdown of all abilities rather than movement, as I posted a little bit back. But others don't seem to share my preference.
I definitely think that disabling abilities is far better than any slow or stun. However, its main usage would still be to prevent Stim to avoid Banelings and to prevent Blink. These abilities are given to a player so that they can use skill to improve the effectiveness of their army. Why would you want to take that away? It would be better to give Zerg an ability that would allow them to do the same: to use their own skill to increase the effectiveness of their units instead of using an ability to lower the skill of their opponent.
This is why I think that an increase in damage taken, similar to Corruption but probably more powerful, would be the best. The opponent would have to use skill to micro the affected units to safety and the Zerg would have to use skill to target fire and surround the effected units to take advantage of the spell. Now, instead of an ability that eliminates skill, we have one that forces it.
Neural Parasite is an ability that I don't think will ever be balanced. I feel like it will either be ridiculously overpowered or bad as to be a gimmick. I think it should be reworked. My preference would be to make it a projectile that prevents a unit from casting spells. Being a single target spell, it would not be worth it to use the spell on individual Stalkers and Marines in an attempt to limit their micro potential. Instead, it would be used similarly to Feedback or EMP: preventing enemy spellcasters from getting off big spells. So, a Raven comes forward to cast Seeker Missile or a High Templar comes forward to Storm or an enemy Infestor comes forward to Fungal and you try to use Neural Parasite to prevent that.
An interesting mechanic that I think could be added would be making the parasite have health - deal 50 damage to an infected unit and the parasite dies. So, the enemy would have to target his own unit in order to kill the parasite and regain total functionality and the Zerg would have to either avoid targeting the infected unit or make sure if he hits it, it dies fast. Again, we have another situation where it pits skill/control vs skill/control, instead of using an ability to limit the skill that another player can use.
Infestor's problem is both fungal growth and infested terran. If you only see fungal as a problem but not infested terran then you should watch more games to learn that infestor is broken on both spells.
too drastic... will never be implemented... need more incremental changes...
especially when you are changing a lot of DPS and battle effectiveness stuff... example: your suggestion on fungal reducing attack speed and your suggestion on increasing the model size of marines..
On November 06 2012 06:50 larse wrote: Infestor's problem is both fungal growth and infested terran. If you only see fungal as a problem but not infested terran then you should watch more games to learn that infestor is broken on both spells.
Yeah. Imagine if auto turrets could be cast at 9 range and only cost 25 energy. Mech plus Ravens would be boss.
I think that increasing the energy cost and decreasing the range at which they can be thrown would probably be a quick and easy fix to Infested Terran. If Infested Terran were still too powerful, making the infestor unburrow before the spell could be cast would most likely be the last step needed, in my opinion.
EPT
