Fixing Forcefield, Fungal Growth and Vortex - Page 2

On October 24 2012 08:21 kcdc wrote:


You're right, and that strategy is very strong in the current metagame because Protoss builds their composition to depend so heavily on forcefields. If Protoss makes sentries, stalkers and colossi, they lose really hard if their forcefields are knocked out and they have no way to keep Zerg's forces at arm's length. But if Protoss plays for a quick third base and a zealot-immortal-templar style, Protoss will rock any Zerg melee force. It really comes down to how Protoss builds their army.

On October 24 2012 08:57 rembrant wrote:


Right, but how you gonna afford that or take a third while I'm flooding you with tier 1 units the moment you try to leave your natural?

On October 24 2012 09:09 ButteryBoo wrote:
I can see fortify being used for cheese more than anything. Construct a pylon, use fortify, win. As long as its not allowed to be used on pylons, it could be ok. Would add a lot of defensive capabilities. Protoss offense would in turn be allowed to be buffed perhaps.

Also this means one sentry at home can completely shut down drops, or at least give them a time limit before they need to leave or risk losing all their units

On October 24 2012 08:54 kcdc wrote:

Sure that'd be great. Is it possible to keep the formatting (bolded section headings, bullets for changes, and the two links) on the bnet forums? If not, you could copy over what is possible and then provide a link at the top for the fully formatted version and TL community discussion.

On October 24 2012 09:20 Crosswind wrote:


Hey - love your posts on balance. However, I think you're screwing up the following:

As Gretorp observed, the protoss race is basically balanced around force-fields. Both Roaches and a bio-ball with stim trade outrageously effectively with all protoss units until colossus and high templar unless forcefield is used.

Let's agree that, if a building is not nearby, the modified sentry power does nothing. And what you're doing amounts to a <25% price hike on roaches. Bad news: Roaches already trade 1:1 or better, supply-wise, with everything in the protoss army except immortals (and blink stalkers, given sufficient micro and numbers). Likewise, stim timings should be really powerful.

So there will be points in each matchup ( ~8 minutes to ~12 in PvT depending on tech, ~9 minutes to ~15 minutes in PvZ depending on tech) where a protoss literally _cannot leave his base_. Meanwhile, protoss' defensive capabilities are improved dramatically - to the point where going up against a decent sentry count is actually not possible. Three 100 energy sentries can make a protoss wall-off an invincible death machine for a minute.

What I worry, therefore, is that by limiting protoss timing attacks and likewise making them much harder to attack, you are in fact _encouraging_ the No-Rush For 20 games.

I realize that I am not exactly proposing a better solution. But I am curious as to how your proposal does _not_ lead to, effectively, no-rush games in PvT?

-Cross (I guess what I'm getting at is that changes may need to be more wide-ranging than merely changing those 3 abilities, a rather insignificant roach change and a 5% marine change)

On October 24 2012 09:31 rembrant wrote:
Ok but...how are you going to even get to start making your third with immo/zealot vs ling/bane? What I'm meaning is you would have a super hard time even dropping a pylon out that far.

On October 24 2012 09:34 SC2John wrote:
I'm sorry, kcdc, I literally never like your ideas. I definitely believe some of the analysis is spot on and that these are probably the biggest problems facing SC2, but I just don't like the suggestions. And then when you try to explain them, I like them less because they're just as bad as the way SC2 is now....

Sorry. <3

On October 24 2012 09:32 kcdc wrote:
A few points:

(1) Protoss without forcefields isn't actually bad against Terran bio--you just need to get storm and charge out in a timely manner. If you cut your sentry count down to just 1 or 2, you can actually get +1 armor, storm and charge all finished by the time a typical double medivac timing hits. It winds out working just fine.

(2) Gateway units feel a little weak in WoL, but they're really only weak against marines and roaches. Under my proposed changes, marines and roaches are both nerfed against zealots and stalkers. Zealots with charge tear marauders apart, and they perform admirably against zerglings and banelings.

(3) Fortify might be too strong defensively--it's tough to say without testing. One thing I'll note is that Protoss won't want to get more than 2 or 3 sentries because that gas expenditure will be entirely wasted offensively, and Protoss doesn't have gas to spare. The way I see it, saying fortify would make Protoss impervious to early Terran pressure is sort of like saying building 5 cannons makes Protoss impervious to early Terran pressure. The point is technically true, but it's not a winning strategy. And of course if my proposed numbers for fortify wind up being overpowered, they can be tuned. My main concern is giving the spell enough teeth to defend 4-gate all-ins in PvP.

On October 24 2012 09:34 kcdc wrote:


Something like this, but with less sentries (later gas --> more minerals) and fortify instead of forcefields:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342021

Vortex removed. Replaced with new spell 'Stasis Field.' Stasis Field targets an area of effect, preventing all units in that area from acting for 15 seconds, but also making those units invulnerable to damage for the duration.
Carrier build time reduced from 120 seconds to 90 seconds.

Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
Roach cost increased to 100/25 from 75/25.

Forcefield removed
New sentry spell 'Fortify' added. Fortify surrounds a target friendly building with a field of energy, making the building invulnerable to damage for 30 seconds and discharging a blast of energy that damages enemy targets every 5 seconds for the duration of the effect. The energy blasts deal 10 damage in a small radius of effect at 7 range. Can be cast on any friendly building including buildings that have not yet completed. Costs 50 energy.
Low-ground pylons no longer provide power to high-ground areas. High-ground warp-ins thus removed.
Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.

Marine model size increased 30%.
Stimmed marine attack speed reduced 5%. Unstimmed marined DPS unchanged.

Is cannon rushes in team games a problem? proxy-sentry + cannon rush builds.

On October 24 2012 09:59 Crosswind wrote:
Alright. Crazy @#$%ing idea time, where, having been sad that all I have been doing is crapping on KCDC's ideas, I spew out my own ideas.

-------------------------------------

Sentry ability: "Empower". When used on a building, does similar to what KCDC suggested, except instead of invincible, hit-point limit. Set the limit such that it is difficult to take down early game, and easy to take down late game. Maybe...twice a photon cannon's HP?

MORE IMPORTANTLY: When used on gateway units, it is an AOE. Grants the appropriate upgrade (Blink or Charge) to the units it's used on, for 30 seconds.

Why: Cements sentry role as support unit. Gives them limited offensive capabilities. Allows protoss to trade reasonably with early zerg or early bio, temporarily. More importantly, this only really matters during early-game, which means that the 'toss army isn't totally fucked if it wants to fight before 10 minutes. \

--------------------------------------

Thoughts, sir?

-Cross (General Design Philosophy Comment: I am for units that are useful in multiple contexts. When you design a unit with a single use, like harass, the decision-making pretty much ends when you build the unit - it is harassing. When you have a unit with multiple capabilities, like ghosts/HTs/Infestors/Immortals/Ravens/etc, you open up interesting transitions, where you use the units for one thing, then transition to another. It's better.)

On October 24 2012 10:10 FabledIntegral wrote:
Just pointing it out, you're aware that Blizzard is very happy with how FF functions? They aren't going to change it.

For the love of god I hope they change how fungals work. I lost 17 Phoenix in a recent game because I didn't realize he had infestors, flew them in to far, and got fungaled ---> all 17 died.

I wonder if Blizzard has ever considered a delay in between which fungals can be chained (or if it's even a good idea, for that matter). For example, after fungal wears off after 4 seconds, units can't be fungaled for another 2 seconds. Or even, fungal roots for 2 seconds, but deals damage over four seconds (the green goo can still visually display), meaning that if you wanted to root you'd need to use it a meager 2 seconds later, greatly reducing the potency of the root.

Then again, the spell derives the majority of its strength in the root, in my eyes. Maybe reduce the damage. Or even better, make it an 80% slow.

Ensnare was an infinitely better spell, pity the queen sucked and the spell was very hard to use (mostly attributable to BW UI). Slowed units and reduced rate of fire (rate of fire reduction for marines, for example, was a perfect amount to counteract stim. Ensnared marines that were stimmed fired as if they weren't stimmed, as the increase in RoF from stim and decrease in RoF from ensnare perfectly cancelled each other out). And I just realized, your suggestions for fungal IS turning the spell into ensnare, pretty much, which Blizzard will never do. They won't revert to a BW spell.

EDIT: Also don't touch Roaches. They already suck. 100/25 is an AWFUL change. You seem overly biased against Zerg.