While I'm a huge SC2 fan, there are a few broken mechanics the game that hurt gameplay and make myself and presumably thousands of others less interested in playing and watching an otherwise wonderful game. As I see it, the three mechanics that are the most problematic are forcefield, fungal growth and vortex. Judging by the contents of and responses to Gretorp's great SaveHOTS post which discusses each of these spells at length, there seems to be a community consensus that these mechanics may be problematic. In this post, I'll talk about forcefield, fungal growth and vortex, explain how they hurt gameplay, and then I'll attempt to provide simple solutions to those problems and explain my reasoning for those solutions.
Forcefield:
Forcefield was kind of cool for a while because it allowed a lot of creative uses and its power is so dependent on the Protoss player's micro. But three years into gameplay, we've figured out how to use forcefields and when they're powerful. What was initially creative is now standard. We've also reached the point that you can expect good micro from the Protoss player as long as they're looking at their army at the time of the fight. In other words, everyone Masters+ can forcefield well, and dumb luck over whether you happen to be looking at your base macroing at a critical moment is now as big a determinant in forcefield's power as player skill is.
Depending on your opponent's level of tech, forcefield can either be an invincibility button or it can be utterly useless. If your opponent only has roaches and lings and you make it across the map with 10 sentries and an immortal/stalker force, congratulations, you've won. Your army shoots at 5+ range and Zerg's army shoots at 4 range, so unless you screw up your forcefields, you will never take damage.
Now imagine that same fight but give Zerg some infestors or some baneling bombs. Now Zerg has a way to hit your sentries, and since you can't hide behind forcefields to make your army invincible, his 200 food army is going to rock your 120 food army no matter what you do. Whoops, Zerg made 4 infestors, you lose.
Forcefield is incredibly frustrating for both sides of the match-up in PvZ, and it produces stale, boring games. Roaches counter zealots so hard that Protoss has no reasonable tanking option against roach-based armies except forcefield. If Zerg gets roaches, Protoss has to get a bunch of sentries. And if Protoss gets a bunch of sentries, Protoss has to play passively until they have a big deathball or else they'll lose their sentries to a surround in the middle of the map. And if Protoss builds a bunch of sentries and plays defensively, Zerg has to play passively and tech to infestors and broodlords or else they'll get their attacking army trapped and killed by forcefields, and then they'll die to Protoss's counter-attack with forcefields and colossi.
Thanks in large part to forcefields, PvZ has evovled into a No Rush 20 snoozefest.
Worse, because forcefields are so critical for dealing with roaches, every map needs a third base tucked right next to the natural. See monk's thread on third base design in the map-making forum for an extended explanation. The result is that every competitive map has 3 bases that can be held and defended from harass relatively easily, and you generally don't see much action for the first 10-15 minutes of a game.
The problems in PvT aren't as bad, but it's worth noting that forcefields blocking retreats prevents Terran from being aggressive with bio before they have medivacs, and forcefields blocking repairing SCVs isn't very fun.
In summary, forcefields are auto-win in some situations, auto-loss in other situations (because the high gas cost is totally wasted), and their influence on the game makes play more passive and boring. It's cool that they're micro dependent, but they also deny the opponent's ability to micro. On balance, they hurt gameplay far more than they help.
Fungal Growth:
Just thinking about fungal growth makes my blood pressure rise. It's by far and away the most powerful ability in the game. Fungal growth deals the damage of a typical psionic storm (players step out of storm before it completes), but its true power lies in its 4 second root which is easily spammable to act as a permanent root. If your opponent has infestors, you don't get to micro. You don't get to alter your positioning. You don't get to pull damaged units back to save them. You don't get to focus fire key units unless they're right next to you. You don't get to split against AoE damage. You don't get to kite. You can't hit broodlords with anything that doesn't have a siege range anti-air attack.
Against an infestor army, if you aren't perfectly positioned before the fight starts, you might as well look back at your base and start macroing up a new army because (1) your army is dead, and (2) you don't even get a chance to micro to save it.
And if mass micro denial wasn't bad enough, fungal growth compensates for the immobility of the Zerg's super-poweful lategame infestor-broodlord composition, giving Zerg a composition that has no real weaknesses. As a general principle in Starcraft, the most powerful units need to be slow in order to allow the opponent some avenue to combat the more powerful army. Against a slow, powerful army, a fast army can use drops and hit and run tactics while spreading their own bases across the map to gain an advantage.
But infestors and fungal growth cover the weaknesses of a slow broodlord army because (1) infestors are actually pretty fast on creep, and (2) the opponent's fast army ain't so fast when it's fungaled. You can't do hit-and-run tactics against infestor-broodlord because fungal eliminates the run part. Hell, it often eliminates the hit part as well.
The result is that if your opponent has infestors, you can only attack if (1) you can kill Zerg's full army head-on, or (2) you're 100% okay with losing the attacking units.
So fungal growth denies micro, covers the only weakness in Zerg's unbeatable lategame composition (giving Zerg no reason to do anything but turtle), and prevents the opponent from being active with hit-and-run tactics. Fungal makes SC2 boring.
Vortex:
This one is easy. We've already covered how in PvZ forcefield and fungal growth compel both sides to sit in their base doing nothing but passively building an army for the first 20 minutes of the game. Now add to this that Zerg's lategame army is far more powerful than Protoss's lategame army unless Protoss lands a spell that instantly kills every Zerg unit in a large area of effect. If Protoss lands this spell on a clump of units, Protoss wins easily. If Zerg denies or limits this spell, Zerg wins easily. To make matters worse, the unit that casts this super-spell can't cast while it's moving, and it takes about a month to come to a stop, so the Protoss player clicks to cast the spell and then just sits and hopes that the spell will actually happen before something prevents the cast.
By this point, both players have spent 20 minutes bored out of their minds doing nothing but building their race's versions of the perfect army, and now the game will be decided by 3 seconds of Protoss hoping the mothership executes the vortex command before it runs out of HP or succumbs to a neural parasite. Meanwhile, Zerg does his best to spread his army, queues up a couple neural parasite commands, and hopes for the opposite result.
This isn't Starcraft. And it sure as hell isn't e-sports.
Solutions:
Protoss
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.
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.
Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.
Zerg
Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
The core changes here are removing forcefield, swapping vortex for stasis field, changing fungal from a root to a movement and attack speed slow. The rest of the changes follow logically from those core changes to attempt to deal with some of the problems that the core changes would produce.
The simplest changes to explain are the carrier and void ray buffs. Swapping vortex for stasis field is a flat nerf for the mothership since stasis field won't allow for archon toilets to kill large clumps of Zerg units. To help Protoss deal with infestor broodlord by alternative means, carrier build time is reduced, making a carrier transition more feasible. Void rays are also given a range upgrade so that they can help deal with broodlords before a carrier transition is complete. At 6 range, they are rendered useless by fungal growth and infested terrans, but at 8 range, it is hoped that they will help enable an air transition.
The fungal growth changes are also quite simple. The 100% root effect is replaced by a movement speed and attack speed debuff. Zerg will still be able to slow and kill enemy units, but the opponent will now have increased options to micro against fungal. They'll be able to split fungaled units, saving some of them from chained fungals. They'll be able to pull back weakened units, although the retreat will be slowed. And they'll be able to escape with their drops more often if Z doesn't have AA in the area by crawling out of fungal and infested Terran range.
Since fungal growth will not be quite as powerful against Terran, the marine model size is increased 30% and stimmed marine attack speed is reduced 5%. The reduced attack speed is a straight DPS nerf. The increased model size makes marines balls pack less tightly, making them more exposed to melee damage from zerglings, ultras and zealots. Meanwhile, the increased size will make unsplit marines slightly more robust against AoE damage from fungal, banelings, storm and colossi. On balance, WoL marines die too easily to splash, but are too powerful if the enemy does not have splash, so these changes seem fair.
Finally, we'll take a look at the forcefield-associated changes. Without forcefield, Protoss early-game defense takes a big hit. To cover this weakness, the fortify spell is added which makes a target building temporarily invulnerable while giving it a low-DPS AoE attack. This spell will be useful for deflecting early Zerg all-ins with zerglings, banelings or roaches by blocking the attacker's path with invulnerable buildings.
Similarly, this spell will be useful in deflecting PvP 4-gates. High-ground warp-ins are removed, so if you wall off the top of your ramp leaving just a 1-hex choke, enemies have to clump up on the ramp and through the choke in order to attack. Fortify casts in this situation will be very powerful by making the walling buildings invulnerable and dealing splash damage in the narrow choke. The defender will also have the option to complete the wall with an invulnerable pylon to further delay the attack.
Fortify will also aid Protoss defense against early Terran attacks or Zerg attacks on the Protoss's third base by making buildings invulnerable and temporarily boosting defensive DPS. It's also noted that the building invulnerability and small splash damage would make sentries+cannons an effective defense against mass mutalisk. Light mutalisk harass would be largely unchanged, but the days of bull-rushing heavy cannon defenses with 40 mutas would be over.
Without forcefield, however, roaches will be incredibly powerful in ZvP. For this reason, the roach's cost is increased to 100/25. The roach's stats are essentially a zealot with 4 range, so it seems reasonable that their cost would be equal to a zealot's cost plus 25 gas. This change would not hurt Zerg too badly in ZvT where roaches are not used much unless the Terran goes heavy on thors and hellions. In these cases, roaches are a powerful response until Terran approaches a maxed army, at which point Zerg needs higher-tech units. At a cost of 100/25, Zerg will still be able to produce plenty of roaches to handle mid-game thors, and since the gas cost is not increased, they will still be able to reach hive-tech units in a timely manner. It's also worth noting that marines have been slightly nerfed against most Zerg units.
We'll also see more zergling-muta play in ZvZ due to the increased mineral cost of the roach and the reduced dominance of the infestor over mutas. This strikes me as a good thing, and we don't have to worry about it spiraling too far out of control like ling-muta did in BW. Queens, roaches and hydras will all still have a place in ZvZ. With less dominance from infestor-roach, I suspect we'd even see more ultralisk play. Cool.
Conclusion:
I think these changes would go a long way toward improving gameplay in both WoL and HoTS. Maps could be more open and spread out as Protoss wouldn't be dependent on forcefields against roach attacks, and mass mutalisk wouldn't be so crippling. Lategame PvZ would be less awful with the removal of vortex and the addition of fleet beacon buffs to better deal with broodlords through channels other than vortex. The primary micro and retreat denial skills (forcefield and fungal growth) would be removed or reconfigured, allowing players to be more active and aggressive on the map. And you'd actually be able to move your army a little against fungal growth in the big fights. The game would simply be more active and fun to play and to watch.
If you agree that these issues could use a closer look from Blizzard, let them know in the corresponding bnet thread found here:
You might not agree with my specific suggestions, but I think it's important to provide detailed, reasoned explanations about the issues we experience in gameplay, so that Blizzard better understands what the community would like to be improved. If we work together, we can get a better game.
I don't think the Forcefield replacement you're proposing sounds very fun to use at all. I'd much prefer to see Forcefield remain, but given hp and made targettable (although it could have zero target priority, so it wouldn't fuck with enemy army ai, and so it also would take skill/reaction from the opposing player to begin focusing down forcefields asap when necessary). Its essential role remains similar, but countermicro becomes possible and no composition is utterly helpless against it. Obviously, getting the hp levels right would be key--enough to be effective, but not so much that enemy armies couldn't focus them down in a reasonable amount of time.
well I could see zergs getting messed up by mech pretty badly if roaches cost that much, its already very hard to be cost effective againt a good mech terran and in zvt you basically need to be trading cuz once they max out good luck stopping em even with hive tech.
Also Fortify sounds pretty op for just 50 energy not to mention 8 range is pertty big. I think you've neglected a bigger problem than roaches though...banelings would fuck terran up quite badly without ff, I would seriously just go mass lingbling all game, toss would never be able to move out unless they had like archons and storm.
On October 24 2012 07:48 Trotim wrote: But doesn't Stasis Field have the same issues you complained about? Isn't it actually both Fungal and FF combined?
I agree with the general sentiment, definitely, but a couple of your "solutions" had nothing to do with the topic you explained
(1) The spell is on the mothership which you can only have one of, so the micro denial impact is limited. It can never be spammed or chained like forcefield or fungal.
(2) Protoss is so reliant on vortex in late-game PvZ that you can't just take it out without giving the mothership something that kind of does the same job only a little worse. I'm trying to keep the changes as in line with how the game is currently played as possible.
On October 24 2012 07:50 awesomoecalypse wrote: I don't think the Forcefield replacement you're proposing sounds very fun to use at all. I'd much prefer to see Forcefield remain, but given hp and made targettable (although it could have zero target priority, so it wouldn't fuck with enemy army ai, and so it also would take skill/reaction from the opposing player to begin focusing down forcefields asap when necessary). Its essential role remains similar, but countermicro becomes possible and no composition is utterly helpless against it. Obviously, getting the hp levels right would be key--enough to be effective, but not so much that enemy armies couldn't focus them down in a reasonable amount of time.
If you give forcefields HP and allow enemies to target them down, forcefield becomes useless as the game wears on and armies become large enough to kill the forcefields quickly. Think about how rocks take forever to kill in early game but only seconds to kill in mid-game or late-game. There's no way to give forcefields the "right" amount of HP.
Also, that change wouldn't fix a lot of the problems I have with forcefield. Protoss would still instantly lose if they happened to be looking at their base macroing at the wrong moment. Terran would still be punished really hard for trying to be aggressive early. And Protoss would still have an insanely difficult time holding a third against roaches.
On October 24 2012 07:57 rembrant wrote: well I could see zergs getting messed up by mech pretty badly if roaches cost that much, its already very hard to be cost effective againt a good mech terran and in zvt you basically need to be trading cuz once they max out good luck stopping em even with hive tech.
Also Fortify sounds pretty op for just 50 energy not to mention 8 range is pertty big. I think you've neglected a bigger problem than roaches though...banelings would fuck terran up quite badly without ff, I would seriously just go mass lingbling all game, toss would never be able to move out unless they had like archons and storm.
Zealots. Microed zealots with upgrades are really good against zerglings and banelings.
As for the energy cost of fortify, keep in mind that sentries would have almost no offensive value without forcefield. Protoss would only want to build just enough sentries to survive the early game. With that in mind, it's okay for sentries to be really powerful defensively because the investment is essentially dead weight offensively. Sentries would be sort of like queens or static defense--very efficient defense, but you don't want to make too many or you'll be weaker later.
Also, I've changed my proposed range from 8 to 7. 7 is the same as a photon cannon. And remember that the DPS on fortify is very low--10 damage every 5 seconds is just 2 DPS. The key is that the burst of splash damage which would make it useful against muta harass or defending against clumped gateway units in a PvP 4 gate. You could retune fortify to be a higher energy cost, but I picked this power and energy cost because I was concerned about whether sentries would be strong enough to defend 4 gates in PvP.
I like your suggestions overall, although I believe Gateway units will be left way too weak if you just remove FF without giving sentries another offensive spell. You've just made sentries to be purely defensive.
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.
Zealots are ok but like, they still won't stop me from rolling mass bane into everything, they only trade if u split super well in which everything that costs gas.
i still think the best way to balance infestors is to make fungal a combination of bw ensnare and plague:
-reduces movement speed->zerg army is able to get a good engagement, while the fungaled units are still microable -FG can`t kill a unit, 1 hp always remains->still a very powerfull aoe spell, but you cant go mass infestor...you still need other units to kill the target e.g. IT -make FG an upgrade-> infestation pit is the way to go tech after lair, forces the zerg to get another tech befor seeting up for lategame and we get more interesting midgames. Mutas to gain map control or swarm hosts to stall (i would move swarm host to hydra tech aswell)
Vortex:
i think the MS should be removed completly, there is no tactical value behind it... it is slow, ist target number one and forces the protoss to move with the whole deathball all the time. ---->bring back the arbiter (keep the high gas cost from bw)as small MS-> recall gets the purpose it should have, being able too fight at multiply engagements all over the map (the amount of units which can be recalled needs to get nerfed of course. ---->give it a votex with a maximum of suckable units or give it static....both spells kinda serve the same purpose.
Forcefields: i think it is impossible to remove this spell, without doing big changes to protoss gateway units -maybe give forcefields a small cooldown?...forcefields all around the opponent army wouldnt be able anymore and the protoss player needs to place the limited amount of forcefields carefully
On October 24 2012 08:03 link0 wrote: I like your suggestions overall, although I believe Gateway units will be left a bit too weak if you just remove FF without giving sentries another offensive spell. You've just made sentries to be purely defensive.
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.
I'd be a little worried about gateway units being too weak, but really only against roaches.
Against Terran, I already play essentially without forcefields. I make 2 or 3 sentries early game so that I can defend really efficiently and have guardian shield in mid-game, but I don't really need them.
Against zerglings and banelings, zealots with upgrades are really good. If you match or nearly match Z's economy and you use zealots against zerglings and banelings, you just win and it's not close. Roaches would be trouble, but I think the combination of the increased roach cost and the defensive sentry spell to help establish a quick third would make it work.
Increasing unit sizes has always been a option that i considered worth trying. Because it supports players who spread their units, attack from multiple angles and so forth, and it hurts players who move their bioball around like a big clump.
I guess my point is that rushing to mass bane/ling with a few ultras to knock out ff is one of my fav strats and its hella strong, if toss have no ff I would roflstomp them all day long.
I kinda agree FF, Fungal and mothership should be removed from the game, for this make gateway units stronger, give zerg stronger T1/T2 units and put infestor into hive tech and give it something like plague. Also collossi should be redesigned so the deathball wars will stop and more action with t1 and t2 tech. I guess the only problem would be, that protoss needs a new way to deal with banelings.
On October 24 2012 08:15 rembrant wrote: I guess my point is that rushing to mass bane/ling with a few ultras to knock out ff is one of my fav strats and its hella strong, if toss have no ff I would roflstomp them all day long.
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.
Infestor --> removed and replaced with Defiler Roach --> removed and replaced with cheaper hydralisks Mothership ---> removed and replaced with Arbiter Broodlord --> removed and replaced with Guardian
Why don't they just change forcefield so that instead of creating an object that blocks, it creates a space of the same area on the ground that slows units inside it? If you made it last for a while, you could use these to harass with warp prisms maybe by casting it where the drones are mining to make them mine more slowly.
On October 24 2012 08:41 Salient wrote: I agree. Would you like me to post this in the Beta forum for you?
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 08:24 TheFish7 wrote: How about this instead?
Infestor --> removed and replaced with Defiler Roach --> removed and replaced with cheaper hydralisks Mothership ---> removed and replaced with Arbiter Broodlord --> removed and replaced with Guardian
Problem solved
Zergs already got Defilers they are now called Vipers, Infestor are more like queens from BW
Without Forcefield protoss would never survive zerg or terran timing attacks
On October 24 2012 08:15 rembrant wrote: I guess my point is that rushing to mass bane/ling with a few ultras to knock out ff is one of my fav strats and its hella strong, if toss have no ff I would roflstomp them all day long.
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.
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?
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 08:15 rembrant wrote: I guess my point is that rushing to mass bane/ling with a few ultras to knock out ff is one of my fav strats and its hella strong, if toss have no ff I would roflstomp them all day long.
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.
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?
Immortals, upgraded zealots, cannons, intelligent building placement and fortify to make my buildings temporarily invulnerable and give them a small amount of damage against your T1 units. It would have to be tested, but personally, I think it'd be easier to take a third with fortify and 100/25 roaches than it is with forcefield and 75/25 roaches.
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
It's hard to get a sentry across the map super early, and even if you did, fortify has all of 2 DPS if the opponent spreads his units which is very easy to do in the early game when the unit count is low. It'd be stronger to simply send a stalker.
On October 24 2012 08:41 Salient wrote: I agree. Would you like me to post this in the Beta forum for you?
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.
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)
Excellent write up, but I'm not sold on the specific changes. I think you would have been better served leaving the post as a detailed treatment of the anti-micro abilities and their problems.
Personally, I would love to see an attempt at a one-way forcefield.
An FF that only blocked units moving towards the sentry's position would still perform most of its needed roles (eg. keeping toss alive against 1 base pushes and roaches), but executing the more abusive tactics would become much harder. You could still use it to defensively block ramps/gaps and space armies, but the other guy would be able to retreat through it unless you managed some kind of mass sentry flank. You might still be able to buff gateway a little to compensate. \\
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 08:41 Salient wrote: I agree. Would you like me to post this in the Beta forum for you?
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.
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)
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) Even with the increased cost, roaches might still be too strong against Protoss. We'd need to test it. On the other hand, Protoss won't have to worry as much about Zerg's brute force muta strategy (fortify + cannons = no point to building more than 10 mutas), which gives Protoss increased strategic flexibility. Protoss can go for more immortal-heavy strategies, and they can experiment with crazy ideas like teching charge and storm before blink in PvZ. I think fortify would also allow for more economically aggressive openings in PvZ, which would help Protoss trade better against roaches. There are a lot of unexplored possibilities, but roach strength vs P would definitely be a point to watch.
(4) 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 09:31 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.
Something like this, but with less sentries (later gas --> more minerals) and fortify instead of forcefields:
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....
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
No problem, you'll never be able to get everyone to agree on specifics. I'm just trying to keep the momentum moving on what I see as the core problems in SC2.
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.
To (1), yeah, I've read your guide. It's excellent...but not really the point. The point is, until you get charge, storm or colossus, you have no ability to fight anywhere but inside your base, because your army will get kited and destroyed by any bio play, or roaches. Your build beelines for storm and gets it around 10 minutes. This means that you pretty much can't do aggression until then ... and you can't have aggression done to you. You're halfway towards the 20-minute no-rush game.
To (2), Zealots do okay against banelings. Not spectacularly. In mass, they probably lose for cost. Pretty much everything loses, in mass, for cost to banelings without AOE damage. Again, this is a case where you'd be forced to turtle until AOE damage.
To (3), I saw the point - PVP becomes a bit of a mess, sans force-field. 3 sentries, however, is not an equivocal investment to 5 cannons. They have use later, for guardian shield, and, more importantly, unlike cannons, their utility does not diminish as the game progresses. You observed about rocks that, as the game progresses, you can kill them instantly. Invincibility as an ability means it actually gets more powerful as the game progresses. I think, in this case, everybody makes 3 sentries early, then leaves a sentry per base to mess with drops and muta pressure.
Note that I am not saying your suggestions are not good. But I feel like they will result in a more one-dimensional playstyle for protoss - an inability to put on pressure early on, combined with an inability to be pressured. I do not think that either of those makes for interesting gameplay - SC2 already suffers from "Nobody does anything for X minutes" syndrome.
Ultimately, I think you're going to have trouble coming up with a good solution until there are some early-game protoss compositions that can trade effectively with roaches, lings and bio.
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.
Something like this, but with less sentries (later gas --> more minerals) and fortify instead of forcefields:
Ya I use builds like that a lot vs zerg but it won't work for what you suggest, zerg won't need to react to a 3rd but just make a lot of ling bane and contain you on 2 base blindly.
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.)
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.
Vortex removed for a smaller radius Stasis Field is a good idea. Immunity to NP too. A think a bigger Carrier change is necessary and 90 seconds is way too big* of a build time reduction (105s instead). The Carrier also needs +armor and the ability to be microed for more effectiveness. Either nerfing the Roach or increasing its cost is good. Changing Fungal to a slow (but I would go more with 75%) / reduced attack speed too works.
Changes I don't agree with:
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.
FF being removed is too big of a design change and without entirely updating/improving Gateway units - it won't work. Gateway units are already weak and do need a few improvements (like increased Stalker damage). I would rather improve Gateway units and change FF into a target-able thing (but what hp? idk) and AI to be not prioritized over attacking units. Your Sentry ability doesn't seem that good. Removing Pylon radius on highground (and high ground warp-in) completely takes out strategy from the game. Warp Gate needs a nerf (but not big enough to be useless/removed from the game). Void Ray range upgrade is stupid and doesn't work with the unit's role. Also it further overlaps with other air units. A quick late game raider (with Flux Vanes) makes much more sense.
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 and pro-Protoss. The fortify spell is also awful. It basically nullifies timing attacks, snipes, and generally counterattacks. Terran does a double drop to snipe your third? Fortify! Massive ling runby? Not only can you fortify to prevent key buildings from dying, but they'll kill the Zerglings if they don't AVOID the building. To top it off, it specifically hard counters potential Roach/Ling allins. No thanks.
Mothership core also already counters Stephano roach style. Both Purify and Recall.
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.)
That sentry ability sounds good to me--it's basically the same thing that I'd been envisioning. I'd considered an HP cap on the building buff spell instead of invulnerability before I posted the thread, and the difference has little-to-no effect in early game scenarios. The reason I went with invulnerability was that I was concerned that the Stephano-style roach max attack would be too powerful denying Protoss's third by sniping buildings. For that reason, I'd favor invulnerability (maybe 20 seconds instead of 30) over an HP buff, but it's more or less the same concept. The other scenario where there might be a meaningful difference is baneling busts. An HP buff spell that makes a building take 5 extra baneling hits before it dies would probably be enough tho.
I don't think the zealot/stalker buff would actually be used much. You'd still want to skate by with the minimum number of sentries you can get away with, and casting charge on 4 zealots doesn't mean a whole lot in most cases. Maybe it'd be cool in the early game--tough to say.
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.
I know they've said they're happy with how forcefield works, but that doesn't make me any more satisfied. Up until a few months ago, Blizzard also didn't know motherships were standard in PvZ. We might not get the big problems corrected, but we've got a better shot if we let Blizzard know what we think. Giving clear, focused feedback with detailed explanations and quality suggestions is the most effective thing we can do to help improve the game.
And yes, fungal is awful. Even Zergs hate how it impacts gameplay--although many of them insist that they'd never win if it were even slightly nerfed.
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.
I know they've said they're happy with how forcefield works, but that doesn't make me any more satisfied. Up until a few months ago, Blizzard also didn't know motherships were standard in PvZ. We might not get the big problems corrected, but we've got a better shot if we let Blizzard know what we think. Giving clear, focused feedback with detailed explanations and quality suggestions is the most effective thing we can do to help improve the game.
Ok, I'll take that as a valid point. To be fair, it could be very well interpreted they didn't know that using an infestor to attempt to neural a mothership was a huge point of controversy in the community, not that motherships were standard. That's how I and many interpreted it. It doesn't detract from the point you seem overly antizerg, and your suggestions really hurt Zerg (ps. as said before, I think fungal fucking sucks, way worse than FF). However changing FF would COMPLETELY fuck with the balance of the game. I mean you have to reevaluate PvT on an entirely new level. Not something you could balance even over a months period.
My one reservation is that Vortex is a really cool spectator feature of Starcraft. I would hate for it to be entirely removed. I was thinking of limiting Vortex by making the radius smaller and/or returning the units in a less clumped way.
I was thinking of limiting Vortex by making the radius smaller and/or returning the units in a less clumped way.
Terrible suggestion. All that would do is ruin the balance in the Zerg's favour even more so. That doesn't change or improve the late game situation at all.
EDIT: Just make it into a Stasis Field.
Way too many changes to fundamental mechanics that will most likely never happen or be changed.
I was thinking of limiting Vortex by making the radius smaller and/or returning the units in a less clumped way.
Terrible suggestion. All that would do is ruin the balance in the Zerg's favour even more so. That doesn't change or improve the late game situation at all.
WoL balance considerations shouldn't be given so much weight. People have a problem with Vortex being so crucial to Protoss success. So, the only means of reducing dependency is to reduce its impact and offload that responsibility to the army at large. If Fungal got a nerf and Tempests were viable, the lategame scenario would be a lot more dynamic than it is now.
Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
I agree with the problems, not all of the solutions.
1. Fortify seems...okay. But all it does is make the sentry a purely defensive unit. You think Protoss has to turtle a lot now? At least with MSC they can see if they can do damage and recall. It's not even worth moving out if you have sentries with this change.
2. I agree that Vortex needs to be removed and balanced around not having it, because it honestly isn't fun to play or watch. But replacing it with stasis and still relying on the mothership won't fix the PvZ matchup at all, even if he's trying to make carriers and void rays better to supplement the nerfed mothership - you still need the stasis to get some Zerg units out of the picture, neural parasite on mothership is still an issue, etc.
3. I don't understand the point of the Void Ray upgrade at all - they're balancing the Tempest upgrade around dealing with massive units.
Increasing marine size doesn't seem so bad to be honest. Wonder how it'd look.
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
Force fields -> give it HP so the opponent can target fire it and kill it off at the expense of taking hits from other units. Sort of like the entomb but its a force field.
Fungal Growth -> Make it a medium between plague and ensnare from sc1.
Vortex - seems fine, stasis field wont be a bad option
On October 24 2012 10:59 JayceeSC wrote: I'm just wondering.. with FF removed, how would Protoss defend a 1-Base 3-4 Rax Stim All-in (with possibly pulled SCVs)?
I also can't see Protoss being aggressive at all vs bunkers. These are just two obvious situations (and there's many more).
Makes no sense to remove FF without doing more significant/unrealistic changes.
Fortify? Purify? Zealots and stalkers? I can defend a 1-base 3-rax stim all-in without forcefields in WoL. If you give me a mothership core, it will be even easier.
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
30 seconds? It must be more than that.
And it's not like you can assume they build all the roaches at once. They are building them constantly, using them to remax, etc.
I'm referring to the 3base timing that is meant to hit before BL.
Fortify? Purify? Zealots and stalkers? I can defend a 1-base 3-rax stim all-in without forcefields in WoL. If you give me a mothership core, it will be even easier.
So let's assume you do a 1 gate expand because you don't know what the T is doing (or they bunker their natural to hide it). You can defend a stim all-in without Sentries???
Maybe Purify can help in HotS (although they could just leave once it is used and then move back in).
Fortify? Purify? Zealots and stalkers? I can defend a 1-base 3-rax stim all-in without forcefields in WoL. If you give me a mothership core, it will be even easier.
So let's assume you do a 1 gate expand because you don't know what the T is doing (or they bunker their natural to hide it). You can defend a stim all-in without Sentries???
Maybe Purify can help in HotS (although they could just leave once it is used and then move back in).
No they couldn't, purify lasts for a ridiculously long time, has a huge range, and you can't retreat once you've stimmed. Trying to wait out purify is asking for an additional full warp in being allowed and losing at least 3 units from purify itself, not to mention possibly even more from stalkers.
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
30 seconds? It must be more than that.
And it's not like you can assume they build all the roaches at once. They are building them constantly, using them to remax, etc.
I'm referring to the 3base timing that is meant to hit before BL.
Let's say Z hits the 200 supply cap with 70 drones, 5 queens, 40 zerglings and 40 roaches. Each roach costs 25 minerals extra, so that max out costs 1000 minerals more than before. With 70 drones on 3 bases, Z's mineral income will be about 2200-2500 per minute. With those numbers, you're looking at 24-27 seconds extra. The game scenario is going to be a little more complicated than that math of course--maybe those early 5 roaches to defend BFH cost a little more which delays your 4th hatchery a little which leads to a greater delay down the road. It's tough to say exactly how it would play out, but I don't think it would necessarily be broken.
You can always tweak the numbers down the road. My key point is that if you remove forcefield, you have to nerf roaches a little. Maybe that means thors need a small nerf too. It's tough to say.
Now imagine that same fight but give Zerg some infestors or some baneling bombs. Now Zerg has a way to hit your sentries, and since you can't hide behind forcefields to make your army invincible, his 200 food army is going to rock your 120 food army no matter what you do. Whoops, Zerg made 4 infestors, you lose.
Imagine a world where someone has clearly out-teched you (overlords with drop and presumably speed and infestors compared to sentries, immortals and stalkers) and out macroed you (I'm aware of zerg midgame food spike but this is unreal) and you have to see a defeat screen. Balance doesn't always mean everyone has equal chances of winning at all times, and in some situations there comes a point where you've already lost you just haven't typed "gg" yet
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
30 seconds? It must be more than that.
And it's not like you can assume they build all the roaches at once. They are building them constantly, using them to remax, etc.
I'm referring to the 3base timing that is meant to hit before BL.
Let's say Z hits the 200 supply cap with 70 drones, 5 queens, 40 zerglings and 40 roaches. Each roach costs 25 minerals extra, so that max out costs 1000 minerals more than before. With 70 drones on 3 bases, Z's mineral income will be about 2200-2500 per minute. With those numbers, you're looking at 24-30 seconds extra. The game scenario is going to be a little more complicated than that math of course--maybe those early 5 roaches to defend BFH cost a little more which delays your 4th hatchery a little which leads to a greater delay down the road. It's tough to say exactly how it would play out, but I don't think it would necessarily be broken.
You can always tweak the numbers down the road. My key point is that if you remove forcefield, you have to nerf roaches a little. Maybe that means thors need a small nerf too. It's tough to say.
You absolutely can't assume that 1,000 minerals more would mean 24-30 seconds. It just doesn't work like that, even remotely. You would have much more than 40 roaches as well. Not to mention that 30 seconds would be huge regardless with a timing attack that you're barely defending anyways. At all points of equal time you're going to be more vulnerable to having less roaches on the field, not just at the time a timing attack would hit.
You're also at 180 supply with your scenario, but I know what you meant .
When Terran aggression was nerfed to the ground, I started getting sentries as a greedy play. You don't need them unless T goes for medivacs.
How do you prevent kiting of your zealots without FF?
You don't. Your zealots just act as tank while your stalkers and stim deal damage. You have 1.5 extra rounds of units (1 from rush distance, .5 WG mechanic giving units at the start of production cycle), so you wind up having more stuff than Terran in the fight even tho he's all-in against your expansion. Having a ramp for first shot also helps ensure you deal damage. It's much easier now than it was when maps didn't give you ramps outside your natural and spawned you 15 feet from your opponent.
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
30 seconds? It must be more than that.
And it's not like you can assume they build all the roaches at once. They are building them constantly, using them to remax, etc.
I'm referring to the 3base timing that is meant to hit before BL.
Let's say Z hits the 200 supply cap with 70 drones, 5 queens, 40 zerglings and 40 roaches. Each roach costs 25 minerals extra, so that max out costs 1000 minerals more than before. With 70 drones on 3 bases, Z's mineral income will be about 2200-2500 per minute. With those numbers, you're looking at 24-30 seconds extra. The game scenario is going to be a little more complicated than that math of course--maybe those early 5 roaches to defend BFH cost a little more which delays your 4th hatchery a little which leads to a greater delay down the road. It's tough to say exactly how it would play out, but I don't think it would necessarily be broken.
You can always tweak the numbers down the road. My key point is that if you remove forcefield, you have to nerf roaches a little. Maybe that means thors need a small nerf too. It's tough to say.
You absolutely can't assume that 1,000 minerals more would mean 24-30 seconds. It just doesn't work like that, even remotely. You would have much more than 40 roaches as well. Not to mention that 30 seconds would be huge regardless with a timing attack that you're barely defending anyways. At all points of equal time you're going to be more vulnerable to having less roaches on the field, not just at the time a timing attack would hit.
You're also at 180 supply with your scenario, but I know what you meant .
Whoops, 50 roaches. Didn't add that up right--I think I was counting the zerglings as 1 supply or something. And yes, it's not as simple as just dividing the added cost by the time it takes you to get that cost because other aspects of the economy will change. But 30-45 seconds seems like a reasonable ballpark. And yes, that could be a big deal. But it might also not be a big deal because, as I said before, mid-game roach production in WoL is usually limited by the supply cap rather than mineral cost. It would be something to watch for.
The alternative to nerfing roaches is not removing forcefields or giving the sentry some other skill that's really good vs roaches. But WoL roaches are ridiculous for cost, so I think it makes sense to bring their cost more in line with their combat value.
I actually think you want more 50/50 of Zealots/Stalkers. Otherwise, the Stalkers will die very quickly and end up getting less shots off.
I'm still not sure if it is possible to hold (with SCVs in the fight). Currently, I feel Xel Naga Caverns would be a free win as T if there was no Sentry to hold the ramp.
Now imagine that same fight but give Zerg some infestors or some baneling bombs. Now Zerg has a way to hit your sentries, and since you can't hide behind forcefields to make your army invincible, his 200 food army is going to rock your 120 food army no matter what you do. Whoops, Zerg made 4 infestors, you lose.
Imagine a world where someone has clearly out-teched you (overlords with drop and presumably speed and infestors compared to sentries, immortals and stalkers) and out macroed you (I'm aware of zerg midgame food spike but this is unreal) and you have to see a defeat screen. Balance doesn't always mean everyone has equal chances of winning at all times, and in some situations there comes a point where you've already lost you just haven't typed "gg" yet
200 food to 120 food is actually pretty standard if Z mass produces roaches and zerglings, but you're right, in that case they won't have infestors or baneling drops.
But my point isn't that Zerg with a big army and the right tech doesn't deserve to win--my point is that the power of forcefields swings so wildly based on the opponent's tech. If Zerg doesn't have 4 infestors, that 120 supply Protoss army beats the Zerg 200 supply army without taking any losses. With 4 infestors, the Zerg wins with almost no losses. That's too sharp of a swing IMO. As a Protoss, I don't like having to invest 800 early gas into 8 sentries that will be completely useless as soon as Z gets their tech out. And I know Zergs don't like that Protoss can invest 800 gas into sentries that completely negate their army no matter how much stuff they have until they have their tech out.
Isn't it pretty obvious just by a tiny bit of thinking that these ideas are nonsense?
1. Invulnerable buildings are ridiculously abusive. You can no longer snipe nexus, and wrt to mech, it's going to be that much harder to push side bases with seals. And how do you know that 10 aoe dmg (with some given attack speed) is going to be enough?
Also more DPS != less damage taken wrt to how confrontations play out. It could easily be the case that regardless of how much DPS sentries give, a stimmed ball will crunch through gateway army. It's not the same as forcefielding out a bio army. You'd have to explore the impact on all early game timings.
2. Fungal/marine change also stupid. First, less clumped marines = less DPS in many positions. The entire game and damage of ALL units is at least partially balanced against the DPS marines have at a certain density. By exploding the size of the marine, I bet you will find that T is actually LESS potent with more surface area exposed to cheap unit DPS. As long there is enough caster to coat the T army, which at least vs Z there will ALWAYS be, then this is a straight nerf to T combat performance.
I think there are massive gaps in your logic, and this OP needs to be paired with UMS demonstration of its claims.
Forcefield should be researchable and arrive later at a time when both sides have access to massive units. Also, HotS should have provided zerg a second massive unit that comes in a little earlier and/or at a little less investment cost than ultras. I agree that roach should be increased in cost OR reduced in HP drastically and corresponding supply reduced to 1.
I think one thing that no one is considering is that one of the reasons BL/Infestor even works is because of how easy it is for zerg to collect massive amounts of resources and bases. If you reduce the power of roaches early (and also make FF available only later to correspond), its going to be a lot harder for zerg to stop protoss pushes and get up on their 4 - 5 bases in the mid game so often.
You need to understand that right now the high DPS of marine is crucial to trading effectively with Zerg. It ALLOWS T to trade in spite of getting fungaled. Because in the time it takes for fungal to kill the T army, T will have output significant DPS to trade vs Z.
It doesn't matter whether Z has 8 or 16 infestors, with a ground based army, he still won't kill the T army in time without having to trade. But the moment that you reduce marine DPS and increase surface area, Z STILL has plenty of infestors to coat everything, but now you don't have enough concentrated DPS to trade effectively.
On October 24 2012 12:42 architecture wrote: 1. Invulnerable buildings are ridiculously abusive. You can no longer snipe nexus, and wrt to mech, it's going to be that much harder to push side bases with seals. And how do you know that 10 aoe dmg (with some given attack speed) is going to be enough?
Preventing the sniping of buildings is exactly the point. Kill the probes or a different building. You'll still be able to do damage.
It could easily be the case that regardless of how much DPS sentries give, a stimmed ball will crunch through gateway army. It's not the same as forcefielding out a bio army. You'd have to explore the impact on all early game timings.
. . .
By exploding the size of the marine, I bet you will find that T is actually LESS potent with more surface area exposed to cheap unit DPS.
These two points work against each other. And yes, increasing the size of the marine is designed to make it worse against zealots and zerglings. That's half of the goal for the change, the other half being making marines more resilient against splash damage. As for whether stimmed marine timings would still rip through gateway units, they might, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be too bad. Give me purify, fortify, guardian shield and 10 zealots, and I'll give you 40 dead marines.
I agree somewhat with the problems you've pointed out, but disagree with the solutions.
Forcefields are a very important part to all match ups and for instance removing them means that Zergling runbys would decimate Protoss. Now you'll say "but I replaced it with fortify!" so you are saying that I still need to build gas heavy Sentries that now can only be used for defense instead of defense and offense as Forcefield can be used?
Your proposed solution makes Protoss even more turtley in PvZ and PvT! Now Protoss can't even venture beyond their buildings.
This "fortify" spell would also be completely broken offensively (I guess I was wrong, it can be used offensively). Step 1 - Build Warp Prisms and load in Sentries and Probes. Step 2 - Fly to enemy base. Step 3 - Drop units, build structures (using Warp Prism for power) in and behind mineral line and immediately cast fortify on them. Step 4 - Win, structures don't need to be completed to gain the spell, cancel them before completion, remake structures and cast more Fortify. Heck, bring Probes and Warp Prism along with your army and do the same thing while attacking your opponents front. This assumes it can't be used on Pylons, which also means you can't have Pylons in walls vs Zerg, but at least prevents annoying Probe/Sentry rushes early.
Fungal growth reducing attack speed would destroy the ability of the units it hits to do sufficient damage. Zerg would build just a few Infestors and they would have such a massive effect on the game. 30% is gigantic, remember that Guardian Shield reduces damage by 2, and that is 33% of an unupgraded Marine's damage. Now we are talking 30% off every unit that is hit by Fungal. That drops the DPS of an Immortal by 10 damage per second (from 34 to 24), that is massive.
I agree that Vortex is dumb and needs to be replaced, however mass Corrupter will dominate Protoss then, killing all air units and any Colossus, leaving the Protoss with a force of units that will be vulnerable to Roach/Ling unless you have a lot of gas in Sentries or many Immortals and Archons. And said force would be facing Broods and Infestors, and with Blink still being stopped by Fungal, you'll have no way to kill off the Broods.
On October 24 2012 13:02 BronzeKnee wrote: I agree somewhat with the problems you've pointed out, but disagree with the solutions.
Forcefields are a very important part to all match ups and removing them means that Zergling runbys would decimate Protoss. Now you'll say "but I replaced it with fortify!" so you are saying that I still need to build gas heavy Sentries that now can only be used for defense instead of defense and offense as Forcefield can be used?
Your proposed solution makes Protoss even more turtley! Now Protoss can't even venture beyond their buildings.
Fungal growth reducing attack speed would destroy the ability of the units it hits to do sufficient damage. Zerg would build just a few Infestors and they would have such a massive effect on the game. 30% is gigantic, remember that Guardian Shield reduces damage by 2, and that is 33% of an unupgraded Marine's damage. Now we are talking 30% off every unit that is hit by Fungal. That drops the DPS of an Immortal by 10 damage per second (from 34 to 24), that is massive.
I agree that Vortex is dumb and needs to be replaced, however mass Corrupter will dominate Protoss then, and it needs to be addressed.
You're right--30% is probably too much. 10% might be better. I'd be fine with just a movement speed slow rather than a root, but I didn't want all the Zergs to lose their shit. As for fortify making Protoss more turtly than forcefield does, I think it would have the opposite effect. With the exception of a few all-ins, sentries with forcefield are already maximally turtly. You need 6+ sentries to get a proper forcefield bank against Zerg, and once you've made that investment, you simply don't move out on the map and risk losing them until you're at 150+ supply. With fortify, you'll be able to get the desired defensive effect with fewer sentries, which means you'll have more other stuff. That other stuff will be more capable of early offense.
This "fortify" spell would also be completely broken offensively. Step 1 - Build Warp Prisms and load in Sentries and Probes. Step 2 - Fly to enemy base. Step 3 - Drop units, build structures (using Warp Prism for power) behind mineral lines and immediately cast fortify on them - Step 4, Win, structures don't need to be completed to gain the spell.
The defensive steps would be: Step 1 - Try to deny warp prism from reaching mineral line Step 2 - Kill the probes before they make too many pylons Step 3 - Kill the sentries (which are not at all invulnerable) Step 4 - Micro away injured workers every 5 seconds.
The attack only deals 10 damage every 5 seconds, so it takes 4 shots (20 seconds) to kill a probe and 5 shots (25 seconds) to kill a drone or an SCV. This attack seems pretty darn defendable. Maybe 20 second duration would be better, but a 2 DPS attack just don't sound very scary offensively.
I use Forcefields offensively a lot when I play, but then again I style myself after Hwangsin. I think the bigger issue is that Protoss either has to go all-in when they attack early, or they can't attack.
I thought Fortify did AOE damage? A few invulnerable structures with that kind of DPS would deny mining. So you need four or five structures, which you can throw down fast, and then you can kill multiple workers (they tend to clump big time) every 5 seconds.
And this would be great for pushing vs a Zergling heavy player early.
On October 24 2012 13:13 BronzeKnee wrote: I use Forcefields offensively a lot when I play, but then again I style myself after Hwangsin. I think the bigger issue is that Protoss either has to go all-in when they attack early, or can't attack.
I thought Fortify did AOE damage? A few invulnerable structures with that kind of DPS would deny mining. So you need four structures, you can throw them down fast, and then you can kill multiple workers every 5 seconds.
And this would be great for pushing vs a Zergling heavy player early.
It would slow mining, sure. But the attacker would have lost a warp prism, 3 sentries, 2 probes, and lost or cancelled 2+ buildings. That's not a winning strategy, so I doubt we'd see it. Maybe if you just did the drop, started 2 buildings, executed a quick cast and ran out. Then the effect would be an entomb more or less. Still a pretty big risk for a weak effect.
On October 24 2012 13:13 BronzeKnee wrote: I use Forcefields offensively a lot when I play, but then again I style myself after Hwangsin. I think the bigger issue is that Protoss either has to go all-in when they attack early, or can't attack.
I thought Fortify did AOE damage? A few invulnerable structures with that kind of DPS would deny mining. So you need four structures, you can throw them down fast, and then you can kill multiple workers every 5 seconds.
And this would be great for pushing vs a Zergling heavy player early.
It would slow mining, sure. But the attacker would have lost a warp prism, 3 sentries, 2 probes, and lost or cancelled 2+ buildings. That's not a winning strategy, so I doubt we'd see it.
I suppose it could be balanced properly. I'd still much rather see a buff to basic Protoss units make up for the loss of Forcefields than some other spell. The issue then is Warp Gate, and honestly, I really like the Warp Gate mechanic.
Maybe you can explain more why you think fortify won't make the game more turtley. The Sentry now can be used for both defense and offense, with this new spell, it will be strictly a defensive unit, except for having one or at maximum two offensively for Guardian Shield. Forcefield is what allows Protoss to move out on the map in the midgame if they are going to attack. Two base Immortal timings vs Zerg, Colossus timings vs Terran and Zerg, ect all depend on the Forcefield. Without them, you have no way of creating any distance, and the quick moving Roaches and Marauders would eat up your power units (Protoss depends wholey on a few powerful units to give power to the attack, as their Gateway units are inferior to the Zerg and Terran counterparts at that stage of the game).
Because there in no major buff to any basic Protoss unit then, nothing except the removal of Forcefield has changed offensively. So I guess you'll have a bit more gas to spend on units, but where does it go? Immortals are literally double the cost of the Stalker, so it isn't like the Immortal all-in is killing for gas, except for the Sentries. In the Colossus all-in it is basically the same, though Colossus are a bit more gas heavy. Maybe you can hit the timing quicker because you'll need less gas, but the timings are so dependent on your ability to Forcefield that I don't think the extra damage units of a few power units or a quicker timing is going to make up for the loss of Forcefields offensively, and you haven't listed any changes to that would really increase the power of mid-game Protoss attacks, except to say that we now have more gas. I believe that extra gas will end up going to Tech, which means Protoss will turtle to end game as many do now, but our timing attacks will be even less powerful and it will be predictable that Protoss is likely to turtle to end game.
Honestly, I guess I don't think Forcefields or Fungal are that bad. Do they have an overall negative effect on the game? Yes, they are too powerful. But they cover up holes in both races that really aren't easy to patch, and I think we'll need a lot more changes in order to balance it out, and it could mean removing things that make each race unique.
Vortex is just bad though, and I have a lot of ideas on how to remove it. I'm going to post a big thread on it and several other issues tomorrow.
Now imagine that same fight but give Zerg some infestors or some baneling bombs. Now Zerg has a way to hit your sentries, and since you can't hide behind forcefields to make your army invincible, his 200 food army is going to rock your 120 food army no matter what you do. Whoops, Zerg made 4 infestors, you lose.
Imagine a world where someone has clearly out-teched you (overlords with drop and presumably speed and infestors compared to sentries, immortals and stalkers) and out macroed you (I'm aware of zerg midgame food spike but this is unreal) and you have to see a defeat screen. Balance doesn't always mean everyone has equal chances of winning at all times, and in some situations there comes a point where you've already lost you just haven't typed "gg" yet
200 food to 120 food is actually pretty standard if Z mass produces roaches and zerglings, but you're right, in that case they won't have infestors or baneling drops.
But my point isn't that Zerg with a big army and the right tech doesn't deserve to win--my point is that the power of forcefields swings so wildly based on the opponent's tech. If Zerg doesn't have 4 infestors, that 120 supply Protoss army beats the Zerg 200 supply army without taking any losses. With 4 infestors, the Zerg wins with almost no losses. That's too sharp of a swing IMO. As a Protoss, I don't like having to invest 800 early gas into 8 sentries that will be completely useless as soon as Z gets their tech out. And I know Zergs don't like that Protoss can invest 800 gas into sentries that completely negate their army no matter how much stuff they have until they have their tech out.
Why is it a sharp swing? That's like saying if Protoss had 2+ colossi.... it's kinda irrelevant.
Supply counts are wholly irrelevant. What depends if fighting viability.
I still don't like fortify. It just doesn't seem interesting to me, and it's disappointing that it's a purely defensive spell. I don't like the idea of a standard unit that's designed to babysit buildings. Only the queen and MSC make sense in that role. It would be better if the spell could be used in non-cheesy offense as well.
Perhaps: remove the damage aura, shut the structure down while it's active, make it castable on enemy structures as well.
That way, you could use it defensively to prevent snipes or shore up walls, and offensively to temporarily disable static defense/detectors.
On October 24 2012 12:28 gosublade wrote: Carriers are somewhat counter to fungal. We need some more fungal killing units to toss and terran.
Actually I feel that the counter to carriers is basically infestors with some corruptors. If you have enough infestors, you toss out a bunch of IT to add dps to the corruptors who are tanking, and then you can chain fungal all of the interceptors very easily. Now the 10 carriers have a total of 20 interceptors, and they can not run to remake them because of fungal. It's pretty easy at that point to have your IT and corruptors clean them up. It's straightforward to win any game if you can hit that 30 infestor count with an intact economy.
On October 24 2012 13:27 BronzeKnee wrote: Maybe you can explain more why you think fortify won't make the game more turtley.
(1) Maps will no longer have to design turtle-friendly thirds with forcefield in mind. Fortify won't be as position-dependent as forcefield, so you can have more open maps. This means more activity for all races. More drops, more hit-and-run, more 2-base all-ins vs fast thirds, etc.
(2) The combination of changes will move Protoss compositions away from colossi and toward heavier use of units like zealots, immortals, templar, archons. Without forcefields, colossi are much worse, so Protoss will rely on compositions that aren't so forcefield-dependent. These units happen to be more able to be active in mid-game.
(3) Zealots and stalkers are buffed relative to marines and roaches in this package of changes. (Marines and roaches are nerfed.) This will make a more active warpgate gameplay more rewarding.
(4) Building fewer sentries means more attacking units. Sure, forcefields can be used offensively, but they're pretty bad offensively in most situations. You can't do much offensively with sentries unless you have a bunch of them, and if you have a bunch of them, you're either doing an immortal/sentry all-in or you're turtling till 150 supply. Reducing the optimal sentry count to 2 or 3 opens up more offensive options for Protoss.
(5) No forcefields blocking retreat means other races can be more aggressive against Protoss without being heavily punished. It's cool to be able to walk your units up to your opponents base and just walk right back if he's defended. Forcefield, like fungal growth, takes away a lot of those opportunities.
On October 24 2012 13:02 BronzeKnee wrote: I agree somewhat with the problems you've pointed out, but disagree with the solutions.
Forcefields are a very important part to all match ups and removing them means that Zergling runbys would decimate Protoss. Now you'll say "but I replaced it with fortify!" so you are saying that I still need to build gas heavy Sentries that now can only be used for defense instead of defense and offense as Forcefield can be used?
Your proposed solution makes Protoss even more turtley! Now Protoss can't even venture beyond their buildings.
Fungal growth reducing attack speed would destroy the ability of the units it hits to do sufficient damage. Zerg would build just a few Infestors and they would have such a massive effect on the game. 30% is gigantic, remember that Guardian Shield reduces damage by 2, and that is 33% of an unupgraded Marine's damage. Now we are talking 30% off every unit that is hit by Fungal. That drops the DPS of an Immortal by 10 damage per second (from 34 to 24), that is massive.
I agree that Vortex is dumb and needs to be replaced, however mass Corrupter will dominate Protoss then, and it needs to be addressed.
You're right--30% is probably too much. 10% might be better. I'd be fine with just a movement speed slow rather than a root, but I didn't want all the Zergs to lose their shit. As for fortify making Protoss more turtly than forcefield does, I think it would have the opposite effect. With the exception of a few all-ins, sentries with forcefield are already maximally turtly. You need 6+ sentries to get a proper forcefield bank against Zerg, and once you've made that investment, you simply don't move out on the map and risk losing them until you're at 150+ supply. With fortify, you'll be able to get the desired defensive effect with fewer sentries, which means you'll have more other stuff. That other stuff will be more capable of early offense.
This "fortify" spell would also be completely broken offensively. Step 1 - Build Warp Prisms and load in Sentries and Probes. Step 2 - Fly to enemy base. Step 3 - Drop units, build structures (using Warp Prism for power) behind mineral lines and immediately cast fortify on them - Step 4, Win, structures don't need to be completed to gain the spell.
The defensive steps would be: Step 1 - Try to deny warp prism from reaching mineral line Step 2 - Kill the probes before they make too many pylons Step 3 - Kill the sentries (which are not at all invulnerable) Step 4 - Micro away injured workers every 5 seconds.
The attack only deals 10 damage every 5 seconds, so it takes 4 shots (20 seconds) to kill a probe and 5 shots (25 seconds) to kill a drone or an SCV. This attack seems pretty darn defendable. Maybe 20 second duration would be better, but a 2 DPS attack just don't sound very scary offensively.
Ensnare wasn't even used in BW and it had a great reduction in RoF for plenty of units, like the marine. It wasn't even used. And ensnare about HALVED a marine's attack, while slowing it 50% at the same time. Ofc, it didn't do damage though.
I see blizzard in the right direction, while you are not. MSC can be an option to avoid sentrys (and forcefields) without remove them, not for now, but at least is what i believe they want do. If the MSC can provide the defensive power protoss needs, sentrys can finally be situational casters like in PvP they already are.
Remove things make only the game more poor, and there's no reason to do it while you can simply make the bad things optional. Remove the importance, the presence, of a unit can be hard, but at least is better than remove the unit itself. Your fortify ability, or something similar, will be very good on MSC, but awfull on sentrys.
On October 24 2012 14:58 InVerno wrote: I see blizzard in the right direction, while you are not. MSC can be an option to avoid sentrys (and forcefields) without remove them, not for now, but at least is what i believe they want do. If the MSC can provide the defensive power protoss needs, sentrys can finally be situational casters like in PvP they already are.
Remove things make only the game more poor, and there's no reason to do it while you can simply make the bad things optional. Remove the importance, the presence, of a unit can be hard, but at least is better than remove the unit itself. Your fortify ability, or something similar, will be very good on MSC, but awfull on sentrys.
As long as forcefield is in the game, Protoss units will suck vs roaches except when roach forces are cut in thirds by forcefields. You can't just say, "Oh, I think this insanely powerful mechanic hurts gameplay, so I just won't use it." The game is balanced around Protoss hiding behind forcefields, so if you play Protoss or against Protoss, you are subjected to the crappy gameplay that the mechanic produces. It's nice that you're looking forward to the MSC. I am too. But having new toys doesn't fix what's broken with the old units. Gameplay will still be less fun and interesting than it could be.
The more of these threads I read, the more they sound like this:
"I'm going to smash this vase on the floor, and here is a diagram of exactly how I plan to glue the pieces back together afterwards."
If you want forcefield and fungal out of the game, take them out and see what happens. Then come up with a fix. It's pointless trying to pre-empt problems when we know it takes thousands of players months to explore the possibilities and expose them.
For instance, I know you hate fungal growth but I'm not sure you appreciate just how dependent Zergs are upon it being as strong as it is. Although zergs have the fastest tech-switching, in practice if you attempt to transition from a large lair-tech army to broodlords your army dips in strength at the exact time your opponent is ramping up hugely. It gets weaker because you have supply tied up in corruptors, and it gets weaker because a lot of its strength was in its mobility, which is eliminated the instant it has to baby-sit the first slow-ass broodlord that pops. The only transition that works in a game that isn't already over is ling/infestor->fast hive.
So you want to nerf the infestor, make an infestor army one you can attack into (because for some reason Zerg should be the only race who doesn't get one you can't ), and you want to nerf the roach and you want to get rid of forcefields. Fine, do it. But why pretend it's even possible to consider all the ramifications? Break it, see how it's broken, then fix it.
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.
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.
Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.
Zerg
Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
This is a very good thoughtful post. I agree with all your criteria but think some of the suggestions could be improved upon.
Fortify would be too good, also making something completely invulnerable goes against the spirit of the game (hello invincible cannons). If FF are removed I would prefer something like 'grant hardened shield' perhaps limiting incoming damage to 5 for say 10-15 seconds, this would make sentries a purely defensive caster that could balance guardian shield vs hardened shield.
VR range upgrade I LOVE, it wouldn't come into play until late game so no problems early, but it really would help in the late game which is when VR really start sucking.
I dislike increasing marine size, it just takes away from the history and feel of the game, I'd prefer to balance this other way say by increasing stalker damage against non armored slightly.
But yeah thats small things, and overall I think you make excellent points, fix fungal, vortex, and forcefields and the game will be much better for it.
On October 24 2012 16:42 Umpteen wrote: So you want to nerf the infestor, make an infestor army one you can attack into (because for some reason Zerg should be the only race who doesn't get one you can't ), and you want to nerf the roach and you want to get rid of forcefields. Fine, do it. But why pretend it's even possible to consider all the ramifications? Break it, see how it's broken, then fix it.
Correction, I want to remove forcefield and nerf the infestor (well, make it possible to micro and harass against the infestor), but I don't necessarily want to nerf the roach. I think you'll need to nerf the roach if you remove forcefield.
In response to your general point that we don't know how the pieces will fit back together, sure that's true, but after 10,000 games played, you do get a sense for how the game works and how certain changes will impact other changes. If you're trying to get around a new town, a local might not be able to tell you about every pothole in the road or even every street name, but it's still helpful if he draws you a map so that you know generally what to expect. There will be some unexpected consequences, but it's still worthwhile to predict the problems that we can predict and have plans in place to deal with them.
to the marine change: i like a removement of combatshield more than the increased marine size since i think more spread out marines are even better TvT vs a tank heavy player, lings, ultras, banes get an even worse surround and colossi/storm is weaker vs marines. so the model size increasement of the marine will make them do a bit less DPS per area but marines also take less DPS per area so basically its not clear if it changes anything or is even a buff to the marine.
Agree with the Vortex and FG changes, and maybe a little nerf to roaches. The rest, not so much.
Force Field can be manuvered around with burrow and medivacs and actually makes for interesting play (on top of this we will have more long range units be used in HOTS: tanks and SH). So maybe a better solution would be to make the burrow upgrade build faster. All the races have better detection so why not?
I think this is a good post, but I would like more if Force Fields stays in the game, with the change that they are like mini time bombs(old Protoss Mothership spell, that slowed everything in it, including missiles), of course, it can be tweaked, and Massive units would still be immune to it.
About the fungal, I agree, but I still think that Infestors would be massed, because of Infested Terrans and Fungal still doing damage. What I wanted is to instead of damage, give corruption like effect to the fungal, and that would actually make Infestors support units instead of all-around casters.
I agree with other changes, just don't increase Marine model by 30%, that seems a lot. :D
i totally agree with the OP about FF, fungal and vortex being broken, but i disagree on how to solve this problem, i dont like the fixes you proposed
except for fungal, by this point the community pretty much decided on fungal being slow instead of root, its just a matter of blizzard finally doing it
the problems with zerg and the roach have been apparent from the start of WoL beta. the community repeated the solution for years, but blizzard wont listen: roaches and hydras need to switch tiers! its been repeated ad nauseam, but this would solve most problems zerg has and also fit better with the zerg race characteristics. nerf hydras, make them smaller and cheaper and 1.5 supply or even 1 supply, make them faster. give roaches more regeneration but make them more expensive. also get rid of queen anti-air attack and anti-ground range. nerf corruptors.
the main problem with protoss gateway as also been apparent from the start. making the main backbone unit a weak harass-type unit with blink leaves protoss with no good base unit that could surivive sans forcefields. switch the immortal back to gateway or reduce its cost, and turn it into more of a dragoon-type unit, maybe even allowing it to hit air. turn stalkers into harassment beasts. buff zealots. nerf or ged rid off FF, replace it with a shield-recharging spell
also remove mothership or at least remove vortex, and reworke colossus for more burst damage but less DPS and/or differently shaped aoe. warpgates should take considerably longer to build units than gateways and/or only be able to warp in units at warp prisms
without forcefields, mass stalker blinks, slow hydras and concussive shells, you will be able to actually get away from engagements without losing half of your army. with immortals as a backbone unit protoss could actually have a strong standing army and not hide behind their forcefields like cowardly space elves, and have a strong harass option with blink stalkers
the problem with terran, once again, has been known to most players since the start of WoL beta. its rauders and their silly slow ability. concussive shell needs to be reworked to either be castable and have small aoe, or to reduce a targets armor (maybe also with small aoe) to make them a support unit instead of a one-type-kills-all unit. also remove stim from marauders, maybe buffing their +armor damage. in return, buff tanks, thors and BCs, switch EMP to raven and give ghosts something else, maybe widow mines
the options for dealing with harassment should also be more limited, right now its too easy to shut down harassment. for this i propose to let warpgates only work in conjunction with warp prisms (still let them work as normal gateways after conversion), and nerfing the PF. along with the queen nerf suggested above this would make all races more vulnerable to harass, and without stimmed rauders killing buildings in seconds this is actually a good thing.
right now blizzard is doing it backwards. instead of focussing on new units and THEN trying to clean up the mess that is WoL they should first make WoL fun and balanced and then add some new stuff
Regarding nerfing fungal in general and people saying that Z is balanced around winning thanks to it, you have to keep in mind that's true for WoL, not HotS. Vipers and Swarm Hosts open up the possibility of tweaking Fungal and/or Hive tech (seriously, Broodlords are about as stupid as Colossus/Void Ray used to be), so Z should/will turn out fine because of their new options.
On October 24 2012 14:58 InVerno wrote: I see blizzard in the right direction, while you are not. MSC can be an option to avoid sentrys (and forcefields) without remove them, not for now, but at least is what i believe they want do. If the MSC can provide the defensive power protoss needs, sentrys can finally be situational casters like in PvP they already are.
Remove things make only the game more poor, and there's no reason to do it while you can simply make the bad things optional. Remove the importance, the presence, of a unit can be hard, but at least is better than remove the unit itself. Your fortify ability, or something similar, will be very good on MSC, but awfull on sentrys.
As long as forcefield is in the game, Protoss units will suck vs roaches except when roach forces are cut in thirds by forcefields. You can't just say, "Oh, I think this insanely powerful mechanic hurts gameplay, so I just won't use it." The game is balanced around Protoss hiding behind forcefields, so if you play Protoss or against Protoss, you are subjected to the crappy gameplay that the mechanic produces. It's nice that you're looking forward to the MSC. I am too. But having new toys doesn't fix what's broken with the old units. Gameplay will still be less fun and interesting than it could be.
Roaches are WoL roaches, WoL roaches are a supply overwhelming unit because it's a poor unit that needs to be 2x your supply to be efficient. WoL roach is produced by 3hatch gassless blind @4:00 .. but i dont see this "high eco macro-cheese" viable in hots, or at least from what browder says, its not what they want from the game (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6933954200?page=2#27 + recall first "design objective") With the SW and new hydras maybe the midgame of hots doesnt need the WoL roach, maybe Zerg doesnt need to be 200supply against 100, maybe we can have a roach that dont push you back by 100supply and forcefields.
I really don't know what the game will be, but when you will be able to play the beta, you will see that the actual MSC, without be insanely good and with a lot of tweeks needed, atm can actually reduce the importance of forcefields .. and i hope the design of the unit and this specific role will go further and further with the beta. You have mentioned roaches because the PvZ is the real problem with forcefields in WoL ..I really don't see the forcefield issue in PvP or PvT .. so imho is more a match-up design problem, more than sentrys. And i hope too will be resolved, for the mapmakers.
Also, for protoss changes that you have suggested, before remove the vortex, try it with half of the actual aoe, its not so bad, opponent has to choose, you can choose.
I agree wholeheartedly with the problems you identified, but completely disagree with your solutions.
My honest opinion is that fungals, forcefields and vortex shouldn't be in the game at all. They are just stupid mechanics.
Make fungal do damage over time and reduce armour but have no other effect on micro at all, that way you can actually get to the fucking infesters to kill them, and still have a chance to micro against broodlords. At the same time you add synergy to zergs numbers with armour reduction. It doesn't even have to be a major debuff.
As for forcefields, take them away and give sentries an ability that buffs shields somehow. I don't know like restore shield hp in a small aoe or make shields more resistant to damage for a few seconds. Its something that can easily be tweaked with numbers. Hell give it an ability that energizes other units. Something like focussing its attack beam onto one of your own units making its damage increase by a certain percentage/dps while draining energy. That would make sentries much more of a utility unit. You energize the unit best suited to your situation eg: your enemy is making a shit ton of roaches, you energize immortals because of their bonus damage to armoured, need extra dps to deal with those broodlords? energize your voidrays. Either way both sides need to micro better to come out on top.
Remove the fucking mothership.
These might not be the most genius changes but they get to the core. Without fungal that roots everything, brood lords aren't as effective, but still useful. Both Terran and Protoss will have a better time against zerg, protoss will have a similar early game vs terran and zerg will still have most of the benefits and utility with infesters.
Best of all no game breaking changes, everything can easily be tweaked and no motherfuckership. This from a zerg player btw.
I don't think you understand how a "system" works. Starcraft II units/structures/race mechanics, all work in combination with each other. If it was so easy to just change the sentry, or change fungal growth or whatever else, then OK... But you have to realize that every single one of the changes you propose are massive changes that affect everything we know about Starcraft II up to this day.
I won't go into detail why i think your proposed changes would never work, because I'll need a huge post for that. However i think that you're making the same mistake, Blizzard made for the last 3 years, which is fixing a "mistake" or "bad design" with a "patch" rather than a "cure".
First of all in a complex system like Starcraft II, whenever you change something, everything changes. So it's not "OK... OK... change the roach to 100/25 and roaches are balanced in ZvP". If that change ever occurred then Zerg would lose to any 8 gate protoss all-in without sentries in every single game. Not to mention a ton of other situations. So you see in such a complex game you just can't change something, even something small, without taking into account E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G.
So the mistake i think you are making, which is basicly what Blizzard did for the last 3 years, is to try and fix a bad design with a patch. This is the logic of "I have a problem in this matchup with "this", let's change this". The problem with doing that is that in the end of all this you basicly have a bad design deciding for you whenever you want to make a change rather than you deciding what you want out of a building/unit. And to make this more clear. Think about Warpgate. Because of warpgate protoss gateway units had to be "bad" for their cost but protoss had to be able to defend with them as well. So Blizzard ended up fixing a problematic design = Warpgate with another problematic design = Forcefield. You see what's going on there? Kinda like Blink = problematic design fixed with Fungal Growth = problematic design. Or Terran Bio = problematic design fixed with AoE damage being way too strong = problematic design.
Ending this, I'd like to recap to make this understood. A system of units, works only when all the units work together and against each other in a harmonious way. Right now the smallest change completely breaks the game. Ofcourse there are maybe some small changes that can be implemented but none of those actually cure the problem with Starcraft II which is a badly designed game in its core. I love Starcraft II but i believe it needs to be reworked in its core and have Blizzard start over the process of creating units, buildings and race mechanics.
Overall I'd agree with the direction these changes move the game. If gateway units proved too weak after testing there are plenty of ways to tweak them - HP, damage, speed, cost, buildtime, upgrades etc....Fortify as proposed has multiple balancing options as well.
On October 24 2012 21:47 AbstractSC wrote: I don't think you understand how a "system" works. Starcraft II units/structures/race mechanics, all work in combination with each other. If it was so easy to just change the sentry, or change fungal growth or whatever else, then OK... But you have to realize that every single one of the changes you propose are massive changes that affect everything we know about Starcraft II up to this day.
I won't go into detail why i think your proposed changes would never work, because I'll need a huge post for that. However i think that you're making the same mistake, Blizzard made for the last 3 years, which is fixing a "mistake" or "bad design" with a "patch" rather than a "cure".
First of all in a complex system like Starcraft II, whenever you change something, everything changes. So it's not "OK... OK... change the roach to 100/25 and roaches are balanced in ZvP". If that change ever occurred then Zerg would lose to any 8 gate protoss all-in without sentries in every single game. Not to mention a ton of other situations. So you see in such a complex game you just can't change something, even something small, without taking into account E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G.
So the mistake i think you are making, which is basicly what Blizzard did for the last 3 years, is to try and fix a bad design with a patch. This is the logic of "I have a problem in this matchup with "this", let's change this". The problem with doing that is that in the end of all this you basicly have a bad design deciding for you whenever you want to make a change rather than you deciding what you want out of a building/unit. And to make this more clear. Think about Warpgate. Because of warpgate protoss gateway units had to be "bad" for their cost but protoss had to be able to defend with them as well. So Blizzard ended up fixing a problematic design = Warpgate with another problematic design = Forcefield. You see what's going on there? Kinda like Blink = problematic design fixed with Fungal Growth = problematic design. Or Terran Bio = problematic design fixed with AoE damage being way too strong = problematic design.
Ending this, I'd like to recap to make this understood. A system of units, works only when all the units work together and against each other in a harmonious way. Right now the smallest change completely breaks the game. Ofcourse there are maybe some small changes that can be implemented but none of those actually cure the problem with Starcraft II which is a badly designed game in its core. I love Starcraft II but i believe it needs to be reworked in its core and have Blizzard start over the process of creating units, buildings and race mechanics.
While I think what you say has merit, I really don't think Blizzard will rework Starcraft 2 to that extent. If they do the stuff that OP has stated I'd already be quite amazed.
I also feel like the MS needs to be removed, and the way fungals and forcefields work needs to be changed to.
But dudes lets be honest. All Z and P unitbalance there is revolves around sentries and infestors, this goes especially for protoss. By deleting or changing those three units, blizzard would need to completly redesign the unitbalance for protoss and also for zerg.
That would need so much work and time (= money).. i dont think blizzard is going to invest that.
Btw, correct me if im wrong, but blizzard never said anywhere that they have the intention to change forcefields, fungals and MS right?
I think AbstractSC is pretty right. We ended up with the sentry because core gateway units suck. Maybe that's the first thing to change to address the root of the problem..
If you buf core gateway units and nerf the sentry, suddenly all the typical Protoss all-ins become too powerful. Therefore the solution I'm proposing is a change to the warp mechanics. It's really simple: units produced from a gateway are stronger than units produced from a warpgate and produced faster.
Unfortunately you'd end up with 2 variants of the same unit with different stats, which would make everything a bit too complex/hard to implement. So if we keep the same unit stats, the two variables that we can play with are cost and production time. So I'm proposing that gateway units produce 25% faster and cost 25% less than warpgate units.
I think the best solution for the infestor is to make chain fungal impossible. Make it so that units are immune for a little time after getting affected.
The Vortex removal seems to be more just a vocal minority thing, seeing as crowds go apeshit over Vortexes and even just the presence of a Mothership. It would be best to at least keep that aspect of crowd pleasing without letting it dominate the lategame dynamic. Stasis was rarely used and wasn't nearly as compelling, just a mass forcefield.
On October 25 2012 00:08 doggy wrote: I also feel like the MS needs to be removed, and the way fungals and forcefields work needs to be changed to.
But dudes lets be honest. All Z and P unitbalance there is revolves around sentries and infestors, this goes especially for protoss. By deleting or changing those three units, blizzard would need to completly redesign the unitbalance for protoss and also for zerg.
That would need so much work and time (= money).. i dont think blizzard is going to invest that.
Btw, correct me if im wrong, but blizzard never said anywhere that they have the intention to change forcefields, fungals and MS right?
Up until a week ago, I had agreed with this position 100%, but then it occurred to me that removing forcefield wouldn't be nearly as game-breaking as I'd thought. First, I realized that zealots and stalkers are really only weak against marines and roaches which are by far and away the most cost-effective ranged units in the game. If you tweak marines and roaches slightly (I'm now thinking that +25 minerals to roach cost is slightly too much and that +15 would be better), there's a good chance that you can solve the problem for zealots and stalkers without forcefields.
Add to this that in HOTS, you have purify to defend early timings and with the MSC's soft detection, you can safely get out charge, blink and upgrades faster, and I think there's an opportunity for zealots and stalkers to really shine in HoTS without forcefields.
I don't think the changes would have to be that big, and I'd love if they would just play around with some ideas to make it work. Forcefield hurts the game by forcing bases to be squished together which in turn limits harassment and activity in the first 10-15 minutes of the game. It also prevents retreats which punishes players for being active with their army and poking up the ramp to see if they can do damage. And forcefields encourage colossus-based compositions, which are powerful in a setting where you turtle for a long time and then move your army out in one cohesive ball. If you removed forcefields, Protoss would be much more encouraged to split their forces and be active in midgame.
If you're not sure whether that's true, watch some PvT's where P opens colossi and then watch some where P opens templar. You'll see how much more active and fun to watch the templar games are and how much less important forcefields are.
I love using Forcefield as a protoss, and I like how unforgiving it is really. Though I do want it re-adjusted so it only lasts 5 ingame seconds but has a lower energy cost.
On October 25 2012 01:25 Seiniyta wrote: I love using Forcefield as a protoss, and I like how unforgiving it is really. Though I do want it re-adjusted so it only lasts 5 ingame seconds but has a lower energy cost.
You really love that you instantly lose if you happen to be looking at your base building something at the wrong moment? Granted, I've learned to look at my army 95% of the time when there's any possibility that Zerg will engage and I only suffer the bad luck late forcefields in maybe 1 out of 5 or 10 games, but I don't see how anyone could possibly think this is a fun or even fair mechanic.
Also, if anyone has beta access and is motivated to get these issues looked at by the designers, the bnet thread has fallen pretty far down the forums, and it could use a bump. People just don't read long posts. Maybe I should tried to break each of these issues out into separate threads. Anyway, if you'd like to help out and keep the discussion alive, add a reply here:
I agree that it would help out the game to change those three spells. But removing force field above all would require fundamental re-balancing of the game, which means that this would be an ideal time to force the issue, with hots coming up. But it also means that the changes needed are pretty much impossible to anticipate by theorizing. So I'm not sure about your solutions, but I support the cause.
On October 24 2012 08:24 TheFish7 wrote: How about this instead?
Infestor --> removed and replaced with Defiler Roach --> removed and replaced with cheaper hydralisks Mothership ---> removed and replaced with Arbiter Broodlord --> removed and replaced with Guardian
Problem solved
Hmmmm interesting unit ideas, you should work for Blizzard, those changes would probably turn SC into the greatest RTS of all time
Unfortunately these changes completely break the game. Nerfing the roach like that makes 6-7 gates +1 attacks that don't use sentries unstoppable. Roaches are the only unit at the moment that deal with that by not being super vulnerable to +1 zealots etc. Retooling some other stuff could work but it's difficult. Many other of the proposed changes probably just break the game too like buffing voidrays like that and changing fungal. There was a time where voidray/colossi was basically unbeatable by just going standard colossus expansion play and gradually buidling a voidray ball to harass with, with such long range and no fungals to root in place that kind of play would be unstoppable for zerg..
Overall I really think most 'problems' mentioned in this thread here are moot. Sentries are somewhat of a dull unit when massed but they also have huge vulnerabilities by becoming bad when stuff enters the game that ignores mass FF like infestors for example. The elegant way to fix sentries imo is just improve the abilities/units that actually warrant mass sentries useless. At the moment mass sentry is only used in PvZ and occasionally PvT anyway: - in PvZ it can be nerfed easily by just giving zerg more options to counteract it early game, for example burrow movement for roaches could get a buff. Another option is to disable forcefield on creep making in an awesome defensive spell but not really much of an aggresive one (buff hallucination in response for example). I'm not even sure sentries remain a problem with the swarm host, it seems easy enough to tech too in time for many of the attacks that use critical amounts of sentries. - in PvT I don't think sentries are an issue at all anymore. With purify for defensive boost you can play perfectly fine without sentres (you don't need to box to stop stim timings anymore), with widow mine as defensive option sentries are no longer such a frustating offensive threat either anymore, besides aggresive options should be possible right? - in PvP sentries have never been a problem, you make 0-2 at most, just like is ideal for such a unit.
The constriction on map design is definately true but is only a real issue in PvZ for HotS imo. I think with more defensive options for each race open thirds etc etc. are a possibility. Ideally P can play about equally fine on any kind of map, ie it must be viable to play sentryless or at least without forcefields. I truly believe that is already an option for PvP and PvT in HotS, so only some change is needed for PvZ in that regard, ie you need to be able to play on very open maps too without having to resort to 2 base all-ins only. With purify defending the third becomes more of an option but stays hard, the best option is just to buff strategies that actually work well on open maps, for example make zealot/immortal + air viable or make DT/phoenix a real option etc. The oracle could fit a good spot here by having some spell that synergizes with melee or is especially good on open maps. Just buffing the DT would work too I think, I believe it deserves a buff anyway given how easy detection is for each race now.
The fungal change looks good though, changing the root to a slow should be good and not effect gameplay too much otherwise (but don't simultaneously buff voids!). Ofcourse I'm in favor of removing the mothership, it's just a terrible unit that turns long games into a very unsatisfying single coinflippy fight. Winning because you land a good archon toilet or losing because your mothership is out of position is utterly frustating. Mothership and mothership core should both be banned, terribly unfun units both..
tl;dr don't change FF just change it's role in PvZ, the rest is fine. Slightly buff protoss' options on open maps to free up map design space and improve versatility, no more is needed imo
you can find a lot of different solutions, but the OP points out some obvious flaws in SC2 which I can agree with and I really hope Blizzard does something about all of this in HotS
I think that the best replacement for force field would be a block the same size as forcefield that you can move through at about 70% reduced speed. You can still attack the same speed. The difference between this and your suggested fungal replacement is that fungal remains on the target throughout the duration, while units can simply walk out of force field to get away from it.
What I believe this will accomplish is it will still allow for hunting down armies, you can chain force field their path, and you can use it to slow units like marines from running up right by you. Obviously other buffed will be needed to deal with things like packs of stimmed units etc.
I think that the MS Core and purify ability will adequately defend your natural and third, but to supplement the force field nerf, protoss will need more adequate speedling defense before ms core comes out, so maybe just make ms core easier to acquire. What I would suggest to help MS Core is make it cheaper and come out with gateway tech, then change purify to enable the MS Core to attack on its own, but only within an X distance leash radius of a nexus. It would be a low dps, like that of a zealot or so. It should also buff the armor of the Nexus it is leashed to significantly to prevent it from being quickly focused down. The mothership core could get another ability that works along the lines of protecting workers. Maybe like a 15 second defensive bunker that you can throw your workers into while you react to the attack. This will make it so early speedlings won't just rape you without the ability to force field, but when you have more bases, they can simply run to another base if you do this, because you can only have one MS Core at a time, and it moves pretty slowly.
On one hand, I agree that the luster has worn off of forcefield, fungal, and vortex, and they make for stale, boring matchups. The problem is that protoss and zerg, from top to bottom, are incredibly reliant on these spells. It's not just the units that are the problem. It's the entire tech tree. Collossi for example are slow and incredibly vulnerable. Without a ball armed with forcefields, they simply have very little value. Alternatively, Zerg has very little in the midgame that's a targeted response to protoss mid-game forces, like blink stalkers and zealot/archon outside of Infestors. They simply are the answer to everything pre-collossus, and it's almost entirely because of fungal.
As many people have stated, forcefield is absolutely necessary to stop early all ins and mass numbers of roaches. On top of that though, forcefields are critical to being able to stop ling all ins and runbys, and protecting vital structures critical to protoss surviving the early game, especially their wall, from things like baneling all ins. On top of that, taking a 3rd on some maps without forcefield would be borderline impossible. They're less critical in PvT (save for perhaps 1 base immortal busts), but they still allow protoss to be greedy enough to keep up with terran macro while still being prepared for all-ins. It's really not just roaches (although those are the most dire need for them) - it's early game security in general. I truly don't think that a minor marine nerf and a minor roach nerf is enough to make up for the huge loss of synergy between forcefield and the other gateway units, and making the sentry purely a defensive unit as recommended by the OP may allow other races to be more active on the map, but it practically eliminates any reasonable way for Protoss to be, outside of cute little tactics that already exist like zealot timings in PvZ. I don't think that's good game design, not just because it pidgeon-holes protoss terribly, but also allows the protoss' opponents to know that there is absolutely nothing that is stopping them from taking a fast 3rd or fast 4th. If forcefield is going to be removed or made a slow, then it's simply impossible (again, in my opinion) to get around the fact that gateway units must be stronger.
But, now we have a new problem. Protoss already has many, many 2 base gateway all ins available to them which are very potent, and buffing gateway units would make it nearly impossible for zerg to hold them without playing so safe that they'd be neutering themselves as the game moved on. What do all of these all-ins rely on? Our old friend, Warpgate technology.
So what to do with Warpgate? I know many would love it if it were removed entirely, but lets be real - it's not going to happen. Blizzard loves it, and, to be frank, it's a pretty neat mechanic that gives the races some diversity. However, I think that having it available so early is a mistake, as it limits the options blizzard has with tools protoss is allowed to have access to. So, perhaps it should be available from a later tech structure, like perhaps the twilight council. That would allow protoss to still have the strength in the early game to withstand all-ins with proper scouting, and have the ability to take a 3rd with relative ease (as the other races can), but would put a choke on the timings of warpgate all ins. I suspect those all-ins would exist anyway, but they would hit at least 2 minutes later, which should give opponents ample time to respond and defend. One possible problem with this would be that things like blink and charge would research much later as well, which could be an issue (though it would require testing to see). Perhaps if make one of these available on a different structure? Just a thought - it might not be needed.
As for Fungal, I think there are a number of solutions here. Perhaps a repeatable slow would be effective, or perhaps a short cooldown on how quickly you can fungal the same unit. There are a number of things that can work here, and to be honest, I'm less concerned about the ramifications of this than I am the removal of forcefield or vortex, as even a fungal that slowed by 50% or allowed a 2-3 second reprieve on when a unit could be re-fungaled is very strong. I'm positive that numbers could be tweaked with either of those solutions that would still leave the Infestor a valuable unit.
Vortex, unfortunately, is just the only way to defeat a broodlord infestor army at this point without having the time and resources to make a full carrier transition (which, lets be frank, is much harder to achieve than BL/Infestor). The real problem with this army is the double threat of broodlings affecting the pathing units that could potentially be damaging, and of course fungal growth further preventing any sort of aggressive movement. Vortex is the only thing that allows units to even come close to broodlords, but it does it's job too well, and success means you win, failure means you lose. It's quite frustrating as the op points out. I'm not 100% sure of what the solution to replacing vortex is, but I think it would be impacted heavily by how adjusted fungal becomes. Currently I believe the slow is the correct choice, as well as preventing fungal from hitting air (although that might prove to be too strong a nerf), and on top of that, reducing the cost of carriers by 50 gas, and reducing their build time to 90 seconds. On top of that, a minor movement speed buff might be in order for them as well.
Wow...wall of text.
TL;DR:
-You have to buff gateway units if forcefield is removed or turned into a slow. -Gateway units will be too strong if this is done. Compensate by moving wargate technology to the twilight council. -Fungal should be made into a 50% spammable slow, that possibly cannot hit air. -Vortex should be removed and carriers should be made more accessible to allow protoss to be able to effectively combat infestor/broodlord armies.
Just my take on it. Fwiw - I agree with basically all of the problems the OP identifies. I think these could be better solutions though.
-You have to buff gateway units if forcefield is removed or turned into a slow. -Gateway units will be too strong if this is done. Compensate by moving wargate technology to the twilight council. -Fungal should be made into a 50% spammable slow, that possibly cannot hit air. -Vortex should be removed and carriers should be made more accessible to allow protoss to be able to effectively combat infestor/broodlord armies.
Just my take on it. Fwiw - I agree with basically all of the problems the OP identifies. I think these could be better solutions though.
I'd agree with this, although I'm still not sold on removing forcefield.
Also, with the new oracle ability... that's a lotta slow abilities.
Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
True.
Maybe the sentry could get a time accelerator skill instead of the forcefield. It would increase attack rate and movement speed of protoss units in a fixed area, like where the fight is happening. This way, protoss can hold early pressure from stimmed terrans or zergs units. It wouldnt be gamebreaking as the forcefield is, and accelerating units is a great way to promote micro plays. Actually, it would be a stim-like spell. But without damaging the units, and only affecting units staying in the fixed area. If they go out of the time accel area, they loose the speed bonus.
Thought provoking OP. I'm sorry I have not read too much of the rest of the thread (I've sort of stayed out of this sub-forum), but it's difficult to see these solutions as anything more than a buff to P and a nerf to Z and T. At least in terms of the final list of solutions. With regards to the spells and their analysis, I don't wholly agree, and think you are largely mistaken.
Forcefield: I like this, despite the fact that it can be unforgiving for Protoss. It's a racial feature for Protoss in WOL that a split second delay in reactions can often spell GG. Is it a good feature? I'm still not sure about that - but I do like that it is a demanding feature of good Protoss play. You have to be vigilant, you have to know where the opposing army is, you have to be fast. The same feature which means a ling run-by if my FF is a hex off, also means that I get to lol if my FF is right, and those lings are trapped between FF and I slaughter them. (It also enables good Z play in terms of baiting FF energy etc.)
I also disagree that it is in large part due to FF that PvZ has evolved into a NR20 snoozefest. If PvZ had indeed come to this, it is only a relatively recent development. For most of SC2 PvZ has been, for the most part, an active contest. If it is becoming a snoozefest it is more the power of the BL/Infestor + Spines combo and the fact that Protoss openings from the standard FFE have been mostly figured out at the highest levels of play. This only leaves 3 base pre-Hive timings or the coin flip of the Vortex. This does lead to stagnant play, but to claim that this is because of FF is wrong. This may, or may not, be solved as players continue to explore WOL. If not, the MS Core in HoTS may go a long way towards refreshing the MU.
The best reason you've given for nerfing FF is Protoss reliance in PvZ and how that affects map-making. But, I don't think this is a sufficient reason for nerfing FF. It seems a better solution to me to allow different maps and map pools for different match ups (at least at tournament level). Therefore PvZ maps may be constrained in the way you describe, but other match-ups (involving P and without) can be played on different maps. It's also a lot easier than messing with fundamental mechanics.
Fungal Growth: I don't like it. Who does? But, heck, if even MC says that Zerg may need FG who am I to argue (given that MC is the President and also plays a very high calibre of off-racing Zerg). I'd prefer it if were projectile, at least, but apart from that I have not thought too much about it, as I don't play Zerg and have little or no interest in Zerg. The best reason I think to change Fungal is that, I think, it prevents Z from exploring their (powerful+fun) race further than BL/Infestor+Spines.
Vortex: Yeah, this is a little silly.And yeah, NP on a hero unit is retarded. And yeah, this is not Starcraft.
I don't like your nerfs to the Marine and the Roach, and the corresponding buffs to Protoss. It's not the Roach and the Marine that are the issue, it's that Zerg can make so many of them so fast (necessitating Protoss use of FF), and that Terran can make 2 Marines at a time. As I've said elsewhere, the fact that the Roach also counters the Zealot (so hard) and further that the Marauder counters the Stalker means that the basic Protoss army lacks its other half, to a large extent, in two of its match-ups. It's really only in PvP that we get the viability of cool Zealot+Stalker battles - at least for most of the match-up.
From a Protoss pov, I like those nerfs, but I can't pretend that I think the combination good for Z and T, or for SC2 in general. The SG buffs are nice though: VR buffs at SG tech, and lower carrier build time. I don't think these would affect the game adversely, either, and I don't think any reasonable Terran or Zerg could complain about these changes.
I respect your passion, kcdc. But, I think you are wrong regarding the sources of the problems you highlight (some of which may not be problems at all), and I think your solutions are also, to a large extent, misplaced or wrong.
On October 24 2012 07:48 Trotim wrote: But doesn't Stasis Field have the same issues you complained about? Isn't it actually both Fungal and FF combined?
I agree with the general sentiment, definitely, but a couple of your "solutions" had nothing to do with the topic you explained
Stasis Field drawbacks compared to Fungal and Force Field. 1. available only in late game. 2. can't mass arbiters, hence no spell spamming. 3. damn difficult to use.
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
Now that Toss has a Time Warp ability that somehow discriminates between ground and air units, I think it's even more ridiculous that Fungal can root both of them. I mean, how do you root something that's in the air, anyway? Absurd.
Also, your replacement for Vortex is surely "different" than vortex, but it is also a lot more efficient at cutting armies in half (since you can run the rest of your army into the Vortex, but you can't do the same with Stasis Field). Won't this cause problems at max supply?
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
Still an uneventful first 15 minutes, for example with only macroing, will almost always result in the protoss having a decent advantage. Once all upgrades and units are available the protoss side has a slight advantage which is pretty much what you see in many games. T can get a bigger army by massing orbitals but it's not the most easy transition (you need a decent bank to go there and your army becomes harder to manage as it depends much more on MULES). A big part as well imo to P's lategame advantage is the gas buildup terran usually faces. There is absolutely no way for terran to deal with a 1-2k gas buildup because any unit in the MMMVG composition costs at least as much minerals as gas. It also jsut can't be denied that if much multitasking is required P's advantage goes up because neither playing microing well is in favor of the protoss (kiting is more important for T then micro is for P)
Anyway I don't think any of the issues in the OP really affect PvT too much, massive sentry use is very rare in the matchup anyway and map design doesn't play a big role for PvT (it's fine on almost any map imo). The thing that troubles the matchup is just the boring nature of it with P having virtually no harass options and being forced to wait till their lategame combination kicks in. Unfortunately HotS fails to revolutionalize the matchup much, i see less and less mech use in it already (as it's still very hard to use) and it seems to resort to the same matchup with P not using air in it and T doing the same with the arly widow mine sprinkled in. Of course that's just my anecdotal evidence and not quite meaningful. I wish battlecruisers became a viable option in this matchup so T has the option of not playing the micro intensive MMMVG but can transition to air. I believe the BC is already buffed to it's WOL counterpart (ground damage to 10 instead of 8) which might just make it good enough
On October 25 2012 23:19 Treehead wrote: Your new FF doesn't allow you to forcefield ramps. How will this work in PvP? I have a hard time believing 4-gate won't be king.
On October 25 2012 23:19 Treehead wrote: Your new FF doesn't allow you to forcefield ramps. How will this work in PvP? I have a hard time believing 4-gate won't be king.
Think HotS!
-> Purify
I'll be honest. I hadn't noticed the duration on Purify. This probably works just fine.
So then how does Protoss hold early bio pushes from Terran without forcefield? Any fast bio push before six minutes is practically an auto win button without force field. 1 gate expand no longer is viable because of the risk of early game bio rushes from Terran. You can't remove forcefield without buffing gateway units or breaking PvT.
So your suggestion is to nerf Forcefield and Fungal, then buff Protoss to compensate for the nerf and then nerf Zerg a little more by increasing Roach costs? LOL...
On October 25 2012 23:22 Treehead wrote: Also, your replacement for Vortex is surely "different" than vortex, but it is also a lot more efficient at cutting armies in half (since you can run the rest of your army into the Vortex, but you can't do the same with Stasis Field). Won't this cause problems at max supply?
If the mothership in HoTS plays like it does in WoL, you don't want to put the rest of your army in the vortex. In PvT and PvP, the vortex/stasis can easily be denied by EMP for feedback, and in PvZ, everything you put in the vortex is as good as dead, so you're better off fighting with whatever is outside the vortex.
On October 25 2012 23:40 sitromit wrote: So your suggestion is to nerf Forcefield and Fungal, then buff Protoss to compensate for the nerf and then nerf Zerg a little more by increasing Roach costs? LOL...
Removing forcefield is a pretty gigantic roach buff as forcefield is currently the only reason roaches don't a-move to victory every game. It makes sense to increase roach cost accordingly.
And I don't really Toss getting buffed much here. Void rays are never used. Carriers are very rarely used because it takes almost 3 minutes to get a fully stocked carrier to your front line, and they're pretty bad until you have about 4 of them. You can't afford to play with a 176 supply cap for 3 minutes, so people don't build them. Reducing build time makes sense.
On October 25 2012 23:39 Wingblade wrote: So then how does Protoss hold early bio pushes from Terran without forcefield? Any fast bio push before six minutes is practically an auto win button without force field. 1 gate expand no longer is viable because of the risk of early game bio rushes from Terran. You can't remove forcefield without buffing gateway units or breaking PvT.
As my post since ignored, i repost it here.
Maybe the sentry could get a time accelerator skill instead of the forcefield. It would increase attack rate and movement speed of protoss units in a fixed area, like where the fight is happening. This way, protoss can hold early pressure from stimmed terrans or zergs units. It wouldnt be gamebreaking as the forcefield is, and accelerating units is a great way to promote micro plays. Actually, it would be a stim-like spell. But without damaging the units, and only affecting units staying in the fixed area. If they go out of the time accel area, they loose the speed bonus.
Maybe the sentry could get a time accelerator skill instead of the forcefield. It would increase attack rate and movement speed of protoss units in a fixed area, like where the fight is happening. This way, protoss can hold early pressure from stimmed terrans or zergs units. It wouldnt be gamebreaking as the forcefield is, and accelerating units is a great way to promote micro plays. Actually, it would be a stim-like spell. But without damaging the units, and only affecting units staying in the fixed area. If they go out of the time accel area, they loose the speed bonus.
Let me know what you think about it...
I think that if it were usable on tech units like the Colossus, it would be an absurd ability, (stimmed Colossi? really?).
I think that if it were not usable on tech units, it'd feel too contrived (an activated ability that only works on stalkers/sentries/zealots - why not just make them that much better and replace the Colossus?).
On October 25 2012 23:40 sitromit wrote: So your suggestion is to nerf Forcefield and Fungal, then buff Protoss to compensate for the nerf and then nerf Zerg a little more by increasing Roach costs? LOL...
Removing forcefield is a pretty gigantic roach buff as forcefield is currently the only reason roaches don't a-move to victory every game. It makes sense to increase roach cost accordingly.
I was actually thinking you didn't increase the cost enough (since Z with an equivalent economy and adjusted gas timings would still produce 80% of the roaches they did before, but I don't think I'd be able to hold 80% of the current roach timings). Then again, if you nerf it more (or even 100/25), I think there might become unstoppable protoss timings (who knows - maybe there already are - I'd bet blink stalkers would be close).
Balancing SC is much more difficult than people give it credit for.
Maybe the sentry could get a time accelerator skill instead of the forcefield. It would increase attack rate and movement speed of protoss units in a fixed area, like where the fight is happening. This way, protoss can hold early pressure from stimmed terrans or zergs units. It wouldnt be gamebreaking as the forcefield is, and accelerating units is a great way to promote micro plays. Actually, it would be a stim-like spell. But without damaging the units, and only affecting units staying in the fixed area. If they go out of the time accel area, they loose the speed bonus.
Let me know what you think about it...
I think that if it were usable on tech units like the Colossus, it would be an absurd ability, (stimmed Colossi? really?).
I think that if it were not usable on tech units, it'd feel too contrived (an activated ability that only works on stalkers/sentries/zealots - why not just make them that much better and replace the Colossus?).
Obviously it would work only on gateways units.
And the point is that a full stalker ball is already scary lategame. They just need temporary buff during early fights so that they can survive against stimmed units.
On October 25 2012 23:39 Wingblade wrote: So then how does Protoss hold early bio pushes from Terran without forcefield? Any fast bio push before six minutes is practically an auto win button without force field. 1 gate expand no longer is viable because of the risk of early game bio rushes from Terran. You can't remove forcefield without buffing gateway units or breaking PvT.
I've answered this before, but they can already be held in WoL without forcefields. Add fortify, purify, and free hallucination to know exactly what they're doing, and you'll be fine as long as you're not too greedy. Cannons are another option.
So far I've always agreed with your posts but this time it seems that we don't quite share the same opinion about this.
A lot of tweaks to other protoss units would be necessary if you would change the sentry like this. Your suggested sentry would be limited to base defence. How can you push out and threaten your opponent (especially terran bio)? I would hate having to build a 100gas unit with low hp/low speed/low dps just in case I need some base defence but can't be used on the offense. The mothership core is there to help out protoss for this, but this should not be a core unit. Apart from this using sentries correctly is way way more interesting to watch in pro level games as well as using it for yourself compared to many other abilities in the game. I enjoy watching really good ff usage way more than watching stutter step micro, conc shell slow etc. FF often times does prevent micro on the other side AFTER all ff have been casted, but only if the units of the other player are completely trapped AND he has nothing to crush or circumvent the ff (for instance medivac pickups we see in high level play). Being able to micro all the time would be really nice to have, but on the positive side ff is plainly one of the best abilities to use and their skill ceiling is way higher than the one of many other abilities in the game.
I totally agree with vortex, basically because both sides kinda gear up for the ultimate army (mainly pvz, also seen in pvp) and then one delayed spell is deciding the outcome really quick.
The new fungal growth would be way way stronger (especially with no ff any more but even without) if it still prevents blinking. Being able to keep the zerg at range and dealing good ranged dps is how protoss kills zerg armies. I like the very general idea behind all this which is changing fg into more of a support spell while allowing micro but what do you want to micro when your units are way way slower than any zerg unit and you have no ability to prevent them from attacking you (slowed zealots + stalkers vs lings/roaches with speed ...). This would be nice for marine splits in tvz vs fg + banes though.
You also added suggestions to other units but you didn't explain why you think these changes would be good. The carrier thing is obvious for most, but I'd be especially interested in your thoughts about the void ray 6->8 range upgrade.
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have higher than 200/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted.
Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm.
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted.
50 Warpgates (at 2 supply/warpin, the number of warpins to be 300/200)? 50? Really? That must have been one long and passive game. Why didn't you kill him while he was spending 7500 on buildings?
Also, maybe I'm just not having enough empathy here, but I have a hard time believing lategame templar vs. ghosts is as hopeless as you make it sound when pro GSL code S protoss players seem to be unable to get the win (and, via what you wrote, were obviously unable to get "decent storms"). There must be more to the matchup than what you wrote, eh?
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted.
Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm.
WG gives Protoss an extra production round during an engagement, but MULES give Terran extra supply before the engagement (don't need as many workers).
And not only do ghosts deny storm, they're also good combat units late-game. They're much tankier than marines, EMP does big damage to everything, they deal good DPS vs zealots, and they cloak.
I think the late-game fights are pretty balanced, and they come down to micro and positioning. If vikings snipe a colossus or two ahead of the fight, or if scan+vikings picks off observers for cloaked ghosts to get great EMP's, Terran wins. If Protoss gets a great templar flank to land a blanket of storms, Protoss wins.
I don't think I've ever seen a post-SCV sac maxed fight with a bunch of ghosts where great positioning and control couldn't give Terran a win. Maybe some people think that the Terran side of the micro is much harder, and I haven't done the Terran micro, so I can't really say. But Protoss needs to split with templar, approach with templar from multiple angles simultaneously (possibly with warp prism), blink stalkers toward vikings, shift click each viking for stalkers to focus fire, micro zealots back and forth so they charge out of colossus range, pull micro damaged colossi away from vikings, feedback the ghosts, and storm everything. It looks like it's just a-move plus storm, storm storm, but from my end, the Terran micro looks like it's just stim, kite, shoot. It's almost impossible to do either side's micro perfectly, which means there's always room to out-micro your opponent.
On October 25 2012 23:40 sitromit wrote: So your suggestion is to nerf Forcefield and Fungal, then buff Protoss to compensate for the nerf and then nerf Zerg a little more by increasing Roach costs? LOL...
Removing forcefield is a pretty gigantic roach buff as forcefield is currently the only reason roaches don't a-move to victory every game. It makes sense to increase roach cost accordingly.
And I don't really Toss getting buffed much here. Void rays are never used. Carriers are very rarely used because it takes almost 3 minutes to get a fully stocked carrier to your front line, and they're pretty bad until you have about 4 of them. You can't afford to play with a 176 supply cap for 3 minutes, so people don't build them. Reducing build time makes sense.
Hmmm, I thought about it a little on the way into work this morning, and it may not be as strong a buff to P and nerf to Z as I originally thought. In PvT though, it is a strong buff, as fortify allows for strong base defense (just cast it on a pylon on the ramp or an assimilator in the mineral line when T is dropping). Even in PvZ though, it would help holding a 3rd even from mass Roach if cast on a couple of forward Pylons which would control space and force the swarm back. It would mean, however, that Protoss would be forced to turtle in this match-up or constantly cluster around forward pylons, and advance forward behind pylons. Which, when you think about it, sounds rather clunky. Hmmm, I don't like these ideas.
It seems to lead to even more safe turtle play from Protoss in PvT (and fortify seems skill-less unlike FF use), and seems to do the same, or to contort the gameplay in PvZ in a weird and unattractive way. The only think I like are the SG buffs.
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted.
50 Warpgates (at 2 supply/warpin, the number of warpins to be 300/200)? 50? Really? That must have been one long and passive game. Why didn't you kill him while he was spending 7500 on buildings?
Also, maybe I'm just not having enough empathy here, but I have a hard time believing lategame templar vs. ghosts is as hopeless as you make it sound when pro GSL code S protoss players seem to be unable to get the win (and, via what you wrote, were obviously unable to get "decent storms"). There must be more to the matchup than what you wrote, eh?
You need to emp every templar or else blanket storms kill all your marines. EMPs have smaller AOE and protoss units are big. Most people aren't GSL code S pros.
300/200 is just an example to show how warpgates give lategame protoss a huge advantage.
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted.
Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm.
WG gives Protoss an extra production round during an engagement, but MULES give Terran extra supply before the engagement (don't need as many workers).
And not only do ghosts deny storm, they're also good combat units late-game. They're much tankier than marines, EMP does big damage to everything, they deal good DPS vs zealots, and they cloak.
I think the late-game fights are pretty balanced, and they come down to micro and positioning. If vikings snipe a colossus or two ahead of the fight, or if scan+vikings picks off observers for cloaked ghosts to get great EMP's, Terran wins. If Protoss gets a great templar flank to land a blanket of storms, Protoss wins.
I don't think I've ever seen a post-SCV sac maxed fight with a bunch of ghosts where great positioning and control couldn't give Terran a win. Maybe some people think that the Terran side of the micro is much harder, and I haven't done the Terran micro, so I can't really say. But Protoss needs to split with templar, approach with templar from multiple angles simultaneously (possibly with warp prism), blink stalkers toward vikings, shift click each viking for stalkers to focus fire, micro zealots back and forth so they charge out of colossus range, pull micro damaged colossi away from vikings, feedback the ghosts, and storm everything. It looks like it's just a-move plus storm, storm storm, but from my end, the Terran micro looks like it's just stim, kite, shoot. It's almost impossible to do either side's micro perfectly, which means there's always room to out-micro your opponent.
Again, you can't support an orbital farm when you are playing bio TvP. This isn't mech TvT or TvZ. The reason you don't see post SCV sac maxed fights in TvP is because it's not possible.
Cloaking = less emps and any good protoss will have observers everywhere not saying that people shouldn't cloak, just saying it's less EMPs Terran will have.
Again, Marines do more dps than ghosts per supply and are cheaper (1 ghost = 4 marines in cost and another 100 gas and they can't be reactored out). Protoss can pre split and blanket storm while Terrans have to accurately EMP every high templar. The important word here is accurately. The amount of micro needed is just not equal between the two races.
EMP radius is pretty small and protoss units are pretty big so you are going to need a lot of EMPs.
If a protoss has templars, he is most likely not going to have colossi. Colossi are not that hard to deal with TBH because viking micro is no where near as APM intensive as ghost micro.
Stutter stepping with MMM is not as simple as spamming S. You actually get less DPS that way than just A moving because the units at the back stops and doesn't shoot or get a concave. REAL good stutter step (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZm4Bz2MkUQ at around 7 minutes) micro requires upwards of 250-300 apm and you have to do that while macroing and splitting your marines to dodge storms.
On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote: i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz
Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build?
Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably.
Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields.
On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote: i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz
Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build?
Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably.
Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields.
Toss needs to forcefields to hold early roaches before immortals come out.
GARcher, I'm going to stop responding to this lategame PvT argument because it's off-topic, but you should rethink your aversion to orbital farms and ghosts in lategave TvP. Ghosts are actually more supply efficient vs zealots than marines are. A 3/3 ghost does 7.5 DPS per supply to 3/3/3 zealots whereas a stimmed marine does 10 DPS per supply, but ghosts are much tankier and don't take as much splash damage. Without spells, it's a slight edge for ghosts per supply, and with spells, it's a big edge for ghosts.
On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote: i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz
Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build?
Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably.
Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields.
Toss needs to forcefields to hold early roaches before immortals come out.
No they don't. They need scouting, cannons and a wall-off. Do you play P?
On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote: i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz
Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build?
Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably.
Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields.
Toss needs to forcefields to hold early roaches before immortals come out.
No they don't. They need scouting, cannons and a wall-off. Do you play P?
Forcing cannons with a few roaches is already a good trade off for the zerg.
On October 26 2012 04:28 kcdc wrote: GARcher, I'm going to stop responding to this lategame PvT argument because it's off-topic, but you should rethink your aversion to orbital farms and ghosts in lategave TvP. Ghosts are actually more supply efficient vs zealots than marines are. A 3/3 ghost does 7.5 DPS per supply to 3/3/3 zealots whereas a stimmed marine does 10 DPS per supply, but ghosts are much tankier and don't take as much splash damage. Without spells, it's a slight edge for ghosts per supply, and with spells, it's a big edge for ghosts.
Then you should go play a game where you try to build an orbital farm and see how well that goes. What you are saying is that players need to rethink their aversion to use Tanks against Immortals.
Also your math doesn't make sense. For the sake of easy calculations we will use non upgraded troops. ghosts have 13.4 dps against zealots and 6.7 dps against non light. You can't kite with ghosts. They are slow to split and get melted by chargelots almost as quickly as marines. Again, can't be reactored out so slow production time. 2 stimmed marines do 21 dps, can kite with fast movement speed and is cheaper. Faster splits as well. So no they are not more supply efficient against zealots compared to marines.
yes ghosts are needed, but they shouldn't replace your marines in late game TvP.
Ghosts are usually out of energy once the engagement begins because of EMPS. Either that or they get shift queued feedbacked. Face it, ghosts suck after using up their energy. Before the snipe nerf they are actually worth it because you can snipe zealots but 25 energy for 25 damage is just...
Ghosts get +2 vs light per upgrade, which boosts their late game dps relative to marines. And the tankiness is a big deal. If you put 10 supply into marines and they eat a storm, all of that supply is dead. If that supply is in ghosts, nothing dies. You don't have to take my advice, but it's something to think about in a late game stalemate situation where neither side can attack well.
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
It's hard to get a sentry across the map super early, and even if you did, fortify has all of 2 DPS if the opponent spreads his units which is very easy to do in the early game when the unit count is low. It'd be stronger to simply send a stalker.
Except, you know, all those proxy pylons ALWAYS getting up because theyre invulnerable. In general I've notice a lot of your solutions include invulnerability of units, which I think will pan out to be as boring and one-dimensional as the issues that forcefield generates.
Moreover the problem with your Stasis Field idea is that Protoss would always be able to single out half (or a large chunk) of an army. With Vortex you at least have the choice of throwing your whole army in it so it's not doomed.
Your criticisms against force field aren't really against forcefield. You seem to be more frustrated that you don't have options other than forcefield. I don't think getting rid of forcefield solves anything. You should just have another option to deal with roaches.
I could see fungal going from a stopping effect to a slowing effect. I think that would be generally fine.
Isn't vortex really similar to stasis field from BW? Why are they so different?
Im not sure that the best way to make an unbeatable deathblob of slowness more beatable is to make it even more slower and unbeatabledeathblobby though. I think maybe IT has a slightly too low energy cost, and all three of the infestors abilities being extremely powerful against protoss air is a bit problematic, but you put things well.
Nothing else to say, awesome post, i agree with pretty much everything, +1
Isn't vortex really similar to stasis field from BW? Why are they so different?
On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote: Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting?
T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes.
For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins.
I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense.
But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways.
No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted.
Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm.
WG gives Protoss an extra production round during an engagement, but MULES give Terran extra supply before the engagement (don't need as many workers).
And not only do ghosts deny storm, they're also good combat units late-game. They're much tankier than marines, EMP does big damage to everything, they deal good DPS vs zealots, and they cloak.
I think the late-game fights are pretty balanced, and they come down to micro and positioning. If vikings snipe a colossus or two ahead of the fight, or if scan+vikings picks off observers for cloaked ghosts to get great EMP's, Terran wins. If Protoss gets a great templar flank to land a blanket of storms, Protoss wins.
I don't think I've ever seen a post-SCV sac maxed fight with a bunch of ghosts where great positioning and control couldn't give Terran a win. Maybe some people think that the Terran side of the micro is much harder, and I haven't done the Terran micro, so I can't really say. But Protoss needs to split with templar, approach with templar from multiple angles simultaneously (possibly with warp prism), blink stalkers toward vikings, shift click each viking for stalkers to focus fire, micro zealots back and forth so they charge out of colossus range, pull micro damaged colossi away from vikings, feedback the ghosts, and storm everything. It looks like it's just a-move plus storm, storm storm, but from my end, the Terran micro looks like it's just stim, kite, shoot. It's almost impossible to do either side's micro perfectly, which means there's always room to out-micro your opponent.
I play Random. It's near infinitely harder micro wise on the Terran side. As in, I rarely lose PvT lategame, while I generally lose TvP lategame unless it gets late enough (via my camping) that I can transition to BC. TvP feels fucking impossible, and PvT feels like I'm just rolling them, generally speaking. Not to say I don't win TvP engagements with MMMVG ever nor saying I don't ever lose with Zealot/Archon/Stalker/Sentry/HT/Colo/DT (don't use FF though lategame, just a sentry for GS, and DT to force scans).
The mules don't give any "extra supply" pre-battle.... supplies are generally even. The chronoboost gives the P the extra mining to keep up with Terran mining, and if T sacs his SCVs he's super vulnerable from then on, even if he's amassed like 7 OC's. It's just not the same as having a constant income vs spiked income followed by nothing. Your production isn't as suited for it.
On November 04 2012 05:14 FabledIntegral wrote: The mules don't give any "extra supply" pre-battle.... supplies are generally even. The chronoboost gives the P the extra mining to keep up with Terran mining, and if T sacs his SCVs he's super vulnerable from then on, even if he's amassed like 7 OC's. It's just not the same as having a constant income vs spiked income followed by nothing. Your production isn't as suited for it.
I won't comment on the lategame micro difficulty levels becasue I don't play the Terran side, but this argument was a little silly. Chronoboost doesn't give Protoss improved mining efficiency in late-game at all. Once you hit your optimal worker count (~72), you don't use chronoboost on workers.
An OC is worth about 4 workers in mineral income. If Terran gets 6 orbitals (not at all uncommon in lategame), he can sacrifice 24 workers and have the same average income as Protoss. Yes, the income is in spikes, but that's actually an advantage. It's better to have 1500 minerals over 90 seconds followed by 0 minerals over 30 seconds than to have 1500 minerals spread evenly over 120 seconds because MULE income is front-loaded which gives you the option to spend those minerals sooner. Maybe you want to bank some of the extra minerals to spend them evenly minerals over the 120 seconds, or maybe you want to spend it all up front, but it's always better to have the choice.
The main point, however, is that if both players need a 72 worker income and T has 6 OC's, P needs to spend 72 supply on workers and Terran needs to spend only 48 supply on workers. Both sides total supply is 200, but Terran has 152 army supply while Protoss only has 128 army supply. That's a big deal, and it off-sets the reinforcement advantage that Protoss gets.
broodlord infestor is the reason i lost interest in the game. once zerg gets 'to that stage of the game' there's pretty much nothing you can do really. unless you are code S calibre ofcourse.
your changes seem like a good direction to take. Anything really to tone down that dumb OP combo tbh.
Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
On November 04 2012 05:14 FabledIntegral wrote: The mules don't give any "extra supply" pre-battle.... supplies are generally even. The chronoboost gives the P the extra mining to keep up with Terran mining, and if T sacs his SCVs he's super vulnerable from then on, even if he's amassed like 7 OC's. It's just not the same as having a constant income vs spiked income followed by nothing. Your production isn't as suited for it.
I won't comment on the lategame micro difficulty levels becasue I don't play the Terran side, but this argument was a little silly. Chronoboost doesn't give Protoss improved mining efficiency in late-game at all. Once you hit your optimal worker count (~72), you don't use chronoboost on workers.
An OC is worth about 4 workers in mineral income. If Terran gets 6 orbitals (not at all uncommon in lategame), he can sacrifice 24 workers and have the same average income as Protoss. Yes, the income is in spikes, but that's actually an advantage. It's better to have 1500 minerals over 90 seconds followed by 0 minerals over 30 seconds than to have 1500 minerals spread evenly over 120 seconds because MULE income is front-loaded which gives you the option to spend those minerals sooner. Maybe you want to bank some of the extra minerals to spend them evenly minerals over the 120 seconds, or maybe you want to spend it all up front, but it's always better to have the choice.
The main point, however, is that if both players need a 72 worker income and T has 6 OC's, P needs to spend 72 supply on workers and Terran needs to spend only 48 supply on workers. Both sides total supply is 200, but Terran has 152 army supply while Protoss only has 128 army supply. That's a big deal, and it off-sets the reinforcement advantage that Protoss gets.
I didn't get your original point on supply, got it now concerning chrono.
However, no, he can't sacrifices that many workers. You're assuming a Terran player isn't scanning whatsoever lategame, and I'd heavily argue that scans are used MORE often than mules in most cases, unless Terran has a ridiculous foothold and mapawareness.
In retrospect, you're right about the spikes, although I wouldn't see it as too much of an advantage, as your production should be catered to assuming you'd produce evenly over those 120 seconds. Assuming Terran isn't harassed (which affects mules significantly more than SCVs), then I guess it could come out as even. Although 6 orbitals is more so late lategame, where people are generally cashfloating (as at least one of Terrans bases around the time of 5 base is a PF, you've seen even players like Taeja lose specifically to chargelot counters).
Although I'd say a flaw in your logic is that army supplies mean that the fight is even on both sides. From experience, I'd sooner argue that a 152 Terran army supply is around equal in battle to a 128 Protoss army supply, and the two should wipe each other out. And that's assuming you got to the point where you could sacrifice SCVs. Very battle dependent, but if two armies are coming out even, and Protoss can have insta-warpins, that's where the discrepancy is.
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
You need to nerf forcefields and fungal growth but your ways are not the best. Concerning FF i'm not sure what is to be done, but with infestorsd I feel that fungal should just have its radius decreased by 0.5. That would make a huge difference. Also, Terran is getting absolutely destroyed at all levels currently, does not deserve any nerfs to the marine.
The more I see fungal growth completely lock up units entirely in matches, the more it pisses me off. I'd even be ok with 80% slowdown of movement or something but 100% is just a complete bastard.
Weaken the new sentry spell a tad and let it be cast on enemy structures as well. It could have some pretty interested bunker bust implications, as well as force some additional micro against zerg amies sitting on top of spine crawler walls
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
yeah that might have worked when we all first started to play and they could have balanced around that, but at this point FF's are so key to almost every point in the game that it would make protoss obsolete, or like i said take ages to balance just for 1 tiny change.
Would anybody here want to test out these sort of changes to FF / Fungal / Roaches on an edited map? I could cook something up in a few minutes if you could agree on a set of changes.
I like Fungal being a slow instead of a root, but I don't feel very good about the damage output being as high as it is. I don't like the ability locking out blink, either, cause mid / late game stalker pokes could be cool to watch. I guess if 8 seconds of attack / movement speed slow, and 38 damage isn't enough, you could try reverting the neural parasite change.
You need to think of something else for the force field replacement. I'm thinking it would be wiser to just increase forcefield cost, and then compensate for the change by making it unbreakable by massive units. Maybe buff guardian shield and sentry health? I dunno, really. The whole thing is just a terrible, terrible mess.
+1 there are at the very least major minor tweaks as I call them that should be done like unit pushing, micro able air in particular the carrier and the miss shot variance for cliffs is a dam fine idea too its still implemented in every moba and probably warcraft 3?
Honestly I think your changes to the infestor would make it stronger. Reducing enemy atk speed? Do you know how much dps marines would lose? If a zerg lands 3-4 fungals that is an insane amount of mitigated dmg while slowing them so they can't exactly get away or kite either. I think forcefield is a bit strong right now and there are a few things they could do but removing it entirely would create several problems. I think fungal AND force field should be researched. Both infestor and sentry should be given a cheaper and weaker ability to replace. This would overall make the unit stronger (more spells) so it would keep the players of the race happy while limiting the use of the 'OP' spells. And as long as the new spell isn't something worthless but yet still fairly weak, it shouldn't create any imbalances.
On November 04 2012 10:26 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Would anybody here want to test out these sort of changes to FF / Fungal / Roaches on an edited map? I could cook something up in a few minutes if you could agree on a set of changes.
I like Fungal being a slow instead of a root, but I don't feel very good about the damage output being as high as it is. I don't like the ability locking out blink, either, cause mid / late game stalker pokes could be cool to watch. I guess if 8 seconds of attack / movement speed slow, and 38 damage isn't enough, you could try reverting the neural parasite change.
You need to think of something else for the force field replacement. I'm thinking it would be wiser to just increase forcefield cost, and then compensate for the change by making it unbreakable by massive units. Maybe buff guardian shield and sentry health? I dunno, really. The whole thing is just a terrible, terrible mess.
I'd like to see these changes too. If Fortify doesn't end up being fun, maybe Forcefield could reduce enemy armor within its area - this would encourage micro on both sides.
On November 04 2012 10:26 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Would anybody here want to test out these sort of changes to FF / Fungal / Roaches on an edited map? I could cook something up in a few minutes if you could agree on a set of changes.
I like Fungal being a slow instead of a root, but I don't feel very good about the damage output being as high as it is. I don't like the ability locking out blink, either, cause mid / late game stalker pokes could be cool to watch. I guess if 8 seconds of attack / movement speed slow, and 38 damage isn't enough, you could try reverting the neural parasite change.
You need to think of something else for the force field replacement. I'm thinking it would be wiser to just increase forcefield cost, and then compensate for the change by making it unbreakable by massive units. Maybe buff guardian shield and sentry health? I dunno, really. The whole thing is just a terrible, terrible mess.
Fungal not preventing blink would make +2 blink allins too strong I feel combined with an increased roach cost.
Forcefield being unbreakable by massive units would only really impact PvP for the worse. Increasing sentry health would not be necessary if fungal only slowed since getting fungaled wouldn't lock them in place anymore.
Good post, kcdc. I completely agree with your general sentiment about how forcefield, fungal growth and vortex are bad for the game and that they should be looked at / changed / redesigned / removed, though I don't necessarily agree with the specific fixes you suggested.
Imho it's sooo important to nerf Fungal now. It's the only way to introduce new playstyles because to be honest: why should Zerg build something else then Infestors?
I really like how you defined the problems, and your solution to those problems are also very good and creative.
I would really like to test them out, i wish there would be someone with map/mod making skills that could make this happen.
It would change the game in so many ways, but I guess that's what we are all looking for - the same awesome game that is starcraft 2, though with some minor tweaks to perfect the game balance and also make more interesting and creative ways to play other than just the standard builds and unit compositions we see all the time.
Hey OP, great job identifying and explaining why fungal and forcefield are just really bad and limiting abilities. I really like protoss since BW but playing protoss in WoL is really no fun, you HAVE TO place perfect force fields and you HAVE TO tech for collossus. so boring.
Some points I would like to add:
- In HotS you can no longer warp in to the high ground - if FF is removed gateway units ABSOLUTELY NEED a buff, a skill to help with defending buildings is not enough, the units themselves need to be able to fight bio and roaches without forcefields
-An alternative nerf to fungal might be to either do damage OR immobilize and block the use of abilities -again if fungal is nerfed something else would need a buff and this could be the hydra for example, which is still underused
So I agree with what your saying but I am not so sure about all of your suggestions. But in principle: -remove FF -nerf fungal -balance the other units again around the new situation (-and remove vortex or even better the whole boring mothership)
• Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
This feels like a buff to fungal. While this allows your units to somewhat try to escape it at the same time lowers their dps with 30%? When you got fungled your units where at least fighting, now instead of fighting you have to make some attempt to escape with 40% movement speed,(wich wont work against zerg..) fighing with 30% dps reduced does not seem an option. Am specifically thinking about zvz roach infestor engagements here, where people usually dont want to retreat annyway, and the fungal is just extra dps basicly, not sure how this is in other matchups but at first impression this seems like a buff to fungal.
Well concussive slows movement speed by 50% for about 1 second and you think you will be able to micro when fungal does the same thing? The micro involved with fungal is preventing the back to back fungal using other units, and pre-splitting units so they cannot be fungaled. Theres tons of micro to be done with fungal and reducing it to a slow will not change a thing at all.
Infact its a straight buff to fungal imagine blink stalkers blink under a bunch of broods... spam fungal all the stalkers, no way in hell they will try to run, and now they have a 30% lower dps? Jeeze ur making broodlord infestor even stronger...
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
For FF: How about roaches can innately move while burrowed, like infestors? Then remove regen while burrowed, so FF isn't completely useless versus mass roaches. Z can quickly have burrowed movement well before the immortal sentry 2 base happens. It's easier to take a third with the mothership core, anyway.
What about splitting forcefield up into 2 different spells, maybe removing hallucination (Adding it to the nexus as a viable scout opportunity?)
First you have spell one,
can only be cast on buildings - Surrounds the building with a forcefield, making it invulnerable to melee attack (Also massive units) and repair. Possibly needs to reduce the duration or nerfing it to absorbing a certain amount of damage or repair (to make it weaker as a busting tool)
Then you could add some spell to buff your army as well. The second spell could be something to help army combat, just like forcefield does. Im not really sure what would be appropriate here.
Things like "Hallucinate - creates a hallucination on a unit, this unit deals 100% damage, and all damage done to the cloned unit goes to the hallucination first" Lasts 5 seconds on massive, 15 on everything else. Every unit can only be cloned once
maybe give timewarp to the sentry, theres so many possibilities
I also feel there needs to be a surviveability upgrade for sentries, so they actually do something in the lategame
On November 05 2012 11:36 Rassy wrote: • Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
This feels like a buff to fungal. While this allows your units to somewhat try to escape it at the same time lowers their dps with 30%? When you got fungled your units where at least fighting, now instead of fighting you have to make some attempt to escape with 40% movement speed,(wich wont work against zerg..) fighing with 30% dps reduced does not seem an option. Am specifically thinking about zvz roach infestor engagements here, where people usually dont want to retreat annyway, and the fungal is just extra dps basicly, not sure how this is in other matchups but at first impression this seems like a buff to fungal.
In 90% of situations I'd take a damage RoF reduction to having my units snared.
Having your units snared means that you'll be chained to death. You can't run behind your siege tanks. Even with lots of FF, if the infestors are in range and you have no colossus, the chain fungal WILL kill your blink stalkers/immortals/sentries (it's not uncommon for infestor fungal to kill ALL sentries because it only takes 3 fungals to kill them).
This is no way is a buff, it's a massive, massive nerf... the potency of fungal relies 100% in it's snare capabilities. RoF reductions means you can fire your first shot, then just retreat before firing again after a longer duration.
I mean hell, ensnare in BW completely cancelled out the 100% RoF stim gave to marines (so halving their RoF) while simultaneously putting on a 50% snare, and the ability was almost never used. Granted, it affected units differently (like having zero effect on goliath RoF wtf), and was significantly harder to use, really it's not as dramatic as you would assume, especially since it's only affecting the units in the fungal range.
I'm thinking that even if you had a 60% reduction in RoF with a 40% reduction movement speed it would still be a notable nerf to what exists now. Think about it... medivacs/warp prisms can still escape, zealots would be infinitely more useful, you could retreat from infestors by utilizing FF (as explained above, you can't right now), vikings could pull back from corrupters and insta split if they're all caught in a single fungal and prevent being chained.... marines would still be moving faster than when normally unstimmed....
While I think FF was designed poorly, I don't think it should be changed at this point. Fungal absolutely positively 100% needs to be changed from a pure utility value of game enjoyment, regardless of balance. Right now it simply isn't fun.... I truly believe the only reason Blizzard won't turn it into a slow from a complete stop-snare is because it would then resemble ensnare from BW too much, and they're really trying to differentiate it from its predecessor.
I don't think there is any issue with forcefield. It helps to make protoss units more cost efficient. The entire problem now with the game is Infestors, broodlords, mother ship and collosus. Roaches are actually badly design but forcefield can negate that. Broodlords are actually not that powerful without Infestors. IMO Zergs can actually still win games without Infestors. I seriously hate facing Zerg, lol, I find Infestors too imba.
On November 05 2012 12:54 Zaurus wrote: I don't think there is any issue with forcefield. It helps to make protoss units more cost efficient. The entire problem now with the game is Infestors, broodlords, mother ship and collosus. Roaches are actually badly design but forcefield can negate that. Broodlords are actually not that powerful without Infestors. IMO Zergs can actually still win games without Infestors. I seriously hate facing Zerg, lol, I find Infestors too imba.
I think people would agree they *can* win games without infestors (although it would have to completely change the playstyle), but the question is why they ever would, with the exception of trying to throw their opponent off.....
There isn't really an issue with Colossus beyond it's ridiculous ease of use. In terms of actual balance, it's whatever. Only really an issue in PvT lategame where it makes the micro on the Terran side ridiculously harder. But at least it's beatable and not "ok some spell makes it so all my units are doing 0 dmg to you while my units all die."
I remember watching a replay with Select TvZ on Daybreak where a maxed engagement resulted in the Zerg's "units lost tab" not even increasing by FIFTY minerals. The Zerg didn't lose a single unit and Select lost like 50+ supply, only killing broodlings. THAT is fucking stupid (Zerg brought mass queen which infinitely transfused the BL's before the vikings could manage to get the second or third volley off for the killing blow on the single unit...).
I know you're not necessarily disagreeing, I just think the issue is more so with the infestor and infestor only compared to the units you listed.
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
Sigh. Can't believe you didn't even spend the paltry amount of time it would require to realize that your idea of "Fortify" as stated would encourage aggressive pylon/assimilator placement and use that as a weapon. Would be fun to watch but no more balanced or sensible than an idea from a UMS.
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries.
Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential.
So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
On November 05 2012 11:36 Rassy wrote: • Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
This feels like a buff to fungal. While this allows your units to somewhat try to escape it at the same time lowers their dps with 30%? When you got fungled your units where at least fighting, now instead of fighting you have to make some attempt to escape with 40% movement speed,(wich wont work against zerg..) fighing with 30% dps reduced does not seem an option. Am specifically thinking about zvz roach infestor engagements here, where people usually dont want to retreat annyway, and the fungal is just extra dps basicly, not sure how this is in other matchups but at first impression this seems like a buff to fungal.
In 90% of situations I'd take a damage RoF reduction to having my units snared.
Having your units snared means that you'll be chained to death. You can't run behind your siege tanks. Even with lots of FF, if the infestors are in range and you have no colossus, the chain fungal WILL kill your blink stalkers/immortals/sentries (it's not uncommon for infestor fungal to kill ALL sentries because it only takes 3 fungals to kill them).
This is no way is a buff, it's a massive, massive nerf... the potency of fungal relies 100% in it's snare capabilities. RoF reductions means you can fire your first shot, then just retreat before firing again after a longer duration.
I mean hell, ensnare in BW completely cancelled out the 100% RoF stim gave to marines (so halving their RoF) while simultaneously putting on a 50% snare, and the ability was almost never used. Granted, it affected units differently (like having zero effect on goliath RoF wtf), and was significantly harder to use, really it's not as dramatic as you would assume, especially since it's only affecting the units in the fungal range.
I'm thinking that even if you had a 60% reduction in RoF with a 40% reduction movement speed it would still be a notable nerf to what exists now. Think about it... medivacs/warp prisms can still escape, zealots would be infinitely more useful, you could retreat from infestors by utilizing FF (as explained above, you can't right now), vikings could pull back from corrupters and insta split if they're all caught in a single fungal and prevent being chained.... marines would still be moving faster than when normally unstimmed....
While I think FF was designed poorly, I don't think it should be changed at this point. Fungal absolutely positively 100% needs to be changed from a pure utility value of game enjoyment, regardless of balance. Right now it simply isn't fun.... I truly believe the only reason Blizzard won't turn it into a slow from a complete stop-snare is because it would then resemble ensnare from BW too much, and they're really trying to differentiate it from its predecessor.
Make a custom map would probly take 10 minutes. Try it out and come back and let us know ^^
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries.
Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential.
So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
you can only have 19 larva per hatch max I actually think the game currently is ok with all these so called "burst" production other than Warp gate.
This is due to the fact that Toss can remax ANYWHERE way too quickly and due to ball effect, it will just crush any small number of remax.
We don't really see just big ball vs big ball until max, there are little skirmish in most games before it gets to late game. The little skirmish in mid game tries to slow economy down, pull the opponent army out of position etc are fun to watch. Then max deathball battle has its own micro positioning compared to the small skirmishes micro.
Biggest problem is that the ball vs ball battle lasts too short with little to see, you can't run away easily due to fungal, FF, stim etc. Then the game is almost always decided by that one single ball engagement, no comeback chance whatsoever.
That's why I think fixing infestors bl deathball is not important at all. We had similar problem before where Protoss deathball was almost unbeatable and zerg had to trade extremely poorly with roach hydra corruptors and usually just lose to a quick warp in mass gateway units.
We need something that allows more comeback while having ball battles
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries.
Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential.
So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
Hmm.... I definitely agree with your point on maximum larvae capacity, although that could as well always be an adjustable number, no? As of right now, it does have a max capacity, but at a ridiculous value of like... 19 or something?
Your concern about Terran isn't really relevant imo. Mules increase mineral mining, sure. But I don't really see how "Terran can have a higher mining income now" be an issue to what you're saying. As it averages around 4 extra workers of mining time overall (although the mining income is front-loaded admittedly contributing to your issue with it), it's really not some "holy shit this is way excessive." Marines don't really seem to flood the field in some "I can't keep up with this way." But I guess that's subjective.
Reactors are questionably relevant as well. From my perspective, their greatest utility is not their increased production capacity, but their ability to save building space (which is a different root cause, but still contributes to your issue of production ability). Because really, in the grand scheme of things, there isn't a huge massive difference between spending 50/50 on a reactor or an additional 150 minerals on another rax. Sure, the reactor in many cases is beneficial, but the actual lessor alternative isn't very significant, besides building space. Oh, and the extreme convenience you get of course from being able to build them when supply blocked.... but that's irrelevant and much more pertinent to me personally .
Warpgates are flawed only in their early game because of the single round of burst potential you mention exactly, and I really despise how it works, but I also fail to see how this is in any way breaking the game or causing major issues. It's poorly designed, sure, but the net impact on the game really that profound, at least in any manner that causes for a complete ground up rehaul of the mechanic.
What do you mean that casuals will be swamped? That they can't handle it? I don't really see their macro being terrible as a counterargument for the sole reason they will be matched up against similar players on the ladder (50% win ratio over time). I may need this argument to be fleshed out a little more....
As it is, the challenge of microing these large blobs as is, is what creates the skill gaps. Sure you might say you can afford to throw units away, but those that are the top *won't* throw them away. They'll still micro them for maximum utility, even if the gain is only marginal. I don't see how your arguments against burst potential result in the conclusion that if we remove them, the game becomes somehow more interesting (for example, the spectator community in WC3 is pitiful compared to that of SC:BW. I personally utterly hated watching the micro battles in WC3 and thought it was absolutely an awful quality).
It seems to me your issue lies almost soley in the fact that the burst potential creates the ability to create extremely powerful timing attacks if not scouted, and at the same time reduce the available amount of time to even scout these attacks since you don't have to start pumping out units as early. Which is true, and this is an issue, but I don't see how it results in anything else you mentioned such as deathballs.... etc. More units to me means more opportunities for minute tactical maneauvers, runbys, flanks, counters, drops, etc. .
Proposed sentry changes: Remove forcefield Guardian shield. As is but protect units from fungal and EMP Add shield battery function - like sc/bw right clicking a unit on sentry recharges the shield on the unit
I hate three units in this game. Sentries, ghosts and infestors. In my view, as a protoss player, this along with removing fungal 100% root fix all I hate about them. The shield function would preserve sentries as a backbone unit and properly buff protoss units early game compensating for the loss of ff. Balancing could be done via starting energy/shield per energy/max energy/regeneration levels.
Not proposed but funny: One funny idea I had was if the guardian shield would add +1 range on all units. Quite sure +1 range zealots would be completely imbalanced tho (lightsaber length on those psi blades ).
A slow is just a weaker root; its purpose is the same: to limit micro. This is bad. Instead, it should force micro. Remove the root from Fungal and add a status effect that makes units take additional damage. Like, a lot of additional damage. 25-50 percent more. This way, fungaled units have to be microed to the back or they will be demolished. This forces micro instead of removing. More micro, more skill.
For Force Field, change the range to self, like the Guardian Shield. It forms around the sentry, pushing units away and making the sentry immobile, invincible and unable to attack - like its own personal stasis field. Accompanied by a slight radius increase, this would still allow the Sentry to be used for blocking ramps and those types of defensive maneuvers, but would stop it from limiting micro and control. Additionally, add another aura spell that increases friendly unit movement speed. This would facilitate escapes and retreats that the current Force Field helps with. Call it "Energon Field" because that sounds good.
The big problem with Vortex is the exit: units exit all clumped up. So, change that: make units leave the vortex in the same position that the entered. Yes, this is functionally the same as Stasis Field, but it retains the "coolness" factor of Vortex.
While we're on the subject...
Gravitron beam: This is a stun. Stun's are also bad. Make it an AoE spell. Units in the field can be hit by air attacks. Additionally, I think it should have one of two effects: either ground units in the field cannot attack air or air units in the field cannot be hit by units on the ground.
Concussive shells: Again, slows are bad. Change this to a castable ability with a small knockback. This would allow concussive shells to fill its role delaying enemies for a short time without limiting the control and micro that a player can perform.
250mm Strike Cannons: Just ax it. Seriously, no one uses this. If it must be replaced, I think an AoE air attack could be helpful, to actually make the Thor viable against auto-spread Mutalisks. Or give the Thor a self targeting Defensive Matrix to give it added survivability against Tanks, Immortals and Brood Lords.
There you go: these are all my ideas for dealing with micro-limiting abilities.
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries.
Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential.
So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
Hmm.... I definitely agree with your point on maximum larvae capacity, although that could as well always be an adjustable number, no? As of right now, it does have a max capacity, but at a ridiculous value of like... 19 or something?
Your concern about Terran isn't really relevant imo. Mules increase mineral mining, sure. But I don't really see how "Terran can have a higher mining income now" be an issue to what you're saying. As it averages around 4 extra workers of mining time overall (although the mining income is front-loaded admittedly contributing to your issue with it), it's really not some "holy shit this is way excessive." Marines don't really seem to flood the field in some "I can't keep up with this way." But I guess that's subjective.
Reactors are questionably relevant as well. From my perspective, their greatest utility is not their increased production capacity, but their ability to save building space (which is a different root cause, but still contributes to your issue of production ability). Because really, in the grand scheme of things, there isn't a huge massive difference between spending 50/50 on a reactor or an additional 150 minerals on another rax. Sure, the reactor in many cases is beneficial, but the actual lessor alternative isn't very significant, besides building space. Oh, and the extreme convenience you get of course from being able to build them when supply blocked.... but that's irrelevant and much more pertinent to me personally .
Warpgates are flawed only in their early game because of the single round of burst potential you mention exactly, and I really despise how it works, but I also fail to see how this is in any way breaking the game or causing major issues. It's poorly designed, sure, but the net impact on the game really that profound, at least in any manner that causes for a complete ground up rehaul of the mechanic.
What do you mean that casuals will be swamped? That they can't handle it? I don't really see their macro being terrible as a counterargument for the sole reason they will be matched up against similar players on the ladder (50% win ratio over time). I may need this argument to be fleshed out a little more....
As it is, the challenge of microing these large blobs as is, is what creates the skill gaps. Sure you might say you can afford to throw units away, but those that are the top *won't* throw them away. They'll still micro them for maximum utility, even if the gain is only marginal. I don't see how your arguments against burst potential result in the conclusion that if we remove them, the game becomes somehow more interesting (for example, the spectator community in WC3 is pitiful compared to that of SC:BW. I personally utterly hated watching the micro battles in WC3 and thought it was absolutely an awful quality).
It seems to me your issue lies almost soley in the fact that the burst potential creates the ability to create extremely powerful timing attacks if not scouted, and at the same time reduce the available amount of time to even scout these attacks since you don't have to start pumping out units as early. Which is true, and this is an issue, but I don't see how it results in anything else you mentioned such as deathballs.... etc. More units to me means more opportunities for minute tactical maneauvers, runbys, flanks, counters, drops, etc. .
Sorry for the excessively long post. My fault .
The problem of the production speed boosts for the three races is that they "kick in" at different times and thus generate an advantage for each race at the respective time. That's why reactore Hellions are so dangerous, because you will have a large number of them roasting Drones without sufficient defenses for the Zerg (unless he sacrificed economy to get some) and thats why 4-gate and any early Warp Gate builds are so dangerous as well. IMO it is better to not have these imbalances in the game, because they only do one thing: multiply the imbalances of the respective units.
Having specific "timings" for attacks isnt so bad when you have figured it out, but what happens when Blizzard adds in new units? Everything has to be rebalanced again in a much more serious way than it would be needed if these new units would only come out slowly. Massive numbers of Widow Mines or Battle Hellions are going to affect the balance a lot, but the same is going to be true for new Zerg stuff.
Terrans having a higher income does increase their production capabilities by the simple fact that the 270 minerals from a MULE are resources which wouldnt be there otherwise and which allow the Terran to build an additional barracks plus some Marines. You could also have another CC plus Orbital for two MULEs ... so a boost for the economy of the Terran actually increases their production capacity. The main reason why the MULE should be scrapped is that inject larva and chronoboost are the economic speed boosts for Zerg and Protoss and would be removed since they also function as unit production boosts and if those races cant have any economic boosts then Terrans shouldnt have one either.
As a casual you play your game at maybe half the speed of a progamer and if one of them decides "its time to attack" they simply switch from producing Drones to fully producing units instead or just making a ton of Warp Gates and a proxy pylon and then heading into their opponents base. The defneder then is swamped by a huge amount of units he wasnt really prepared for, because his lack of scouting gave him no warning. Thus the game is "too fast" for casuals from a production standpoint IMO.
More units sadly dont mean "more opportunities for minute tactical maneuvers" since you have too many units to control. All that means is "bigger blobs" and more "large scale micro" (movement/positioning of blobs). "More units" doesnt equate to "better battles"; the opposite is true IMO, because of the "fish swarm effect" you cant really see the individual units anymore. More units in the current state of the game really only mean a bigger blob since the deathball is the most efficient way to win ... "bring overwhelming force against a part of your opponents army and you will lose less than they do". Simple and sad logic. Sadly the race which is supposed to win by reproducing quicker than the others has also gotten/will get the most ridiculous number of free unit generators imaginable.
Forcefield, Fungal and Vortex are AoE effects which should have been nerfed alongside Siege Tank AoE damage. They arent really fun but they are crutches to make the game with its tight clumps of units work. I think Banelings should be added to that list as well, because the instant damage stacks too well against buildings and thus an "over time damage" would be much better. That one could be fixed by reducing the "density" of the Baneling units though and increasing the AoE damage again.
I was thinking about it, and while numbers would need to be completely retweaked for balance, what do people think about fungal completely killing all useable and passive abilities? You could have it also keep its damage and change it to a slow (at whatever percent you want depending on how potent this ability actually ends up being in gameplay. If it has little effect, make it like an 80% slow, if it has a ridiculous effect, change it to like a 30% slow or even no slow if it's way more powerful than I anticipate). Depending on how much you want to limit the slow, you could also implement a RoF decrease, although this might get too "complicated" for Blizzard.
This is abilities I envision it affecting, copied and pasted from another thread I just posted in
Terran: - SCVs can't mine, repair, or make buildings - Marines can't stim - Marauders can't stim and conc no longer applies - Medivacs no longer can heal or unload - Ghosts can't cloak (I usually cloak as soon as fungaled b/c as soon as it wears off, it activates, forcing an immediate chain fungal and making it so you don't have to wait for fungal to wear off to use it), EMP, or Nuke - Siege tanks cannot Siege or Unsiege (could be SUPER powerful, but still better than current imo) - Thors can't strike cannon (OH NOES) - Vikings can't land (although I think this is already accomplished?) - Ravens can't use autoturret, PDD, or seeker AND detection is cancelled - Banshees can't cloak (once again not too significant but I ALWAYS cloak my fungaled shees preemptively and it helps far more than one would imagine) - BC's cannot use Yamato
Protoss:
- Probes can't mine or make buildings - Zealots can't charge (although at least they can still move unlike the current fungal which renders them almost useless) - Stalkers can't blink (doesn't change :o) - Sentries can't cast Guardian Shield/Force Field - Dark Templar not only lose cloaking but can't morph into an Archon (although I guess they couldn't already) - High Templar can't feedback, storm, or morph into Archon - Observer loses detection ability on top of cloak - Warp Prism can't switch modes, can't unload, (and if desirable, a fungal immediately cancels all warping in units from a Warp Prism!) - Immortal hardened shields deactivated (up to debate...) - Colossi can't walk up/down cliffs (although I don't know if this is doable especially if already on a cliff) - Phoenix can't lift - Void rays decharge to first phase - Carriers can't remake interceptors (and maybe even can't launch if not already out? Although who wants to nerf them really....) - Mothership can't cast vortex or recall
Zerg: (Well this part is kinda unnecessary but why not) - Drones can't mine or morph into buildings - No unit can burrow, although it's already like this - If eggs are burrowed, perhaps their build time stops counting for 4 seconds? :o - Stops zergling --> baneling timer from continuing during morph, detonated banelings lose their bonus dmg vs buildings - Queens can't lay tumors, inject, or transfuse - Overseers lose detection ability, overlords can no longer load/unload nor drop creep - Roaches don't heal when burrowed, still can't unburrow (which would actually increase fungals potency) - Hydra extra speed bonus diminished on creep, only moves as fast as the normal speed bonus gives Zerg units, and then movement speed is reduced based on that number (although possibly a totally unnecessary change) - Muta glave shot no longer bounces - Corrupters can't corrupt - Other infestors can't cast infested Terrans, fungal, or NP (although this might cause the game to revolve around who can get a fungal on other infestors which might be dumb....) - Corrupters can't morph into BL's, those midmorphing have their timer delayed - BL reload is effectively delayed as the additional broodling fails to spawn to be thrown at the enemy, although it can attack with any already pregenerated broodlings - Technically I guess it should negate ultras frenzied ability, although I'm not sure how that would work since frenzy is supposed to make it immune from snares.... well it would cancel burrow charge in HOTS!
On November 05 2012 14:58 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote: A slow is just a weaker root; its purpose is the same: to limit micro. This is bad. Instead, it should force micro. Remove the root from Fungal and add a status effect that makes units take additional damage. Like, a lot of additional damage. 25-50 percent more. This way, fungaled units have to be microed to the back or they will be demolished. This forces micro instead of removing. More micro, more skill.
For Force Field, change the range to self, like the Guardian Shield. It forms around the sentry, pushing units away and making the sentry immobile, invincible and unable to attack - like its own personal stasis field. Accompanied by a slight radius increase, this would still allow the Sentry to be used for blocking ramps and those types of defensive maneuvers, but would stop it from limiting micro and control. Additionally, add another aura spell that increases friendly unit movement speed. This would facilitate escapes and retreats that the current Force Field helps with. Call it "Energon Field" because that sounds good.
The big problem with Vortex is the exit: units exit all clumped up. So, change that: make units leave the vortex in the same position that the entered. Yes, this is functionally the same as Stasis Field, but it retains the "coolness" factor of Vortex.
While we're on the subject...
Gravitron beam: This is a stun. Stun's are also bad. Make it an AoE spell. Units in the field can be hit by air attacks. Additionally, I think it should have one of two effects: either ground units in the field cannot attack air or air units in the field cannot be hit by units on the ground.
Concussive shells: Again, slows are bad. Change this to a castable ability with a small knockback. This would allow concussive shells to fill its role delaying enemies for a short time without limiting the control and micro that a player can perform.
250mm Strike Cannons: Just ax it. Seriously, no one uses this. If it must be replaced, I think an AoE air attack could be helpful, to actually make the Thor viable against auto-spread Mutalisks. Or give the Thor a self targeting Defensive Matrix to give it added survivability against Tanks, Immortals and Brood Lords.
There you go: these are all my ideas for dealing with micro-limiting abilities.
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.
On the fungal growth subject: How about a "Restore" ability (similar to the medic's ability in BW), but make it an area of effect ability. I wouldn't mind having a couple of Oracles or Sentries late game with that ability with the sole purpose of negating Fungal Growths.
This way (atleast for PvZ) the current Fungal Growth ability can stay as it currently is and will also promote lategame Oracle or Sentry usage.
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.
On November 05 2012 16:40 Hoender wrote: On the fungal growth subject: How about a "Restore" ability (similar to the medic's ability in BW), but make it an area of effect ability. I wouldn't mind having a couple of Oracles or Sentries late game with that ability with the sole purpose of negating Fungal Growths.
This way (atleast for PvZ) the current Fungal Growth ability can stay as it currently is and will also promote lategame Oracle or Sentry usage.
Such a radical ability as Fungal Growth are actually very terrible for a game, because there is no way to counter them. Giving only one race an ability to "get out" is equally terrible.
Either the spell gets removed OR it gets changed to pure damage only ... maybe like the Plague of the Defiler, but then why doesnt the game have Defilers in the first place? For the cost of just 75 energy it is simply too powerful and even Infested Terran is an awful spell, because it stacks. This is the real "make or break" of spells. Do they stack or dont they? Plague doesnt stack, but doesnt kill any units on its own either; Fungal Growth doesnt stack in intensity, but it stacks in duration and it kills anything affected, so it is a very terrible spell. You cant really counter it with EMP either, since it got nerfed so hard and because Zerg will build a lot more Infestors than can be EMPed (or Feedbacked). Leenock had an insane amount of 34 Infestors in a game against Bomber yesterday and you cant win with a crapton of Ghosts, but you can win with a crapton of Infestors.
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 fully agree with you here, but sadly the crutches of Fungal and Forcefield are "necessary" due to the scariness of a tight ball of Marines. Well it would be, if Zerg didnt have Banelings and Protoss didnt have Combat Shield and Colossi to neutralize that Terran threat.
For an early base defense a Protoss can always wall himself in and Fungal is only available in the mid game anyways, so that doesnt really count as an excuse either. "Uncounterable" spells have no place in an RTS and counterspells dont work there either, so any extreme spell like Fungal seems terribly wrong.
On November 05 2012 16:40 Hoender wrote: On the fungal growth subject: How about a "Restore" ability (similar to the medic's ability in BW), but make it an area of effect ability. I wouldn't mind having a couple of Oracles or Sentries late game with that ability with the sole purpose of negating Fungal Growths.
This way (atleast for PvZ) the current Fungal Growth ability can stay as it currently is and will also promote lategame Oracle or Sentry usage.
Such a radical ability as Fungal Growth are actually very terrible for a game, because there is no way to counter them. Giving only one race an ability to "get out" is equally terrible.
Either the spell gets removed OR it gets changed to pure damage only ... maybe like the Plague of the Defiler, but then why doesnt the game have Defilers in the first place? For the cost of just 75 energy it is simply too powerful and even Infested Terran is an awful spell, because it stacks. This is the real "make or break" of spells. Do they stack or dont they? Plague doesnt stack, but doesnt kill any units on its own either; Fungal Growth doesnt stack in intensity, but it stacks in duration and it kills anything affected, so it is a very terrible spell. You cant really counter it with EMP either, since it got nerfed so hard and because Zerg will build a lot more Infestors than can be EMPed (or Feedbacked). Leenock had an insane amount of 34 Infestors in a game against Bomber yesterday and you cant win with a crapton of Ghosts, but you can win with a crapton of Infestors.
I completely agree with you, but I do think that Blizzard will dislike drastically changing anything that has up to this point been used in WoL as a staple ability / unit . In such a case, abilities or methods of countering this ability should probably be given some thought.
If you want to fix Forcefield then simply add a hitpoint value (200+) and a highish (3-4) armour value to the forcefield so that target-firing the forcefield causes it to collapse in the same way massive units can crush it.
Fungal growth needs to form a series of nerfs that need to weaken the infestor, namely: - Infested Terran reduced to 25 HP and 5 damage. - Fungal Growth no longer roots, instead snares by 30%.
Vortex? Just call it stasis and do exactly what Blizzard are doing in HoTS.
As a zerg player i always defended the infestor and its abilities, but even i have to admit it covers way too many roles. In the lower leagues (diamond) its just impossible for my opponents to split correctly, especially with a few burrowed lings and OLs all around for good map vision. and creep ofc. The root effect has to go i think, but then zerg needs: better AA (spores), a way to counter blink and better corrupters. I honestly cannont imagine how blizz gonna balance this mess.
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.
Forcefields with HP that become removable in the mid-game and worthless in the end-game sound interesting to me, because then Sentries would be an early game timing unit for defense or offense and Blizzard could rebalance the Warpgate mechanic and Gateway units by not allowing Pylons to power up a cliff, giving Warpgates a cooldown based on the individual unit's build time as opposed to a universal cooldown and increasing Stalker and Zealot shields by 20 and 10 respectively.
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.
As far as the Infestor is concerned, changing the root into a 50% snare and changing Neural Parasite into a 9 range spell that can't target massive units (the originally proposed nerf) would hopefully better balance the unit.
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 ...
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.
remove mothership (give cloak to oracle on fleetbeacon and remove timewarp), rename MsC and let it be attached to nexus again, make fungal a slow, remove FF (give sentry timewarp: will be fine combined with core for early game defense), remove concussive, give ravens irridiate instead of HSM.
buff carrier, hydras, ultras, tanks etc. accordingly
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.
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.
Is hard for Toss to just build cannons blindly hoping an attack will come. Base defense can definitely hold off roaches and unstimmed bio with gateway support. But they are quickly phased out of the game. Cannons is definitely not a viable option. Zergs don't just plant down spine crawlers, it is the same reason. Forcefield is in a nice place now. I really don't find it as devastating.
The focus for me should be on fungals. But nothing gonna change blizzard mind. Just a few of us venting our frustrations here.
Very good thread. I'm sure most people will agree with the problems, and even if you don't agree with the solutions, they would still make the game better than what it is now.
I hope Blizzard will at least try to change those spells somehow and see how it works before beta is closed becouse if they don't , it means they see no problem in the way they work right now and that's disturbing.
fixing pvz : make warp prisms be able to drop units while fungalled. allows suicide warp prisms to kill mass amounts of infestors but requires micro on both parts (corruptors in position, dropping the hts from the right angle etc) fixing tvz : make medivacs be able to drop units while fungalled (same as above) fixing tvp : tbh early and mid game seems to be fine, just lots of terrans are saving up too much energy for mules and not scanning for allins. For lategame bio at least they need to do something so that terran doesnt just lose the game when a single engagement goes slightly sour and all of a sudden theres 30 zealots at the natural.
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 ...
It's debatable, Terrans can't be exptected to MULE uncontested vs Cloaked threats and should have 3 to 4 Orbital Commands by the time a Fleet Beacon is built and Cloak is researched, and Zerg can still upgrade Overlords to Overseers at will or either race can kill the Oracle with Vikings or Corrupters respectively.
Terrans can certainly deal with it, if Zerg can't then a minor change to Spore Crawlers, making them able to detect while uprooted, would probably solve any potential imbalances.
While fungal has to be changed no doubt, do you think 40% slow is enough to deal with MMA drop style vs zerg? Infestors will be nigh impossible to use vs terran drop play.
Fungal deals damage, roots and prevents using abilities. This is simply too much for a single spell, one of these effects has to be removed.
I think that if fungal did no damage or its damage output would be nerfed by at least by 50%, then the game would become more interesting. Casters should not act as core, but support units. You won't win a game with an army composed mostly of HT's, Sentries or Ghosts so why should Infestors be an exception?
If fungal did none or greatly reduced damage then we would never see 20+ Infestors in a game at the same time and the spell would be used mainly for crowd control at right times (so you can easily connect your banelings, kill off a part of a retreating army with your actual core attacking units or prevent the enemy from getting into a better position) as opposed to mindless "hit everything that is clumped every time you can" kind of spell.
SC2 will die out slowly (faster once Dota2 gets released) until blizzard does what they should have done in 2010. Give BW a facelift and fix some of the bugs + pathing instead of miserably failing at an unnecessary sequel. I mean just look at all the problems this game has, everyone is trying to come up with solutions, changes, buffs, nerfs and in the meanwhile nobody's having fun. The metagame is completely turned around with every patch and there's always at least 1 unit/ability that ruins at least 1 matchup. i want sc2 to stabilize and be a fun game, but i don't see that happening any time soon. at least not while the balance section is being run by clowns.
On November 06 2012 00:48 Kabras wrote: SC2 will die out slowly (faster once Dota2 gets released) until blizzard does what they should have done in 2010. Give BW a facelift and fix some of the bugs + pathing instead of miserably failing at an unnecessary sequel. I mean just look at all the problems this game has, everyone is trying to come up with solutions, changes, buffs, nerfs and in the meanwhile nobody's having fun. The metagame is completely turned around with every patch and there's always at least 1 unit/ability that ruins at least 1 matchup. i want sc2 to stabilize and be a fun game, but i don't see that happening any time soon. at least not while the balance section is being run by clowns.
Viewership is in fact increasing (I've watched every major tournament, and watched viewer numbers, for a year now) in general. Lots of people are having fun with the game (myself, most pros, lots of casuals, many of my friends). Just because you are jaded does not mean everyone else is. The game can definitely use some love as far as changes go but this level of pessimism is pretty nuts. Just quit playing if it bothers you that much man.
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.
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
Umm no. Infested Terrans are great against Mech. They soak up a ton of damage and are great at cleaning up.
On November 06 2012 07:32 mishimaBeef wrote: I would like to see auto turret cast range increase.
IMO the problem with Auto-Turrets is that it has to be built on the ground therefore making it a pain in the ass to deploy. I'd rather have it be like PDD and be built in the air.
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
Imagine if ravens could cloak !
imagine if infesters had 3 useful abilities
They already do. Fungal, Infested Terrans and Burrow.
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
This guy is so clueless I don't know if he's trolling or serious. Rarely used in ZvT?? ITs are great vs terran mech, tanking the first siege tank shots, causing friendly tank splash, and harassing mineral lines. In fact ITs is one of the reasons why marine tank is becoming obsolete as the eggs can tank the tank shots and let lings just swarm in for the surround super cost efficiently.
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!
Sentries do exactly the same thing! A troupe of zerglings swing around and find three sentries and a stalker unprotected! As long as the protoss is paying attention, a quick few forcefields either have the protoss' units in an indestructible safety cocoon shooting tickle-beams at the attackers, or the zerglings wedged into a knot getting tickle-beams fired at their overlapping bodies.
It's inhumane!
Two less-joking thoughts: If you want forcefields to be only defensive (as indicated by your proposition for fortify), why not adjust the sentry and forcefield's current mechanics to suit the role, rather than adding a brand new spell? An example would start with allowing force fields to only be cast either in a powered area or within a few hexes of a powered hex. Perhaps the duration could be increased and them allowed to be cast globally to scale for the loss in utility otherwise! Adding a new spell sounds kind of cool, but I can't see making buildings invulnerable for 30 seconds as anything but problematic.
Second thought: I forget. Apparently it wasn't that important!
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
This guy is so clueless I don't know if he's trolling or serious. Rarely used in ZvT?? ITs are great vs terran mech, tanking the first siege tank shots, causing friendly tank splash, and harassing mineral lines. In fact ITs is one of the reasons why marine tank is becoming obsolete as the eggs can tank the tank shots and let lings just swarm in for the surround super cost efficiently.
except marines shred apart Zerglings super cost effectively, if you throw up ITs to tank the tanks thent eh tanks did there job by removing fungals, thent he marines just shred apart the Zerglings and theres no fungals to kill them
marine tank is not becoming obsolete thats ridiculous and i have no idea why you seem to think that its jsut that mech is starting to get popular again, its like the tides sometimes mech gets popular for a couple months then it disapears again
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
This guy is so clueless I don't know if he's trolling or serious. Rarely used in ZvT?? ITs are great vs terran mech, tanking the first siege tank shots, causing friendly tank splash, and harassing mineral lines. In fact ITs is one of the reasons why marine tank is becoming obsolete as the eggs can tank the tank shots and let lings just swarm in for the surround super cost efficiently.
except marines shred apart Zerglings super cost effectively, if you throw up ITs to tank the tanks thent eh tanks did there job by removing fungals, thent he marines just shred apart the Zerglings and theres no fungals to kill them
marine tank is not becoming obsolete thats ridiculous and i have no idea why you seem to think that its jsut that mech is starting to get popular again, its like the tides sometimes mech gets popular for a couple months then it disapears again
Yeah you'd run out of Fungals if you only have 3 Infestors...which is not the case in good TvZ engagements.
All you need are 2-3 chain fungals to kill a ball of Marines because of clumping. Try spreading them and speedlings just rip them apart. Do you actually play the game or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
Zergs are realizing how incredibly good ITs are. So much so, that you rarely see much Fungal any more, nor any other Zerg unit for that matter. It's the Zerg Marine. 2 supply Infestors that can theoretically spawn 8 supply of units each. They're great damage tanks as eggs, and great DPS when they finally bust out. ITs need an energy cost increase and/or Infestors need to be 3 supply. Fungal needs to trade root for snare, and NP needs to be retooled. Then you can focus on the other Zerg units.
On November 06 2012 11:29 Cloak wrote: Zergs are realizing how incredibly good ITs are. So much so, that you rarely see much Fungal any more, nor any other Zerg unit for that matter. It's the Zerg Marine. 2 supply Infestors that can theoretically spawn 8 supply of units each. They're great damage tanks as eggs, and great DPS when they finally bust out. ITs need an energy cost increase and/or Infestors need to be 3 supply. Fungal needs to trade root for snare, and NP needs to be retooled. Then you can focus on the other Zerg units.
Yep just watch that MLG game Scarlett vs Bomber and Flash vs Life.
On October 24 2012 07:32 kcdc wrote: Introduction:
While I'm a huge SC2 fan, there are a few broken mechanics the game that hurt gameplay and make myself and presumably thousands of others less interested in playing and watching an otherwise wonderful game. As I see it, the three mechanics that are the most problematic are forcefield, fungal growth and vortex. Judging by the contents of and responses to Gretorp's great SaveHOTS post which discusses each of these spells at length, there seems to be a community consensus that these mechanics may be problematic. In this post, I'll talk about forcefield, fungal growth and vortex, explain how they hurt gameplay, and then I'll attempt to provide simple solutions to those problems and explain my reasoning for those solutions.
Forcefield:
Forcefield was kind of cool for a while because it allowed a lot of creative uses and its power is so dependent on the Protoss player's micro. But three years into gameplay, we've figured out how to use forcefields and when they're powerful. What was initially creative is now standard. We've also reached the point that you can expect good micro from the Protoss player as long as they're looking at their army at the time of the fight. In other words, everyone Masters+ can forcefield well, and dumb luck over whether you happen to be looking at your base macroing at a critical moment is now as big a determinant in forcefield's power as player skill is.
Depending on your opponent's level of tech, forcefield can either be an invincibility button or it can be utterly useless. If your opponent only has roaches and lings and you make it across the map with 10 sentries and an immortal/stalker force, congratulations, you've won. Your army shoots at 5+ range and Zerg's army shoots at 4 range, so unless you screw up your forcefields, you will never take damage.
Now imagine that same fight but give Zerg some infestors or some baneling bombs. Now Zerg has a way to hit your sentries, and since you can't hide behind forcefields to make your army invincible, his 200 food army is going to rock your 120 food army no matter what you do. Whoops, Zerg made 4 infestors, you lose.
Forcefield is incredibly frustrating for both sides of the match-up in PvZ, and it produces stale, boring games. Roaches counter zealots so hard that Protoss has no reasonable tanking option against roach-based armies except forcefield. If Zerg gets roaches, Protoss has to get a bunch of sentries. And if Protoss gets a bunch of sentries, Protoss has to play passively until they have a big deathball or else they'll lose their sentries to a surround in the middle of the map. And if Protoss builds a bunch of sentries and plays defensively, Zerg has to play passively and tech to infestors and broodlords or else they'll get their attacking army trapped and killed by forcefields, and then they'll die to Protoss's counter-attack with forcefields and colossi.
Thanks in large part to forcefields, PvZ has evovled into a No Rush 20 snoozefest.
Worse, because forcefields are so critical for dealing with roaches, every map needs a third base tucked right next to the natural. See monk's thread on third base design in the map-making forum for an extended explanation. The result is that every competitive map has 3 bases that can be held and defended from harass relatively easily, and you generally don't see much action for the first 10-15 minutes of a game.
The problems in PvT aren't as bad, but it's worth noting that forcefields blocking retreats prevents Terran from being aggressive with bio before they have medivacs, and forcefields blocking repairing SCVs isn't very fun.
In summary, forcefields are auto-win in some situations, auto-loss in other situations (because the high gas cost is totally wasted), and their influence on the game makes play more passive and boring. It's cool that they're micro dependent, but they also deny the opponent's ability to micro. On balance, they hurt gameplay far more than they help.
Fungal Growth:
Just thinking about fungal growth makes my blood pressure rise. It's by far and away the most powerful ability in the game. Fungal growth deals the damage of a typical psionic storm (players step out of storm before it completes), but its true power lies in its 4 second root which is easily spammable to act as a permanent root. If your opponent has infestors, you don't get to micro. You don't get to alter your positioning. You don't get to pull damaged units back to save them. You don't get to focus fire key units unless they're right next to you. You don't get to split against AoE damage. You don't get to kite. You can't hit broodlords with anything that doesn't have a siege range anti-air attack.
Against an infestor army, if you aren't perfectly positioned before the fight starts, you might as well look back at your base and start macroing up a new army because (1) your army is dead, and (2) you don't even get a chance to micro to save it.
And if mass micro denial wasn't bad enough, fungal growth compensates for the immobility of the Zerg's super-poweful lategame infestor-broodlord composition, giving Zerg a composition that has no real weaknesses. As a general principle in Starcraft, the most powerful units need to be slow in order to allow the opponent some avenue to combat the more powerful army. Against a slow, powerful army, a fast army can use drops and hit and run tactics while spreading their own bases across the map to gain an advantage.
But infestors and fungal growth cover the weaknesses of a slow broodlord army because (1) infestors are actually pretty fast on creep, and (2) the opponent's fast army ain't so fast when it's fungaled. You can't do hit-and-run tactics against infestor-broodlord because fungal eliminates the run part. Hell, it often eliminates the hit part as well.
The result is that if your opponent has infestors, you can only attack if (1) you can kill Zerg's full army head-on, or (2) you're 100% okay with losing the attacking units.
So fungal growth denies micro, covers the only weakness in Zerg's unbeatable lategame composition (giving Zerg no reason to do anything but turtle), and prevents the opponent from being active with hit-and-run tactics. Fungal makes SC2 boring.
Vortex:
This one is easy. We've already covered how in PvZ forcefield and fungal growth compel both sides to sit in their base doing nothing but passively building an army for the first 20 minutes of the game. Now add to this that Zerg's lategame army is far more powerful than Protoss's lategame army unless Protoss lands a spell that instantly kills every Zerg unit in a large area of effect. If Protoss lands this spell on a clump of units, Protoss wins easily. If Zerg denies or limits this spell, Zerg wins easily. To make matters worse, the unit that casts this super-spell can't cast while it's moving, and it takes about a month to come to a stop, so the Protoss player clicks to cast the spell and then just sits and hopes that the spell will actually happen before something prevents the cast.
By this point, both players have spent 20 minutes bored out of their minds doing nothing but building their race's versions of the perfect army, and now the game will be decided by 3 seconds of Protoss hoping the mothership executes the vortex command before it runs out of HP or succumbs to a neural parasite. Meanwhile, Zerg does his best to spread his army, queues up a couple neural parasite commands, and hopes for the opposite result.
This isn't Starcraft. And it sure as hell isn't e-sports.
Solutions:
Protoss
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.
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.
Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.
Zerg
Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
The core changes here are removing forcefield, swapping vortex for stasis field, changing fungal from a root to a movement and attack speed slow. The rest of the changes follow logically from those core changes to attempt to deal with some of the problems that the core changes would produce.
The simplest changes to explain are the carrier and void ray buffs. Swapping vortex for stasis field is a flat nerf for the mothership since stasis field won't allow for archon toilets to kill large clumps of Zerg units. To help Protoss deal with infestor broodlord by alternative means, carrier build time is reduced, making a carrier transition more feasible. Void rays are also given a range upgrade so that they can help deal with broodlords before a carrier transition is complete. At 6 range, they are rendered useless by fungal growth and infested terrans, but at 8 range, it is hoped that they will help enable an air transition.
The fungal growth changes are also quite simple. The 100% root effect is replaced by a movement speed and attack speed debuff. Zerg will still be able to slow and kill enemy units, but the opponent will now have increased options to micro against fungal. They'll be able to split fungaled units, saving some of them from chained fungals. They'll be able to pull back weakened units, although the retreat will be slowed. And they'll be able to escape with their drops more often if Z doesn't have AA in the area by crawling out of fungal and infested Terran range.
Since fungal growth will not be quite as powerful against Terran, the marine model size is increased 30% and stimmed marine attack speed is reduced 5%. The reduced attack speed is a straight DPS nerf. The increased model size makes marines balls pack less tightly, making them more exposed to melee damage from zerglings, ultras and zealots. Meanwhile, the increased size will make unsplit marines slightly more robust against AoE damage from fungal, banelings, storm and colossi. On balance, WoL marines die too easily to splash, but are too powerful if the enemy does not have splash, so these changes seem fair.
Finally, we'll take a look at the forcefield-associated changes. Without forcefield, Protoss early-game defense takes a big hit. To cover this weakness, the fortify spell is added which makes a target building temporarily invulnerable while giving it a low-DPS AoE attack. This spell will be useful for deflecting early Zerg all-ins with zerglings, banelings or roaches by blocking the attacker's path with invulnerable buildings.
Similarly, this spell will be useful in deflecting PvP 4-gates. High-ground warp-ins are removed, so if you wall off the top of your ramp leaving just a 1-hex choke, enemies have to clump up on the ramp and through the choke in order to attack. Fortify casts in this situation will be very powerful by making the walling buildings invulnerable and dealing splash damage in the narrow choke. The defender will also have the option to complete the wall with an invulnerable pylon to further delay the attack.
Fortify will also aid Protoss defense against early Terran attacks or Zerg attacks on the Protoss's third base by making buildings invulnerable and temporarily boosting defensive DPS. It's also noted that the building invulnerability and small splash damage would make sentries+cannons an effective defense against mass mutalisk. Light mutalisk harass would be largely unchanged, but the days of bull-rushing heavy cannon defenses with 40 mutas would be over.
Without forcefield, however, roaches will be incredibly powerful in ZvP. For this reason, the roach's cost is increased to 100/25. The roach's stats are essentially a zealot with 4 range, so it seems reasonable that their cost would be equal to a zealot's cost plus 25 gas. This change would not hurt Zerg too badly in ZvT where roaches are not used much unless the Terran goes heavy on thors and hellions. In these cases, roaches are a powerful response until Terran approaches a maxed army, at which point Zerg needs higher-tech units. At a cost of 100/25, Zerg will still be able to produce plenty of roaches to handle mid-game thors, and since the gas cost is not increased, they will still be able to reach hive-tech units in a timely manner. It's also worth noting that marines have been slightly nerfed against most Zerg units.
We'll also see more zergling-muta play in ZvZ due to the increased mineral cost of the roach and the reduced dominance of the infestor over mutas. This strikes me as a good thing, and we don't have to worry about it spiraling too far out of control like ling-muta did in BW. Queens, roaches and hydras will all still have a place in ZvZ. With less dominance from infestor-roach, I suspect we'd even see more ultralisk play. Cool.
Conclusion:
I think these changes would go a long way toward improving gameplay in both WoL and HoTS. Maps could be more open and spread out as Protoss wouldn't be dependent on forcefields against roach attacks, and mass mutalisk wouldn't be so crippling. Lategame PvZ would be less awful with the removal of vortex and the addition of fleet beacon buffs to better deal with broodlords through channels other than vortex. The primary micro and retreat denial skills (forcefield and fungal growth) would be removed or reconfigured, allowing players to be more active and aggressive on the map. And you'd actually be able to move your army a little against fungal growth in the big fights. The game would simply be more active and fun to play and to watch.
If you agree that these issues could use a closer look from Blizzard, let them know in the corresponding bnet thread found here:
You might not agree with my specific suggestions, but I think it's important to provide detailed, reasoned explanations about the issues we experience in gameplay, so that Blizzard better understands what the community would like to be improved. If we work together, we can get a better game.
On October 24 2012 07:32 kcdc wrote: Solutions:
Protoss
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.
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.
Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.
Zerg
Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
to be honest, while none of the changes are bad, I don't think that they will "fix" Starcraft the way you think it would. and more to the point, i think changes along these lines (basically global nerfs), are completely tending towards the wrong direction.
the approach to fixing forcefield shouldn't be to "fix" forcefield. it should be to provide meaningful alternatives. while I have no love for the spell, the changes you suppose... well... they just sound boring. let's take away the things that make the units unique, and make them all samey.
the fact is Starcraft 2 (if you think about it) has remarkably few broken things. remarkably few things that make you go "OH SH!T." What do terrans have? Stim-timing. Drop-timing. And... umm... just sameyness. What do Protoss have? While good, Templar and Colossus are actually lower impact than you'd think, now they are still tide turning, but that has more to do with how low impact other units generally are. i.e. due to the low impact nature of units, slight advantages snowballing is much harder to stop because you'll always just be behind. I mean, that's why it goes to macro, because the best way to negate their advantage is to wait for them to hit their supply limit. Zerg are a little better, but overall are mostly the same unless you fly a squadron into chain fungals.
the game is a boring macro fest, why? because honestly, that's what the community has been asking for. every time. EVERY time. No exaggeration.
It's broken. The community is outraged. So, it gets removed. Or "balanced" to the point that they might as well be removed.
When I started Starcraft 2, there were things I was interested in doing. Things I thought were cool. Does this increase or decrease that? I think the key fault to these style (and there are many like these) is that it assumes a captive audience. It assumes that, I'm just going to keep playing this game anyways, so why not buff out the rough edges and why take a risk on something exciting? i'm just going to keep playing anyways, right?
But that's taking the community for granted. I think the community has been taking itself for granted.
So, while someone who suggests that Ghosts should just be able to fire Nukes as their normal attack might clearly be insane and not have the slightly clue about game balance... GODDAMN THAT SOUNDS EXCITING.
On November 06 2012 11:29 Cloak wrote: Zergs are realizing how incredibly good ITs are. So much so, that you rarely see much Fungal any more, nor any other Zerg unit for that matter. It's the Zerg Marine. 2 supply Infestors that can theoretically spawn 8 supply of units each. They're great damage tanks as eggs, and great DPS when they finally bust out. ITs need an energy cost increase and/or Infestors need to be 3 supply. Fungal needs to trade root for snare, and NP needs to be retooled. Then you can focus on the other Zerg units.
I think the problem blizzard is having is they don`t want to change the energy cost. Why?... everything either costs 25, 75 or 150 right?
or no?
but will they settle on some "non-whole" value like 30?... would they alter the regeneration of mana on infestors ONLY?
On November 06 2012 11:29 Cloak wrote: Zergs are realizing how incredibly good ITs are. So much so, that you rarely see much Fungal any more, nor any other Zerg unit for that matter. It's the Zerg Marine. 2 supply Infestors that can theoretically spawn 8 supply of units each. They're great damage tanks as eggs, and great DPS when they finally bust out. ITs need an energy cost increase and/or Infestors need to be 3 supply. Fungal needs to trade root for snare, and NP needs to be retooled. Then you can focus on the other Zerg units.
I think the problem blizzard is having is they don`t want to change the energy cost. Why?... everything either costs 25, 75 or 150 right?
or no?
but will they settle on some "non-whole" value like 30?... would they alter the regeneration of mana on infestors ONLY?
dunno
They would most likely sooner tweak the ability. If IT too strong at 25, maybe make them have 10 less HP or 1 less range or increase the time it takes the egg to hatch or decrease the range in which the infestor can lob the egg. Energy count... I highly doubt it.
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
Imagine if ravens could cloak !
imagine if infesters had 3 useful abilities
They already do. Fungal, Infested Terrans and Burrow.
You forgot Neural Parasite which has saved MANY Zerg from being vortexed or annihilated by tons of Colossi/Thors. It isnt as easy or risk-free as Fungal or Infested Terrans, but it is still awesome sometimes.
A lot of "X" is terrible in this thread, when in reality it seems that it would be more accurate that they have interesting applications and could probably benefit from tweaking them. Except for Vortex. Its current role in the meta not withstanding, it just seems awful.
Also, based on reading this we already have most of the most reasonable solutions, and it is getting muddled by trolls but also by well-meaning people who think they have great replacement ideas.
FF - give each FF health based on current Shield upgrades from Forge. That way FF can grow in HP as the game continues in tech and doesn't suffer late game diminishing returns. Numerical HP would require extensive testing but my knee jerk reaction would be 50/100/150/200 (0/1/2/3). My concern is hurting Protoss early expands at a time when greedy builds seem to dominate. Still, this shouldn't be a cure-all. Going greedy is risky. 2 bases can be reasonable safe, but a fast third should be hard to defend.
Infested Terran - Does not benefit from 1/1 upgrades. 2/2 upgrades provides IT with 1/1, 3/3 provides 2/2. Energy cost increased from 25 to 35. Double the energy cost feels a little heavy handed, as does eliminating upgrades completely. A slight nerf to DPS from upgrades, and a slight nerf to supply through energy would probably be more effective than a big nerf to one or the other.
Fungal Growth - Best ideas already exist, so there is no need for a new one. Change from Root to Snare, damage can stay the same.
I liked the idea in this thread of requiring an upgrade for FG, but I'm concerned it could have really negative consequences in the beginning of the mid-game. At that point Zerg is still limited by gas income (like everyone of course), and can't throw tons of gas heavy units at any race, they must choose a specific tech, and delay the others. In fact, it makes more sense from a balance perspective for IT to require an upgrade and push its usage to later game when it could benefit from unit upgrades. If we change the root to a snare, then it allows all 3 races to escape a poor engagement without catastrophic damage, AND potentially allow the defending Zerg to adjust their gameplan. Again, I think the important thing here is to consider that a few small changes frequently lead to a more desirable outcome than a big sweeping one.
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
Imagine if ravens could cloak !
imagine if infesters had 3 useful abilities
They already do. Fungal, Infested Terrans and Burrow.
You forgot Neural Parasite which has saved MANY Zerg from being vortexed or annihilated by tons of Colossi/Thors. It isnt as easy or risk-free as Fungal or Infested Terrans, but it is still awesome sometimes.
NP totally blows as an ability with the exception of using NP on a mothership as you said, or in situations where there's only a very select few amount of units.
FF - give each FF health based on current Shield upgrades from Forge. That way FF can grow in HP as the game continues in tech and doesn't suffer late game diminishing returns. Numerical HP would require extensive testing but my knee jerk reaction would be 50/100/150/200 (0/1/2/3). My concern is hurting Protoss early expands at a time when greedy builds seem to dominate. Still, this shouldn't be a cure-all. Going greedy is risky. 2 bases can be reasonable safe, but a fast third should be hard to defend.
Not only weakens FF to make more interesting, but also creates a reason to prioritize Shield upgrades on occasion depending on unit composition
Interest ideas indeed. However, I think I will disagree with your solutions. I totally agree that FF, Fungal, Vortex is an OP spell. Esp FF and Vortex where it's FF/Vortex FTW or FTL depending on that click LOL.
I feel that those spells contribute to the game being dull now but it is def not the sole cause. I think easy to defend natural and third maps are what's causing toss to go FE and Z to go fast third thus pushing towards NR20. Toss without FF will prob just turtle even more cause of the threat of even easier surrounds.
I think the game will change too much if the game changes as you proposed; thus making your solutions almost impossible to be implemented. WOL-wise, toss will have a hard time to defend/move out without FF. Toss will probably have no chance against BL-infestor without vortex (given vortex is almost the one solution everyone is using against BL-infestor ball)
I think you need to realize that SC is a three race game where one change can affect all kinds of match up. For example, nerfing roach to help toss survive w/o FF. Roach is already weak against T mech, nerfing it further will just allow T to steam roll Z with mech. Your other solutions involves buffing gateway units, however, by buffing, this will potentially make warp gate OP, then warp gate/warp prism will need to be looked at. Not to mention Z relies on infestor fungal help help deal with mass units such as mass muta/phoneix or air units in general. aside from Ultra, i think that's their only AOE and Z's AA is simply a joke.
I think by removing/replacing spells is more like a bandaid solution. I think what we actually need is another op unit to give the players options. Much like someone once mention that all LOL champs are OP, therefore nothing is OP. LOL...
On November 06 2012 07:15 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
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.
imagine if infesters could fly and Its lasted 3 minutes
ITs are not too powerful they are literally only useful in ZvZ and rarely in TvZ and there used to be some timing attacks that used them in PvZ but those were popular for like 3 weeks then faded as quickly as it came
Imagine if ravens could cloak !
imagine if infesters had 3 useful abilities
They already do. Fungal, Infested Terrans and Burrow.
You forgot Neural Parasite which has saved MANY Zerg from being vortexed or annihilated by tons of Colossi/Thors. It isnt as easy or risk-free as Fungal or Infested Terrans, but it is still awesome sometimes.
NP totally blows as an ability with the exception of using NP on a mothership as you said, or in situations where there's only a very select few amount of units.
So it is limited in its use, but when you use it it is still awesome. That is NOT a bad ability ... its just limited in its application and seems terrible compared to the dirt cheap and super effective Infested Terrans and the totally overpowered "lock you in place and you cant do anything about it" Fungal Growth.
On November 06 2012 23:26 LeodaR wrote: Infested Terran - Does not benefit from 1/1 upgrades. 2/2 upgrades provides IT with 1/1, 3/3 provides 2/2. Energy cost increased from 25 to 35. Double the energy cost feels a little heavy handed, as does eliminating upgrades completely. A slight nerf to DPS from upgrades, and a slight nerf to supply through energy would probably be more effective than a big nerf to one or the other.
The auto turret of the Raven costs 50 energy and even though it lasts for a MUCH longer duration that is actually useless since it is immobile and can be easily killed if there are no supporting forces from your own side AND it cant be stacked as tightly as the Infested Terrans! So IMO the efficiency of the auto turret isnt twice as big as that of the Infested Terran PLUS the Raven costs more gas and is higher tier to begin with and thus should have more powerful spells anyways.
You can have maby 3-4 Infested Terrans in the same space as an auto-turret and this makes them MUCH more powerful. "Clumped unit dps" is one of the mathematical problems of SC2 and the reason why "one big army vs one big army" battles are the thing we get to watch almost every game. [I refrained from using the word "deathball" since too many people focus too much on the word "ball" and ignore the more important tight formation part of it.]
On November 06 2012 23:26 LeodaR wrote: Infested Terran - Does not benefit from 1/1 upgrades. 2/2 upgrades provides IT with 1/1, 3/3 provides 2/2. Energy cost increased from 25 to 35. Double the energy cost feels a little heavy handed, as does eliminating upgrades completely. A slight nerf to DPS from upgrades, and a slight nerf to supply through energy would probably be more effective than a big nerf to one or the other.
The auto turret of the Raven costs 50 energy and even though it lasts for a MUCH longer duration that is actually useless since it is immobile and can be easily killed if there are no supporting forces from your own side AND it cant be stacked as tightly as the Infested Terrans! So IMO the efficiency of the auto turret isnt twice as big as that of the Infested Terran PLUS the Raven costs more gas and is higher tier to begin with and thus should have more powerful spells anyways.
You can have maby 3-4 Infested Terrans in the same space as an auto-turret and this makes them MUCH more powerful. "Clumped unit dps" is one of the mathematical problems of SC2 and the reason why "one big army vs one big army" battles are the thing we get to watch almost every game. [I refrained from using the word "deathball" since too many people focus too much on the word "ball" and ignore the more important tight formation part of it.]
I don't disagree with this, but I'm confused as to why you quoted a portion of my post as part of the response. I don't think you response regarding Auto Turrets has a lot to do with what I wrote, but perhaps I'm missing something?
On November 07 2012 06:50 TibblesEvilCat wrote: make it so fungle doesnt hit air, ff can be destroyed, like 500 hp ? and remove vortex and make mothership have some dps
Fungal being able to hit air isn't the problem though. The problem is that it can root units in place without them being able to escape in any way.. And then be chained indefinitely (there is really no way to micro around it and apply skill to do that). Its like a Psi Storm where Terran can't move their bio units at all to dodge it.. Just imagine the QQ that would arise from that..
On November 06 2012 23:26 LeodaR wrote: Infested Terran - Does not benefit from 1/1 upgrades. 2/2 upgrades provides IT with 1/1, 3/3 provides 2/2. Energy cost increased from 25 to 35. Double the energy cost feels a little heavy handed, as does eliminating upgrades completely. A slight nerf to DPS from upgrades, and a slight nerf to supply through energy would probably be more effective than a big nerf to one or the other.
The auto turret of the Raven costs 50 energy and even though it lasts for a MUCH longer duration that is actually useless since it is immobile and can be easily killed if there are no supporting forces from your own side AND it cant be stacked as tightly as the Infested Terrans! So IMO the efficiency of the auto turret isnt twice as big as that of the Infested Terran PLUS the Raven costs more gas and is higher tier to begin with and thus should have more powerful spells anyways.
You can have maby 3-4 Infested Terrans in the same space as an auto-turret and this makes them MUCH more powerful. "Clumped unit dps" is one of the mathematical problems of SC2 and the reason why "one big army vs one big army" battles are the thing we get to watch almost every game. [I refrained from using the word "deathball" since too many people focus too much on the word "ball" and ignore the more important tight formation part of it.]
I don't disagree with this, but I'm confused as to why you quoted a portion of my post as part of the response. I don't think you response regarding Auto Turrets has a lot to do with what I wrote, but perhaps I'm missing something?
I quoted your post because you said that doubling the cost for Infested Terran feels a bit too much. I tend to disagree with that assessment due to the "dps density" of the placed units. The far superior duration of the auto turret doesnt matter in comparison IMO; one "fix" to the Raven might be to reduce the duration AND the energy of the turret by 50%.
The only matchup where I see forcefield as a problem is PvZ and I can't even imagine what the matchup will be without it, protoss would just die to ling/roach.The fortify thing seem waaay too fancy and boring and it alsoo removes the bilions of sentry timings of which I only see the immortal all in being a problem. Maybe give it much smaller forcefields which act like a pdd but way weaker(idk this alsoo seem too much) or make it uncastable on units(like buildings).
The statis thing is a great idea but probably should be 75 energy(it doesn't mater when u have 200 energy but anyway). Fungal doesn't need to slow atack speed that can make it even beter then it is now in some situations make it a 60-75 % slow and I think you should be able to blink micro form it it's not like you can run away when ur army is 60-75% slower.
God what the hell is wrong with you people? Remove FF? Are you kidding? That's probably the coolest spell in the game and has defined Protoss armies to date. It's unique, skill based, and crucial to success with a wide range of effectiveness based on how well it's executed.
These threads are so funny because somehow every race is imba. Toss imba vs T/Z because of FF, Zerg imba because of fungal, Terran imba because of emp/marines. So what's the problem? Has anybody noticed that whether these spells seem imba or not depends a great deal on who is employing them?
I feel like we have constructed a large number of scenarios under which a player doesn't deserve to win and complaining about it. If you don't realize as a Zerg player that you're under attack until the toss army is at you third with a bunch of full energy sentries, you deserve to lose. If you walk onto creep with marines on one hotkey without scanning ahead and get fungaled, you deserve to lose. If you keep all of your HT on one hotkey and have zero map awareness and get your army blanket empd, you deserve to lose.
In BW tvp, if a Protoss gateway army 1a2a3a into your Terran mech, you needed to 1) drop mines the perfect distance from your tank lines 2) snipe any mines too close to your tanks from previous mine laying. 3) arrange your tanks into a perfect concave. 4) focus fire dragoons with tanks
There were more things to do if you could, but if you didn't do AT LEAST these things Protoss didn't jus beat you, your whole army basically blows itself up with splash. If you could do this though your army murdered toss, mega stomp down style. That's what made this matchup so cool, each race balancing on a knifes edge and pros taking every advantage to catch each other out of position. That's why it was cool. And that's why I have no sympathy for people QQing about having to go through the seemingly impossible task of knowing where your opponents army is and maybe spreading out your units when you're not payin attention to them... Try playing BW mech. BW was awesome because each race was OP in its own ways, and execution is what set players apart.
I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
On November 08 2012 08:06 rembrant wrote: I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
You miss the point entirely. It's not that bad players have a problem with it, or that it's not balanced, the problem is that from a design perspective those spells make the game stale and boring. They deny micro, which is immensely stupid for a game like SC.
On November 08 2012 08:06 rembrant wrote: I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
Fungal and IT is fine together with the end game zerg deathball? Or do you usually win/lose a game under 10mins?
On November 08 2012 08:06 rembrant wrote: I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
You miss the point entirely. It's not that bad players have a problem with it, or that it's not balanced, the problem is that from a design perspective those spells make the game stale and boring. They deny micro, which is immensely stupid for a game like SC.
Don't buy it. The micro happens before you get fungal'd. Does this cause situations at low levels where people don't have top notch map awareness wherein one player is unfairly disadvantaged? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's broken. IMO if the game is designed in such a way that you can still defend if you don't realize you're being attacked until it's actually happening, that's broken. Again refer to my whole BW TvP mech list of things that had to be done to defeat a 1a Toss. It's the same thing, if you don't have map awareness and good micro, it's a cakewalk for Toss, but if you do then it suddenly swings into T favor unless Toss can get really creative with catching terran out of position and using shuttle drops etc. If you allow one player to literally not look at their units until the fight starts and still have a chance, that's dumb, and coming from a BW background the thought that you simply can't spread your units is laughable.
Yes, you can micro before pre-battle to reduce the effect of fungal. Game design that rewards pre-battle micro is good. But you can still reward pre-battle micro with a re-configured fungal growth that doesn't block mult-tasking, hit-and-run tactics, and in-battle micro. The game would be better if unit control skill were rewarded in more situations.
On November 08 2012 08:06 rembrant wrote: I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
You miss the point entirely. It's not that bad players have a problem with it, or that it's not balanced, the problem is that from a design perspective those spells make the game stale and boring. They deny micro, which is immensely stupid for a game like SC.
Don't buy it. The micro happens before you get fungal'd. Does this cause situations at low levels where people don't have top notch map awareness wherein one player is unfairly disadvantaged? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's broken. IMO if the game is designed in such a way that you can still defend if you don't realize you're being attacked until it's actually happening, that's broken. Again refer to my whole BW TvP mech list of things that had to be done to defeat a 1a Toss. It's the same thing, if you don't have map awareness and good micro, it's a cakewalk for Toss, but if you do then it suddenly swings into T favor unless Toss can get really creative with catching terran out of position and using shuttle drops etc. If you allow one player to literally not look at their units until the fight starts and still have a chance, that's dumb, and coming from a BW background the thought that you simply can't spread your units is laughable.
The problem is in the fact that you can make infestors and win. There is never a bad time to make an infestor. This is the problem I have with fungal growth is it shuts down micro, movement AND on top of it you can spawn Attacking units that shoot the units that can't move. The terrans start in high armor eggs that can't be easily killed so many of them are guaranteed to do damage.
Even if you pre spread if you miss forcefields alongside the issue of the the fungal and the infested terrans and the free army from broodlords you have a terribly difficult time winning.
While there are people complaining about spells being OP, I think most feel that these spells don't really have a place in the way SC2 should have been developed and played. They're unique spells, but they become the all or nothing in most matchups, and makes every match relatively similar. As zerg, if you don't go infestors and have no fungal, you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage that could lose you the game. That's one tech path that defines the whole race in the current meta. In BW, it was much more dynamic than get a lot of defilers and a huge army = auto win. Defilers were just a bonus, and necessary in "specific" matchups, not all. To want to fix something in the game does not automatically mean you think it's broken, OP.
I honestly don't think FF or fungal is broken, but I do feel their "uniqueness" that existed in the earlier stages of SC2 is no longer there. It's become more of a "necessity", when SC2 should be a game of exploration and adaptation to new strategies, tricks, etc. People feel that with these spells, it's much too hard to develop or alter the meta, and that's very apparent because the spells cover too wide a range of roles, but the problem is, you just can't do anything else but get them or you lose.
On November 08 2012 09:31 scph wrote: While there are people complaining about spells being OP, I think most feel that these spells don't really have a place in the way SC2 should have been developed and played. They're unique spells, but they become the all or nothing in most matchups, and makes every match relatively similar. As zerg, if you don't go infestors and have no fungal, you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage that could lose you the game. That's one tech path that defines the whole race in the current meta. In BW, it was much more dynamic than get a lot of defilers and a huge army = auto win. Defilers were just a bonus, and necessary in "specific" matchups, not all. To want to fix something in the game does not automatically mean you think it's broken, OP.
I honestly don't think FF or fungal is broken, but I do feel their "uniqueness" that existed in the earlier stages of SC2 is no longer there. It's become more of a "necessity", when SC2 should be a game of exploration and adaptation to new strategies, tricks, etc. People feel that with these spells, it's much too hard to develop or alter the meta, and that's very apparent because the spells cover too wide a range of roles, but the problem is, you just can't do anything else but get them or you lose.
Yeah I can understand that. They have made the game pretty stale when the entire game is won or lost by how well you use particular spells
While I like FF and fungal standalone I can see how the reliance on them has created a number of problems. It would be cool if I didnt need to hide behind forcefields
I wanted to suggest a modification to Forcefield I've been thinking about, make it a channeled attack. The Sentry would enter "forcefield mode" replacing its standard attack with FF, and an energy cost for each second the Sentry has the ability active. When a Sentry attacks it would shoot out a wall of force out to range 9 (attack moves with speed 3 and has a 3s cooldown) that expands as a cone from the Sentry. All enemy units caught in the cone get pushed back out to a range of 9. Also, while a unit is being pushed back, it cannot attack, only attempt to move out of the FF cone. Once they are free of the FF cone they can obviously begin attacking, but most units would have been pushed outside of their range and have to back track, however they would also be pushed out of the range of enemy units (except the Colossus).
A big risk then becomes having your Charglots running after the moving enemies and be rendered far and away from the support of your Deathball. Also, you would now need to spread and position your Sentries, since you can't just put a FF where you want it. However, it would help against things like BLs by pushing away Broodlings, same with Locusts, allowing you to advance. The Massive unit buff would apply with Massive units being able to ignore the push back effect, you could even have it that units following behind a Massive unit can use it for "protection" from the push back and continue moving forward, introducing positioning importance for the opposing player. Anyway, that's my idea.
On November 08 2012 08:06 rembrant wrote: I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
You miss the point entirely. It's not that bad players have a problem with it, or that it's not balanced, the problem is that from a design perspective those spells make the game stale and boring. They deny micro, which is immensely stupid for a game like SC.
I don't think these spells are boring at all either, I find them both interesting in their own ways whether using them, fighting them or watching them. Also I disagree that they "deny micro" in the way you say they do. It is literally no different than being forced to split my units up before trying to break a Siege Tank line, you can't "micro" out of being hit by an instant-damage Siege Tank shot so why are does everyone start crying when it's a spell that does the damage? I've literally never had any real issue with fighting Infestors in the lategame with any race, Zerg, Terran, Protoss, whatever. There are plenty of weaknesses that Infestors have which you can exploit and I've played Zerg a lot I know these weaknesses quite well.
Also I find the whole "denying micro" argument equally hilarious, not only because you're obviously supposed to actually scout ahead and make plans *before* all your shit gets fucked up from blindly charging up a ramp or whatever, but because BW, a game considered by many to be one of the best RTS of all times had plenty of these "deny micro" abilities, did you suddenly forget about Maelstrom, Ensnare, Lockdown and Stasis? Puuuuhleeeease, I still think there is nothing wrong with these abilities at all and people just want Blizzard to compensate for their lack of skill in dealing with them.
Furthermore, I do agree that in WoL a unit like the Infestor is waaaaaay too necessary and important, I just got bored of using them so I would try out new ways of using them such as never using Fungal but just massing Infested Terrans instead, so I'm really glad that HotS is giving alternatives for some of these units. I have been stomping a lot of face in HotS without ever making Infestors since Hydra/SH can be used to fill some of the roles the Infestor fills, at the end of the day I think Infestor only *seems* so strong because you're most likely going to be facing it every single game you play against Zerg and any time you lose to a Zerg you can just go "Oh welp, I guess Infestor is OP!" when in reality it's just that Infestor fills the role as being the strongest core unit Zerg has....in WoL at least, like I said, Zerg doesn't *have* to rely on the Infestor quite so heavily in HotS if they don't want to.
So yeah, anyone who says FF or Fungal "deny micro" or "they're boring" or "doesnt belong in an RTS" or whatever, sorry I just can't take you seriously at all.
- Mothership is lame as single hero unit, so is Vortex. Remove it and replace it with Stasis Field, so no archon toilet is possible
- Fungal Growth is bad. Make it slow instead of snare
- Blizzard will never remove the Forcefield. Protoss is build and balanced around this spell. To me it's not perfect, but also not completly bad. Could live with it
On November 08 2012 08:06 rembrant wrote: I feel like a minority here but these constant threads amuse me because I think ff and fungal are absolutely fine how they are, I deny that there exists a problem at all. If you play poorly against these abilities you deserve to lose. Vortex is a bit different since that one spell often entirely dictated who wins a match, leading to more of a flawed pvz endgame than just a bad spell. Honestly I'm quite curious what league all these people who 'still' are having unreasonable difficulty with fungal and ff are.
You miss the point entirely. It's not that bad players have a problem with it, or that it's not balanced, the problem is that from a design perspective those spells make the game stale and boring. They deny micro, which is immensely stupid for a game like SC.
I don't think these spells are boring at all either, I find them both interesting in their own ways whether using them, fighting them or watching them. Also I disagree that they "deny micro" in the way you say they do. It is literally no different than being forced to split my units up before trying to break a Siege Tank line, you can't "micro" out of being hit by an instant-damage Siege Tank shot so why are does everyone start crying when it's a spell that does the damage? I've literally never had any real issue with fighting Infestors in the lategame with any race, Zerg, Terran, Protoss, whatever. There are plenty of weaknesses that Infestors have which you can exploit and I've played Zerg a lot I know these weaknesses quite well.
Also I find the whole "denying micro" argument equally hilarious, not only because you're obviously supposed to actually scout ahead and make plans *before* all your shit gets fucked up from blindly charging up a ramp or whatever, but because BW, a game considered by many to be one of the best RTS of all times had plenty of these "deny micro" abilities, did you suddenly forget about Maelstrom, Ensnare, Lockdown and Stasis? Puuuuhleeeease, I still think there is nothing wrong with these abilities at all and people just want Blizzard to compensate for their lack of skill in dealing with them.
Furthermore, I do agree that in WoL a unit like the Infestor is waaaaaay too necessary and important, I just got bored of using them so I would try out new ways of using them such as never using Fungal but just massing Infested Terrans instead, so I'm really glad that HotS is giving alternatives for some of these units. I have been stomping a lot of face in HotS without ever making Infestors since Hydra/SH can be used to fill some of the roles the Infestor fills, at the end of the day I think Infestor only *seems* so strong because you're most likely going to be facing it every single game you play against Zerg and any time you lose to a Zerg you can just go "Oh welp, I guess Infestor is OP!" when in reality it's just that Infestor fills the role as being the strongest core unit Zerg has....in WoL at least, like I said, Zerg doesn't *have* to rely on the Infestor quite so heavily in HotS if they don't want to.
So yeah, anyone who says FF or Fungal "deny micro" or "they're boring" or "doesnt belong in an RTS" or whatever, sorry I just can't take you seriously at all.
OK, I see where you're coming from, you have your own opinion about this issue and don't consider any other opinion serious. That's not really good for discussion. Also your opinion is the minority. Right now if someone still finds FF or fungal interesting or skill based I only conclude they haven't used/watched enough to make them realized that it's not really that skillful and makes the match ups stale.
Also, while I appreciate your comparisons to BW, I don't think they're entirely valid. Yes, BW had these abilities that denied micro, but not on the scale fungal alone brings to SC2. Scout ahead and presplit all you want, 3 infestors are gonna fungal your entire army, and what when you are against 30? I don't find it interesting that in any late game engagement against zerg you can't move your army. I just don't see the appeal.
On October 24 2012 10:59 JayceeSC wrote: I'm just wondering.. with FF removed, how would Protoss defend a 1-Base 3-4 Rax Stim All-in (with possibly pulled SCVs)?
I also can't see Protoss being aggressive at all vs bunkers. These are just two obvious situations (and there's many more).
Makes no sense to remove FF without doing more significant/unrealistic changes.
I am Terran player and I agree with this. I really think Forcefields belongs in starcraft.
On October 24 2012 10:59 JayceeSC wrote: I'm just wondering.. with FF removed, how would Protoss defend a 1-Base 3-4 Rax Stim All-in (with possibly pulled SCVs)?
I also can't see Protoss being aggressive at all vs bunkers. These are just two obvious situations (and there's many more).
Makes no sense to remove FF without doing more significant/unrealistic changes.
I am Terran player and I agree with this. I really think Forcefields belongs in starcraft.
dont forget that protoss gets purify + autoattack on MsC so their defense will be a lot stronger than in WoL.
also if FF is removed the sentry will get another supportspell.
btw you mention FF on bunker. i think thats one of the most stupid things that FF can do. that and warp prism sentry drops were 1 FF at ramp = gg. to the bunker FF mechanics: so terran prepares accordingly and pulls scvs before the attack happens and still FF push the scvs away although terran did everything perfectly. thats bad design.
of course there might be some tweaking like make purify better etc. but if blizzard wants to, its possible to remove FF (they already did a nice step in that direction with the MsC).
another idea would be to let the MsC be attached to the nexus again and blink from nexus to nexus and just give the MsC the FF ability. that way there would only be 4 FF available which combined with purify would be enough to stop allins AND the FF couldnt be used offensively (flying MsC with FF at ramp would be broken). then give sentry another supportspell.
As I was reading OP's post I knew that he would propose a slow on fungals... I think that your new sentry spell proposal would be exploited to the world's end lol Imagine pylon walloffs... then invulns e___e
On October 24 2012 10:59 JayceeSC wrote: I'm just wondering.. with FF removed, how would Protoss defend a 1-Base 3-4 Rax Stim All-in (with possibly pulled SCVs)?
I also can't see Protoss being aggressive at all vs bunkers. These are just two obvious situations (and there's many more).
Makes no sense to remove FF without doing more significant/unrealistic changes.
I am Terran player and I agree with this. I really think Forcefields belongs in starcraft.
Any spell which "shapes the battlefield" is a terrible thing, because there is no way to counter it in the game. Sure Ultralisks, Thors (roflmao), Colossi and Archons can remove them, but those units arent "early game units" which is when Forcefield is used most. In mid and late game there are hardly any Sentries left, because the gas is needed for more important units, so the Forcefield is a terrible idea.
Why then is the spell in the game? For defense? You might argue that, but then you could also build a bunch of Photon Cannons to defend your ramp and create a partial wall-off. So "base defense" actually isnt a good enough reason to keep it in the game.
The only "valid" reason for Forcefield is defending your units while they are marching across the battlefield to attack. But where is the problem? The problem lies in the high number of deaths of Protoss units against much smaller opposing units in a tight formation. This equates to a higher "dps per area" for Marines and Roaches and lings against the somewhat bigger Stalkers for example who then die easily. So the reason for the weakness of Protoss units is NOT the units themselves, but rather the ability to stack them tightly and move and fight with them with maximized dps per area. Soooo ... if Blizzard finally fixes the "too dense infantry clumps" and forces loose formation instead of super tight Forcefield will become less necessary since it should take opponents longer to bring a "1-shot-clump" close to the Protoss units.
So Forcefield does NOT belong in Starcraft and isnt really necessary if you fix the right issue.
Forcefields should have HP and high armor(so lings/marines/zealots can chop through easily) like 400 hp 3 armor or something like that. That would solve some issues I personally dislike that massive units can crush it, it even does not stuck well with own sentry+archon builds. Problem could arise in lategame since lings would now have upgrades and the armies will be pretty large - so that it would die pretty fast.. needs to be tested though.
Fungal is the worst spell of the game due to the immobilization. It should be more like reduce movement to 0 and slowly regain it over 5(?) seconds. Could still block blink, but would be much more bearable.
Vortex - bad spell, with the emp/feedback/neural only counters eigher wins the game or loses it. Should be replaced with something else like air shield or something that would make the target ground area(pretty big) immune to air attacks(like dark swarm but only vs air units). Since collosus is a high unit it would also prevent colossus damage in that area. Effective vs Broodlords/Mutalisks/Banshee/BC/Colossi/VoidRay...
On November 09 2012 03:00 LastWish wrote: Forcefields should have HP and high armor(so lings/marines/zealots can chop through easily) like 400 hp 3 armor or something like that.
For the duration of the spell thats ridiculous. You can just leave them as "impervious to damage", because this will just give the Protoss a decoy target if they get a crapton of hit points as you suggest.
On November 09 2012 03:00 LastWish wrote: Forcefields should have HP and high armor(so lings/marines/zealots can chop through easily) like 400 hp 3 armor or something like that.
For the duration of the spell thats ridiculous. You can just leave them as "impervious to damage", because this will just give the Protoss a decoy target if they get a crapton of hit points as you suggest.
But the forcefield could be considered a neutral unit, like neutral buildings/rock-blockades so unless targeted they will still be ignored, just like now.
On November 09 2012 03:00 LastWish wrote: Forcefields should have HP and high armor(so lings/marines/zealots can chop through easily) like 400 hp 3 armor or something like that.
For the duration of the spell thats ridiculous. You can just leave them as "impervious to damage", because this will just give the Protoss a decoy target if they get a crapton of hit points as you suggest.
But the forcefield could be considered a neutral unit, like neutral buildings/rock-blockades so unless targeted they will still be ignored, just like now.
Still doesn't change anything because 400HP +3 armour is pretty much the same as impervious to damage during times when it matters-early and mid game. It doesn't matter how much you rework forcefield, it's still going to be a bad spell because it creates terrain that's previously nonexistent. Ever wondered why it is so hard to balance maps?
In my opinion someone should make map with this proposed changes. Like Blizzard's Antiga Shipyard test map. Then we could test your proposed change and discuss about cosmetic changes or anything in this topic.
My opinion about your proposed changes:
Solutions:
Protoss Forcefield removed.
- Good change, FF is bad designed, FF broke balance and destroy any micro skill of Protoss'es enemies.
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.
- In my opinion this is unbalanced. 30 seconds of invulnerable is too much. It will destroy any drop to Protoss base, because skilled player will stay 1 caster in main, and cast this on Nexus or any building, then wait 30 second for main army and destroy dropped units.
Low-ground pylons no longer provide power to high-ground areas. High-ground warp-ins thus removed.
- Good change. It will stop stupid proxy polons under main. Of course pylon will give area of energy for lower ground.
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.
- I think, Vortex is bad designed, good change.
Carrier build time reduced from 120 seconds to 90 seconds.
- When Blizzard wanted to remove carriers from HotS, fans discuss about proposed changes of carrier, they propose to change costs of carrier, because carrier are too expensive. In BW carrier'w build time is 140 seconds.
Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.
- Change to test. I have no idea.
Zerg Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
- Good change, of course fungal will block any moving spell like Ultralisk's charge, Zealot's charge and Stalker's Blink.
Roach cost increased to 100/25 from 75/25.
- In my opinion it's too much. Max 90/25. In my opinion best should be 80/25 or 85/25 but this change needs better calculations.
Terran Marine model size increased 30%.
- I need to see this change in test map like Blizzard's Antiga Shipyard.
- I completely disagree, forcefields are abit too powerful, but removing them will not fix the problem. I would suggest that it should researched and swapped with hallucination.
Fortify 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.
- A very poor suggestion, this will definately make walling in and making late game air army insanely powerful, especially if the 8 range void ray change goes through. Say this was implemented, then a protoss could go only air and make sentries to protect completely walled-in areas, 20 (maybe even 15?) sentries would make 4 expos completely invulnerable to attacks from ground.
Pylon Low-ground pylons no longer provide power to high-ground areas. High-ground warp-ins thus removed.
- I find this a wierd suggestion, to warp in on high-ground you will still need vision... And this practicly only happens between the 4-8 minute mark, by then protoss usually have the ability to build a Warp Prism...
Vortex 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.
"Vortex is a spell cast by the Protoss Mothership. All units with 2.5 of the targeted area are sucked into the Vortex, incapacitating them and making them invulnerable to attacks and abilities for the 20 second duration of the spell. Units within the Vortex are essentially removed from the field of battle, and can not be used or targeted until they are released from the Vortex. Units released from the Vortex are then immune to damage for 1.5 seconds. The spell can also be used defensively by tying up enemy units until the Protoss player can retreat or bring in appropriate supporting troops." (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Vortex)
- This is almost how Vortex is currently working, only difference is 5 seconds.
Carrier Carrier build time reduced from 120 seconds to 90 seconds.
- A good suggestion, another solution would be either: a) Cost b) Speed.
Void Ray Range upgrade for void ray added to fleet beacon. Increases void ray range from 6 to 8. Costs 150/150. 60 second research time.
- No, just no... Zerg AA wouldn't be able to stop a Void Ray... That change in my opinion would ruin the PvZ matchup completely: Spore Crawler (range 7) Queen (range 7) Hydralisk (range 6) Corrupter (range 6)
Zerg
Fungal Fungal growth changed from complete root to 40% movement speed slow and 30% attack speed slow. Damage unchanged. Still prevents blink.
- This would make Fungal Growth into an offensive ability instead of a defensive ability, I actually doubt it would change much.
Roach Roach cost increased to 100/25 from 75/25.
- Depending on whether or not forcefields get nerfed/removed I see no reason to change the cost as it is now.
Terran
Marine Marine model size increased 30%.
- I think this suggestion would reduce the marine damage output too much. No idea yet though, has to be tested.
Fortify shouldn't be useable on a Nexus...Otherwise Toss just leaves one sentry at all bases and can save them with Fortify + Zealot or other warp ins...
In simple terms, the point he makes that we can all agree on is that those three abilities make the game boring because they remove the ability to micro. I've sure seen a huge fungal land on my army, and then just tabbed back to my base because the engagement will go the way it goes, with no more input allowed on my end.
And seeing zero point to send repairing units when I see a sentry attack on my bunker, again, I just forget about the bunker and try to salvage it before it dies.
Hear hear. Its a sad truth though, that blizzard has continually proven reluctant to change these spells in any drastic fashion. Mere tweaks are the best we can hope for. I will list what I think are the best changes we can realistically expect to these spells:
Force field: HP bar added. Now you can micro no matter how many force fields are out. Fungal: slow instead of root. Vortex: radius, duration and energy cost lowered. Less of a one shot spell, and more of a tactical, positional, multi use spell.
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries.
Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential.
So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
Why do you spend so much time commenting on SC2 when you don't like it? It's incredibly obnoxious. Also Zerg larvae per hatchery are limited. How do you not know a simple fact like that before going on a rant about larvae mechanics you obviously didn't bother to research?
Also putting an emphasis on scouting raises the skill cap, since scouting isn't always easy. As the biggest BW apologist I've ever seen, I would have thought that anything that "lowers the skill cap" would be anathema to you.
On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote: Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically.
I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape.
Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast.
No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield.
Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject.
For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest.
Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that.
If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example.
I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e).
I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... .
The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries.
Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential.
So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
Why do you spend so much time commenting on SC2 when you don't like it? It's incredibly obnoxious. Also Zerg larvae per hatchery are limited. How do you not know a simple fact like that before going on a rant about larvae mechanics you obviously didn't bother to research?
Also putting an emphasis on scouting raises the skill cap, since scouting isn't always easy. As the biggest BW apologist I've ever seen, I would have thought that anything that "lowers the skill cap" would be anathema to you.
I spend so much time, because I have been a huge fan of BW and would like the sequel to be a game which I like to play and watch. There are severe "logic bugs" in the general gameplay which really really REALLY piss me off and I am not someone who simply walks away when encountering that. The game has soooo much potential, but it gets RUINED by an inept team of devs who fail to admit their own mistakes and who seem to have zero clue on unit balancing. Just look at the changes in Call to action #2 ... simply ridiculous.
Sure there is a limit on larvae, BUT in the late game there are sooo many hatcheries available that there is no restriction on the number of units which a Zerg can build AT ONE TIME. So it is practically unlimited even though it technically isnt. A zerg can reproduce EVERYTHING in ONE ROUND ... thats the whole point.
Burst production is BAD for the game since it fills the battlefield with too many units AND it is asymmetrical in that Terran and Protoss cant speed up all of their own productions and so the only sensible solution is to scrap all of them and go back to the speed of unit production in BW ...
i dont understand what sense does it make : Terran Marine model size increased 30%. when you alredy said you want fungal to be removed ? it makes no sense at all . or probably make banelings hit fewer marines ? and make colossi hit fewer marines ? so you just saying buffing marines by making all aoe in the game affect only 66.6% of what it was affecting until now regarding marine balls . hope that wont happen .
With speaking in particular to fungal growth, a slow seems like the best way to go with it. Someone analogized the current fungal to wc3 aoe keeper of the grove root that also hits air. It's just silly.
On December 01 2012 02:26 Deathstar wrote: With speaking in particular to fungal growth, a slow seems like the best way to go with it. Someone analogized the current fungal to wc3 aoe keeper of the grove root that also hits air. It's just silly.
It's also single target and does a buttload of damage with a single cast. Storm bolt is closer but it's also single target. Ensnare is single target and does no damage. O I KNOW TINKER ROCKETS!
The fungal was buffed shortly before WoL release, mainly to help zerg fend off the protoss death balls (that's where the + armored dmg came from).
The way I see it the overpowerful fungal was an emergency fix, because pvz was so broken and zerg needed a chance.
If forcefield is changed zerg won't need such a powerful fungal. Speed hydras and viper could also be changed to help fill the hole that less powerful fungal/infestor would leave
On December 01 2012 13:18 Freeborn wrote: The fungal was buffed shortly before WoL release, mainly to help zerg fend off the protoss death balls (that's where the + armored dmg came from).
The way I see it the overpowerful fungal was an emergency fix, because pvz was so broken and zerg needed a chance.
If forcefield is changed zerg won't need such a powerful fungal. Speed hydras and viper could also be changed to help fill the hole that less powerful fungal/infestor would leave
Incorrect.
Fungal was changed in patch 1.3 with the +armor bonus and decreased stun duration. The patch went live in March of 2011.
On December 01 2012 13:18 Freeborn wrote: The fungal was buffed shortly before WoL release, mainly to help zerg fend off the protoss death balls (that's where the + armored dmg came from).
The way I see it the overpowerful fungal was an emergency fix, because pvz was so broken and zerg needed a chance.
If forcefield is changed zerg won't need such a powerful fungal. Speed hydras and viper could also be changed to help fill the hole that less powerful fungal/infestor would leave
Incorrect.
Fungal was changed in patch 1.3 with the +armor bonus and decreased stun duration. The patch went live in March of 2011.
Wow sorry, you are right. Well it was still sort of an emergency fix. Protoss was dominating badly with their collossus deathballs, I think before that patch I also saw quite a few void rays added in there.
I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
On December 02 2012 05:51 kcdc wrote: I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
i see what you did there
i agree 8s root was even better and i mean infested terrans weren't changed at all and suddenly are viable when Zerg was supposed to be up?
i mean most playstyles from Zerg players today were viable back then but nobody used them because somehow running roaches hydra corrupter vs. forcefields was somehow the "only" viable way to play.
Zerg with their skill and matchup knowledge today would do almost as good with patch versions from like 1-2 years ago. At least in PvZ that is.
Forcefields should just have their time reduced. Fungal should slow, not root, and they already fixed Vortex in that it can't target air units. Seems pretty simple to me...
Would turning fungal into a slow really do all that much for Protoss? I know it would be easier to harass Zerg, since fungal would no longer guarantee a kill, but what about actual engagements?
I'm thinking Interceptors would actually still work if they moved slowly, instead of being rooted. Would that do anything about corruptorspam, though? There was one game (game 1 of some series) of ZvP on metropolis where the toss managed a full transition to carrier / templar, but then just died horribly in a fire due to corruptors murdering carriers, which couldn't kite since their AI has yet to be fixed.
I could definitely see IT spray getting weaker, since a non-stick fungal couldn't keep enemy units in range if they tried to run away. Forcing the zerg to shit out a few dozen marines, then waiting for them to expire before moving in again sounds nice. The thing is, though, he's still able to buy time for br00ds, and fungal growth still does an incredible amount of damage, especially vs Colossi / Stalker balls. It's not easy (or even possible in some cases) to spread out an army that bulky into a nice line to mitigate damage.
Maybe we could try out a fungal-slow change out on a mod map, if people were interested in seeing its effects in the ZvP matchup.
sad thing is both spells are broken due to smartcast spawn IT as well. forcefield couldve been a spell that blocked off strategical routs and slightly reduced enemy firepower, but because it's so easily spammable, toss players get 6+ sentries and create entire walls, meaning that the rest of the army has to have its firepower reduced.
fungal and its same thing; it's mainly a problem because people can make 20 infestors and have them on 1 hotkey and never waste energy so it's always easy to fungal and kill threatening units. forcing you to select an individual infestor for each fungal wouldve greatly diminished its power, and while spawning IT's would still be pretty hardcore if you could throw 20 at the same time, that'd also mean you had no control over which infestors were then able to fungal.
the problem with both spells is rooted in smartcast/unlimited unit selection, and neither spell will be fixed (unless removed completely) unless the interface is altered. which it won't be. so oh well.
On December 02 2012 05:51 kcdc wrote: I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
nah the old fungal was much weaker. It did less damage and over a longer period making it much worse in combat. It was better as a tactical spell delaying a push or countering air in combination with IT but much worse overall. Fungal now is so good because it has a huge effect in combat, you can quickly kill entire packs of units with chain fungeling etc. Doing damage quickly is key in fights, the old fungal would root units which would then by killed by your other stuff while fungal didn't actually do that much damage yet, the current fungal adds great DPS to fights which is FAR more important then the longer root, if you want to root longer you just reapply fungal or even better you just kill the units..
IT hardly being used before is kind of weird though but it's mostly the result of mass infestors not being that good before. Fungal was more a tactical spell at first you didn't need many off, now you basically want as many infestors as you can afford which makes IT being used so much. At some points neural actually competed with IT too in that you would rather neural their colossi than lob some ITs.
And liquid'drone, suggesting removal of smart casting to fix these spells is such an ugly change. It would probably work but it would be a terrible change. "because unit x is massed too much we are removing an intuitive interface so it becomes harder to use in large amounts". It would just be utterly frustating, a case where the cure is worse than the disease. There are much better ways to change the dominance of these spells by just applying smart buffs/nerfs or map changes that make it less desireable to mass fungal/ff. For example more open maps to remove the viability of massive sentries (letting P take a third with the help of MsC), making fungal last longer again so massing infestors won't be as good etc. etc.
On December 02 2012 05:51 kcdc wrote: I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
nah the old fungal was much weaker. It did less damage and over a longer period making it much worse in combat. It was better as a tactical spell delaying a push or countering air in combination with IT but much worse overall. Fungal now is so good because it has a huge effect in combat, you can quickly kill entire packs of units with chain fungeling etc. Doing damage quickly is key in fights, the old fungal would root units which would then by killed by your other stuff while fungal didn't actually do that much damage yet, the current fungal adds great DPS to fights which is FAR more important then the longer root, if you want to root longer you just reapply fungal or even better you just kill the units..
IT hardly being used before is kind of weird though but it's mostly the result of mass infestors not being that good before. Fungal was more a tactical spell at first you didn't need many off, now you basically want as many infestors as you can afford which makes IT being used so much. At some points neural actually competed with IT too in that you would rather neural their colossi than lob some ITs.
And liquid'drone, suggesting removal of smart casting to fix these spells is such an ugly change. It would probably work but it would be a terrible change. "because unit x is massed too much we are removing an intuitive interface so it becomes harder to use in large amounts". It would just be utterly frustating, a case where the cure is worse than the disease. There are much better ways to change the dominance of these spells by just applying smart buffs/nerfs or map changes that make it less desireable to mass fungal/ff. For example more open maps to remove the viability of massive sentries (letting P take a third with the help of MsC), making fungal last longer again so massing infestors won't be as good etc. etc.
Very true. The old fungal sucked. What is making fungal so good is the pretty good AoE Damage, that is unavoidable once it hits - that combined with the root that guarantees subsequent hits. Making the speel either do damage OR root/disable/slow will fix this. But that will also break pvz if FF is not changed.
On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote: Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords.
Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect.
What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
To expand on that point. You could try to balance them by upping the cost of individual roaches, but only /if/ they were reduced to 1 supply once more. You`d most likely have to do something with the hydralisk aswell.
My gut feeling dislikes this strongly. Invincible protoss structures = cannon rushes that you actually can't stop. proxy a pylon near a probe line and fortify it with your 4 gate or with a warp prism and suddenly no more probe line, all for some 25 minerals if you cancel after the effect ends. Yet if you make it uncastable on building structures, protoss has to finish their ffe wall w/ 3 pylons instead of 1 gateway.
I also can't see how your changes would change pvz from a 20 min snooze fest. now even the sentry allins are inviable, the stephano roach max, along with all other roach attacks/contains, are more expensive, and the only viable and logical thing to do is have everyone turtle to 4 bases, build the best t3 army imaginable, have a fight in the middle, all followed by a frantic remaxing where protoss is trying to put zealots on the tech and zerg is trying to run 100 lings into the protoss mining bases. Looks a lot like the current pvz to me; just now there's different imba mechanics that will be just as stale as ff, fungal, and vortex in about 2 weeks.
With the addition of Blinding Cloud in HoTS, I would actually like to see them experiment with restoring fungal growth back to its original status. Obviously, it would be OP to have it root for 8 seconds, but instead, they should just make it slow for 8 seconds. They could also play around with having it do no damage and instead being castable while burrowed. I think this change is necessary because if you thought fungal growth is bad now, imagine not having any of your units able to attack because of blinding cloud and being unable to move them out from underneath the blinding cloud.
With this change, Zerg could use burrowed infestors to stall pushes, divide armies, or create a good engagement by using fungal growth strategically. You could use them to fungal groups of tanks so that they are prevented from going into siege mode and use that time to attack. If an opponent is moving out for an attack and you are not ready, you can fungal growth a chunk of their army to slow them down. If they try to press the issue with half their army lagging behind, you can take advantage of the split army with your units.
EPT
.
), and you want to nerf the roach and you want to get rid of forcefields. Fine, do it. But why pretend it's even possible to consider all the ramifications? Break it, see how it's broken, then fix it.
.
