EPTOn December 04 2012 12:39 darkness wrote:
Least love for Protoss I guess.
Least love for Protoss I guess.
Do you expect any different for the neglected middle child of blizzard?
The next major balance patch - David Kim - Page 14
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
-TesteR-
Canada1165 Posts
Do you expect any different for the neglected middle child of blizzard? | ||
|
Kiro21
Canada19 Posts
On December 04 2012 08:46 Kiro21 wrote: DT Buff Idea: 400/400 Upgrade at DT Shrine. Don't know upgrade time. The first attack from a Dark templar deals 150 damage. (Has a 20 second cooldown) This would make it late game, also make it not very strong if you got it early because its expensive and one snipe of 150 dmg isn't spectacular, but 10 dts could be immense. It also isn't op because after 10 strikes, especially if misplaced, they play their old role and its harder to get those hits off. They can snipe turrets, spores, tanks, swarm hosts, and can be the bad ass end game warp gate unit. Also, it sticks with the role of the assassin. AND most importantly, adds for some insaneee micro and death ball breaking (running dts in early to individually snipe colossi before the fight begins) I think itd be awesome. What you guys think? | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
Nah, I don't like this idea. It's not very exciting imho. However, the Dark Shrine should bring an upgrade as it's currently very expensive for nothing... What about bringing Dark Archon back, and the Dark Shrine lists some upgrades. They may totally be fresh and not like BW's. Also, make that unit viable against.... blords/infestors I guess? There shouldn't be only 1 option to deal with them (tempest). Or..even better! Make protoss suck less in mid game. | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
can you stop reposting your ideas? it's annoying. 150 damage is not spectacular? a tank is 160hp | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:31 Antylamon wrote: Blizz already expressed their desire to make most of these changes before BWC ended. They've probably had plans to fix this shit sitting on some high, dusty shelf for a long time, but the level of negativity in the community at this point is likely prompting them to ditch their 'sit and watch and just try to keep matchups 50/50, to hell with strategic diversity or interesting gameplay' approach. Which is good. Not only HOTS, but WoL need some drastic game play altering changes because fans as well as players are overall kind of pissed. On December 04 2012 11:33 Wombat_NI wrote: Aye, good point. The most elegant solution is always the best, ideally. I mean, making a Muta better in its harassing capacity as a rule is grand, but the 'better' way to do this isn't to make it a speed machine but to make it more manouverable and have more finesse. Finesse units like Mutas or Marines also scale a hell of a lot more entertainingly the better the player controlling them. Hm, might be wrong but aren't some aspects of old-school BW micro apparently not doable given the engine? Remember somebody said this on here once, something about sprites and 3D models rotating around their axis differently or something :S Precise, deadly muta micro was one of the few they absolutely had to NOT fuck up in starcraft 2. Watching stacked mutas tear through defenses like a knife through butter was one of the very best spectating/playing experiences Broodwar had to offer. | ||
|
Kiro21
Canada19 Posts
On December 04 2012 12:52 ETisME wrote: can you stop reposting your ideas? it's annoying. 150 damage is not spectacular? a tank is 160hp That's the point, one attack from one dt insta kills a bunch of units, but it only works once every 20 seconds. Its a quick slash if the opposing team doesnt have detection. The strength comes from investing in a bunch of dts. But thats a huge investment late game and its easily stopped and can be poorly micro'd to not be that effective. Killing 10 marines instantly and than losing 10 dts is not a wortwhile trade. But killing 10 tanks? Not easy to do but very worthwhile. | ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
6. Make Voidray + Phoenix + Oracle combo a viable strat overall. Why? What's so appealing about this strategy besides existing for the sake of diversity? | ||
|
Woizit
801 Posts
I wish there's something being done for the Cattlebruisers though. | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
| ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:05 red4ce wrote: Why? What's so appealing about this strategy besides existing for the sake of diversity? Maybe because it doesn't get surrounded by lings and roaches. But really, I think the idea is that they are changing the Void Ray to make it useful again, so they need to change the Oracle to avoid overlap, and therefore they have a chance at making Toss air openers more sustainable. Obviously you will never have Sky Toss simply because all their air units cost so much damn gas. You will always have the basic toss gateway units as the majority of your army. But they can create some diverse air units, leading to harassment combos that over the course of the midgame can build into viable alternatives to the already powerful robo and templar tech routes. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On December 04 2012 12:44 -TesteR- wrote: Do you expect any different for the neglected middle child of blizzard? Well protoss isn't struggling right now as well so who knows what they could give toss in terms of changes other then the ones they listed. | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On December 04 2012 03:48 suspiria wrote: Yeah, this is the second time I've read this, and it makes sense, AND it bums me out. Zerglings should still have counterattack and tertiary squad capability, which doesn't seem to happen with widow mines. They just kill way too many of them with one widow mine. I suppose vs. a stricly bio army they can still be good, or perhaps in small numbers. Widow mines are gimmicky, and this will be recognized with time. Good micro can make widow mines all but worthless when you're talking about zergling counter-harass. Click group of zerglings to harass spot, shift click one away, click back, repeat until you're sending a few solo zerglings. They'll trip any mines on the way. Sending out these 'mine clearing lings' will be a cool mechanical requirement, and this is certainly something the current Zerg design needs to narrow the mechanics gap between the two races. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26510 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:15 Fig wrote: Maybe because it doesn't get surrounded by lings and roaches. But really, I think the idea is that they are changing the Void Ray to make it useful again, so they need to change the Oracle to avoid overlap, and therefore they have a chance at making Toss air openers more sustainable. Obviously you will never have Sky Toss simply because all their air units cost so much damn gas. You will always have the basic toss gateway units as the majority of your army. But they can create some diverse air units, leading to harassment combos that over the course of the midgame can build into viable alternatives to the already powerful robo and templar tech routes. Here's the logical extension of that idea. It's not so you can go Skytoss, it's potentially that you can mitigate the downside of going Stargate a la WoL, depending on other factors in HoTs too. The downside is the period between getting map control with your Stargate units, and infestors popping and them being useful. It's not that long and a lot of utility of the units is lost as soon as Infestors are out and about. It's about making a map control-centric strat like Stargate, not have to necessarily tend to transition to Robo/Collosus as it usually does. Bear in mind I made this post before we had any idea of how they intended to change the void it was just 'maybe going to change' Relevant Post | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26510 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:17 blade55555 wrote: Well protoss isn't struggling right now as well so who knows what they could give toss in terms of changes other then the ones they listed. Lol, an ability to play, not for the time BL/Infestor is out, but merely taking that into consideration as an approach to the matchup. They did kind of solve the problem to be fair, but then Tempest/Templar apparently functions quite similarly for us when we get to it | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:10 EleanorRIgby wrote: its taking them so long to nerf the obviously overpowered infestor. infestor/bl is so boring and zerg rushes to it every game now, this is so wrong and if anything zerg should have a massive ground army with some air support like in broodwar, zerg having this really slow moving air army that dominates almost every composition while also having the best late game production is just way too much, cant have massive production and the best army in the game.... Easier said than done without overnerfing Zerg or accidentally overbuffing when trying to compensate for the nerfs. | ||
|
ZjiublingZ
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 04 2012 12:29 grapedog wrote: Considering that zerg can remaz from BL/Corr into Ultras instantly, i dont see an issue with the tempest hard countering both. Why should zerg get to do a complete air to ground switch, or vice versa, but others cannot and cant counter it without sacking now useless units. Okay I will try not to break into circular logic here. Zerg is a race that is designed to have amazing production, we can accept that as just how the game is yes? That's what makes Zerg Zerg-like, unique fundamental differences in the races makes the game interesting. But as you have pointed out it creates a tricky situation for Protoss and Terran: How do they deal with two attacks subsequently from compositions that are fundamentally different (like Ultralisk > Brood Lord based compositions)? Well there are two solutions, design wise, for P and T to solve this problem (perhaps more but they aren't very relevant): Either give them each units that, like the Tempest in it's current form, defends from both of these late-game compositions of Ultra/BL and so the Zerg tech switching isn't a scary proposition. Maybe they favor one composition because of the map, or because of the pace of the game, but their opponents composition doesn't really factor into their decision on which composition to use. And so maybe once their opponent that gets these units out - the Tempest in this case - they can no longer justify making their T3 units and must revert back to a lower tier composition to be effective, and this lower teir composition is so effective it can deal with the opponents late game army if it has some of these Tempests in it. And so Zerg's switch between tiers of their compositions based on seeing whether or not the Protoss has above or below X Tempest counter. And so the match-up sort of revolves around this one unit and how many the Protoss has. The other solution is to make both units - BL and Ultra - less supply efficient/cost efficient than the opponents counters to those units. In this way, the P or T can potentially create a composition that "hard counters" one of the Zerg's tech choices, and will crush it. But if he does this, the Zerg can tech switch and abuse the P or T for this "hard counter". But if the P or T creates a more balanced composition, that doesn't hard-counter one unit composition but is comprised of counters to both of them, the Zerg can trade better against him with one unit composition, but his tech switches aren't so strong. This creates a situation where in Z vs P/T, both races possess a sort of "finishing move", where-in if the Z is out of money and loses this tech switch ability, than the P or T can simply hard-counter the Z's composition and crush it one last time, knowing the Z doesn't have the money to tech switch (or production perhaps?). And conversely, the Zerg can do a similar "finishing move", where-in if the P/T is lacking in money (or production perhaps?) they might be forced to hard-counter the Z's composition (or what they assume that composition might be), and if the Zerg is ahead in funds enough they can tech switch and finish off the P/T who doesn't have the funds to prepare. This creates a lot of dynamics where both players are trying to scout each other's compositions and production to see which composition they want to make. And where one player might be trying to force an engagement with the other: In Z's case they might want to force an engagement before the opponent can improve their composition. In P or T's case they might be trying to force an engagement before the Z can build up enough bank to remax and counter the opponents composition, or simply when they have a composition-ally superior army and they can fight near the Zerg's bases and take one or more out after the won engagement. It also creates awesome tactics where players can try and hurt the tech/production of the other in order to gain an advantage in this compositional battle, or where a player might outsmart the other through either mis-information or simply by just hiding their tech, and then surprise them with a composition they didn't expect. This allows players to come-back from games where they might be behind economically, through clever tactics or simply playing smarter. I think it's fairly obvious which way of solving the problem is better game design. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26510 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:24 eviltomahawk wrote: Easier said than done without overnerfing Zerg or accidentally overbuffing when trying to compensate for the nerfs. Ideally, keep its 'peak' potential intact, i.e the potential ability of a perfect Zerg player in terms of what they can do. Nerf it backwards from that point in terms of achievability in various other ways. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26510 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:27 ZjiublingZ wrote: Okay I will try not to break into circular logic here. Zerg is a race that is designed to have amazing production, we can accept that as just how the game is yes? That's what makes Zerg Zerg-like, unique fundamental differences in the races makes the game interesting. But as you have pointed out it creates a tricky situation for Protoss and Terran: How do they deal with two attacks subsequently from compositions that are fundamentally different (like Ultralisk > Brood Lord based compositions)? Well there are two solutions, design wise, for P and T to solve this problem (perhaps more but they aren't very relevant): Either give them each units that, like the Tempest in it's current form, defends from both of these late-game compositions of Ultra/BL and so the Zerg tech switching isn't a scary proposition. Maybe they favor one composition because of the map, or because of the pace of the game, but their opponents composition doesn't really factor into their decision on which composition to use. And so maybe once their opponent that gets these units out - the Tempest in this case - they can no longer justify making their T3 units and must revert back to a lower tier composition to be effective, and this lower teir composition is so effective it can deal with the opponents late game army if it has some of these Tempests in it. And so Zerg's switch between tiers of their compositions based on seeing whether or not the Protoss has above or below X Tempest counter. And so the match-up sort of revolves around this one unit and how many the Protoss has. The other solution is to make both units - BL and Ultra - less supply efficient/cost efficient than the opponents counters to those units. In this way, the P or T can potentially create a composition that "hard counters" one of the Zerg's tech choices, and will crush it. But if he does this, the Zerg can tech switch and abuse the P or T for this "hard counter". But if the P or T creates a more balanced composition, that doesn't hard-counter one unit composition but is comprised of counters to both of them, the Zerg can trade better against him with one unit composition, but his tech switches aren't so strong. This creates a situation where in Z vs P/T, both races possess a sort of "finishing move", where-in if the Z is out of money and loses this tech switch ability, than the P or T can simply hard-counter the Z's composition and crush it one last time, knowing the Z doesn't have the money to tech switch (or production perhaps?). And conversely, the Zerg can do a similar "finishing move", where-in if the P/T is lacking in money (or production perhaps?) they might be forced to hard-counter the Z's composition (or what they assume that composition might be), and if the Zerg is ahead in funds enough they can tech switch and finish off the P/T who doesn't have the funds to prepare. This creates a lot of dynamics where both players are trying to scout each other's compositions and production to see which composition they want to make. And where one player might be trying to force an engagement with the other: In Z's case they might want to force an engagement before the opponent can improve their composition. In P or T's case they might be trying to force an engagement before the Z can build up enough bank to remax and counter the opponents composition, or simply when they have a composition-ally superior army and they can fight near the Zerg's bases and take one or more out after the won engagement. It also creates awesome tactics where players can try and hurt the tech/production of the other in order to gain an advantage in this compositional battle, or where a player might outsmart the other through either mis-information or simply by just hiding their tech, and then surprise them with a composition they didn't expect. This allows players to come-back from games where they might be behind economically, through clever tactics or simply playing smarter. I think it's fairly obvious which way of solving the problem is better game design. Why are guys like you not finding my thread on game design being the issue we have to make Blizzard aware of, not 'Infestor OP' nonsense.  I mean simply, Protoss can be the 'timing attack' race. However they should at least have other styles that certain guys like to use, like a 'macro Protoss' is a term I've never really heard used apart from European PvZ when everyone played macro games, but passively. In fact MC had his identity, his style as a timing attack player formed ages ago, when nobody else had really refined the concept to the level he had. The styles don't necessarily have to be as potentially good as each other, but should exist as options | ||
|
ZjiublingZ
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 04 2012 13:05 red4ce wrote: Why? What's so appealing about this strategy besides existing for the sake of diversity? Well to put it simply - diversity is the only reason. But to elaborate on that idea, it gives us more variety of games. It gives Protoss more viable compositions, and thus the opposing races more viable counter-compositions. Even more, it allow players to play stylistically, this army composition might stress more of X skill that a player excels in, while a Robo composition might stress Y skill that a different player can show off. Different players playing the same race differently is huge. On top of all that, it can give us some more options for maps. Maybe one map is pretty weak for Robo play because of a lack of mobility, but Protoss can go Stargate their because it's solid too (and maybe there are some mind-games where the opponent blindly counters Stargate and then Robo build is more effective, even if the map discourages it). This allows us to have more variety in our map pool - something that's sorely lacking in WoL. | ||
|
Elldar
Sweden287 Posts
The medivac and muta buff I have no real appreciation for, I just wish I had scourge  . | ||
| ||
