It pains me to suggest a buff for protoss, being a zerg player, but it is more for pvt and i dont think it would affect the other matchups too much. Maybe PvP a little, but i dont think it would break the matchup.
My suggestion is the give the immortal +1 range.
Imho this would do a few different things.
First, and most importantly, it would help protoss players hold off the 1-1-1 push that is SO prevalent in high levels of pvt. being able to target the seige tanks without your immortals getting stuck behind ur other units and not firing would help a great deal in holding this push.
Second, as a generality protoss players, as Artosis is often pointing out in the GSL, often do not control their immortals very well, as they have them on the same hotkey as their other units. Giving them +1 range might help the protoss army function more cohesively.
I am certainly open to the possibility that protoss players just havent figured out the proper response to the 1-1-1 build, but as it is pretty easy for the terran to execute, should it really be so hard for the protoss to hold? This might level the playing field a bit.
So what are your thought, TL, would this be too big off a buff? How would it affect pvp and pvz if at all? Necessary or over the top?
On August 16 2011 21:15 Nothingtosay wrote: Do you guys feel that infestors are too good versus protoss? I've been saying this for awhile and now we have whitera saying the same.
It just seems like they are too versatile and fungal growth is is so amazing with how it prevents the constant micro that protoss needs to perform in battles. I'm happy that the root time was reduced from 8 to 4 seconds before zerg started realizing how good it is. I think being rooted for 4 more seconds is way worse than the dps increase. Obviously I know that feedback is really good but you can't reliably feedback every infestor.
They might be too good, but without them, then it becomes extremely difficult for zerg to play against protoss. The infestor buff always seemed like an improvised fix for the flaws of the race to me. I hope HoTS can give zerg more interesting options to play the game.
It just seems like they are too versatile and fungal growth is is so amazing with how it prevents the constant micro that protoss needs to perform in battles. I'm happy that the root time was reduced from 8 to 4 seconds before zerg started realizing how good it is. I think being rooted for 4 more seconds is way worse than the dps increase. Obviously I know that feedback is really good but you can't reliably feedback every infestor.
They might be too good, but without them, then it becomes extremely difficult for zerg to play against protoss. The infestor buff always seemed like an improvised fix for the flaws of the race to me. I hope HoTS can give zerg more interesting options to play the game.
I agree. Infestors seem a bit overpowered, but if they weren't, then zerg would be a bit underpowered right now. I only hope blizzard doesn't make a temporary solution permanent, and corectly nerfs infestor/ buffs zerg in HotS.
On August 17 2011 02:43 Fu[G]u wrote: So, I have an idea for a balance change.
It pains me to suggest a buff for protoss, being a zerg player, but it is more for pvt and i dont think it would affect the other matchups too much. Maybe PvP a little, but i dont think it would break the matchup.
My suggestion is the give the immortal +1 range.
Imho this would do a few different things.
First, and most importantly, it would help protoss players hold off the 1-1-1 push that is SO prevalent in high levels of pvt. being able to target the seige tanks without your immortals getting stuck behind ur other units and not firing would help a great deal in holding this push.
Second, as a generality protoss players, as Artosis is often pointing out in the GSL, often do not control their immortals very well, as they have them on the same hotkey as their other units. Giving them +1 range might help the protoss army function more cohesively.
I am certainly open to the possibility that protoss players just havent figured out the proper response to the 1-1-1 build, but as it is pretty easy for the terran to execute, should it really be so hard for the protoss to hold? This might level the playing field a bit.
So what are your thought, TL, would this be too big off a buff? How would it affect pvp and pvz if at all? Necessary or over the top?
Anything to buff immortals sounds good to me.
The problem I see with immortals is that they're slow to build and only useful in a specific portion of PvT and PvZ.
In PvT once a good number of medivacs are out or ghosts are out, building immortals becomes a waste of robo time. But terran can get medivacs and ghosts very quickly, so the window of opportunity to use immortals is very small. They're primarily used to all-in versus a terran who expanded.
In PvZ, once the zerg scouts that you have build a robo, the spire goes down and you're up against a fast-running clock before your tech choice is hard-countered by mutas. Again the window to take advantage of immortals is very small, and they're an all-in unit.
So I prefer to have immortals build faster so that you could actually make use of them on the field for a longer period of time. But +1 range would be nice too I guess.
On August 17 2011 01:40 Exstasy wrote: Can someone please explain to me what has changed since release that NOW makes 1/1/1 OP? It's been a standard terran build since beta.
Well I think part of it are the nerfs protoss has received. I mean yes void rays used to be super OP, but after like literally cutting their damage in half they won't be busting any 1-1-1 that's properly controlled. The WG nerf didn't help either, as the buff to sentry build time only helps if you're constantly building sentries while warp researches.
TBH I'm not entirely sure, the above doesn't make the 1-1-1 THAT strong. What I do know is that when properly executed it definitely beats 1 basing via hiding an expansion in base and the ability to harass with banshees and potentially contain with siege tanks. And as of yet, nobody has had much success defending it off an FE.
It just seems like they are too versatile and fungal growth is is so amazing with how it prevents the constant micro that protoss needs to perform in battles. I'm happy that the root time was reduced from 8 to 4 seconds before zerg started realizing how good it is. I think being rooted for 4 more seconds is way worse than the dps increase. Obviously I know that feedback is really good but you can't reliably feedback every infestor.
They might be too good, but without them, then it becomes extremely difficult for zerg to play against protoss. The infestor buff always seemed like an improvised fix for the flaws of the race to me. I hope HoTS can give zerg more interesting options to play the game.
Ehhh even if Infestors got nerfed, Zerg still has baneling play to fall back on. I don't think the match-up would be ruined without the current state of infestors. Banelings aren't quite as strong, but the protoss can at least micro against them with forcefields. or spreading units, or kiting overlord drops. I think it would make all the Protoss happier and the battles would be more micro/skill dependent than just sitting there with your thumb up your butt cause your units can't move.
On August 17 2011 01:40 Exstasy wrote: Can someone please explain to me what has changed since release that NOW makes 1/1/1 OP? It's been a standard terran build since beta.
Well I think part of it are the nerfs protoss has received. I mean yes void rays used to be super OP, but after like literally cutting their damage in half they won't be busting any 1-1-1 that's properly controlled. The WG nerf didn't help either, as the buff to sentry build time only helps if you're constantly building sentries while warp researches.
TBH I'm not entirely sure, the above doesn't make the 1-1-1 THAT strong. What I do know is that when properly executed it definitely beats 1 basing via hiding an expansion in base and the ability to harass with banshees and potentially contain with siege tanks. And as of yet, nobody has had much success defending it off an FE.
It was less of a change in the game and more of a meta shift. No one used to use Tank/Marine vs Protoss, but now that people are starting to utilize Ravens more, they're very good. Ravens stop the Stalker damage with PDD, so all you have is Sentry damage ( lol ) and having to run Zealots up, through Tank fire. Ravens/Banshees for high ground sight also allows Tanks to overcome the high ground advantage with their huge range.
Once you get Banshees on the field, you also have effective harass that can be game ending if the Protoss didn't get a Robo Bay or cannons up all around. So, good harass options + a hard to break force is just good.
It's a meta-game shift in that no one was using Marine/Tank/Banshee/Raven against Protoss before, because it just wasn't considered a good comp. Once someone (or a few people) started using it and found timings where you could hit with it, it became popular. That's how metagaming works. The warp gate timing might have had something to do with it, but usually 1-1-1 hits even after the new warp gate is finished.
Honestly, it's not that hard to hold if you go for Robo tech. Zealot/Stalker/Sentry/Immortal takes out Marine/Marauder/Tank, and you'll have Observers for the Banshees. A lot of Protoss players stopped opening with Robo, opting for greedy 1gate expands or safe, but low tech, 3 gate expands. You can hold off 1-1-1 with these... but it's much harder and needs precise timing. If the Terran is teching up, you need to as well.
With regard to infestors being overpowered, I feel like the argument goes along the same lines as how forcefields were considered overpowered for toss players. I think people just haven't learened to adapt to them yet and adjust their play. Just my 2 cents.
in the current state of protoss, you can only respond to infestor-ling (discussion should really be of infestor ling, not just the infestor) with zealots, collossi or archons. these are the only 3 units you can reliably fight the zerglings with. fungal'd zealots and neuraled collosi are hell which is why you are seeing so many high level players move towards archons. archons are 100-300 for 1.
every other unit can get abused by infestors quite easily. before you say stalkers (which you probably SEE a lot of), realize that no protoss will tell you that the stalker is an ideal choice, it is simply what they are stuck with. fungal'd stalkers are dead meat against the zerglings that will surely follow.
the infestor is a GREAT unit though with a lot of versatility and its good that its so powerful. our response shouldn't be to make the infestor a worse unit but rather make it so that its strength is equaled with its cost. i would suggest increasing the cost of infestors or buffing the archon. the archon has real potential in fighting the infestor, and HTfeedback / archons could then be an actual response to the infestor.
tldr: increase infestor gas cost by perhaps 50, increase archon splash power or range, or both
On August 17 2011 03:10 Aletheia27 wrote: With regard to infestors being overpowered, I feel like the argument goes along the same lines as how forcefields were considered overpowered for toss players. I think people just haven't learened to adapt to them yet and adjust their play. Just my 2 cents.
Kind of. Except that Zerg doesn't depend on infestors for surviving. Without sentries Protoss dies to every early game aggression. Zerg can live without infestors. Forcefields aren't overpowered, they're a necessity.
On August 17 2011 03:12 JiYan wrote: in the current state of protoss, you can only respond to infestor-ling (discussion should really be of infestor ling, not just the infestor) with zealots, collossi or archons. these are the only 3 units you can reliably fight the zerglings with. fungal'd zealots and neuraled collosi are hell which is why you are seeing so many high level players move towards archons. archons are 100-300 for 1.
every other unit can get abused by infestors quite easily. before you say stalkers (which you probably SEE a lot of), realize that no protoss will tell you that the stalker is an ideal choice, it is simply what they are stuck with. fungal'd stalkers are dead meat against the zerglings that will surely follow.
the infestor is a GREAT unit though with a lot of versatility and its good that its so powerful. our response shouldn't be to make the infestor a worse unit but rather make it so that its strength is equaled with its cost. i would suggest increasing the cost of infestors or buffing the archon. the archon has real potential in fighting the infestor, and HTfeedback / archons could then be an actual response to the infestor.
tldr: increase infestor gas cost by perhaps 50, increase archon splash power or range, or both
I fear these archon changes would make it too strong in PvT, just looking at how well chargelots/archon/HT is working out atm.
On August 17 2011 03:12 JiYan wrote: in the current state of protoss, you can only respond to infestor-ling (discussion should really be of infestor ling, not just the infestor) with zealots, collossi or archons. these are the only 3 units you can reliably fight the zerglings with. fungal'd zealots and neuraled collosi are hell which is why you are seeing so many high level players move towards archons. archons are 100-300 for 1.
every other unit can get abused by infestors quite easily. before you say stalkers (which you probably SEE a lot of), realize that no protoss will tell you that the stalker is an ideal choice, it is simply what they are stuck with. fungal'd stalkers are dead meat against the zerglings that will surely follow.
the infestor is a GREAT unit though with a lot of versatility and its good that its so powerful. our response shouldn't be to make the infestor a worse unit but rather make it so that its strength is equaled with its cost. i would suggest increasing the cost of infestors or buffing the archon. the archon has real potential in fighting the infestor, and HTfeedback / archons could then be an actual response to the infestor.
tldr: increase infestor gas cost by perhaps 50, increase archon splash power or range, or both
The problem is that zerg lacks spellcaster versatility, so the infestor is forced to perform all the functions that it currently does. If anything the infestor should be split into two units.
Is there even a way to reasonably get into contact with designer and balance team ?. Its not like its official as a link or something like a adress to get your points straight and explain the way that overall improvements are a big + for the game , the vievers and the higher chances of longlivety in e-sports like that. On the other hand its understandable that they dont wanna people play arround with their product where some already get paid for it.
All i can do is offer my help , and no i dont wanna make 2-3 years study in designer area it just makes me sad that this game gets in this state that much attention . And i hope someone can PM me with a legit E-Mail adress or something to get things rolling !
On August 17 2011 03:10 Aletheia27 wrote: With regard to infestors being overpowered, I feel like the argument goes along the same lines as how forcefields were considered overpowered for toss players. I think people just haven't learened to adapt to them yet and adjust their play. Just my 2 cents.
Kind of. Except that Zerg doesn't depend on infestors for surviving. Without sentries Protoss dies to every early game aggression. Zerg can live without infestors. Forcefields aren't overpowered, they're a necessity.
Maybe not earlier game, but late game Zerg definetely needs Infestors to survive, so they are still a necessity.
On August 17 2011 03:12 JiYan wrote: in the current state of protoss, you can only respond to infestor-ling (discussion should really be of infestor ling, not just the infestor) with zealots, collossi or archons. these are the only 3 units you can reliably fight the zerglings with. fungal'd zealots and neuraled collosi are hell which is why you are seeing so many high level players move towards archons. archons are 100-300 for 1.
every other unit can get abused by infestors quite easily. before you say stalkers (which you probably SEE a lot of), realize that no protoss will tell you that the stalker is an ideal choice, it is simply what they are stuck with. fungal'd stalkers are dead meat against the zerglings that will surely follow.
the infestor is a GREAT unit though with a lot of versatility and its good that its so powerful. our response shouldn't be to make the infestor a worse unit but rather make it so that its strength is equaled with its cost. i would suggest increasing the cost of infestors or buffing the archon. the archon has real potential in fighting the infestor, and HTfeedback / archons could then be an actual response to the infestor.
tldr: increase infestor gas cost by perhaps 50, increase archon splash power or range, or both
A zealot/templar/archon composition straight up destroys ling/bling/infestor. Zergs who play this style know that they need to get ultras out (or start producing roaches) before the toss gets up to speed with that composition. When I play toss who respond correctly to infestor play, I have a lot of trouble, but very few toss respond correctly at this point. Usually they try to 6 gate, which just gets shut down. I also see very late thirds out of most toss at my level, and failure to use cannons to keep infestors from harassing mineral lines.
Toss need to learn to stop making colossi when they see mass infestors. That gas can be templar/archons or upgrades (something else toss seem to routinely neglect, even though chronoed upgrade timings are deadly).
On August 17 2011 03:10 Aletheia27 wrote: With regard to infestors being overpowered, I feel like the argument goes along the same lines as how forcefields were considered overpowered for toss players. I think people just haven't learened to adapt to them yet and adjust their play. Just my 2 cents.
Kind of. Except that Zerg doesn't depend on infestors for surviving. Without sentries Protoss dies to every early game aggression. Zerg can live without infestors. Forcefields aren't overpowered, they're a necessity.
Maybe not earlier game, but late game Zerg definetely needs Infestors to survive, so they are still a necessity.
Why do you think this? I've seen tons of games that would prove this statement false.
On August 17 2011 02:43 Fu[G]u wrote: So, I have an idea for a balance change.
It pains me to suggest a buff for protoss, being a zerg player, but it is more for pvt and i dont think it would affect the other matchups too much. Maybe PvP a little, but i dont think it would break the matchup.
My suggestion is the give the immortal +1 range.
Imho this would do a few different things.
First, and most importantly, it would help protoss players hold off the 1-1-1 push that is SO prevalent in high levels of pvt. being able to target the seige tanks without your immortals getting stuck behind ur other units and not firing would help a great deal in holding this push.
Second, as a generality protoss players, as Artosis is often pointing out in the GSL, often do not control their immortals very well, as they have them on the same hotkey as their other units. Giving them +1 range might help the protoss army function more cohesively.
I am certainly open to the possibility that protoss players just havent figured out the proper response to the 1-1-1 build, but as it is pretty easy for the terran to execute, should it really be so hard for the protoss to hold? This might level the playing field a bit.
So what are your thought, TL, would this be too big off a buff? How would it affect pvp and pvz if at all? Necessary or over the top?
It will ruin the PvP matchup even more than help PvT They need to enable protoss to play against cloak banshee without having to go robo or die every game
On August 16 2011 13:25 Hollis wrote: The interesting thing about balance discussion in a game as complex as SC2 is there's always, always a counter-argument. It reminds me of theological discussions; there's never an end and no way to define anything because every single perspective brought to the table is inherently and unavoidably biased because it's based on the arguer's own unique experiences.
For that reason I think the only appreciable purpose for this thread is to herd up the junk and put a fence around it. Hopefully it works for that.
I think the mistake people make in discussing balance is focussing on one or two units or combinations, rather than addressing larger theoretical issues with the design of a race. Any single given unit or composition can be countered, but the overall design of a race can confer a significant advantage regardless of the specific strategy the player chooses to adopt.
For instance, many people seem to think that terran has a lot of balance problems, but everyone has a suggestion for why that might be. I think the problem has a lot more to do with choices the game designers made across the entire race, rather than specific problem units. The issue with terran is that the race possesses defensive capabilities far more powerful than the other two races do, but those abilities don't come at the cost of aggressive potential. In fact, terran players are often more aggressive than their opponent. The powerful base defenses allow terrans to be fairly profligate with their units, and MULE macro mechanics provides for a steady stream of disposable, cheap units.
It seems that blizzard's intention, in giving terran such strong defensive potential—cheap, refundable bunkers, turrets, planetary fortresses, scv repair, and extremely long range units, was to create a race that operates by slowly extending a defensive advantage while using harassment tactics to keep the enemy at bay. However, because terrans also have powerful, fast offensive units, the race has the capability to execute strong pushes while still maintaining a strong defensive advantage. I think it is these fast, effective offensive units that create most of the problems, and that need to be addressed.
On the other hand, tournament results show that Terran doesn't have any real long-term advantage. The race has been at least solid for the entire life of the game so far, but has never really clearly dominated globally. It could be that the Terran design you're talking about - powerful defense and equally powerful offense - can be effectively countered by the tools at the disposal of the other races.
I don't necessarily believe in my own argument here; I'm just playing devil's advocate to show you that every argument has a counter argument. You can't escape the futility of comparing terminally limited perspectives by drawing outward and including more game design choices in your analysis.
EPT
