|
On May 31 2013 10:25 ZenithM wrote:I played with the Warp prism around a bit, it seems like there could be some really fancy openings based around some fast 1 gas robo into expand and warp prism harass with a handful of stalkers and clean pick-up micro. If the patch makes it through and we see that kind of thing I think it will be really good. That shit is not so easy to do efficiently, yet aggressive, non-commiting and entertaining to watch imo. Show nested quote +Storm drops were purely a BW strategy that worked because the opponent had to individually reassign every single worker back to its own mineral patch after a drop. This meant even a perfectly defended storm drop where no workers were lost would still require more focus on your opponent's part than executing the drop took for you. In addition, even if no workers were killed, a small unnoticed mistake in the reassigning of workers would cause your drop to eventually pay for itself. Honestly I count complain about such mechanics disappearing. It sounds silly and it doesn't make sense lore wise :D - "ALL THE SCVS WERE SAVED AND THAT THREACHEROUS HOLIER-THAN-THOU TEMPLE GUY IS DEAD MY GENERAL! - But how do we get the guys back to mining now? :'((( - UHHHHHH - The templar guy is good, we're in deep shit now."
THANK YOU! So many people just blindly speculating instead of actually testing the change out.
|
On May 31 2013 12:26 juicyjames wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9165886752?page=2#34Show nested quote +FYI like we said before, this is not yet a final change that we're absolutely going with. A lot of comments/feedback we're seeing in various forums are phrased as though this change will go in for certain, so I just wanted to clarify that once more.
If Protoss does turn out to be weak, testing this buff will allow us to react to that situation more quickly than in the past. We already know a bit what the previously tested Oracle changes do. We want to test this other change so that we can make the right fix if we find a change is needed.
The best feedback for us comes from players who take the time to actually playtest the change and base their judgments on that. Thank you so much as always.
-David Kim
I like this post and that they are trying out several buffs, rather than just seeing if one works and going with that or not. Getting a less risky form of harassment in the early game wouldn't the worst for protoss, I just don't want them to break the game while they do it.
I think moving the upgrade for the WP to the cybercore would be a reasonable fix if they also increased the acceleration(not speed) of the oracle. The oracle controls super weird right now and anything that could make it "snappier" would do a lot to make it better harassment unit.
|
On June 01 2013 00:16 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 10:25 ZenithM wrote:I played with the Warp prism around a bit, it seems like there could be some really fancy openings based around some fast 1 gas robo into expand and warp prism harass with a handful of stalkers and clean pick-up micro. If the patch makes it through and we see that kind of thing I think it will be really good. That shit is not so easy to do efficiently, yet aggressive, non-commiting and entertaining to watch imo. Storm drops were purely a BW strategy that worked because the opponent had to individually reassign every single worker back to its own mineral patch after a drop. This meant even a perfectly defended storm drop where no workers were lost would still require more focus on your opponent's part than executing the drop took for you. In addition, even if no workers were killed, a small unnoticed mistake in the reassigning of workers would cause your drop to eventually pay for itself. Honestly I count complain about such mechanics disappearing. It sounds silly and it doesn't make sense lore wise :D - "ALL THE SCVS WERE SAVED AND THAT THREACHEROUS HOLIER-THAN-THOU TEMPLE GUY IS DEAD MY GENERAL! - But how do we get the guys back to mining now? :'((( - UHHHHHH - The templar guy is good, we're in deep shit now." THANK YOU! So many people just blindly speculating instead of actually testing the change out.
I agree. This thread needs more of this.  Zenith, would you be willing to put some replays out in drop.sc2?
|
On May 31 2013 13:14 BlackPride wrote:
Not a good change. Won't impact Protoss lategame which is the biggest problem. By then they should already have warp-prism speed. They need to think of changes that will take away from the late game deathball.
Protoss has a really strong lategame though. As a Zerg player when it gets to the late-mid to late game I found that at max food with enough money and injects to COMPLETELY rebuild is the only way to beat it. I will usually lose all my army and toss will lose ~75% and they're not even always at max food yet. Plus Toss has sooooo many strong unit comps that they can shift to late game.
|
On May 31 2013 23:21 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 13:37 SsDrKosS wrote:
Ok that's it.
I actually don't care whether warp prism got imba upgrades like battery shileld, blink, invincible but
DON'T REMOVE THE UPGRADES!!!
You've already removed reaper upgrades and tank upgrade (although it went fine thanks to wm), and we already have units with lots of abilities for that doesn't require additional money for research (Raven, viper, medivac, oracle, MSC, sentry(hots). they all have more than 2 'stuffs' without any researches. e.g. medivac-transportation, heal, burner at the same time. Mamacore-photon overcharge, timewrap, recall. Raven-detection, auto turret, seeker missile, point defence drone).
And meanwhile hydras require two 150/150 upgrades to be usable, even though they don't have any special abilities.
Very good point.
I think there are more work to do on unit costs and upgrades, than the units themselves.
|
On June 01 2013 01:43 Shade_FR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 23:21 Chocobo wrote:On May 31 2013 13:37 SsDrKosS wrote:
Ok that's it.
I actually don't care whether warp prism got imba upgrades like battery shileld, blink, invincible but
DON'T REMOVE THE UPGRADES!!!
You've already removed reaper upgrades and tank upgrade (although it went fine thanks to wm), and we already have units with lots of abilities for that doesn't require additional money for research (Raven, viper, medivac, oracle, MSC, sentry(hots). they all have more than 2 'stuffs' without any researches. e.g. medivac-transportation, heal, burner at the same time. Mamacore-photon overcharge, timewrap, recall. Raven-detection, auto turret, seeker missile, point defence drone).
And meanwhile hydras require two 150/150 upgrades to be usable, even though they don't have any special abilities. Very good point. I think there are more work to do on unit costs and upgrades, than the units themselves.
To be fair,
on creep (without speed upgrade) they have the damage and speed of a stimmed marine.
So in essence, getting 2 Hydralisks cost as much as 2 marines and stim
Sounds fair right?
Right?
|
On June 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:43 Shade_FR wrote:On May 31 2013 23:21 Chocobo wrote:On May 31 2013 13:37 SsDrKosS wrote:
Ok that's it.
I actually don't care whether warp prism got imba upgrades like battery shileld, blink, invincible but
DON'T REMOVE THE UPGRADES!!!
You've already removed reaper upgrades and tank upgrade (although it went fine thanks to wm), and we already have units with lots of abilities for that doesn't require additional money for research (Raven, viper, medivac, oracle, MSC, sentry(hots). they all have more than 2 'stuffs' without any researches. e.g. medivac-transportation, heal, burner at the same time. Mamacore-photon overcharge, timewrap, recall. Raven-detection, auto turret, seeker missile, point defence drone).
And meanwhile hydras require two 150/150 upgrades to be usable, even though they don't have any special abilities. Very good point. I think there are more work to do on unit costs and upgrades, than the units themselves. To be fair, on creep (without speed upgrade) they have the damage and speed of a stimmed marine. So in essence, getting 2 Hydralisks cost as much as 2 marines and stim Sounds fair right? Right?
Can't 1 Hydra kill 2 unstimmed marines? Or possibly stimmed, idr. But a big difference here is the tech difference. Marines are T1 and Hydra is T2. Besides queens(slow off creep) and spores(a building so not mobile) Zerg has no early game AA. So the prism could fly around your base with no viable way to stop it since queens are slow, especially off creep remind me of reavers in BW. T has marines as early AA and P can pop out stalkers pretty quick to take out a prism though.
|
So in essence, getting 2 Hydralisks cost as much as 2 marines and stim
Plus the fact you need the starport tech + the medivac to heal those marines (that would die anyway), and that stim damages them.
So basically a hydra on creep is equal to a marine perma stim (supposed on creep) and having a personnal unkillable medivac integrated (100/100) with infinite energy dedicated to insta heal not more than 10 HP each time the stim goes into play (each 10 sec). So basically, those would be turbo marines with über constant dps, the whole thing available at first unit :p
This is oviously troll. But if hydra cost so much, it's because in the duration, they are much more valuable and independant. Don't forget terran DPS is conceived as an enormous burst.
PS : hydra also heals in long term :p
|
On June 01 2013 02:15 Glorfindel21 wrote:Plus the fact you need the starport tech + the medivac to heal those marines (that would die anyway), and that stim damages them. So basically a hydra on creep is equal to a marine perma stim (supposed on creep) and having a personnal unkillable medivac integrated (100/100) with infinite energy dedicated to insta heal not more than 10 HP each time the stim goes into play (each 10 sec). So basically, those would be turbo marines with über constant dps, the whole thing available at first unit :p This is oviously troll. But if hydra cost so much, it's because in the duration, they are much more valuable and independant. Don't forget terran DPS is conceived as an enormous burst. PS : hydra also heals in long term :p
Yeah, it was mostly for the lol
Hydras do have a lot of issues that are mostly that they don't feel very zergy (graphics aside)
Once they get speed they feel better, but people will still compare them to BW hydras.
|
On June 01 2013 00:47 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 00:16 Fig wrote:On May 31 2013 10:25 ZenithM wrote:I played with the Warp prism around a bit, it seems like there could be some really fancy openings based around some fast 1 gas robo into expand and warp prism harass with a handful of stalkers and clean pick-up micro. If the patch makes it through and we see that kind of thing I think it will be really good. That shit is not so easy to do efficiently, yet aggressive, non-commiting and entertaining to watch imo. Storm drops were purely a BW strategy that worked because the opponent had to individually reassign every single worker back to its own mineral patch after a drop. This meant even a perfectly defended storm drop where no workers were lost would still require more focus on your opponent's part than executing the drop took for you. In addition, even if no workers were killed, a small unnoticed mistake in the reassigning of workers would cause your drop to eventually pay for itself. Honestly I count complain about such mechanics disappearing. It sounds silly and it doesn't make sense lore wise :D - "ALL THE SCVS WERE SAVED AND THAT THREACHEROUS HOLIER-THAN-THOU TEMPLE GUY IS DEAD MY GENERAL! - But how do we get the guys back to mining now? :'((( - UHHHHHH - The templar guy is good, we're in deep shit now." THANK YOU! So many people just blindly speculating instead of actually testing the change out. I agree. This thread needs more of this. Zenith, would you be willing to put some replays out in drop.sc2?
Haha lol no :/
I play Terran so it's just me fiddling around with Protoss timings vs the AI. That's why I said "seems like" and "could be" :D:D. Sorry for getting your hopes up, I actually have nothing solid.
I'm just of the opinion that it doesn't just buff the usual mid-to-lategame warpprism harass, and that some openings can be found using the new speedprism, possibly cuttting the classic MS-core stuff to get it going very fast.
The fact that the warpprism is both fast AND tanky (with the fully replenishable 100 pt shield) makes it a great tool both in offense and defense early game imo. For example, it can actually tank a full widow mine without losing health, that's pretty awesome, and 2 stalkers and a warp prism can kill an unbounded amount of non-stim marines if microed really well, which they couldn't do without prism. Then it opens up more option for fast counter attacks, because you can bring the units you used to defend really fast and then warp shit off the prism.
All of this coming out of the robo, which you make anyway in most matchups, for only 200 minerals, and leading up to non-committal aggression.
In fact I think that this change alone could see major changes in how Protoss is played early game and what type of players do well.
I'm looking at you, Bisu. (:D)
Edit: One thing I'm fearing though is that some all-ins will be stronger, like some 1 gas 4 gate warp prism or the immortal-sentry soul train, and I don't think Protoss needs more of those
It sucks that the optimal way to play Protoss seems to just make an all-in and hope it works, or turtle for 15 minutes.
|
On June 01 2013 00:12 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 10:04 foxmulder_ms wrote:
In my view, there has been only one protoss champion and it was MC. If you take him out, protoss results look pathetic compared to Zerg and Terran. Since I dont believe the notion that all protoss players suck I have to agree with the other possible notion that protoss is weaker race compared to other two.
Since I believe protoss support units are strong such as collosus and templar the core reason should be the weakness of gateway units. Now gateway units has to be weak mostly because of forcefields.
Therefore, solution requires a drastic change like removing forcefield and buffing stalker and zealot OR removing forcefield and bringing immortal to gateway. Obviously both changes will probably require follow up tweaks but I think it is doable. This topic came up on Meta this week (great show; highly recommended). The point was made that while Protoss feels balanced in a vacuum, the race is at a disadvantage in tourneys because it's so build order dependant. Right now, high level protoss play revolves around 2-base pushes/all-ins and abuse of forcefields. Because those factors are so incredibly strong, it's a tough prospect for a Protoss player to forgo trying to seize a win earlier in the game -- they have stronger timings than Zerg and Terran. The issue in tourneys is that it's incredibly hard to beat the same (elite) oppontent with various early/mid-game cheese. The entire thought process is flawed for a Protoss -- do they practice builds with lower-win rates to be better prepared for multi-game series in tourneys? Seems dumb. Instead, Blizzard needs to give the race a more comfortable way of taking a third (buff), while at the same time weakening the strength of 2-base all-ins (nerf). The results would hopefully be better showings in tourneys. The topic is actually much bigger than just Protoss not performing well in Tourneys though, it speaks to the overall approach to balance with every race, at every level of play, in every format. While they can work to improve balance in every scenario, the main focus is balance is grand master level play, 1v1, one match.
That argument feels incredibly iffy, besides you can argue terran is much more build order oriented than protoss. Protoss has way fewer ways to open than protoss because there are just less viable openers to begin with while terran has a ton of units that are all good opening with.
Besides the 2 base push play has mostly vanished in HotS from what I've seen, in pro PvT it's almost always about surviving till 3 bases and storm+colo and in PvZ it's lots of harassment play with phoenix or small MsC timings while playing macro behind it. If anything zerg has resorted to aggressive timings against terran more and terran with very aggressive play against protoss (or just random 13 minute scv pulls).
I highly doubt there is any difference for the races in winrates between BO1's and BO3/BO5 etc. Protoss just doesn't do well in GSL / WCS and pretty much never have been probably because at that level of play the race the race has been a little underpowered over time.
PL is often cited as a sign that protoss can do just fine but P hovers around 50/50 there too, there are just lots of protoss in PL and arguably a protoss favored map pool.
|
On June 01 2013 02:38 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 00:12 Graven wrote:On May 31 2013 10:04 foxmulder_ms wrote:
In my view, there has been only one protoss champion and it was MC. If you take him out, protoss results look pathetic compared to Zerg and Terran. Since I dont believe the notion that all protoss players suck I have to agree with the other possible notion that protoss is weaker race compared to other two.
Since I believe protoss support units are strong such as collosus and templar the core reason should be the weakness of gateway units. Now gateway units has to be weak mostly because of forcefields.
Therefore, solution requires a drastic change like removing forcefield and buffing stalker and zealot OR removing forcefield and bringing immortal to gateway. Obviously both changes will probably require follow up tweaks but I think it is doable. This topic came up on Meta this week (great show; highly recommended). The point was made that while Protoss feels balanced in a vacuum, the race is at a disadvantage in tourneys because it's so build order dependant. Right now, high level protoss play revolves around 2-base pushes/all-ins and abuse of forcefields. Because those factors are so incredibly strong, it's a tough prospect for a Protoss player to forgo trying to seize a win earlier in the game -- they have stronger timings than Zerg and Terran. The issue in tourneys is that it's incredibly hard to beat the same (elite) oppontent with various early/mid-game cheese. The entire thought process is flawed for a Protoss -- do they practice builds with lower-win rates to be better prepared for multi-game series in tourneys? Seems dumb. Instead, Blizzard needs to give the race a more comfortable way of taking a third (buff), while at the same time weakening the strength of 2-base all-ins (nerf). The results would hopefully be better showings in tourneys. The topic is actually much bigger than just Protoss not performing well in Tourneys though, it speaks to the overall approach to balance with every race, at every level of play, in every format. While they can work to improve balance in every scenario, the main focus is balance is grand master level play, 1v1, one match. That argument feels incredibly iffy, besides you can argue terran is much more build order oriented than protoss. Protoss has way fewer ways to open than protoss because there are just less viable openers to begin with while terran has a ton of units that are all good opening with. Besides the 2 base push play has mostly vanished in HotS from what I've seen, in pro PvT it's almost always about surviving till 3 bases and storm+colo and in PvZ it's lots of harassment play with phoenix or small MsC timings while playing macro behind it. If anything zerg has resorted to aggressive timings against terran more and terran with very aggressive play against protoss (or just random 13 minute scv pulls). I highly doubt there is any difference for the races in winrates between BO1's and BO3/BO5 etc. Protoss just doesn't do well in GSL / WCS and pretty much never have been probably because at that level of play the race the race has been a little underpowered over time. PL is often cited as a sign that protoss can do just fine but P hovers around 50/50 there too, there are just lots of protoss in PL and arguably a protoss favored map pool.
I don't think you can argue that Terran is more BO dependant than Protoss. I'm surprised to even see that someone thinks it's close. Terran either opens into bio or into mech and works to secure a third base (very similar to Zerg's approach to a game). Most attacks that Terran or Zerg make before expanding to a third are not designed to kill their opponent.
Protoss works to kill their opponent before they need to take a third base and they have more options for that path than Terran and Zerg combined. If you're a Protoss player, it makes little sense to play a defensive macro game as your best win-rate probilibilities come with various mid-game attacks. As was pointed out in Meta, with the exception of Rain, no elite pros favor a long, macro game style. The "meta" for all play is often defined at the top, and for protoss, the meta has never been as macro heavy as Terran and Zerg.
As for whether that's why Protoss wins less tourneys, it's debatable, but I do think there needs to be a reason that explains why Protoss performs balanced to the other races until they get into longer game series.
|
Why not attempt a buff to Dark Templars instead?
|
On June 01 2013 03:25 Xacez wrote:
Why not attempt a buff to Dark Templars instead?
this is a buff to dark templars.
also, the protoss harass units (DT, phoenix, oracles) are all shut down by the same stuff, turrets/spores, so I really like they are buffing the protoss harass with this speed prism.
|
On June 01 2013 03:25 Xacez wrote:
Why not attempt a buff to Dark Templars instead?
Don't even try man, you'll open the floodgates of Terran tears, and let me tell you, those things do not close easily.
Honestly though, I'd take a major nerf to Colossus if I got DTs from Templar Archives back.
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 01 2013 03:07 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 02:38 Markwerf wrote:On June 01 2013 00:12 Graven wrote:On May 31 2013 10:04 foxmulder_ms wrote:
In my view, there has been only one protoss champion and it was MC. If you take him out, protoss results look pathetic compared to Zerg and Terran. Since I dont believe the notion that all protoss players suck I have to agree with the other possible notion that protoss is weaker race compared to other two.
Since I believe protoss support units are strong such as collosus and templar the core reason should be the weakness of gateway units. Now gateway units has to be weak mostly because of forcefields.
Therefore, solution requires a drastic change like removing forcefield and buffing stalker and zealot OR removing forcefield and bringing immortal to gateway. Obviously both changes will probably require follow up tweaks but I think it is doable. This topic came up on Meta this week (great show; highly recommended). The point was made that while Protoss feels balanced in a vacuum, the race is at a disadvantage in tourneys because it's so build order dependant. Right now, high level protoss play revolves around 2-base pushes/all-ins and abuse of forcefields. Because those factors are so incredibly strong, it's a tough prospect for a Protoss player to forgo trying to seize a win earlier in the game -- they have stronger timings than Zerg and Terran. The issue in tourneys is that it's incredibly hard to beat the same (elite) oppontent with various early/mid-game cheese. The entire thought process is flawed for a Protoss -- do they practice builds with lower-win rates to be better prepared for multi-game series in tourneys? Seems dumb. Instead, Blizzard needs to give the race a more comfortable way of taking a third (buff), while at the same time weakening the strength of 2-base all-ins (nerf). The results would hopefully be better showings in tourneys. The topic is actually much bigger than just Protoss not performing well in Tourneys though, it speaks to the overall approach to balance with every race, at every level of play, in every format. While they can work to improve balance in every scenario, the main focus is balance is grand master level play, 1v1, one match. That argument feels incredibly iffy, besides you can argue terran is much more build order oriented than protoss. Protoss has way fewer ways to open than protoss because there are just less viable openers to begin with while terran has a ton of units that are all good opening with. Besides the 2 base push play has mostly vanished in HotS from what I've seen, in pro PvT it's almost always about surviving till 3 bases and storm+colo and in PvZ it's lots of harassment play with phoenix or small MsC timings while playing macro behind it. If anything zerg has resorted to aggressive timings against terran more and terran with very aggressive play against protoss (or just random 13 minute scv pulls). I highly doubt there is any difference for the races in winrates between BO1's and BO3/BO5 etc. Protoss just doesn't do well in GSL / WCS and pretty much never have been probably because at that level of play the race the race has been a little underpowered over time. PL is often cited as a sign that protoss can do just fine but P hovers around 50/50 there too, there are just lots of protoss in PL and arguably a protoss favored map pool. I don't think you can argue that Terran is more BO dependant than Protoss. I'm surprised to even see that someone thinks it's close. Terran either opens into bio or into mech and works to secure a third base (very similar to Zerg's approach to a game). Most attacks that Terran or Zerg make before expanding to a third are not designed to kill their opponent. Protoss works to kill their opponent before they need to take a third base and they have more options for that path than Terran and Zerg combined. If you're a Protoss player, it makes little sense to play a defensive macro game as your best win-rate probilibilities come with various mid-game attacks. As was pointed out in Meta, with the exception of Rain, no elite pros favor a long, macro game style. The "meta" for all play is often defined at the top, and for protoss, the meta has never been as macro heavy as Terran and Zerg. As for whether that's why Protoss wins less tourneys, it's debatable, but I do think there needs to be a reason that explains why Protoss performs balanced to the other races until they get into longer game series.
Honestly, almost no one in this thread understands protoss at all. You have to understand that protoss is not "based on gimmicks and gimmicky units" or that protoss "only all-ins because it's the only viable option" or that "protoss lategame is the strongest so they can just defend and against the planetary nexus there's nothing you can do and you will lose no matter what trollolololol".
To put it simply: At full 2-base saturation and once a tech path has been decided, a protoss player can 1) go for a 3rd base OR 2) build 4 gateways and attack. Until this point, protoss wants to be defending with the bare minimum with as few warpins as possible so that they can 1) get tech up and 2) afford gateways because gateways are better than building units early. The protoss player CANNOT do a middle-ground play. The primary reason for this is that protoss harassment is very costly and very timing-dependent. A terran can do mine or hellbat drops and always do SOME sort of damage and not be in danger of dying immediately. Zerg players can harass with mutalisks or do a ling runby without committing A TON to harassment and are not in danger of immediately dying to a counterattack. Protoss has DTs and oracles which are both huge investments and very fragile and put the protoss in immediate danger of dying to an attack.
In all honestly, I think because of economy, protoss will probably still not be using early gateway units if possible. It's just better to spend all your minerals into geysers, tech, and gateways. However, if warp prism speed gets increased, I think it will synergize well with robo units and things like immortal and colossus drops will become standard.
Also, there is no reason why a speed prism will make all-ins stronger other than it forces players to be more on their toes (much like they have to do against speedvacs). Because phase mode and warping in still cost a lot of time, it's quite easy to shut down warp prism warp ins and eliminate any threat of warpins in the back + a bust at the front. No all-in in dependent on a speed prism and no all-in would really get any stronger other than catching players MORE unprepared (once again, though, if a player is unprepared, they'll lose to slow prisms too).
EDIT: sidenote: terran is very build order dependent as you always need exactly the right number of units at exactly the right times. Both zerg and protoss are a little more flexible with greed because of being able to get a lot of units suddenly to defend with warpins + larva. Still, this is a tradeoff between greed and not dying, not greed and harassment potential (and dying either way).
|
In pvt protoss late game harassment is already pretty strong with zealot/dt warpins, but it is also a pretty boring mechanic. The whole race seems pretty boring to me, though. I'd like to see some way for protoss to be able to effectively engage mid-size armies in multiple places on the map, but I fear that it would require a redesign of a lot of the fundamental parts of the race. A faster warp prism in the early to mid game is not really going to help with that. What will they warp in? Zealots, dts, and maybe templars for quick assaults?
If there was some way to give oracles a spell that could be researched which temporarily neutralizes or reduces the effectiveness of static defense, and they buffed the oracle speed a little, I think you could see some great late game usage of the unit. It would up the skill ceiling and cut down on the size and pure strength of the death ball too.
|
On June 01 2013 03:37 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 03:25 Xacez wrote:
Why not attempt a buff to Dark Templars instead? Don't even try man, you'll open the floodgates of Terran tears, and let me tell you, those things do not close easily. Honestly though, I'd take a major nerf to Colossus if I got DTs from Templar Archives back.
I don't mind Dark Shrine if it only had a fucking upgrade attached to it. I hate empty buildings without buttons or functions. Even the fucking supply depot has a button I can push!
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 01 2013 03:45 lawlohwhat wrote:
In pvt protoss late game harassment is already pretty strong with zealot/dt warpins, but it is also a pretty boring mechanic. The whole race seems pretty boring to me, though. I'd like to see some way for protoss to be able to effectively engage mid-size armies in multiple places on the map, but I fear that it would require a redesign of a lot of the fundamental parts of the race. A faster warp prism in the early to mid game is not really going to help with that. What will they warp in? Zealots, dts, and maybe templars for quick assaults?
If there was some way to give oracles a spell that could be researched which temporarily neutralizes or reduces the effectiveness of static defense, and they buffed the oracle speed a little, I think you could see some great late game usage of the unit. It would up the skill ceiling and cut down on the size and pure strength of the death ball too.
The warp prism also carries units. Being able to do non-committal aggression with robo units is fairly strong and doesn't deviate too far from the standard play protoss players are used to. Also, storm drops in the midgame become a lot more viable with a speed prism.
Originally, the oracle had "phase shift", which shut down buildings. Blizzard removed it from the Beta and everyone was really hoping it would come back in the form of only working on static defenses. However, with the oracle as it is now, being able to shut down a spore or a turret would make them WAY overpowered. In the late lategame, a single oracle is still quite strong.
|
On June 01 2013 03:25 Xacez wrote:
Why not attempt a buff to Dark Templars instead?
As said before, the prism buff is a DT buff, but are you thinking about a specific buff?
An even earlier shrine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
