|
On October 16 2013 21:46 gTank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 21:33 NoobSkills wrote:On October 16 2013 20:57 cenk_unger wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. It is a stupid mechanic that Blizzard is so hell bent on keeping (because it was one of their original ideas to mix the game up from broodwar) and there are many other examples of units/mechanics in SC 2 that the development team doesn't want to throw out even if they are bad game designs. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Agreed 100% because if the developers aren't allowed to tinker with game mechanics which are sacrosanctyl off-limits, then the programmers are backed into a corner on how to work around the clusterf*ck which is protoss warpgate (which forces the race's units to be nerfed, which nobody wants, so please blizzard take back warpgate once and for all.!!!) Let's say they take back warp in. They then proceed to make gateway units stronger to make up for it. What then happens in TvP or TvZ? TvZ is a bit straight forward early zealot timings would become stronger, but probably wouldn't change the matchup completely. TvP however the current medivac drops would tear protoss apart. When defending with only 20 or so supply in units, but losing warp in Terran would simply dominate. Maybe then in LotV they could invent a ground unit based out of the barracks that healed bio units and remove that ability from the medivac. I don't know what they would call it, but it would be a cool idea.  That is just my rant on what they lost from the BW transition. I really actually don't like how gateway units function when compared to BW. They are very weak protoss lost it's identity of strong expensive units and now is a more mass unit race. Also protoss's "strong" units are fairly weak. Not extremely weak, but immortals have issues in larger armies with actually attacking as well as colossi being so easily countered by air, also templar being easily countered by ghosts, those these issues are manageable they don't make the game more appealing. Medic?  I feel that dragoons and zealots back then in BW were scarier than stalkers and zealots in Sc2.Usually it is cutting corners for a P to higher tech units and surviving until then.
Agreed but why is there such pressure to get to those higher tech units when compared to BW? It is because the core units are weak and still expensive. It is because you need more of those higher tech units because they are countered easily. 6 vikings vs 1 collosi means that T is typically in the lead meanwhile in BW DT, reaver, storm, arb all were effective in low numbers and the normal gateway army did better while they were mixed in, but they were the end all be all from second 1 in the game. This doesn't actually mean SC2 is imbalanced just that protoss became a more mass style races in this game which is something I don't like too much.
|
I do like the concept of warpgate for protoss. But maybe, it should go back to the drawing table with it. 'Cause I don't think it is working good in its current shape.
I miss the opportunity to play "casual" games in SC2. Why does every game has to be ladder, ranked and under pressure. I do feel this is a bad design, as well as the removal(?) of chat-rooms. Chat-rooms might exist in SC2, but I haven't found any yet.
I mostly stopped playing this game because every game was so serious, there so almost no room for "fun" games, a simple compstomp, fastest, bgh or some newbie-bashing games.
|
On October 16 2013 21:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 20:57 cenk_unger wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. It is a stupid mechanic that Blizzard is so hell bent on keeping (because it was one of their original ideas to mix the game up from broodwar) and there are many other examples of units/mechanics in SC 2 that the development team doesn't want to throw out even if they are bad game designs. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Agreed 100% because if the developers aren't allowed to tinker with game mechanics which are sacrosanctyl off-limits, then the programmers are backed into a corner on how to work around the clusterf*ck which is protoss warpgate (which forces the race's units to be nerfed, which nobody wants, so please blizzard take back warpgate once and for all.!!!) Let's say they take back warp in. They then proceed to make gateway units stronger to make up for it. What then happens in TvP or TvZ? TvZ is a bit straight forward early zealot timings would become stronger, but probably wouldn't change the matchup completely. TvP however the current medivac drops would tear protoss apart. When defending with only 20 or so supply in units, but losing warp in Terran would simply dominate. Maybe then in LotV they could invent a ground unit based out of the barracks that healed bio units and remove that ability from the medivac. I don't know what they would call it, but it would be a cool idea. That is just my rant on what they lost from the BW transition. I really actually don't like how gateway units function when compared to BW. They are very weak protoss lost it's identity of strong expensive units and now is a more mass unit race. Also protoss's "strong" units are fairly weak. Not extremely weak, but immortals have issues in larger armies with actually attacking as well as colossi being so easily countered by air, also templar being easily countered by ghosts, those these issues are manageable they don't make the game more appealing.
In WoL beta pro players kept saying that the medivac was too powerful and that either the healing or the dropping potential should be an upgrade. I imagine that if warpgate is not available in early- and midgame that you can address the medivac this way. And let's not forget that one of the reasons medivacs are balanced to be so powerful is because of mutalisks and warpgate and because you can easily send 50 lings on attack move to clean up a drop. Power creep and all.
|
On October 16 2013 21:46 gTank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 21:33 NoobSkills wrote:On October 16 2013 20:57 cenk_unger wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. It is a stupid mechanic that Blizzard is so hell bent on keeping (because it was one of their original ideas to mix the game up from broodwar) and there are many other examples of units/mechanics in SC 2 that the development team doesn't want to throw out even if they are bad game designs. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Agreed 100% because if the developers aren't allowed to tinker with game mechanics which are sacrosanctyl off-limits, then the programmers are backed into a corner on how to work around the clusterf*ck which is protoss warpgate (which forces the race's units to be nerfed, which nobody wants, so please blizzard take back warpgate once and for all.!!!) Let's say they take back warp in. They then proceed to make gateway units stronger to make up for it. What then happens in TvP or TvZ? TvZ is a bit straight forward early zealot timings would become stronger, but probably wouldn't change the matchup completely. TvP however the current medivac drops would tear protoss apart. When defending with only 20 or so supply in units, but losing warp in Terran would simply dominate. Maybe then in LotV they could invent a ground unit based out of the barracks that healed bio units and remove that ability from the medivac. I don't know what they would call it, but it would be a cool idea. That is just my rant on what they lost from the BW transition. I really actually don't like how gateway units function when compared to BW. They are very weak protoss lost it's identity of strong expensive units and now is a more mass unit race. Also protoss's "strong" units are fairly weak. Not extremely weak, but immortals have issues in larger armies with actually attacking as well as colossi being so easily countered by air, also templar being easily countered by ghosts, those these issues are manageable they don't make the game more appealing. Medic? I feel that dragoons and zealots back then in BW were scarier than stalkers and zealots in Sc2.Usually it is cutting corners for a P to higher tech units and surviving until then. They weren't. Bio worked extremely well against P until Reaver/Templar tech was out. Reaver/Templar shut down Bio extremely hard in BW, though, so Bio wasn't a "viable" strategy and thus didn't see much use.
|
On October 16 2013 22:01 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I do like the concept of warpgate for protoss. But maybe, it should go back to the drawing table with it. 'Cause I don't think it is working good in its current shape.
I miss the opportunity to play "casual" games in SC2. Why does every game has to be ladder, ranked and under pressure. I do feel this is a bad design, as well as the removal(?) of chat-rooms. Chat-rooms might exist in SC2, but I haven't found any yet.
I mostly stopped playing this game because every game was so serious, there so almost no room for "fun" games, a simple compstomp, fastest, bgh or some newbie-bashing games. You absolutely can play "casual" games. That's your choice. You can also go unranked and not even have to worry about the ranking. If you don't want to take every game seriously, then don't take it seriously.
|
On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. Also, Protoss kind of has to lose equal supply fights because they have instant reinforcements.
Nah ... the infantry units of Protoss are balanced for their cost on an "equal cost comparison" at very low numbers.
Just take one Stalker and compare it to three Marines. The Stalker has a fair fight due to the "run away and regain shields" mechanic AND its slightly faster speed (Marine without stim). The units are balanced fine.
If you have a "larger battle" these "advantages" do not matter at all anymore because the units have to "stand and fight" and because the damage output of the Marines in a larger pack is so large (three times that of the Stalkers in fact) that microing a Stalker back to regain shields does not work.
This is all without taking Stim or Blink into consideration!
Thus at larger numbers Stalkers arent worth it unless you add in certain "crutches" again ... stuff like Force Field or Blink.
Warp Gate "instant resupply" is part of the mechanics they added to try and balance the rather weak - as a larger clump - infantry units of Protoss.
Your "circular reasoning" with the "Protoss has to lose because they can resupply instantly" is not really well thought through. Balance of units starts at equal cost in the lowest amount of numbers possible - such as 1 Stalker vs 3 Marines - and not at larger clumps.
----
Obviously Blizzard started to think about a cool way to make Protoss special, BUT they failed in making it a CHOICE. The current way of how Warp Gate works means that it is a MUST HAVE UPGRADE and not a choice. If they had made Warp Gate recharge 50% longer than the building time in a regular Gateway they would have made it a choice ... but they didnt. If the upgrade added a boost to the Gateway building times of units it would have solved a lot of PvP problems, because the defender could get an advantage from building in Gateways while the attacker had fewer units due to using Warp Gate.
Warp Gate is the least problematic mechanic of the lot and it could be fixed to some degrees by making it a true choice instead of a must have.
|
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even.
|
On October 16 2013 22:04 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 21:33 NoobSkills wrote:On October 16 2013 20:57 cenk_unger wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. It is a stupid mechanic that Blizzard is so hell bent on keeping (because it was one of their original ideas to mix the game up from broodwar) and there are many other examples of units/mechanics in SC 2 that the development team doesn't want to throw out even if they are bad game designs. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Agreed 100% because if the developers aren't allowed to tinker with game mechanics which are sacrosanctyl off-limits, then the programmers are backed into a corner on how to work around the clusterf*ck which is protoss warpgate (which forces the race's units to be nerfed, which nobody wants, so please blizzard take back warpgate once and for all.!!!) Let's say they take back warp in. They then proceed to make gateway units stronger to make up for it. What then happens in TvP or TvZ? TvZ is a bit straight forward early zealot timings would become stronger, but probably wouldn't change the matchup completely. TvP however the current medivac drops would tear protoss apart. When defending with only 20 or so supply in units, but losing warp in Terran would simply dominate. Maybe then in LotV they could invent a ground unit based out of the barracks that healed bio units and remove that ability from the medivac. I don't know what they would call it, but it would be a cool idea. That is just my rant on what they lost from the BW transition. I really actually don't like how gateway units function when compared to BW. They are very weak protoss lost it's identity of strong expensive units and now is a more mass unit race. Also protoss's "strong" units are fairly weak. Not extremely weak, but immortals have issues in larger armies with actually attacking as well as colossi being so easily countered by air, also templar being easily countered by ghosts, those these issues are manageable they don't make the game more appealing. In WoL beta pro players kept saying that the medivac was too powerful and that either the healing or the dropping potential should be an upgrade. I imagine that if warpgate is not available in early- and midgame that you can address the medivac this way. And let's not forget that one of the reasons medivacs are balanced to be so powerful is because of mutalisks and warpgate and because you can easily send 50 lings on attack move to clean up a drop. Power creep and all.
The upgrade will not change anything. If the units were separate you wouldn't instantly have the ability to do both so fluidly. The benefit is that as a bio army you would ALWAYS want medics right? The issue becomes that now said medic becomes a dropship and because you need many medics you have many dropships. This means that there is almost no thought in lifting a portion or your entire army into an enemy base you simply do it because you can you already had healing the bonus is that now it comes from a dropship. They bypass defense, can still heal, dont have to go through chokes. The separation of the units forces a few changes. Supply | money | barrack time | upgrades are needed to make medics. Dropships now are not instantly given to you, so the decision to make one means that you have a plan for it and that if that plan doesn't work the money you invested in making a dropship was a waste.
Your comparison makes almost no sense. Those three units / abilities are not intertwined based off the medivac. They might interact together but are not causation for one being powerful or underwhelming.
|
On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even.
Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Why? Because of unit concentration and automatically maximized dps in SC2.
Both Stalkers and Marines have EXACTLY THE SAME ROLE ... ranged infantry with anti-air attack. What you mean is that Stalkers NEED TO be played differently ... due to the advantages of basically any other infantry unit over them due to their larger size and thus lower "dps concentration" and their greater surface area (which is bad against melee units). In BW the size of the unit didnt matter as much because unit density was not maximized automatically. That is the whole problem ...
|
On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Why? Because of unit concentration and automatically maximized dps in SC2. Both Stalkers and Marines have EXACTLY THE SAME ROLE ... ranged infantry with anti-air attack. What you mean is that Stalkers NEED TO be played differently ... due to the advantages of basically any other infantry unit over them due to their larger size and thus lower "dps concentration" and their greater surface area (which is bad against melee units). In BW the size of the unit didnt matter as much because unit density was not maximized automatically. That is the whole problem ...
they have different role.
you are talking about their functions are the same.
in a deathball fight/dance, stalkers are to kill the vikings and the colossus and HTs are the toss deathball main dps dealer
while marines are to provide backbone dps for the army.
they are to protect colossus
their role isn't the same just because their function is the same.
|
On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2.
Wrong. The difference was just as drastic.
|
On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Yeah. Bio has always wrecked protoss gateway units, Reaver/Templar were just stupidly good at shutting down Bio, so it wasn't a "viable" playstyle vs. P.
|
On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic.
Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons.
Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
|
I don't get why you guys are talking about marines vs stalkers. The marine in SC2 however is obviously the most useful unit between each of the units in BW or SC2.
Now, the whole argument about warp in and how it affects the game. I really don't see why the discussion is happening about gateway units specifically based solely on warp in. Warp in is just one part. Let's say you take warp in away and buff protoss gateway units based off that nerf. The units would still probably be just as effectual in their task. If I set out to immortal push your 3rd zerg base with my army, but now instead can't reinforce as easily but my units are buffed because of it the end result is probably the same. Either the base dies or you defend. The warp in isn't extremely relevant except maybe in the late game when the amount of gateways is considered in the equation.
Forcefield and Warp in however are a bit of an issue in my option and not because of what they can do, but because of what they did to the protoss of BW. They made protoss into another zerg/terran mass race instead of having expensive strong units they are now another massing race, and even at that they still have to walk the line between producing easily countered tech units and having enough gateway army to protect said tech units.
Also the post about the decision on warpgate vs gateway it is interesting, but I feel like Blizzard likes to take choices out of the game. Upgrade, medics or dropships, HT or DT? All decisions removed. They remove elements of the game that are crucial in creating stages of the game. PvT in BW was dragoon pressure into tank push out, into dragoon range, into siege tanks, into dragoon contain, into vulture/mine push out ect ect ect. These decisions created stages where one player was weaker and had to figure out how to gain an advantage rather than just simply giving them everything to work with from the start.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
About as how it is in SC2 except no reavers, nerfed storm and easier splitting. Never understood that point of Rab.
|
On October 17 2013 01:39 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. About as how it is in SC2 except no reavers, nerfed storm and easier splitting. Never understood that point of Rab.
Well, Rab has a very... "consistent" uh.... opinion on his thoughts of the game. His specifics always changes, but his opinion does not.
|
Units scaling differently isn't a problem, but when it's extreme it can easily be abused (timing attacks and such). And Blizzard in their infinite wisdom will try to promote balance not by addressing the original imbalance (the scaling differences) but by buffing some other random thing. This leads to power creep and too powerful mechanics that are frustrating to play against.
|
On October 16 2013 22:01 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I do like the concept of warpgate for protoss. But maybe, it should go back to the drawing table with it. 'Cause I don't think it is working good in its current shape.
I still think a simple fix to warpgate, that would nerf it severely while still keeping it viable, would be to make gateways train units faster than warpgates. Defensive Protoss players could use gateways, changing them to WGs when they want to attack, or leaving some as WGs to allow defensive warpgates, or however they want to do it. It would also provide some defender's advantage in PvP, which could really fix that matchup a lot, in my opinion.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 17 2013 08:16 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 22:01 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I do like the concept of warpgate for protoss. But maybe, it should go back to the drawing table with it. 'Cause I don't think it is working good in its current shape.
I still think a simple fix to warpgate, that would nerf it severely while still keeping it viable, would be to make gateways train units faster than warpgates. Defensive Protoss players could use gateways, changing them to WGs when they want to attack, or leaving some as WGs to allow defensive warpgates, or however they want to do it. It would also provide some defender's advantage in PvP, which could really fix that matchup a lot, in my opinion.
this is what I've always thought they should do. You get an advantage and can macro like a terran or if you go on the offensive, they keep WG but add on +5 seconds or so, so then you decide if you'd rather just rally gateway units or wrap them in. You get a choice. Also, if this was the case, then uisng a pylon to wrap in on the high ground would've stayed in the game. I think Blizzard removing that(even though it was due to 4 gate) took more interesting strategies out of the game.
|
On October 17 2013 08:36 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 08:16 lowercase wrote:On October 16 2013 22:01 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I do like the concept of warpgate for protoss. But maybe, it should go back to the drawing table with it. 'Cause I don't think it is working good in its current shape.
I still think a simple fix to warpgate, that would nerf it severely while still keeping it viable, would be to make gateways train units faster than warpgates. Defensive Protoss players could use gateways, changing them to WGs when they want to attack, or leaving some as WGs to allow defensive warpgates, or however they want to do it. It would also provide some defender's advantage in PvP, which could really fix that matchup a lot, in my opinion. this is what I've always thought they should do. You get an advantage and can macro like a terran or if you go on the offensive, they keep WG but add on +5 seconds or so, so then you decide if you'd rather just rally gateway units or wrap them in. You get a choice. Also, if this was the case, then uisng a pylon to wrap in on the high ground would've stayed in the game. I think Blizzard removing that(even though it was due to 4 gate) took more interesting strategies out of the game.
Next you're going to talk about how 2base timing pushes stop being so powerful, unit buffs would need to be added to compensate, protoss upgrades would have to be slowed down to prevent midgame protoss rule, 4gate would never be a problem again, suddenly pylons can warp to high ground, warp prisms get a larger warp radius, warp tech can be sped up and most of the protoss nerfs and bad buffs could be reversed.
Well that's just crazy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
