|
On July 24 2014 09:57 plogamer wrote:
What if Thors could attack both air and ground at the same time? Fuck the mine buff, let's see some thors be -really- useful. They can more reliably fill the role of marines for mech - busting open ground units with thor hammers while simultaneously supporting vikings with their ground-to-air splash. Also solves the ridiculous issue of thor target priority.
Limit it so that thors have to face the direction theyre shooting, so there isn't a thor shooting an ultra in the front and a mutalisk in the back. With their clunky movement and turn-rate, they should lose a lot of effectiveness when flanked. So they'll be stronger defensively; holding frontal all-ins from Zergs and follow-up nastification that is constant tech switching.
It could come as an upgrade or an automatic unlock when Terrans build fusion core or something that opens up late-game.
I would prefer a switch towards a thor with two different modes: anti air and anti ground. You could buff the anti air mode a bit to make it really good at dealing with mutas or other mass air threats. Changing back to anti ground mode should take around the same time as siegeing a tank. Doing it mid battle would be bad.
|
On July 24 2014 20:33 Goofinator wrote:
Your example with techlab rax and gateways is terrible. With techlab rax you have to actually be in the base to manage the add-ons (if you are switching them around) whereas if you wanted to switch from gateways to warpgate all you need to do is press two keys, one to select the gateways and second to transform them. It is very simple and would add depth - playing defensive? Use gateways so you have shields. Want to reinforce a timing attack? Use warpgate to try and mass the units to win the game (and micro your units so your low shield units are at the back replenishing their shields).
Have you played with it?
Hider and I have in Starbow. They tried for years to get this kind of trade-off system right. It's a nice idea. But it's mechanically boring to press buttons 20seconds in advance, so you can warp-in.
Even more it is inefficient, to stop production, and then transform just so that you then realize that you actually don't want to warp in at your warp prism, because there are hydralisks already chasing it.
And at the end of the day, unless the production malus is huge, people are just going to build another warpgate for 150/0. At which point, you are often just better off not using warpgate at all, because it makes you soooo weak, to do a warpin and then not being able to produce for like 40-50seconds.
|
On July 24 2014 20:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +It adds things by allowing changes in other areas. This is what you're missing, you seem completely focused on the WG mechanic itself. By reducing its impact on the game, it opens up opportunities to change other things, like protoss t1-t2/3 power curve. How can I be missing this once I in all my other posts argued for the effects that changes to WG would have Show nested quote +
I just don't see WG being an inherently good or fun mechanic, it should not be treated as something that is just presumed to be better for the game than gateway production. I
I agree with this. It all depends on how you design the game around it. But point is, how does your suggested tradeoff to WG makes it possible to rebalance the game in a better way that my suggested change doesn't.
I've said it like three times now, it let's us look at protoss t1 vs t2/3, and the ridiculous power curve we find there. It could potentially allow changes that smooth out that curve and make protoss basic units more relevant for longer.
|
The answer you haven't explaind yet is how the dynamics in anyway become better with this change.
The obvious answer is that I have absolutely no idea, and neither do you, or anyone else here. I said it was an avenue worth exploring. Could be it turns out to be awful. I think it works pretty well in Starbow, which is similar enough that some parallels can be drawn.
Also, I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself when it comes to explaining how it could improve the game by letting protoss have better t1 units.
|
I've said it like three times now, it let's us look at protoss t1 vs t2/3, and the ridiculous power curve we find there. It could potentially allow changes that smooth out that curve and make protoss basic units more relevant for longer.
Okay, sorry I missed that part. So let's focus the dicussion on this part now (rather than whether the decision in it self is funny).
Did you see my comparison about mech vs protoss/warp-tech. While I realize there are differences, if you look at this from an overall perspective, why do you think this approach cannot work? Mech needs Tanks to work, just like protoss needs Robo units to work.
While I agree that heavy Collosus-compositions are boring, I don't think that can be used as an argument against weak WG-units. Rather, it's an argument for:
1) Changing the Immortal in order to make it better late game so T2 units have a bigger influence (especially vs bio-play).
2) Redesigning the Collosus (as I have argued for a couple of times).
Another thing, isn't there some type of incosistency amongst community members?
1) Criticises bio-play/terran for having too good T1 units and not good enough T3 units.
2) Criticises protoss for having too weak T1 units and too good T3 units.
To me there doesn't seem to be any consistency here, rather it makes more sense to me that people are seeing a problem, but are not identifying the true causes of it correctly.
|
On July 24 2014 20:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 20:33 Goofinator wrote:
Your example with techlab rax and gateways is terrible. With techlab rax you have to actually be in the base to manage the add-ons (if you are switching them around) whereas if you wanted to switch from gateways to warpgate all you need to do is press two keys, one to select the gateways and second to transform them. It is very simple and would add depth - playing defensive? Use gateways so you have shields. Want to reinforce a timing attack? Use warpgate to try and mass the units to win the game (and micro your units so your low shield units are at the back replenishing their shields). Have you played with it? Hider and I have in Starbow. They tried for years to get this kind of trade-off system right. It's a nice idea. But it's mechanically boring to press buttons 20seconds in advance, so you can warp-in. Even more it is inefficient, to stop production, and then transform just so that you then realize that you actually don't want to warp in at your warp prism, because there are hydralisks already chasing it. And at the end of the day, unless the production malus is huge, people are just going to build another warpgate for 150/0. At which point, you are often just better off not using warpgate at all, because it makes you soooo weak, to do a warpin and then not being able to produce for like 40-50seconds.
Yeh, so I guess one could argue here that it can be solved by tweaking stats.
For instance, Warp-tech to Gateway transformation (and vice vers) could be faster. That would probably incentivize more usage, but still, I don't think it's ever gonna be something people enjoy doing.
If on the other hand, it already existed inSc2 and it was balanced around this transform-concept, it wouldn't be something I would be heavily against.
But now that it isn't, I don't agree with redesigning protoss to make this concept work.
|
There wouldn't even be gateways in the game if warpgates wouldn't be so OP early on. So just ignore the existence of gateways and end any discussion towards using them. Whatever you try to do after a short while it would either be always gateway or warpgate, so changes would only add choices for people that like the less effective version. So what if we only had gateways that crank out units that are even more powerful. We had Terran production mechanics for the Protoss. Protoss is a mix between Zerg and Terran production and that makes it interesting. Otherwise we would see a constant stream of Robo and Gateway units.
The only issue i see with Warpgates is that the Protoss oversupply ability is so easy to use (though its the most expensive) and that there harassment can be non commiting (2 suppy 200 minerals where you need to send enough stuff that can deal with x warpgates of the opponent). Those 2 things would not be changed by making gateways a choice and warpgates weaker, they would only get slightly weakened.
Also with Warpgates the Zealot wave would arrive instead of being warped in unless 200 supply are hit. And they would probably bring some Immortals along, which usually doesn't happen since they could easily get sniped all alone.
All the Midgame stuff Protoss can do is because you can't attack them not because they can warp in in your face. It helps them of course doing it but with units having to move over its like a slow instant produced Zerg army.
|
On July 24 2014 20:42 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 20:39 Hider wrote:It adds things by allowing changes in other areas. This is what you're missing, you seem completely focused on the WG mechanic itself. By reducing its impact on the game, it opens up opportunities to change other things, like protoss t1-t2/3 power curve. How can I be missing this once I in all my other posts argued for the effects that changes to WG would have
I just don't see WG being an inherently good or fun mechanic, it should not be treated as something that is just presumed to be better for the game than gateway production. I
I agree with this. It all depends on how you design the game around it. But point is, how does your suggested tradeoff to WG makes it possible to rebalance the game in a better way that my suggested change doesn't. I've said it like three times now, it let's us look at protoss t1 vs t2/3, and the ridiculous power curve we find there. It could potentially allow changes that smooth out that curve and make protoss basic units more relevant for longer.
Basic Protoss units are plenty strong. And then some. And they are very relevant all game long. There is no "ridiculous power curve". Please stop repeating this trash.
|
Where do this idea that gateway units are trash come from?
Zealots are strong. They are more tanky than mauraders, but cheaper, and then they become chargelots, with all the problem for terrans, which is why hellbats and +40 shield splash damage for widow mines exists. And they are still overwhelmingly powerful.
Stalkers are strong. There was a whole season dominated by blink stalkers. They have a role all game long as opposed to other units that just die to collosii, or roaches that just become supply inefficient or just plain useless like corruptors.
Sentries are strong. Forcefields are useful as soon as a sentry pops. Guardian shield and hallucination are useful all game long. That's all the gateway units. And HT/DT/Archon don't need an explanation.
|
Make it so that after every 3 warp ins, the warpgate turns back into a gateway again and the player has to manually turn them back.
|
On July 24 2014 21:44 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 20:42 Squat wrote:On July 24 2014 20:39 Hider wrote:It adds things by allowing changes in other areas. This is what you're missing, you seem completely focused on the WG mechanic itself. By reducing its impact on the game, it opens up opportunities to change other things, like protoss t1-t2/3 power curve. How can I be missing this once I in all my other posts argued for the effects that changes to WG would have
I just don't see WG being an inherently good or fun mechanic, it should not be treated as something that is just presumed to be better for the game than gateway production. I
I agree with this. It all depends on how you design the game around it. But point is, how does your suggested tradeoff to WG makes it possible to rebalance the game in a better way that my suggested change doesn't. I've said it like three times now, it let's us look at protoss t1 vs t2/3, and the ridiculous power curve we find there. It could potentially allow changes that smooth out that curve and make protoss basic units more relevant for longer. Basic Protoss units are plenty strong. And then some. And they are very relevant all game long. There is no "ridiculous power curve". Please stop repeating this trash.
I agree. Zealots with 3 armor and charge are scary.
|
|
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Yeah, Chargelot with 3 armor is surely BASIC gateway unit. Stalkers without Blink are trash against bio once the grenades kick in. Basic gw units are trash, that's why protoss has so strong splash damage on higher tears and that's why protoss has charge and blink upgrades... and even then healed bio squad is better than gateway T1 units of the same cost, unless there is a higher tier unit present(usually templar). That's why drops without templar tech are so scary you have to have plenty blink stalkers ready... but yeah, they are strong and powerful 
I mean, terran with +3/+3 has a pretty scary units as well, because +3 bio is considered unbeatable in TvZ, so where's the problem? The same stupid example as +3 zealot...
|
On July 24 2014 22:08 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 21:44 submarine wrote:On July 24 2014 20:42 Squat wrote:On July 24 2014 20:39 Hider wrote:It adds things by allowing changes in other areas. This is what you're missing, you seem completely focused on the WG mechanic itself. By reducing its impact on the game, it opens up opportunities to change other things, like protoss t1-t2/3 power curve. How can I be missing this once I in all my other posts argued for the effects that changes to WG would have
I just don't see WG being an inherently good or fun mechanic, it should not be treated as something that is just presumed to be better for the game than gateway production. I
I agree with this. It all depends on how you design the game around it. But point is, how does your suggested tradeoff to WG makes it possible to rebalance the game in a better way that my suggested change doesn't. I've said it like three times now, it let's us look at protoss t1 vs t2/3, and the ridiculous power curve we find there. It could potentially allow changes that smooth out that curve and make protoss basic units more relevant for longer. Basic Protoss units are plenty strong. And then some. And they are very relevant all game long. There is no "ridiculous power curve". Please stop repeating this trash. They are only "relevant all game long" if they're supported by Colossi and Templar, and the only reason they're "relevant all game long" is by acting as buffers for those two units. Without Colossi and Templar, pure Gateway units get absolutely torn apart by MMM once you go beyond ~120 supply. Even with Charge. Even with Blink. Even with upgrades.
Everything that lacks splash gets shredded by MMM in the mid to high supplies. That argument doesnt indicate that GW units are bad.
|
On July 24 2014 22:03 Loccstana wrote:
Make it so that after every 3 warp ins, the warpgate turns back into a gateway again and the player has to manually turn them back.
That would be great, i suppose we can also make so that Queens have to run in circle arround hatchery 3 times when they inject larvaee and terran has to lift and land structures after 3 units have been made? 
|
On July 24 2014 22:18 Svizcy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 22:03 Loccstana wrote:
Make it so that after every 3 warp ins, the warpgate turns back into a gateway again and the player has to manually turn them back. That would be great, i suppose we can also make so that Queens have to run in circle arround hatchery 3 times when they inject larvaee and terran has to lift and land structures after 3 units have been made?
Haha, this one nails it.
|
On July 24 2014 05:12 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 00:12 MockHamill wrote:
I would have preferred:
1) Tanks do more damage.
2) Factories become less expensive.
3) Immortals get less shields.
4) Tempest supply increased to 6.
This change, while helping bio, does not do much for mech.
I have basically stopped watching pro games because mech is not viable at pro level outside of TvT. As a mech player I learn nothing from watching 300+ APM Koreans running around with bio. I have seen it for years and it is simply boring. Ha, i'm in the same boat. These latest changes make me not watch SC2 any more since bio+WM is boring to see in every game and any mech helping patch seems very unlikely for at least a few months now. Even the hope is gone lol
This is so obviously not a a true statement.
This is definitely either a closet zerg or someone who can't use bio/mine because it requires micro and wants DK to make Terran like Protoss.
Please explain how turtle mech is more entertaining to watch than something that involves multiple armies at different locations on the map / drops / intensive micro / multitask.
Fastest way to kill SC2 in my opinion is to force Terrans to turtle into 1 hour long mech games.. I'm obsessed with starcraft and I don't have the patience to PLAY those games let alone watch them rofl.
|
On July 24 2014 23:30 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 05:12 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 24 2014 00:12 MockHamill wrote:
I would have preferred:
1) Tanks do more damage.
2) Factories become less expensive.
3) Immortals get less shields.
4) Tempest supply increased to 6.
This change, while helping bio, does not do much for mech.
I have basically stopped watching pro games because mech is not viable at pro level outside of TvT. As a mech player I learn nothing from watching 300+ APM Koreans running around with bio. I have seen it for years and it is simply boring. Ha, i'm in the same boat. These latest changes make me not watch SC2 any more since bio+WM is boring to see in every game and any mech helping patch seems very unlikely for at least a few months now. Even the hope is gone lol This is so obviously not a a true statement. This is definitely either a closet zerg or someone who can't use bio/mine because it requires micro and wants DK to make Terran like Protoss. Please explain how turtle mech is more entertaining to watch than something that involves multiple armies at different locations on the map / drops / intensive micro / multitask. Fastest way to kill SC2 in my opinion is to force Terrans to turtle into 1 hour long mech games.. I'm obsessed with starcraft and I don't have the patience to PLAY those games let alone watch them rofl.
Patience is an extremely undervalued skill.
|
On July 24 2014 22:08 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 21:44 submarine wrote:On July 24 2014 20:42 Squat wrote:On July 24 2014 20:39 Hider wrote:It adds things by allowing changes in other areas. This is what you're missing, you seem completely focused on the WG mechanic itself. By reducing its impact on the game, it opens up opportunities to change other things, like protoss t1-t2/3 power curve. How can I be missing this once I in all my other posts argued for the effects that changes to WG would have
I just don't see WG being an inherently good or fun mechanic, it should not be treated as something that is just presumed to be better for the game than gateway production. I
I agree with this. It all depends on how you design the game around it. But point is, how does your suggested tradeoff to WG makes it possible to rebalance the game in a better way that my suggested change doesn't. I've said it like three times now, it let's us look at protoss t1 vs t2/3, and the ridiculous power curve we find there. It could potentially allow changes that smooth out that curve and make protoss basic units more relevant for longer. Basic Protoss units are plenty strong. And then some. And they are very relevant all game long. There is no "ridiculous power curve". Please stop repeating this trash. They are only "relevant all game long" if they're supported by Colossi and Templar, and the only reason they're "relevant all game long" is by acting as buffers for those two units. Without Colossi and Templar, pure Gateway units get absolutely torn apart by MMM once you go beyond ~120 supply. Even with Charge. Even with Blink. Even with upgrades.
Bio is also only relevant all game long exactly because there are "higher tier" support units.
Chargelots are very strong and have a role all game long in both pvt and pvz. Over all i think no other "monocomposition" has won as many games as pure stalkers. They are also relevant in all MU and play a role all game long. Sentries are kind of underused right now, because of the ultrastrong alternatives (PO, TW, storm). On their own they still are very strong.
"They are only buffer". They are more then just that. You know that. Stop playing dumb.
|
On July 24 2014 22:14 deacon.frost wrote:Yeah, Chargelot with 3 armor is surely BASIC gateway unit. Stalkers without Blink are trash against bio once the grenades kick in. Basic gw units are trash, that's why protoss has so strong splash damage on higher tears and that's why protoss has charge and blink upgrades... and even then healed bio squad is better than gateway T1 units of the same cost, unless there is a higher tier unit present(usually templar). That's why drops without templar tech are so scary you have to have plenty blink stalkers ready... but yeah, they are strong and powerful I mean, terran with +3/+3 has a pretty scary units as well, because +3 bio is considered unbeatable in TvZ, so where's the problem? The same stupid example as +3 zealot...
Toss production is cheap and fast compared to terran while the units are more on the expensive side. Comparing equally expensive armies is very missleading in this case. You always should look what a race can have on the field at certain timings.
And who considers +3 bio to be unbeatable? A few "hype casters" maybe, when there is a downtime in the game and they need something to talk about. I have seen enough +2 LBM armies roll over +3 bio to know this generalization is BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
