On November 27 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Just because people have complained about how Protoss can/can't defend bases with Blizz's new idea--that is false.
Blizz's new Econ only shortens the timeline, it does not increase the number of needed bases. So you still defend 3 bases, but your third moves constantly and your army has to reposition accordingly. It is only if we go back to a BW style system that the game gets broken because Protoss can't defend more than 3 bases adequately.
Well, you cannot give up the main and natural base ever with all the setup there. So you have to defend those 2bases + any amount of mining bases. In a 5base scenario this means your main+natural have to be defended, but they don't mine. The other 3bases have to be defended because they mine.
The game will change a lot - but I fully agree with everyone that the game has to change a lot to allow Protoss to defend that many bases that early (bases also have to be taken earlier to keep on mining from 2-3bases)
How are Cannons and a Mothership Core not enough for that? Protoss arguably has the best static defense in the game already.
Currently Protoss must go into Colossi very fast to defend 3bases. The timings barely work out in a way that the first Colossi can defend the 3rd nexus. Without changes, I don't see how Protoss can defend an even earlier third base while getting the necessary Colossi. Also MsC is nerfed in the current build, as well as warp ins. Drops are much stronger against Protoss.
Blink stalkers, chargelots and sentries have no problem to handle T's and Z's T1 units. The problem is the poor design of P's T2 units - immortal is highly immobile and very expensive, void ray is also very slow and useless after the significant nerf on its ability, and pheonix can't attack ground unit. All of them heavily counter specific units, but that makes them weak in general and limits their use, that's why P has to jump to T3 units.
Blink and charge are both T2 upgrades, are quite long research, and you'll only going to have time to get one of them before mid-late game generally. Pure gateway has a hell of a time against T1-1.5 Terran and Zerg units with some minor upgrades (stim / speed). Outside of hard all-ins, these units aren't going to compete outside of the aforementioned situations where you only fight a small portion of an army due to good forcefield placement. Such situations aren't going to be nearly as common with split armies across more bases, and the dreaded ravager.
I'm all for stronger T2 options to compensate, even if it means nerfs in other areas. As it stands now though, without better T2 // stronger gateway units // a new gateway unit altogether, Toss is going to be in for a world of hurt.
Then the solution is earlier blink and charge upgrade and redesigned T2 units from stargate and robotic facility. My thoughts:
- remove twilight council from the templar tech branch; put blink and charge upgrades in cybernetics core with longer research time; - longer build time of templar archive and dark shrine; longer research time of psi storm; - give back void ray's orginal prismatic beam (passive skill, increasing damage when continuously attack one single unit over a period of time); - immortal's hardened shield is replaced with a new skill that you need to manually activate, but according to some feedbacks, it makes immortal even stronger against tanks and some other units, so there's more works to do. It could become a high-mobile short-range siege unit, good at defense and map control like tank.
Stay positive and optimistic. Nonetheless, P is the thematic race of LotV! How worse could it be anyway?
Nobody is going to accept an earlier Blink upgrade because it just leads to absurdly strong Blink all-ins every game.
And longer research on Psi Storm would potentially just make Templar openings even more unviable and railroad the "Colossi first" mindset even more. :-\
Were Twilight Council removed, longer research time on psi storm won't be longer, but anyway, I admit that simplifying the templar tech branch and earlier blink research are bad ideas, but there must be some other way to make HT better as to diversify P's strategies.
Mines to 80HP OR Psionic Storm buffed to deal + 10/20 vs Mechanical (Better vs Protoss as well, no change vs Z, but this has to come with a health buff to Vikings)
Would go a long way.
I want Templar viable in PvP tho :D
Yeah, becouse wasting Storm on one or two mines is sooo cost effective. 10/10 Protoss would start storming mines, if they were 80HP, totally...
On November 27 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Just because people have complained about how Protoss can/can't defend bases with Blizz's new idea--that is false.
Blizz's new Econ only shortens the timeline, it does not increase the number of needed bases. So you still defend 3 bases, but your third moves constantly and your army has to reposition accordingly. It is only if we go back to a BW style system that the game gets broken because Protoss can't defend more than 3 bases adequately.
Well, you cannot give up the main and natural base ever with all the setup there. So you have to defend those 2bases + any amount of mining bases. In a 5base scenario this means your main+natural have to be defended, but they don't mine. The other 3bases have to be defended because they mine.
The game will change a lot - but I fully agree with everyone that the game has to change a lot to allow Protoss to defend that many bases that early (bases also have to be taken earlier to keep on mining from 2-3bases)
How are Cannons and a Mothership Core not enough for that? Protoss arguably has the best static defense in the game already.
Currently Protoss must go into Colossi very fast to defend 3bases. The timings barely work out in a way that the first Colossi can defend the 3rd nexus. Without changes, I don't see how Protoss can defend an even earlier third base while getting the necessary Colossi. Also MsC is nerfed in the current build, as well as warp ins. Drops are much stronger against Protoss.
Use new units and abilities instead of colossi? Colossi are going to be nerfed anyways and not as good at defending bases early.
On November 27 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Just because people have complained about how Protoss can/can't defend bases with Blizz's new idea--that is false.
Blizz's new Econ only shortens the timeline, it does not increase the number of needed bases. So you still defend 3 bases, but your third moves constantly and your army has to reposition accordingly. It is only if we go back to a BW style system that the game gets broken because Protoss can't defend more than 3 bases adequately.
Well, you cannot give up the main and natural base ever with all the setup there. So you have to defend those 2bases + any amount of mining bases. In a 5base scenario this means your main+natural have to be defended, but they don't mine. The other 3bases have to be defended because they mine.
The game will change a lot - but I fully agree with everyone that the game has to change a lot to allow Protoss to defend that many bases that early (bases also have to be taken earlier to keep on mining from 2-3bases)
How are Cannons and a Mothership Core not enough for that? Protoss arguably has the best static defense in the game already.
Currently Protoss must go into Colossi very fast to defend 3bases. The timings barely work out in a way that the first Colossi can defend the 3rd nexus. Without changes, I don't see how Protoss can defend an even earlier third base while getting the necessary Colossi. Also MsC is nerfed in the current build, as well as warp ins. Drops are much stronger against Protoss.
Use new units and abilities instead of colossi? Colossi are going to be nerfed anyways and not as good at defending bases early.
Like?
The Disruptor currently costs more gas than the Colossi and comes from/requires the same buildings and the Immortal isn't going to protect P's against MM&M pushes.
Still maintain they should just make gateway units stronger with T2 buffs.
- Buff the Chargelot (such as via higher passive speed) - Buff stalker (perhaps +2 attack per forge upgrade or give it another armor) and perhaps increase the range of the blink by 1, - - Tweak sentries so perhaps they are more useful via twilight upgrade (ie. units in guardian shield still retain +2 armor after exiting for a limited duration, or increase the radius of guardian shield, or increase range of FF by +1) - Increase archon splash radius
Would also be good to somehow buff immortal speed at maybe the robo bay, though they're pretty damn strong vs Z lategame as is.
These aren't actually suggested changes, just options to explore. It makes the units less reliant on other dumb shit and keeps the army more mobile and less deathball esque as a result. That's what the focus should be. Right now the mobility is via warp in harass throwaways and potentially getting off a recall (which you still stay in a deathball and is hardly considered "mobile").
On November 27 2014 12:02 FabledIntegral wrote: Still maintain they should just make gateway units stronger with T2 buffs.
- Buff the Chargelot (such as via higher passive speed) - Buff stalker (perhaps +2 attack per forge upgrade or give it another armor) and perhaps increase the range of the blink by 1, - - Tweak sentries so perhaps they are more useful via twilight upgrade (ie. units in guardian shield still retain +2 armor after exiting for a limited duration, or increase the radius of guardian shield, or increase range of FF by +1) - Increase archon splash radius
Would also be good to somehow buff immortal speed at maybe the robo bay, though they're pretty damn strong vs Z lategame as is.
These aren't actually suggested changes, just options to explore. It makes the units less reliant on other dumb shit and keeps the army more mobile and less deathball esque as a result. That's what the focus should be. Right now the mobility is via warp in harass throwaways and potentially getting off a recall (which you still stay in a deathball and is hardly considered "mobile").
I really like the idea of more powerful A/D upgrade for particular units. For example, the blue flame upgrade for hellion (currently +5 attack vs. light) be ditched and replaced with extra +2 attack vs. light by each level of weaponry upgrade in the armory. It's a smart way to balance things in mid and late game.
On November 27 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Just because people have complained about how Protoss can/can't defend bases with Blizz's new idea--that is false.
Blizz's new Econ only shortens the timeline, it does not increase the number of needed bases. So you still defend 3 bases, but your third moves constantly and your army has to reposition accordingly. It is only if we go back to a BW style system that the game gets broken because Protoss can't defend more than 3 bases adequately.
Well, you cannot give up the main and natural base ever with all the setup there. So you have to defend those 2bases + any amount of mining bases. In a 5base scenario this means your main+natural have to be defended, but they don't mine. The other 3bases have to be defended because they mine.
The game will change a lot - but I fully agree with everyone that the game has to change a lot to allow Protoss to defend that many bases that early (bases also have to be taken earlier to keep on mining from 2-3bases)
How are Cannons and a Mothership Core not enough for that? Protoss arguably has the best static defense in the game already.
Currently Protoss must go into Colossi very fast to defend 3bases. The timings barely work out in a way that the first Colossi can defend the 3rd nexus. Without changes, I don't see how Protoss can defend an even earlier third base while getting the necessary Colossi. Also MsC is nerfed in the current build, as well as warp ins. Drops are much stronger against Protoss.
Use new units and abilities instead of colossi? Colossi are going to be nerfed anyways and not as good at defending bases early.
Like?
The Disruptor currently costs more gas than the Colossi and comes from/requires the same buildings and the Immortal isn't going to protect P's against MM&M pushes.
Pretty much this.
You HAVE to have splash. Its actually essential or you just die. So that means either Templar, Colossus or the new Disruptor. Colossus and Disruptor have the same requirements but the Colossus is cheaper and the Templar has a whole world of problems as an opening strategy into expansion.
"Use new stuff" is all well and good...there's no new stuff to fill what is actually needed.
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss.
On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote: @ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss.
Absolutely need the gateway unit buff. There is no other way. especially with FF being breakable by Z now. Plus the whole, mobility all over the map idea requires gateway units that are not total crap without AoE.
BTW. if LotV is amything like the LotV custom mod, then the disruptor seems superior to the colossus, although that probably depends on the enemy's splitting skill and available support units.
On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote: @ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss.
I agree. Compared to T's and Z's T2 units other than air-to-air units and drop ship (tank, banshee, raven, hellbat and ghost; muta, hydra and infestor), P's (immortal, void ray and oracle) are all of low cost-efficiency. Oracle is a good harasser, but it's a caster, not a combat unit. There's basically no other choice but colossus death-ball. This has to change. P needs two new T2 units, one out of gateway with the requirement of twilight council and the other straight our of robotic facility. Another gas-heavy AoE T3 unit is useless.
On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote: @ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss.
Absolutely need the gateway unit buff. There is no other way. especially with FF being breakable by Z now. Plus the whole, mobility all over the map idea requires gateway units that are not total crap without AoE.
BTW. if LotV is amything like the LotV custom mod, then the disruptor seems superior to the colossus, although that probably depends on the enemy's splitting skill and available support units.
Sure there is. Reduce cost of robo facility, increase mobility and responsiveness of Immortal and suddenly toss have a much stronger midgame presence.
On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote: @ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss.
Absolutely need the gateway unit buff. There is no other way. especially with FF being breakable by Z now. Plus the whole, mobility all over the map idea requires gateway units that are not total crap without AoE.
BTW. if LotV is amything like the LotV custom mod, then the disruptor seems superior to the colossus, although that probably depends on the enemy's splitting skill and available support units.
Sure there is. Reduce cost of robo facility, increase mobility and responsiveness of Immortal and suddenly toss have a much stronger midgame presence.
Yes, increased mobility and responsiveness as the quid pro quo for the hardened shield removal or the "barrier" replacement thereof.
The immortal will still be cost inefficient vs anything but armored. How can that be a solution?
I also agree that having disruptor and colo on the same tech rquirement is really bad.
Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge...
On November 27 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Just because people have complained about how Protoss can/can't defend bases with Blizz's new idea--that is false.
Blizz's new Econ only shortens the timeline, it does not increase the number of needed bases. So you still defend 3 bases, but your third moves constantly and your army has to reposition accordingly. It is only if we go back to a BW style system that the game gets broken because Protoss can't defend more than 3 bases adequately.
Well, you cannot give up the main and natural base ever with all the setup there. So you have to defend those 2bases + any amount of mining bases. In a 5base scenario this means your main+natural have to be defended, but they don't mine. The other 3bases have to be defended because they mine.
The game will change a lot - but I fully agree with everyone that the game has to change a lot to allow Protoss to defend that many bases that early (bases also have to be taken earlier to keep on mining from 2-3bases)
Warpable Buildings: Takes X seconds probably somewhere between 20-40seconds to transfer one powered building to another power source on the map. Make it T2 tech. Same warpin shit applies with 200% dmg. Shuts down the capabilities as if you lost it while you wait. Terran can float. Zerg's just can take all the bases. And Cannon rush got destroyed. So maybe hope for cannon shenanigans, proxies, and base switching, perhaps even premaking Nexuses like Terran does.
Rest of discussion is great, there needs to be something intrinsically better about Gateway if you're going to nerf Warp/FFs. Just have to reconcile that. Because, let's say you find some way to jimmy your way into making Tempest carry the composition. You're stuck again because that Tempest would have to be so broken to cover 5 bases while the Gateways will die from dystentary for having their thumb up their ass for too long.
Immortal is probably fine with slight mobility, cost, or damage tweaks, mostly because I don't want Immortal to be the next Colossus in overuse. Immortal is already great for being a reliable unit in a sea of gimmick and I would like to see more Immortaless and Colossusless compositions vs. both Z and T.
On November 28 2014 01:07 Freeborn wrote: The immortal will still be cost inefficient vs anything but armored. How can that be a solution?
I also agree that having disruptor and colo on the same tech rquirement is really bad.
Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge...
Well, existing units might get tweaked. More microable, more skillable.
On November 28 2014 01:07 Freeborn wrote: The immortal will still be cost inefficient vs anything but armored. How can that be a solution?
I also agree that having disruptor and colo on the same tech rquirement is really bad.
Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge...
Yes your right in the sense that more changes are needed (than just to the Immortal). As an example, I believe that toss needs a general infastructure reduction nerf.
But robo units are per definition more cost-effective than gateway units. Warpgate units are more all-in or turtle'ish. So if you buff warpgate units, you will also buff warpgate allins, which isn't desireable IMO.
Instead, what I would like to see is protoss players moving out on the map easier without being all in Thus, I believe that Robo units needs a larger role in the game. But since both Immos and Collosus are kinda boring, they both need to be redesigned in order to be more microrewarding so players can enjoy playing toss with a larger emphasiz on robotich units.
Moreover note that for instance Zealots become kinda useless vs zerg in straight-up engagements. While I don't believe that warpgate units should be able to massed, I would work on two things with them: (a) improve their microability and (b) give them a more well-refined roles as the damage-tanker in all matchups.
On November 28 2014 01:07 Freeborn wrote: The immortal will still be cost inefficient vs anything but armored. How can that be a solution?
It's just a counter-tank and counter-roach unit, nothing more. Poor design.
Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge...
I think the problem is that zealot's and stalker's upgrades in twilight council come too late, much much later than T's stimpack and Z's zergling speed. Without the aid of sentry and MSC, it's very hard for P to push back early attacks and harassments. When you have to warp in a couple of sentries to help, the gas cost inevitably slows down your tech.
Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge...
I think the problem is that zealot's and stalker's upgrades in twilight council come too late, much much later than T's stimpack and Z's zergling speed. Without the aid of sentry and MSC, it's very hard for P to push back early attacks and harassments. When you have to warp in a couple of sentries to help, the gas cost inevitably slows down your tech.
Largely because in the case of the Stalker, as I mentioned earlier, faster blink just means overpowered blink all-ins.
In the case of the Zealot I'm pretty sure its because Stim MM vs Gateway units without charge is just about holdable through the use of force fields, highly defensive positioning and rushing to AoE; largely because Zealots are nice and tanky so you can keep them alive. Zerg things like speedlings are also holdable for the same reason. But the flip side isn't true, Terran and Zerg badly need to be able to run away from Zealots to a certain extent because Zealots are hard to take down and deal a boatload of damage if they can get into range; which means T and Z need those speed upgrades to finish first.
EPT
