|
On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view?
No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form).
Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game.
|
On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game.
I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change).
|
I brought this up in another thread, I'll do it again here.
My suggestion is to make Warp gate able to warp in close to a nexus instead of pylon. That way you can use it to warp in at peripheral bases, giving good defense and possibly shorter attack paths if you take a suitable expansion. This way you can slightly buff current gateway units/add a new unit so that protoss gateway units are more suitable for straight up engagements.
The warp prism can be a special unit for harassment warp in. Using a weaker warp in (compared to warping in close to a nexus), like taking more damage warping in/longer warping in time or something.
Also, Zealot legspeed instead of charge or possibly a choice for the player, one or the other. Research one and then you cannot research the other would be fun.
|
On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game.
This is only true if you leave Warpgates unchanged, and pretty much everyone acknowledges that they need to be nerfed.
|
On November 28 2014 07:29 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? They somewhat do and I don't understand Hiders comment about production time and cost efficiency in midgame..... Those both matter, a lot. I read somewhere of removing the sentry in favor of another gate unit. I don't really know what kind of unit to add though 0_0
Well, there's no chance of the Sentry getting axed. But as for another gate unit, what I'd really like to see is something that creates micro-synergy for Protoss units the way Medivac/Marines work for Terran.
I've been toying with the idea of a caster that does something funky with Protoss shields. Its primary, offensive ability (which would make it a replacement for Colo/HT/Disruptor) would be like "Psionic Whiplash - target unit glows blue for 3 seconds, then deals 45+its current shields value as damage to everything in an AOE around it, losing its shields in the process."
And you could use this on enemy units (45 damage AOE nuke) or on your own units (considerably more powerful nuke, either with charging zealots, Blinking Stalkers, or an Archon/Immortal bomb). Lots of potential for micro on both sides, lots of potential for creative plays.
You could have this as an early game caster, because the strength of its ability would actually scale with tech. Nuking a Zealot without Charge is a lot less scary than nuking a Zealot with Charge, which is still less scary than dropping an Archon from a WP and nuking that.
|
On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game.
Depends how the changes are made. It could very well have minimal impact on protoss all-ins, while making protoss army maybe still less strong in straight up engagements late game but also significantly more mobile. It depends how you make the changes, to simply assume a buff to gateway units would result in a buff to all-ins is tunnel vision.
If you structure a buff to only take effect around mid-late game, such as only kicking in via an upgrade, you heavily bypass the all-in factor, simply because requiring extra tech / upgrades is costly, time consuming, and scoutable.
For example, the amount of chargelot all-ins is virtually nonexistant in the current meta. So would buffing the chargelot (not zealot) really "stregthen" protoss all-ins? It might bring it to the point where it's more viable, but it's unlikely it would have a material impact on an all-in itself. Same with an upgrade that might buff the sentry at the twilight. If you upgrade that, you're not upgrading blink simultaneously and are spending extra upgrades.
I strongly feel gateway buffs are the way to go - reduce dependence on Robo units, which is a terrible design flaw in the race.
|
On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change).
Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat.
The primary way for toss to win will be through very heavy abuseage of blink mobility. But exacty because the mobility of stalkers is so high + warp tech is still very "mobile", it needs to come at a severe disadvantaenge in terms of straight up encounters.
|
On November 28 2014 07:58 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change). Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat. Only way for toss to win will be through some type of blink harass sheningan I think.
Of course you would balance around it... what kind of answer is that :S
|
On November 28 2014 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:58 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change). Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat. Only way for toss to win will be through some type of blink harass sheningan I think. Of course you would balance around it... what kind of answer is that :S
I don't think you understand this discussion at all. When the game design functions in a specific way so it rewards mobiltiy to a extreme, there are only very limited ways you can balance the game. And that has to come through much lower cost efficiency in straight up encounters.
|
On November 28 2014 08:21 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 28 2014 07:58 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change). Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat. Only way for toss to win will be through some type of blink harass sheningan I think. Of course you would balance around it... what kind of answer is that :S I don't think you understand this discussion at all. When the game design functions in a specific way so it rewards mobiltiy to a extreme, there are only very limited ways you can balance the game. And that has to come through much lower cost efficiency in straight up encounters.
I don't know, MMM is pretty efficient in straight up encounters.
|
Since the most built unit of the Protoss arsenal by far is the stalker I don't like the prospect of buffing that exact unit. In particular since the unit is a jack of all trades already in combat + superpowerful in allins + very mobile.
Zealots aren't that bad to begin with for a 100/0 unit.
Of course warpgates play a role in that, but you are not removing something as problematic as blink allins with making the reinforcement weaker and the unit itself stronger. I mean, people here are talking how nerfing one thing like a Colossus balances out a stalker buff. Well, why wouldn't a stalker buff balance out a warpgate nerf and we'd be stuck with the exact same shannenigans - or even stronger ones? Just with less stalkers at the front and more coming from behind? It's not like a roach timing isn't playable just because roaches don't warp in the opponents face. But those roach timings are often very commited because you delay crucial tech and roaches are supplyinefficient in the longrun! But this shouldn't be the case with those new stalkers as far as I read that??? As far as I follow those stalkers should be capable of just going toe-to-toe with whole techpaths like MMM... So no other crucial tech involved and no supply inefficiency?
Sorry, stalkers are strong units and that's why we see Protoss with only 1-2 robotics but 7-20 gateways. Yes, they lose an a-move battle against units that only have half the versatility of them and often include much more expensive infrastructure.
If you want combat stalkers, then either remove versatility from them (bye bye antiair or something like that), roll in everything that's potent about stalkers into 2-3 upgrades instead of just one (you know, like marines, hydralisks, roaches, marauders all have multiple upgrades)... Or you know, just don't focus on the stalker to begin with and focus on the unit that actually is supposed to be a midgame, singlefire ranged combat unit, the immortal.
Dreamhack Spoiler: The power of gateway units, no robotech invovled.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.twitch.tv/dreamhacksc2/b/593246163?t=9h40m10s
|
On November 28 2014 08:31 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 08:21 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 28 2014 07:58 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change). Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat. Only way for toss to win will be through some type of blink harass sheningan I think. Of course you would balance around it... what kind of answer is that :S I don't think you understand this discussion at all. When the game design functions in a specific way so it rewards mobiltiy to a extreme, there are only very limited ways you can balance the game. And that has to come through much lower cost efficiency in straight up encounters. I don't know, MMM is pretty efficient in straight up encounters.
MMM has lower production speed. I previosuly called the effect of warptech for "added mobility". So when you add up a production mechanicsm that is very mobile + very mobile units, it needs to come through lower cost efficiency. Moreover, MMM relies a lot on mobility and isn't that cost-efficient vs AOE-toss compositions.
Now, let's think about the effect of mass stalkers in a more practical way: Are the games where a protoss player masses stalkers actually fun? From my experience, they are the opposite. Stalkers are a giant snowball army and not that fun to play against imo.
While MMM play can be fun to drop around with and often is rewarded for splitting army up. Stalkers are not that good in smaller numbers, but often benefits hugely from scale (to create that snowblal effect).
Therefore, it is not my belief that rewarding more of this type of gameplay (more warptech heavy) will "fix" the design problems of protoss.
|
On November 28 2014 08:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 08:31 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 08:21 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 28 2014 07:58 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change). Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat. Only way for toss to win will be through some type of blink harass sheningan I think. Of course you would balance around it... what kind of answer is that :S I don't think you understand this discussion at all. When the game design functions in a specific way so it rewards mobiltiy to a extreme, there are only very limited ways you can balance the game. And that has to come through much lower cost efficiency in straight up encounters. I don't know, MMM is pretty efficient in straight up encounters. MMM has lower production speed. I previosuly called the effect of warptech for "added mobility". So when you add up a production mechanicsm that is very mobile + very mobile units, it needs to come through lower cost efficiency. Moreover, MMM relies a lot on mobility and isn't that cost-efficient vs AOE-toss compositions. Now, let's think about the effect of mass stalkers in a more practical way: Are the games where a protoss player masses stalkers actually fun? From my experience, they are the opposite. Stalkers are a giant snowball army and not that fun to play against imo. While MMM play can be fun to drop around with and often is rewarded for splitting army up. Stalkers are not that good in smaller numbers, but often benefits hugely from scale (to create that snowblal effect).
Good luck getting fun playstyles out of Protoss (by Terran standards) without very significant changes to the units, or very well designed new units that have crazy retro-synergy. The only playstyle that came close for me was HT/Stalker/Chargelot, and even that was pretty far from ideal.
But there are a lot of fun Stalker games, PartinG vs Flash at HSC was a great example.
|
NEW PROTOSS UNIT: Judicator
---------------------------------------------
Flavor: Fast, durable, support unit for gateway armies. Rams into opponent's army providing an area of effect de-buff. Produced at gateways, cannot be warped-in by warp-gates.
Rationale: Assistance to zealot/stalker armies to improve their effectiveness against clumps of roaches or marines + marauders.
Vision: Small pack of Judicators rush in from the flank to ram into a large clump of Biological Units (roaches/marine+marauders) providing a de-buff.
Judicator (requires building a Tribunal Pavilion, Tribunal Pavilion requires Twilight Council)
========
- Gateway unit only (not able to be warped in)
- range: melee
- size: comparable to hellbat/stalker
- ability: psionic ram - provides temporary speed boost and armor increase
- speed during ability: comparable to hellions
- upgrade at twilight council: khaydarin plating - whenever a unit is hit with psionic ram, it's movement and/or attack speed is reduced (area of effect?)
|
|
|
[b]The GATEWAY [/b ]
to keep this game fair, i dont think the stalkers power can really be changed.
The unit is balanced around beeing a tanky and extremely fast unit, it cant have anything more thank poor damage. (Its already faster than 90% of the units, add blink)
If you buff the stalker, (even if it was a fleet beacon upgrade) protoss would surely end in a "Mass stalker" hole.
Its similar with the Zealot. Its a unit that requires, and allows very little micro compared to other units. Zealots are also incredibly strong in certain situations, while beeing relatively weak in others. I cant imagine a reasonable way of buffing them without breaking the game.
The sentry - this is a unit where i can actually see it getting some combat stats (life damage) but i dont think that would add too much to the protoss experience.
Conclusion - The more I think about it the more i feel protoss gateway is actually nearly fine the way it is.When you accept that protoss isn't designed around winning with gateway units then it seems ok. Our robotics / stargate / twilight units are what the race is designed around
|
On November 28 2014 09:12 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 08:48 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 08:31 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 08:21 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 28 2014 07:58 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view? No I was talking about buffing the stalker and nerfing production speed. (aka warptech takes longer time in some form). Nerfing the collosus buf buffing the stalker would strenghten protoss all ins and nerf them late game. I was talking about all three. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossus, nerf aggression (through some manner of WG change). Yeh, so I think that will make toss a lot more reliant on mass stalkers. Timings will still be very strong - if not stronger. In midgame toss will struggle if the stalker buff is just marginal as various all ins in TvP especially will be almost impossible to beat. Only way for toss to win will be through some type of blink harass sheningan I think. Of course you would balance around it... what kind of answer is that :S I don't think you understand this discussion at all. When the game design functions in a specific way so it rewards mobiltiy to a extreme, there are only very limited ways you can balance the game. And that has to come through much lower cost efficiency in straight up encounters. I don't know, MMM is pretty efficient in straight up encounters. MMM has lower production speed. I previosuly called the effect of warptech for "added mobility". So when you add up a production mechanicsm that is very mobile + very mobile units, it needs to come through lower cost efficiency. Moreover, MMM relies a lot on mobility and isn't that cost-efficient vs AOE-toss compositions. Now, let's think about the effect of mass stalkers in a more practical way: Are the games where a protoss player masses stalkers actually fun? From my experience, they are the opposite. Stalkers are a giant snowball army and not that fun to play against imo. While MMM play can be fun to drop around with and often is rewarded for splitting army up. Stalkers are not that good in smaller numbers, but often benefits hugely from scale (to create that snowblal effect). Good luck getting fun playstyles out of Protoss (by Terran standards) without very significant changes to the units, or very well designed new units that have crazy retro-synergy. The only playstyle that came close for me was HT/Stalker/Chargelot, and even that was pretty far from ideal. But there are a lot of fun Stalker games, PartinG vs Flash at HSC was a great example.
No but you can change Immortal/Collosus (through redesigns) to be more microable. Stalkers? I don't see how really - and I am not sure changing them is desireable. Rather, I would just strenghten their role as a more mobile ranged unit and let the Robo units be about cost efficiency.
|
On November 28 2014 09:28 weikor wrote:
[b]The GATEWAY [/b ]
to keep this game fair, i dont think the stalkers power can really be changed.
The unit is balanced around beeing a tanky and extremely fast unit, it cant have anything more thank poor damage. (Its already faster than 90% of the units, add blink)
If you buff the stalker, (even if it was a fleet beacon upgrade) protoss would surely end in a "Mass stalker" hole.
Its similar with the Zealot. Its a unit that requires, and allows very little micro compared to other units. Zealots are also incredibly strong in certain situations, while beeing relatively weak in others. I cant imagine a reasonable way of buffing them without breaking the game.
The sentry - this is a unit where i can actually see it getting some combat stats (life damage) but i dont think that would add too much to the protoss experience.
Conclusion - The more I think about it the more i feel protoss gateway is actually nearly fine the way it is.When you accept that protoss isn't designed around winning with gateway units then it seems ok. Our robotics / stargate / twilight units are what the race is designed around
So in other words the race is fundamentally designed from the ground up in a terrible manner and is doomed to be a boring, deathball, a-move race?
Sounds like a rather gloomy answer to me.
No but you can change Immortal/Collosus (through redesigns) to be more microable. Stalkers? I don't see how really - and I am not sure changing them is desireable. Rather, I would just strenghten their role as a more mobile ranged unit and let the Robo units be about cost efficiency.
Changing Robo units will not do anything to fix the deathball syndrome.
The deathball syndrome exists because Protoss armies cannot win in the mid-late game without their Robo units (mostly Colossi) present (we'll ignore unit boxes and poor pathing design for the moment because we know Blizzard won't change these). Because these units are expensive, slow, and easy to pick off, you can't split them up. If you make Robo units more cost efficient (not really necessary) or just make them more micro-rewarding, then you may end up with marginally more interesting fights but Protoss will still be nothing more than a deathball race.
To fix this you need to make it so Protoss armies that don't have Robo units don't auto-lose against anything else in a straight-up engagement. Sure, Stalkers are disproportionately powerful with Blink in the early mid-game, but beyond that mass Stalkers still get absolutely destroyed by MM&M or Ling/Baneling/Roach/Hydra. Zealots and Sentries don't change this.
|
The deathball syndrome exists because Protoss armies cannot win in the mid-late game without their Robo units (mostly Colossi) present (we'll ignore unit boxes and poor pathing design for the moment because we know Blizzard won't change these). Because these units are expensive, slow, and easy to pick off, you can't split them up. If you make Robo units more cost efficient (not really necessary) or just make them more micro-rewarding, then you may end up with marginally more interesting fights but Protoss will still be nothing more than a deathball race.
Jeeez, that's what we have been saying the whole time.
- They should be redesigned so that they aren't slow and easy to pick of anymore.
- They should be redesigned to have better synergy with mobility facilitators such as the Warp Prism.
- Maybe even tweak the robo costs/unit build times a little bit so that the units are easier to replace
Noone is talking about making them more cost-efficient in battle. Low tier armies are just as much deathballs as Colossus based armies. Terran can't win without their medivacs. Zergs can't win without their Vipers. There are always units that you need to bring and protect in an engagment.
Only when those units are capable to be split (speeeeeeeeeeed) or have mobility facilitators (medivacs) they become less deathbally. At the end of the day a zerg/terran still has to fight with most of his army joined up. Hell, Terrans bring their workers to battle to have a bigger deathball!!!
It's the non-battle relations that create the perma-deathballs, the battle relations are there on either side.
|
Changing Robo units will not do anything to fix the deathball syndrome.
Deathball arises for two reasons:
(1) Toss is not cabable of splitting up its army.
(2) Toss is not rewarded for doing so.
If you have very immobile units that are not cost-effective in small numbers (collosus + Immortals), then it's only clear that they create a deathball dynamic. If on the other hand, you could move out on the map easier or could split up Immortals in smaller groups and perhaps could have a Collosus in a Warp Prism (similar to what we saw with Reavers in BW), the dynamic would be very different.
But when you have an Immortal with 2.25 movement speed that is vulnerable to concussive shell.... the unit just can't do very much except when its together with other units. The issue with toss is that both the Immortal and the Collosus are balanced/deisgned around being part of the deathball. Change that, and you have the fundamentals for a completely different game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
