EPTLegacy of the Void Announced - Page 143
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 28 2014 10:38 Big J wrote: 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. Splitting up armies isn't just a factor of speed/mobility. It also requires that the units that you split up are all capable of doing something. Right now, if Protoss tries to fight on multiple fronts or harass with smaller armies around the map, the units they have to do this with are Gateway units, and Gateway units just get rolled by all other T1 units. A small group of MM&M or Speed Lings/Roaches is far, far more cost effective to split from the main army than Gateway units. When we see smaller engagements and harassing around the map from T and Z, it's mostly low-tier units. Trying to force the extremely high-cost, high tech, and high build-time units from the Robo into the units that can facilitate splitting aggression will still result in Protoss paying a disproportionate cost for splitting their army is they lose any Robo units, and this is the biggest part of the problem. T and Z can split because they have units that are efficient and expendable that they can throw around the map. Trying to change Robo units won't do this for Protoss, and therefore Protoss still won't split because it will still cost them too much. 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. Robo units need to be extremely powerful to compensate for Gateway units. Therefore, they need a high cost (in resources and/or build time). If you require high-cost units like these to facilitate split engagements and roaming around the map, then you are still discouraging Protoss players to split and encouraging them to deathball because losing a couple Immortals/Colossi/Disruptors is far, far, far more costly than losing a few Medivacs and some MM or a bunch of Zerg units. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
Splitting up armies isn't just a factor of speed/mobility. It also requires that the units that you split up are all capable of doing something. Actually anti-deathball is not just about splitting up your army.. That's just one part of the equation. Rather, anti-deathball is also about making it easier for the player to move out on the map and be aggressive with his main army (without being all in). If your units are too slow, your escape mechanic is absolutely terrible, which means your punished for doing anythinge else but staying in your base. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 28 2014 11:51 Hider wrote: Actually anti-deathball is not just about splitting up your army.. That's just one part of the equation. Rather, anti-deathball is also about making it easier for the player to move out on the map and be aggressive with his main army (without being all in). If your units are too slow, your escape mechanic is absolutely terrible, which means your punished for doing anythinge else but staying in your base. so what happens when you increase the mobility of Robo units, either via speed or synergy between drops or whatnot? You need to nerf their power in engagements or else they will simply be too powerful. But if you nerf their power in engagements, then the Protoss army is too weak overall because Robo units have to compensate for crappy Gateway units. It simply doesn't fit to put all of this on Robo units. Robo units already have a purpose; to give the Protoss army its heavy-hitting power that the rest of the arsenal lacks. | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On November 28 2014 07:32 Hider wrote: 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. P is the only race that has SEVEN T3 units (HT, DT, Archon, Carrier, Monthership, Tempest, Colossus) while both T and Z have two (BC, thor; ultra, BL), which means P has way more options than the other two, at this point any nerf on P's lategame deathball is reasonable. On November 28 2014 09:44 Hider wrote: 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. I agree. Immortal and colossus are boring. Immortal wipes out so much fun in mid game as hardened shield highly discourages T from going mech and Z from mass roaches, and the problems caused by colossus are also discussed in this thread. They really need to be redesigned. My suggestion: - Change immortal into a SIEGE unit with higher movement speed and longer shooting range. When sieged, activate a PERMANENT guardian shield that protects all toss units around the immortal. Remove hardened shield. This will improve immortal's microability as all siege units are highly microable. - Guardian shield removed from sentry since it's given to Immortal. Replace it with a spell that automatically heals surrounding toss units' shield. Other changes in order to encourage new strategies: - Buff psi storm - extra damage on BIO units but less damage on mech units. - Replace ghost's EMP with SC1's lockdown (target unable to move or attack but can take damage); remove Raven's auto turret and replace it with EMP. - Lower build time for templar archive and lower research time for storm. - Give back void ray's passive skill in WoL (it used to allow void ray to deal near double damage after attacking a single unit for a short period of time). Stalker will play a better role as a good mobile ranged unit. Since it is practically P's only ground-to-air unit, any air unit buff is a buff for it because it'll force you to amass stalkers. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
so what happens when you increase the mobility of Robo units, either via speed or synergy between drops or whatnot? But if you nerf their power in engagements, then the Protoss army is too weak overall because Robo units have to compensate for crappy Gateway units. What I said before, and I what believe should happen is a cost in reduction of robo infastructure. Amongst others, Robo should cost 150/50, which will allow for a much higher percentage of your ressources dedicated to those units. So even if Immortals are slightly less cost efficient (to balance it around higher mobility), your main army will consist of fewer warpgate units which will increase the average cost efficiency. This means that the protoss army doesn't become this gimmicky heavy warptech thing, but becomes an army that closer matches that we know from BW (with Dragoons). Here you split the Dragoon into two parts: (1) Stalker and (2) Immortal. In Sc2, you have maybe 80% invested into warptech units and only 20% into robo units. That obviously creates an army that is less cost efficienct than in bw (in straight up engagements at least). But if we can get it closer to 60-40, it will improve the strenght of the protoss army. Warpgate units can then get their roles as either (a) support units or (b) mobile harass units further strenghtened without destroying the balance the game (as the balance isn't as razor thin when defenders advantage is higher). | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
Speaking of campaign units, what do you think if T gets diamond back instead of cyclone? | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On November 28 2014 09:15 mishimaBeef wrote: 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?) What do you all think of a gateway support unit? Would you like to be able to go zealot/stalker into the mid-late game and still compete with roach balls and marine + marauder balls without needing to make a robotics? Do you think this support unit fulfills the role? What are your general impressions of the idea? | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On November 28 2014 12:36 mishimaBeef wrote: What do you all think of a gateway support unit? Would you like to be able to go zealot/stalker into the mid-late game and still compete with roach balls and marine + marauder balls without needing to make a robotics? Do you think this support unit fulfills the role? What are your general impressions of the idea? One thing I'm sure that this new unit should be a T2 unit unlocked by Twilight Council. | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
On November 28 2014 12:36 mishimaBeef wrote: What do you all think of a gateway support unit? Would you like to be able to go zealot/stalker into the mid-late game and still compete with roach balls and marine + marauder balls without needing to make a robotics? Do you think this support unit fulfills the role? What are your general impressions of the idea? Been hoping for that gap to be filled since WoL.... | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
As a result there has been the impression that gateway units are weaker. It also doesn't help that many consider Bio with Medivac support as the equivalent to pure gateway. So the moment they make gateway units "less crappy", people will have more time to micro them better, which will result in the ability to actually stay even in upgrades with the other races and that would spiral even a small buff out of control. And I really like that gateway units can become that powerful if your micro is a few levels above your opponent and would find it really sad if that would have to be removed from the game, so that they work better unmicroed against microed units. It's just a personal opinion but I really like that gateway units are not that good if you just move them as a giant blob or use box micro like you do with Bio. But become really strong with a proper battle formation. Thats why I actually like that Colossus do their thing without much control, so I can control the gateway units. I am really curious about the Colossus now with the return of the Lurker. The Zerg Lurker attack is dodgeable again, but why didn't they make the Protoss Lurker dodgeable? I mean the 2 slow Lasers going over the ground are perfect for that. Someone new to the game seeing those 2 units might find it confusing that 2 units with an comparable attack pattern apply their damage so differently. I am aware that the Colossus would deal even more damage to large moving groups in that case, but it is still weird. Also I want a Terran Lurker that attacks in a diagonal line. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
| ||
|
Daeracon
Sweden199 Posts
On November 28 2014 11:51 Hider wrote: Actually anti-deathball is not just about splitting up your army.. That's just one part of the equation. Rather, anti-deathball is also about making it easier for the player to move out on the map and be aggressive with his main army (without being all in). If your units are too slow, your escape mechanic is absolutely terrible, which means your punished for doing anythinge else but staying in your base. Yeah the possibility to escape an engagement is very important. Which again makes things like fungal, forcefield and concussive shell so annoying. You start losing an engagement, try to disengage and run home. Oops you lost all your key units doing so. | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On November 28 2014 15:04 Daeracon wrote: Yeah the possibility to escape an engagement is very important. Which again makes things like fungal, forcefield and concussive shell so annoying. You start losing an engagement, try to disengage and run home. Oops you lost all your key units doing so. Not really. The ravager is gonna change the situation. It's skill shot can destroy FF as it's emphasized in the demo video, and I think fungal will no longer deal damage as to promote the roach/ravager/infestor combo. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
That way you can buff the units themselves so they can actually fight the other T1 cost for cost, and still have the needed warp ins later when you need to defend 3+ bases. | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
| ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
| ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
| ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On November 28 2014 17:50 Phaenoman wrote: OK, so a lot of ppl seem to want gateway units to be stronger, but which of those units need to be buffed? The Zealot? It already gets speed and Charge and is really tanky. The Sentry? It's a caster that with the disliked FF ability. Remove it or change it somehow. The Templars? I think they have their roles and abilities. The only unit that needs tweaks is the Stalker. Blink is good, but I think it should get some kind of basic stat buffs in some way, may it be in general or as an upgrade. In PvT I believe the Stalkers are getting a "buff" by the Marauder shot being split into two, thus armor applying twice. I'm not sure that FF will be as highly disliked now that there is direct counterplay to it, and micro to use/break the FF has been introduced. Personally I think Zealots are too tanky, and when they have charge they are too cost efficient when warped into an enemy base; they are nearly guaranteed to do damage. This will probably change though, if they do take 200% damage during warp and warp duration is increased. | ||
| ||
