|
On November 28 2014 12:25 TedCruz2016 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. 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. Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 09:44 Hider wrote:On November 28 2014 09:12 pure.Wasted wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
So Psi Storm kills bio even faster than it already does? Not everyone has master or grandmaster level micro or reaction speed. Psi Storm is already hard enough to deal with for the majority of the players, and TvP late game gives even the most seasoned pros headaches because the combination of templar, archons and colossi is incredibly hard to deal with.
I don't know why your idea of diversifying Protoss consists of making already powerful units even more powerful. It's these powerful yet relatively easy-to-use units that make Protoss as boring as it is.
|
On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote:Show nested quote +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.
My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.
a move, set and forget.
|
On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Don't worry, herc and cyclone will take care of any amount of zealots.
|
On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget.
In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it?
|
On November 28 2014 17:57 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 12:25 TedCruz2016 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. 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:On November 28 2014 09:12 pure.Wasted wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. So Psi Storm kills bio even faster than it already does? Not everyone has master or grandmaster level micro or reaction speed. Psi Storm is already hard enough to deal with for the majority of the players, and TvP late game gives even the most seasoned pros headaches because the combination of templar, archons and colossi is incredibly hard to deal with. I don't know why your idea of diversifying Protoss consists of making already powerful units even more powerful. It's these powerful yet relatively easy-to-use units that make Protoss as boring as it is.
That's not the point. I want ghost's lockdown back. With that T would no longer need mass vikings to snipe colossi. Just a seriers of lockdowns could disable all colossi from scorching my bioball, which will push P to have more HTs instead, thus the diversified styles.
|
On November 28 2014 18:04 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget. In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it?
Zerglings and Banelings can disengage a little better because they are faster. It's not amazing for Banelings off creep and most of the times you go into a combat you still have to go through with it, but you can run around the map more and decide before combat if you want to go on or not. With zealots you are very often just caught. (all those runbies with no return ticket, warp in harass etc)
|
On November 28 2014 19:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 18:04 Phaenoman wrote:On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget. In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it? Zerglings and Banelings can disengage a little better because they are faster. It's not amazing for Banelings off creep and most of the times you go into a combat you still have to go through with it, but you can run around the map more and decide before combat if you want to go on or not. With zealots you are very often just caught. (all those runbies with no return ticket, warp in harass etc)
Yea, but zerg-/banelings either kill or die pretty fast. If a unit is tanky, fast and has decent dmg, then we have a little design issue. How can u create a microable Zealot?
|
On November 28 2014 19:18 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 19:02 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 18:04 Phaenoman wrote:On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget. In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it? Zerglings and Banelings can disengage a little better because they are faster. It's not amazing for Banelings off creep and most of the times you go into a combat you still have to go through with it, but you can run around the map more and decide before combat if you want to go on or not. With zealots you are very often just caught. (all those runbies with no return ticket, warp in harass etc) Yea, but zerg-/banelings either kill or die pretty fast. If a unit is tanky, fast and has decent dmg, then we have a little design issue. How can u create a microable Zealot?
Speed zealots were in Broodwar. I think that they worked out better than chargelots.
But as a start you could make it so that charge can be triggered onto the ground (it should be like one-click in the editor to change that), so you can charge away if your runby gets caught.
God, these abilities make me so sad, blizzard doesn't give a fuck about making them more fun, even though it's always just a few clicks that you tag "target location" on top of "target unit" in the editor. Unless of course they want their ideas to behave like crap...
|
I think they want to differentiate Charge with Blink.
You can manually Charge your own units, but after the patch where it hits the target, I dno if it even makes sense. Also they keep attacking the friendly unit, untill you say NO!
|
On November 28 2014 18:10 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 17:57 maartendq wrote:On November 28 2014 12:25 TedCruz2016 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. 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:On November 28 2014 09:12 pure.Wasted wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. So Psi Storm kills bio even faster than it already does? Not everyone has master or grandmaster level micro or reaction speed. Psi Storm is already hard enough to deal with for the majority of the players, and TvP late game gives even the most seasoned pros headaches because the combination of templar, archons and colossi is incredibly hard to deal with. I don't know why your idea of diversifying Protoss consists of making already powerful units even more powerful. It's these powerful yet relatively easy-to-use units that make Protoss as boring as it is. That's not the point. I want ghost's lockdown back. With that T would no longer need mass vikings to snipe colossi. Just a seriers of lockdowns could disable all colossi from scorching my bioball, which will push P to have more HTs instead, thus the diversified styles.
Even with the Ghost's lockdown, there would be no reason for Psi Storm to deal even more damage. Two storms are already enough to kill an entire army if an opponent looks away for even a second, or doesn't have the reaction time or skill to micro out of it.
For lockdown to work against colossi, Ghost cast range would have to be increased to around 12 as well, or it's pointless since colossi are usually way behind the stalker and zealot line.
|
On November 28 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 19:18 Phaenoman wrote:On November 28 2014 19:02 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 18:04 Phaenoman wrote:On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget. In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it? Zerglings and Banelings can disengage a little better because they are faster. It's not amazing for Banelings off creep and most of the times you go into a combat you still have to go through with it, but you can run around the map more and decide before combat if you want to go on or not. With zealots you are very often just caught. (all those runbies with no return ticket, warp in harass etc) Yea, but zerg-/banelings either kill or die pretty fast. If a unit is tanky, fast and has decent dmg, then we have a little design issue. How can u create a microable Zealot? Speed zealots were in Broodwar. I think that they worked out better than chargelots. But as a start you could make it so that charge can be triggered onto the ground (it should be like one-click in the editor to change that), so you can charge away if your runby gets caught. God, these abilities make me so sad, blizzard doesn't give a fuck about making them more fun, even though it's always just a few clicks that you tag "target location" on top of "target unit" in the editor. Unless of course they want their ideas to behave like crap...
I tried this charge on the ground a tiny bit. It felt pretty cool actually. Didnt try it against other units tho...Like very small sample.
But about blizzard, tbh, i dont think they know what is fun gameplay anymore.
|
Blizz, y u so stubborn sometimes.. Rework all amove units with no active ability/ micro potential..
|
On November 28 2014 19:46 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 18:10 TedCruz2016 wrote:On November 28 2014 17:57 maartendq wrote:On November 28 2014 12:25 TedCruz2016 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. 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:On November 28 2014 09:12 pure.Wasted wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. So Psi Storm kills bio even faster than it already does? Not everyone has master or grandmaster level micro or reaction speed. Psi Storm is already hard enough to deal with for the majority of the players, and TvP late game gives even the most seasoned pros headaches because the combination of templar, archons and colossi is incredibly hard to deal with. I don't know why your idea of diversifying Protoss consists of making already powerful units even more powerful. It's these powerful yet relatively easy-to-use units that make Protoss as boring as it is. That's not the point. I want ghost's lockdown back. With that T would no longer need mass vikings to snipe colossi. Just a seriers of lockdowns could disable all colossi from scorching my bioball, which will push P to have more HTs instead, thus the diversified styles. Even with the Ghost's lockdown, there would be no reason for Psi Storm to deal even more damage. Two storms are already enough to kill an entire army if an opponent looks away for even a second, or doesn't have the reaction time or skill to micro out of it. For lockdown to work against colossi, Ghost cast range would have to be increased to around 12 as well, or it's pointless since colossi are usually way behind the stalker and zealot line.
Oftentimes P has both HT and Colossus in its deathball. Facing HTs without colossus, maybe it won't be too hard for T to deal with even if ghost's EMP is replaced with lockdown. Ghosts still have the chance to snipe the HTs and some zealots. The biggest advantage for T is that all the resources spent on vikings could be saved to produce something else.
Is a super long range necessary to make the lockdown strategy work? I don't think so. HTs usually hide behind stalkers and zealots, but they still get EMPed. Moreover, ghost has cloaking ability, and colossus's range has been nerfed to 8, both factors make it easier to target at colossi. Suppose a deathball has 4 colossi, even if 4 ghosts immediately die after successfully locking all 4 colossi or even just 3, it's totally worth it.
|
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.
Yes, that's one of the big reason why 4M can be so aggressive in TvZ. Even if the zerg player has a stronger army at a current point in time, terran can still move out, deal a bit of damage, micro a bit, and then retreat and have most of their units alive. For that reason, I believe Immortal needs a movement speed of roughly 2.75-3 and it shouldn't be vulnerable to concussive shell (maybe that would require it to be "massive".) Sentries could probably use a movement speed of 2.75 as well, which may work out decently that now the Ravager is there as a "counter" to Forcefields.
I think too an extent Blizzard realized the importance of giving toss an escape mechanic in HOTS by adding in recall to the MSC. However, that's such a poor implementeation as it's an "all or nothing"-thing. An escape mechanic where you take a bit of damage in the proces and lose 1-5 units is a lot more satisfying for the gameplay.
|
game = standalone? game = sc3, mind = blown
|
On November 28 2014 19:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 18:04 Phaenoman wrote:On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget. In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it? Zerglings and Banelings can disengage a little better because they are faster. It's not amazing for Banelings off creep and most of the times you go into a combat you still have to go through with it, but you can run around the map more and decide before combat if you want to go on or not. With zealots you are very often just caught. (all those runbies with no return ticket, warp in harass etc)
Zerglings are also vastly cheaper both supply and cost wise. Which means more of them. Which means more targets when trying to run away from Concussive Shell Marauders + Stimmed Marines. Which means more tend to be left over.
You might get half your Zerglings away from an engagement. The equivalent amount of Zealots are likely to just die.
|
Is it possible to do a remake of P's tech tree, changing it from the "trident" into a straight one? It could be:
- Gateway unlocks Twilight Council and Robotic Facility;
- Warpgate research moved to Twilight Council; Robotic Facility unlocks Charge and Blink;
- Twilight Council unlocks Templar Archive and Dark Shrine as before;
- Robotic Facility unlocks Cybernetics Core, Robotic Bay and Stargate;
- Stargate unlocks Fleet Beacon as before.
So vertically it's Gateway - Robo - Stargate, and horizontally it's Gateway - Twilight Council - HT and DT buildings. It resembles T's tech tree.
|
On November 28 2014 21:28 -Celestial- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 19:02 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 18:04 Phaenoman wrote:On November 28 2014 17:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 17:55 Lunareste wrote: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. My problem with chargelots is they deal excellent damage with zero attention paid, but if the opponent micros against them, there's nothing additionally you can do.a move, set and forget. In some situations there is nothing u can do. In some situations there is nothing u have to do. That's the current state. But that's the issue with most of the melee units, isn't it? Zerglings and Banelings can disengage a little better because they are faster. It's not amazing for Banelings off creep and most of the times you go into a combat you still have to go through with it, but you can run around the map more and decide before combat if you want to go on or not. With zealots you are very often just caught. (all those runbies with no return ticket, warp in harass etc) Zerglings are also vastly cheaper both supply and cost wise. Which means more of them. Which means more targets when trying to run away from Concussive Shell Marauders + Stimmed Marines. Which means more tend to be left over. You might get half your Zerglings away from an engagement. The equivalent amount of Zealots are likely to just die.
yup, in case of concussive shells that's another thing to consider.
|
It's much better than before when concussive shell didn't need research and charge didn't guarantee a hit when it was activated.
|
On November 28 2014 18:10 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 17:57 maartendq wrote:On November 28 2014 12:25 TedCruz2016 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. 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:On November 28 2014 09:12 pure.Wasted wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. So Psi Storm kills bio even faster than it already does? Not everyone has master or grandmaster level micro or reaction speed. Psi Storm is already hard enough to deal with for the majority of the players, and TvP late game gives even the most seasoned pros headaches because the combination of templar, archons and colossi is incredibly hard to deal with. I don't know why your idea of diversifying Protoss consists of making already powerful units even more powerful. It's these powerful yet relatively easy-to-use units that make Protoss as boring as it is. That's not the point. I want ghost's lockdown back. With that T would no longer need mass vikings to snipe colossi. Just a seriers of lockdowns could disable all colossi from scorching my bioball, which will push P to have more HTs instead, thus the diversified styles.
as much as i hate the colossus design that would remove strategic depth of the game since you would build ghosts vs colossus and then P starts adding more HT you would...build more ghosts isntead of having to decide whether to get vikings or medivacs or more ghosts etc.
the colossus just needs to be redesigned. P needs some form of AoE BURST unit that overcome the mass healing power of medivacs (which is the main problem with strenght of bio imo) and isnt 1 hit AoE like the disruptor or storm. imo the best thing would be to make it a real siege unit: slower, has to siege, more burst dmg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
