Resource changes First, we’d like to give an update on the resource changes we showed at Blizzcon. In that build, resources were reduced to 70% of what they currently are in Heart of the Swarm. From our playtesting, we really liked that this set-up encouraged players to move out more and take expansions more aggressively which led to action packed games. One element we were still concerned about was the potential diminished importance of harassment since workers were being transferred much earlier. Since Blizzcon, we’ve looked at changes that keep the positive aspect of encouraging players to take more bases, while still providing incentives to harass bases in various locations. The change we are currently testing is as follows:
Half of the mineral patches have 1500 (same as HotS), and the other half has 750. Gas is at 75% of total. The main things we like with this change so far are:
Players are still encouraged to move out and take bases aggressively. There are still reasons to harass most of the bases since they remain operational at half efficiency. Macro on bases and transferring workers throughout the game becomes more meaningful and more rewarding to players who do this better. We currently feel like this solution help resolve the main negative side of the change we proposed at Blizzcon, but we’ve only been testing this for a few weeks, so we can’t say with 100% certainty. We’d definitely like to hear your thoughts in this area.
Worker count change We’ve heard a lot of thoughts and suggestions on different starting worker counts for Legacy of the Void, so we’ve tested alternate starting counts internally. Currently, we feel 12 is the correct number because that number feels like the point right before decisions start diverging. However, we feel that since this is a simple change from a development standpoint, we could explore alternate worker counts in the beta without any issue. Looking at our data, we believe this is the correct starting worker count, but it’s still something we are willing to test further in beta.
Upgrades We’re exploring a couple things in this area. The first is to have more meaningful upgrades in the game. Here is what we’re thinking in this area.
Locate units that are used in the game that could potentially bring an impactful change at a much later stage of the game. We’re currently looking at upgrades that bring a meaningful change to how existing units on the battlefield are used in later stages of the game. The upgrades for Zergling speed and Ghost cloaking are good examples of this. These units are already used in gameplay, but the upgrades provide visible changes to the interactions with that unit.
Don’t add upgrades on for unit late-game units. Units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, or Thors come out so late that additional upgrades aren’t as interesting. Generally speaking, the late tier units are used only after the upgrades are purchased anyways, so we don’t see a huge value in adding more upgrades to them. For example, Ultralisks wait until their armor upgrade is done because both building Ultralisks and researching the upgrade start at the same time. So this upgrade is clearly not as interesting as say like Zergling speed or Marine stim pack that really change up how the units already on the battlefield are used. We’re also considering splitting-up mech and air upgrades once again for Legacy of the Void. Currently, the unit lineup for the Factory and Starport are both very solid, and so we wonder if bringing back the choice of which tech to upgrade will make those upgrade decisions more interesting. For example, our internal playtests are seeing multiple builds that involve mixing bio with mech or air independently. Therefore, we believe splitting the upgrades might add to the strategy. It’s important to remember however, that we’ve made a lot of changes in order to make mech viable, so we need to be careful and see if this change would make mech less of a strategic option.
Terran Changes
We’ve gone through lots of iterations on various units and abilities, and this is just a snapshot of where we are at right now.
Changes to the HERC The main things we didn’t like about the HERC were:
Too much overlap with Hellbats Grapple ability isn’t really needed for the unit to function well. Changes:
Tech level changed to Armory requirement No longer deals splash damage No longer effective for cost Grapple is to target ground When landing from grapple, knocks enemy units in that area back
One of our goals with the HERC is to help give Terran an advantage vs Zerglings and Banelings and encourage the Zerg player to tech switch. By adding a knockback to Grapple, the HERC can counter Banelings in a way that makes the ability more core. And while these changes clearly fixed the two main issues we had with the HERC, it also brings in new challenges with the unit. If Grapple is too spammable, it takes too much control away from the opponent. We’re seeing that it feels silly because players using HERCs can shut down the ability for micro on the opposing side by timing the knockbacks correctly. In general, what we want is the potential for micro on both sides, and this new HERC was going against that philosophy. Therefore, we’re currently not in a good place on the HERC, and we’re working towards a better solution.
Banshee attack range decreased back to 6 With the Banshee speed upgrade alone, Banshees were doing many cool things to the game. However, we felt the range increase didn’t really impact the late game but hurt the early game vs. Zerg. The number of Spore Crawlers needed to counter just normal banshees became high enough that it felt cost effective to just build a Banshee and show it to the opponent. Because we already get the effect we want with the Banshee speed upgrade, we felt we didn’t have to also increase the Banshee’s attack range.
Cyclone ability is autocast, and the unit is rebalanced accordingly In Legacy of the Void, we’ve added a lot of units that are more active or difficult to use. So we’ve been exploring various ways to keep the high-level, intensive micro play while allowing the game to be a bit more casual for average-level players. We believe the Cyclone’s ability being autocast is a good step in that direction. We wanted to push the importance of the positioning of the Cyclone more so than the click micro and because they’re autocast now, where they stand when engaging the army will be a lot more important. Prior to this change, whoever clicked faster was the more effective player using this unit. And players who want to make 100% sure that their Cyclones hit the right targets to turn off autocast and use it manually still.
Zerg Changes
Lurker siege range upgrade no longer has a Hive requirement The Lurker is still working out well for us, but we felt the siege range upgrade comes in a bit too late. Seige range will still be at a very late Teir 2 tech level because it’s still gated by not only the Lurker Den, but also an upgrade on top of that. This isn’t set in stone, but we currently believe this is a better place for it.
Infestor ability removal + add? Aggressive Mutation was only really effective when combined with Zerglings, due to the fact that ability provides a flat damage buff. At the same time, we also didn’t want to make a general upgrade that just generally buffs all Zerg ground units. If we feel that the buff its providing Zergling damage is needed and is good for the late game, we can just buff their Tier 3 attack speed upgrade. Therefore, we’re looking for other areas where the Infestor can be utilized.
Zerg AA vs. mass air strategies We’re currently trying out an ability on the Viper to help deal with large numbers of air units (but not small numbers of them). This new ability deals an AoE dot to enemy air units. If only a few air units are in play, it’ll be easy for the opponent to micro against this ability, whereas when the air unit count gets really high, dealing with this ability will be exponentially more difficult.
We’ve tried out abilities like this in the past and we’ve experienced a couple problems. Counter micro on the opposing side is to just kill the unit that has the DoT on it. This is problematic, because it’s not difficult to just select everything you have and kill the one afflicted unit. Design wise, this type of enemy reaction is also problematic because it just becomes a doom type spell, and not the spell we’re going for. To solve this, we’ve tried versions in the past where burst damage goes through if the unit is killed. The problem in this case is that I can then cast this spell on the enemy unit and quickly focus fire it down.
In order to solve both of these issues, we’re trying a version where if you use the ability, the effect is applied to the enemy air unit, but if the unit is killed before the DoT damage expires, the DoT damaging effect still remains flying in the air at the location where the unit died. This way, the optimal move for the opposing player is to move the affected unit away from the other units rather than just killing it. On the user’s side, it’s slightly more effective to have the affected unit move around with the DoT damage, than to have the DoT damage remain stationary, so there’s little incentive to quickly focus fire the affected unit down.
We haven’t had as much testing with this ability yet, and we’re not even sure if the Viper is the correct unit for this ability, but the general idea of exploring a late game Zerg AA vs. mass air armies is something we’re focusing on.
Protoss Changes
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
Poll: What do you think about mineral change ?
I like it. (686)
74%
I don't like it. (181)
20%
I don't care (54)
6%
921 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about mineral change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about Worker count change ?
I like it. (391)
45%
I don't like it. (373)
43%
I don't care (101)
12%
865 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about Worker count change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about upgrade change ?
I like it. (455)
75%
I don't care (78)
13%
I don't like it. (72)
12%
605 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about upgrade change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about HERC change ?
I like it. (306)
53%
I don't like it. (141)
24%
I don't care (134)
23%
581 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about HERC change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about banshee change ?
I like it. (551)
87%
I don't like it. (52)
8%
I don't care (27)
4%
630 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about banshee change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about cyclone change ?
I like it. (275)
52%
I don't like it. (126)
24%
I don't care (125)
24%
526 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about cyclone change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about lurker change ?
I like it. (468)
86%
I don't like it. (40)
7%
I don't care (35)
6%
543 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about lurker change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about infestor change ?
I like it. (260)
59%
I don't care (119)
27%
I don't like it. (60)
14%
439 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about infestor change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about Zerg AA change ?
I like it. (375)
74%
I don't like it. (96)
19%
I don't care (39)
8%
510 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about Zerg AA change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about new Protoss unitchange ?
I don't like it. (242)
47%
I like it. (225)
43%
I don't care (52)
10%
519 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about new Protoss unitchange ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about new Mothership Core change ?
I like it. (323)
65%
I don't like it. (140)
28%
I don't care (37)
7%
500 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about new Mothership Core change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
Poll: What do you think about new immortal barrier change ?
I like it. (300)
61%
I don't like it. (146)
29%
I don't care (49)
10%
495 total votes
Your vote: What do you think about new immortal barrier change ?
(Vote): I like it. (Vote): I don't like it. (Vote): I don't care
They still need to change the disruptor if they are going to do the new protoss unit the way they mentioned. At the moment it seems they are the same unit
I still think the Cyclone is a dumb unit in general, I hope they don't dumb it down further. Mineral changes sound very interesting though, I like those
Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Herc now feels like a complicated reaper. Cyclone is just a waste of time, if there is not only 3 ultras to kite.
Splitting the Mech and Air Upgrades is just....crap. Mech finally got viable in TvT and TvZ, lets undo that. yeha...fuck !
Zerg abilty vs mass Air? The HELL ? you already got fungal, Hydra, Corruptorspam, free spores, viper Yoink,, use it right, please dont add more redundancy to the game.
Zerg abilty vs mass Air? The HELL ? you already got fungal, Hydra, Corruptorspam, free spores, viper Yoink,, use it right, please dont add more redundancy to the game.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Yeah I like that idea, this sorta sentry unit that will guard you early-midgame.
I think protoss don't need another harrassment unit, but a solid late game unit that can replace the a-move unit called colossus. I'm pretty sure disruptor ( is it correct? Forgot the name, the one that turns invulnuerable and explodes) can be quite effective in harrassment with the new warp prism.
Also, is blizzard ever going to change the mining efficiency to be gradual slope instead of having a flat limit at 24 workers? That would encourage people to kill workers, not snipe bases
It's really nice they're keeping us well updated this time around! Good Job Blizzard!
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
I disagree, they've posted a multiplayer balance before and I really like how they keep us posted. You're reading way to much into that blog of Destiny. There really is nothing new in there except for a ton of Reddit minions hyping it up because their lord and savior wrote it.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Yeah I like that idea, this sorta sentry unit that will guard you early-midgame.
You mean the one that doesn't do anything once medivacs are out, and is countered by ravagers in LotV?
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit.
Another one =.=
Can't understand why. They always says that they want to create units that can be usefull during all game. Then they do Oracles that is only a cheese unit that does something in the late game only if it survives. Doesn't make senso for me.
On December 18 2014 04:10 beg wrote: What's that supposed to mean? "Changes to the HERC: - No longer effective for cost"
Made me giggle a little bit, but maybe it's because I'm an idiot.
Select Herc - a - click is no longer effective, you need to make the Herc a cost effective unit by combining it with Siege, EMP, mines etcetera by microing it well. It essentially becomes a support unit, I suppose.
I actually like the cyclone change, you really have to babysit the shit out of them, being auto cast is not bad click-spam them wasn't really rewarding as it was to control them so they don't die easily, also they are super weak when going head to head with other units, so its a good harras and map control unit that requieres micro (I played some hellion/cyclone on the LotV mod as its really fun is like having a pack of MMM going around harrassing picking stray units and other stuff) I do wonder what they mean when they say they rebalanced them, range? damage? cost? the upgrade?.
I don't know what they are trying with the HERC, but I like that they are looking for feedback, this ability just looks weird.
Also I what they are trying with the upgrades, they should be things that are part of the strategy, adding different tactics and timings, not just stuff that you need to get just because.
Overall OK changes but is good that they are listening to feedback.
Zerg abilty vs mass Air? The HELL ? you already got fungal, Hydra, Corruptorspam, free spores, viper Yoink,, use it right, please dont add more redundancy to the game.
On December 18 2014 04:02 iHirO wrote: I like that with mixed mineral patches, Terrans will have to intelligently decide which ones to MULE to prevent patches drying up early.
It depends on if the visuals of mineral patches easily show its reserves. Aiming for the larger patches can hardly be said to require intelligence. Furthermore, there are some issues with adding entry barriers to the game. There is a complaint regarding mules that you're not punished significantly for missing your mule timings. This sort of change adds a skill component to mules, but it's not an interesting one, it's merely an obstacle for lower level players to overcome. This is similar to perception of macro generally, that it's difficult for casual players but merely a nuisance for pros.
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
I disagree, they've posted a multiplayer balance before and I really like how they keep us posted. You're reading way to much into that blog of Destiny. There really is nothing new in there except for a ton of Reddit minions hyping it up because their lord and savior wrote it.
Really? You honestly think this isn't exactly what PR is about?
This release is entirely to deflect Destiny's blog article. GUY GUYS!! FORGET ABOUT THAT LOOK AT ALL THIS COOL NEW STUFF!!!!
On December 18 2014 04:09 SC2Toastie wrote: It's really nice they're keeping us well updated this time around! Good Job Blizzard!
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
I disagree, they've posted a multiplayer balance before and I really like how they keep us posted. You're reading way to much into that blog of Destiny. There really is nothing new in there except for a ton of Reddit minions hyping it up because their lord and savior wrote it.
Really? You honestly think this isn't exactly what PR is about?
This release is entirely to deflect Destiny's blog article. GUY GUYS!! FORGET ABOUT THAT LOOK AT ALL THIS COOL NEW STUFF!!!!
In fairness, Psione tweeted about "things coming this week" before Destiny's blog blew up.
New harass unit? Wat? I'm protoss, but I don't believe we need another harrassing unit, we need something to help us being not-so-dead without need to rush colossi.
Guess maybe they had something else on mind. What are the main harrassers in Protoss? DT and Oracle, not counting Blink Stalkers. Both are kinda ("kinda") countered by same thing: turrent/spore. So, new harrass option that can't be shutdown by simply having detection in place? I'm just wondering here.
On December 18 2014 04:09 SC2Toastie wrote: It's really nice they're keeping us well updated this time around! Good Job Blizzard!
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
I disagree, they've posted a multiplayer balance before and I really like how they keep us posted. You're reading way to much into that blog of Destiny. There really is nothing new in there except for a ton of Reddit minions hyping it up because their lord and savior wrote it.
Really? You honestly think this isn't exactly what PR is about?
This release is entirely to deflect Destiny's blog article. GUY GUYS!! FORGET ABOUT THAT LOOK AT ALL THIS COOL NEW STUFF!!!!
In fairness, Psione tweeted about "things coming this week" before Destiny's blog blew up.
I hope this isn't it for things to come this week. I wanna see some new maps!
Some pretty great changes, some pretty cool changes, some I'm not sure about. Nothing really bad. Many of the things they are writing here seem to be way more in depth than what they presented at Blizzcon. Should have started with that, but still sounds nice.
In particular I love the design/balance of the cyclone around the autocast and lowering siege range upgrade for lurkers. Also some of their general thoughts about upgrades are great! (like what they are saying about ultralisk armor. IIt is just a "1more click please" relation currently, so I like they are thinking about dropping such stuff.)
Changes look good overall, even if the fact that they're not even considering reduced mining efficiency makes me sad. Also that Protoss unit design seems totally off, what Protoss needs is a core, non-gimmicky gateway unit that makes P less reliant on high-tech units, not another gimmicky, spell-based harass unit. And I mean come on, it means it could just storm into a mineral line and kill the workers while being unvulnerable?
Zerg abilty vs mass Air? The HELL ? you already got fungal, Hydra, Corruptorspam, free spores, viper Yoink,, use it right, please dont add more redundancy to the game.
But this is all stopped by some PPDs... =)
Watch Solar v Yoda see the power of infested Terrans.
On December 18 2014 03:54 padiseal2 wrote: still not enough changes to my liking. I feel like at this stage of the game they should be waay more experimental.
One cannot expect an actual new game when only an expansion is released.
On December 18 2014 03:51 swissman777 wrote: Encourage people to expand, but please don't FORCE them. Early game contains are good as they are as it seems to be effective.
If the encouragement is strong enough, it is more or less a force.
On December 18 2014 04:09 SC2Toastie wrote: It's really nice they're keeping us well updated this time around! Good Job Blizzard!
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
I disagree, they've posted a multiplayer balance before and I really like how they keep us posted. You're reading way to much into that blog of Destiny. There really is nothing new in there except for a ton of Reddit minions hyping it up because their lord and savior wrote it.
Really? You honestly think this isn't exactly what PR is about?
This release is entirely to deflect Destiny's blog article. GUY GUYS!! FORGET ABOUT THAT LOOK AT ALL THIS COOL NEW STUFF!!!!
In fairness, Psione tweeted about "things coming this week" before Destiny's blog blew up.
I hope this isn't it for things to come this week. I wanna see some new maps!
Friday #dreampool is gone (HURRAY!), and some new maps are going to be added to custom. Not on ladder, but we can try them at least.
Other news, LURKERS ARE STILL IN THE GAME AND GETTING A BUFF. My little zerg heart has been aflutter since they brought my babies back and they are making them better?! Still doesn't make up for #dreampool, but they are trying.
On December 18 2014 04:09 SC2Toastie wrote: It's really nice they're keeping us well updated this time around! Good Job Blizzard!
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
I disagree, they've posted a multiplayer balance before and I really like how they keep us posted. You're reading way to much into that blog of Destiny. There really is nothing new in there except for a ton of Reddit minions hyping it up because their lord and savior wrote it.
Really? You honestly think this isn't exactly what PR is about?
This release is entirely to deflect Destiny's blog article. GUY GUYS!! FORGET ABOUT THAT LOOK AT ALL THIS COOL NEW STUFF!!!!
In fairness, Psione tweeted about "things coming this week" before Destiny's blog blew up.
I hope this isn't it for things to come this week. I wanna see some new maps!
Well they already said we get to see and play 4 new maps on friday. They really delivered a lot this week.
Don’t add upgrades on for unit late-game units. Units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, or Thors come out so late that additional upgrades aren’t as interesting. Generally speaking, the late tier units are used only after the upgrades are purchased anyways, so we don’t see a huge value in adding more upgrades to them. For example, Ultralisks wait until their armor upgrade is done because both building Ultralisks and researching the upgrade start at the same time. So this upgrade is clearly not as interesting as say like Zergling speed or Marine stim pack that really change up how the units already on the battlefield are used. We’re also considering splitting-up mech and air upgrades once again for Legacy of the Void. Currently, the unit lineup for the Factory and Starport are both very solid, and so we wonder if bringing back the choice of which tech to upgrade will make those upgrade decisions more interesting. For example, our internal playtests are seeing multiple builds that involve mixing bio with mech or air independently. Therefore, we believe splitting the upgrades might add to the strategy. It’s important to remember however, that we’ve made a lot of changes in order to make mech viable, so we need to be careful and see if this change would make mech less of a strategic option.
The Starcraft upgrade system is archaic and clearly dates to the dawn of RTS games. It is generic and seems to mainly exist for structural purposes, it's not obvious whether it even improves the game and there are a number of cases where it seems to hurt the game. Nevertheless, you can't simply mess with it without understanding the impact it has on the game. This strikes me as very typical for Blizzard: deem some aspect of the game problematic and endeavor to change it without comprehension of the wider implications. I hope they don't forget to think.
Anyway, here are some specific thoughts on upgrades:
- the +25 energy for caster upgrades are constantly being removed or changed for some balance purpose. I wish Blizzard could make up their minds and decide on some sort of stable design. Currently there is an evident lack of parity in caster energy systems which is not compensated for by each system being uniquely interesting (vipers are unique, which is acceptable). Instead one caster starts with 75, the other with 50, others with 50 but with access to +25. Please make all of them the same.
- It's easy for zerg to switch tech options and overwhelm with a wholly new composition. One purpose that Chitinous Plating fulfills is to encourage zerg to produce ultralisks which are not yet at full strength. The other player can scout this and respond before the ultralisk army is at full power. Alternatively the zerg can wait for the upgrade, but this takes a lot of time. You can't simply add the ability right from the start without impacting the game flow. It's not fair to terran players, after all they can't mass produce 20 marauders at once without warning.
- Air units tend to come late in the game without the player having researched any upgrades for them. A normal interaction would be a +0 air unit versus a +1 anti-air unit. This implies a balance risk to fully upgraded air units. I think it's an issue with the upgrade system used and probably the best way to account for it is to remove air upgrades altogether and incorporate them into ones used by ground units and rebalance accordingly.
- I think dark templar could get an upgrade, it seems a bit silly to have a dark shrine with no other function than to unlock dark templar -- the only building in the game which is like this. It might also allow Blizzard to cut the build time of the dark shrine, which is annoyingly high.
why is protoss getting another harasser ? also why does it need to be a phaseshifter feels boring to me... Protoss is all about immortality as it seems like-.- Why dont we get a new gateway unit that is actually useful throughout the game and remove boring units that just splash all day. I dont want anymore harassing units i already have oracles Dts blink stalker ht drops and soon disruptor drops.
I'm very surprised more than 40% of the voters don't like the mineral change. I think it's amazing. Now they just need to keep the workers at 6, maybe at put it at 8.
I dont like this. A new unit with the immune type again? Feels like the new unit is very focused beeing a harass unit. Was expecting more changes, more radical changes. Like design protoss so they function very well without the mscore.
Tweak of more core units. The new eco change feels very uninspirational. In lotv the custom map, the economy felt like shit imo. A sample of 5games.
On December 18 2014 04:34 bartus88 wrote: I'm very surprised more than 40% of the voters don't like the mineral change. I think it's amazing. Now they just need to keep the workers at 6, maybe at put it at 8.
Yeah, I'd prefer 6-8 workers but have some of the mineral patches high yield.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
Meh, just reduce warp prism speed to where it used to be and don't allow 6 range pick-up and nerf warp prism shields and put immortal range back to 5.
To be honest I think Blizzard should adopt the Starbow approach of reducing viking range with an upgrade to give it back later in the game. Vikings can shut down a lot of harassment so easily, and the absurd range isn't even necessary anymore with the 8 range colossus.
Also, if harassment options are weaker then it's easier to expand, Blizzard needs to find the right balance there. Sometimes I feel like Blizzard just overuses the word harassment on purpose because they know many community members respond positively to the thought of games involving harassment, regardless of whether it makes for superior design.
The Mineral change is amazing. Other than that they still have the right general idea, was just hoping they were a little further along. Cutting the Cyclone and Herc+new unit for Protoss.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Since when is that /such/ a problem issue? This sounds like a TvP specific concern and frankly the boys aren't getting pulled as much .. which is the lone major exploit of that moment for Protoss, as far as I am aware. Open to your insights, though.
Mostly very sensible decisions by Blizz. It's nice to see they have identified most of the problems we have been complaining about (economy, zerg AA, micro requirements for units) and are actively trying to fix it !
Also, I find their idea for the minerals changes a really elegant solution to the problem. Overall, this kind of update makes me more hopeful than ever for LotV ! Great job Blizz', keep going :-)
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
So much this. We need smth similar to dragoon.
Starbow has really cool solution: they moved stalkers to be more harass oriented unit and less multi purpose as they are currently in hots and added dragoons to fill the gap and allow protoss for more freedom to move on the map.
That might need tweaking warp gate tech, but blizzard already stated they gonna at least change it a bit. I'd like to test postponing WG, so 1base WG rushes won't be a thing.
Maybe add requirement for WG to have Twilight Council or even move WG to TC ?
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
Zerg abilty vs mass Air? The HELL ? you already got fungal, Hydra, Corruptorspam, free spores, viper Yoink,, use it right, please dont add more redundancy to the game.
But this is all stopped by some PPDs... =)
They made PDD something like 20-30 seconds now, zerg don't need a counter to it anymore.
Overall it seems like they don't really know what they want. Herc is now just using blink with a knockback, the Cyclone is the same boring unit they showed before, only now you can put it on autocast. Seems like they can't think of a place Terran needs improvement and are trying to shoehorn in something. IMO they should just replace the Thor with something more mobile that allows for better building sniping when meching. Current Zerg changes are quite lackluster, but they got the best changes overall in LOTV anyway. The Protoss unit ideas are horrible; there's no need for another harassing unit, and making it temporarily invulnerable just means bad micro won't be punished as severely. Just give toss a solid, no-nonsense, regular unit that doesn't have to depend on abilities.
The most promising thing is that they're looking into upgrades that change early game units in the late game.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
So we can create the mighty Soul Train into SentryArchon-Colossus push? d:
On December 18 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote: Anyway, here are some specific thoughts on upgrades:
- the +25 energy for caster upgrades are constantly being removed or changed for some balance purpose. I wish Blizzard could make up their minds and decide on some sort of stable design. Currently there is an evident lack of parity in caster energy systems which is not compensated for by each system being uniquely interesting (vipers are unique, which is acceptable). Instead one caster starts with 75, the other with 50, others with 50 but with access to +25. Please make all of them the same.
Hm, gameplaywise I don't object to the current system, but I agree that it feels artificial at this point. They could just let units start with various starting energies or even introduce different energy maxes to begin with if it makes the game better. Yet, they have this artificial 50/75 rule with a bunch of exceptions instead.
On December 18 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote: - It's easy for zerg to switch tech options and overwhelm with a wholly new composition. One purpose that Chitinous Plating fulfills is to encourage zerg to produce ultralisks which are not yet at full strength. The other player can scout this and respond before the ultralisk army is at full power. Alternatively the zerg can wait for the upgrade, but this takes a lot of time. You can't simply add the ability right from the start without impacting the game flow. It's not fair to terran players, after all they can't mass produce 20 marauders at once without warning.
I think with units like Ultralisks it wouldn't be all to different if they just included the upgrade costs or parts of it into the tech building. 150/150 is hardly a thing when it comes to big switches to begin with but requiring extra buttons just so that you have to click the building another time and possibly forget about it isn't adding fun or strategic depth to the game. I think it makes sense to reconsider some of this sort of stuff.
On December 18 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote: - Air units tend to come late in the game without the player having researched any upgrades for them. A normal interaction would be a +0 air unit versus a +1 anti-air unit. This implies a balance risk to fully upgraded air units. I think it's an issue with the upgrade system used and probably the best way to account for it is to remove air upgrades altogether and incorporate them into ones used by ground units and rebalance accordingly.
Yeah, I think the Terran Air upgrades are in a good place right now. Similar for Zerg upgrades, not the biggest fan of the Fleet Beacon requirment for Protoss ones. That's a very expensive tech building that you don't always want to get, while you may want to research +2attack for your air.
In regard to protoss unit I have been thinking about a unit that is similar to the diamondback from the wol campaign. Strong against armored and pretty mobile so it can do some harassment.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
So we can create the mighty Soul Train into SentryArchon-Colossus push? d:
Soul Train is dead man, even Parting won't be able to make it work vs ravagers.
On December 18 2014 04:49 sushiman wrote: IMO they should just replace the Thor with something more mobile that allows for better building sniping when meching.
I really like the way to introduce more micro and more movement in the game. Some big issues that makes the game boring is the way from starting to get fully saturated, most as zerg. To just drone and drone until you hope you have 70 drones is not how you want to play really, but that you have no choice except all in.
Otherwise I also like the change of protoss strategy that will make them not only defend all the time but also some aggressiveness and apm. Maybe some faster units similar to zerglings that the protoss can use and also sacrifice.
I thought of something more. The lack of harrasment possibilities as a zerg brings down the game I think. Sure you can do ling runbys, but that is not like dropping or harrasing with warp prisms. Drops with overlords should be nerfed a lot and be a valid strategy. Not just as an all in like it is now, but harras.
On December 18 2014 04:49 sushiman wrote: IMO they should just replace the Thor with something more mobile that allows for better building sniping when meching.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
I think disruptors do a hell of a job for that, also early WP harass and stargate builds force (real) antiair (not the ravager shots against which no progamer will ever lose his early airunits against), so you can't go roach/ravager to begin with.
On December 18 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote: - It's easy for zerg to switch tech options and overwhelm with a wholly new composition. One purpose that Chitinous Plating fulfills is to encourage zerg to produce ultralisks which are not yet at full strength. The other player can scout this and respond before the ultralisk army is at full power. Alternatively the zerg can wait for the upgrade, but this takes a lot of time. You can't simply add the ability right from the start without impacting the game flow. It's not fair to terran players, after all they can't mass produce 20 marauders at once without warning.
I think with units like Ultralisks it wouldn't be all to different if they just included the upgrade costs or parts of it into the tech building. 150/150 is hardly a thing when it comes to big switches to begin with but requiring extra buttons just so that you have to click the building another time and possibly forget about it isn't adding fun or strategic depth to the game. I think it makes sense to reconsider some of this sort of stuff.
I mean, that's true, but given Blizzard's track record I'm a bit worried they won't increase the cost of the Ultralisk Cavern. :/
I'll take this opportunity to promote a suggestion (although I think people didn't really like it the previous times I suggested it, so maybe it's embarrassing to bring it up): if you're building ultralisks the eggs should be one size larger so that you can scout ultralisk transitions easier. :p
basically all makes sense expect another "invunerable" protoss unit. like someone mentioned it should be a unit that keeps P alive while transitioning to AoE units so basically some kind of immortal like tech unit that makes P be able to delay AoE for some time and still be safe enough to survive that transition.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Since when is that /such/ a problem issue? This sounds like a TvP specific concern and frankly the boys aren't getting pulled as much .. which is the lone major exploit of that moment for Protoss, as far as I am aware. Open to your insights, though.
- It's an issue because protoss is the race that has the most trouble securing extra expansions and splitting up their army to defend them. In LotV, economy changes will force protoss to do this though. Defending three bases is already an issue in HotS, of course depending on maps. Being forced to expand faster will automatically spread you more thin - which is fine for terran and zerg because their armies move very fast and work fine in smaller battles. Protoss armies are slow and rely a lot on unit/terrain synergy (zealot/sentry/colossus armies to defend the front -> stalkers to defend drops). Expanding faster = more places to defend = even more difficult to split your army correctly. This change alone would be a big nerf to protoss in HotS.
- You also have to factor in the warpgate changes (8 second warpin time, 200% damage while warping in). Defensive emergency warpins won't exist anymore. Where you could previously warp in units to stall for time until your army or a part of it arrives, you won't be able to do that anymore. If you still warp in, those units will die incredibly fast and do nothing. It'd be like throwing resources at your opponent. This change alone would already be a gigantic problem in HotS.
- The first two changes would already be hugely problematic for protoss as is, and we haven't even factored in the new units yet. Currently, terran gets HERCs and Cyclones (both are early-midgame units) and zerg gets Ravagers and Lurkers (which are midgame and late-midgame units respectively). For this early-midgame stage in the game, protoss gets... well, nothing. Immortals might be a bit stronger now against units that previously countered them (which is questionable, we'll have to test this), Disruptors are a tier 3 unit that costs insane amounts of gas and is only available at robotics bay tech, which means they most likely can't be in the game that early. Ravagers make forcefields irrelevant and Cyclones look like they counter every protoss unit (I'm quite sure that the unit will be massively worked on though, so don't think about it too much).
So while the first two issues would already mess with protoss in its current state, LotV also introduces new units and abilities in the early-midgame for the other two races while protoss doesn't get any, has to expand faster and can't use defensive warpins anymore.
What's really needed for protoss is a strong, beefy unit or concept that you can leave on its own, or with little support, and it will do fine. Something like a super-stalker. Of course you'd have to be incredibly careful not to turn that into an easy to mass, go across the map and kill people type of unit, but it's what protoss needs the most.
very disappointed by these ideas. the mineral changes will make the game super unforgiving, it will basically turn the game into "who kills the first base wins" since you will just starve out with very little chance to come back then. the worker change is also terrible.
and why the hell does zerg need better AA? with tempests and ravens nerfed, zerg will already have maybe the strongest AA in the game. a mixture of broodlords, infestors and corruptors will be very hard to deal with; remember wol? it will certainly not be as strong as in wol since voidrays and carriers are buffed and terran has combined upgrades and better seeker missile, but i don't think zerg will have problems with heavy air armys at all. ah i forgot, they want to remove the combined upgrades, then it will probably be as strong as in wol.
the infestor ability is really crap so i'm glad they are looking into it. Also i'm VERY sceptical how the lurker will work in sc2, and hope it won't replace the baneling. generally i really dislike the idea of adding even more splash damage in the game, therefore i also hope the disruptor will be changed. the HERC seems just completely useless now but maybe i'm missing something.
On December 18 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote: - It's easy for zerg to switch tech options and overwhelm with a wholly new composition. One purpose that Chitinous Plating fulfills is to encourage zerg to produce ultralisks which are not yet at full strength. The other player can scout this and respond before the ultralisk army is at full power. Alternatively the zerg can wait for the upgrade, but this takes a lot of time. You can't simply add the ability right from the start without impacting the game flow. It's not fair to terran players, after all they can't mass produce 20 marauders at once without warning.
I think with units like Ultralisks it wouldn't be all to different if they just included the upgrade costs or parts of it into the tech building. 150/150 is hardly a thing when it comes to big switches to begin with but requiring extra buttons just so that you have to click the building another time and possibly forget about it isn't adding fun or strategic depth to the game. I think it makes sense to reconsider some of this sort of stuff.
I mean, that's true, but given Blizzard's track record I'm a bit worried they won't increase the cost of the Ultralisk Cavern. :/
I'll take this opportunity to promote a suggestion (although I think people didn't really like it the previous times I suggested it, so maybe it's embarrassing to bring it up): if you're building ultralisks the eggs should be one size larger so that you can scout ultralisk transitions easier. :p
I actually think this would be a great change. Have different egg sizes/colors for different techs.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
So we can create the mighty Soul Train into SentryArchon-Colossus push? d:
Soul Train is dead man, even Parting won't be able to make it work vs ravagers.
Maybe we should implement moving forcefields then, to create epic forcefield-ravager shots interactions (and make PartinG a happy man again)
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
I think disruptors do a hell of a job for that, also early WP harass and stargate builds force (real) antiair (not the ravager shots against which no progamer will ever lose his early airunits against), so you can't go roach/ravager to begin with.
Hm a deployed WP is an easy ravager target, and zergs have overrun Protoss stargate openers with pure roach already. Now imagine that when forcefields won't hold of the roaches and ravagers at least have the potential to hit air, including the MSC which is also an easy target. I think Protoss will just get swarmed, even their warpins are slower.
Now I don't know how early you can get how many disruptors out. They might do it, but I'm sceptical, lots of play testing needed I guess.
Edit: Disruptor seems to be robo bay tech can costs 300 gas? No way that holds off roach/ravager max. You will have more bases to defend too and defensive warpins suck hard now.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
So we can create the mighty Soul Train into SentryArchon-Colossus push? d:
Soul Train is dead man, even Parting won't be able to make it work vs ravagers.
Maybe we should implement moving forcefields then, to create epic forcefield-ravager shots interactions (and make PartinG a happy man again)
Prior to this change, whoever clicked faster was the more effective player using this unit.
They say that like it's some really terrible thing that should be avoided
that's kind of the whole point of micro - doing more small things faster and more intelligently than your opponent in return for an advantage in gameplay
On December 18 2014 05:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Protoss does not need a new harassment unit... please. I don't like all the gimmicky units, just add some more basic ones.
Herc change Meh why change a cool unit to keep a dull unit (hellbat). Knockback effect seems something that doesn't belong into Starcraft.
I like how they reference dota's doom spell.
Other changes seem logical enough. Economy change seems a little random.
I was interpreting that as a reference to their own doom spell originating in warcraft 3, cast by doom guards
On December 18 2014 05:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Protoss does not need a new harassment unit... please. I don't like all the gimmicky units, just add some more basic ones.
Herc change Meh why change a cool unit to keep a dull unit (hellbat). Knockback effect seems something that doesn't belong into Starcraft.
I like how they reference dota's doom spell.
Other changes seem logical enough. Economy change seems a little random.
Personally, I think the HERC could have really cool synergy with biomine play if it's worked right. Imagine a HERC knocking a group of banelings into range of a few mines, or even into tank range. I obviously don't know how exactly the ability would work or if that would be feasible, but I could see it being a really cool feature in the vein of the micro tricks a lot of people are asking for.
the design of the immortal barrier ability is just crap to begin with. it's just a 1 click "my unit is now better" ability; this is not interesting micro but just brainless apm drain. basically like the voidray charge, the fight begins and you activate it, much fun. I already imagine tasteless saying "GREAT BARRIER"
I was hoping for some positive news. After reading it.. I am just disapointed.. To be honest, I don't know why I even hope for some good things happening to this game. I am never going to touch it. Ever. Thanks for many good moments TL, good luck in the future everyone.
On December 18 2014 05:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Protoss does not need a new harassment unit... please. I don't like all the gimmicky units, just add some more basic ones.
Herc change Meh why change a cool unit to keep a dull unit (hellbat). Knockback effect seems something that doesn't belong into Starcraft.
I like how they reference dota's doom spell.
Other changes seem logical enough. Economy change seems a little random.
Personally, I think the HERC could have really cool synergy with biomine play if it's worked right. Imagine a HERC knocking a group of banelings into range of a few mines, or even into tank range. I obviously don't know how exactly the ability would work or if that would be feasible, but I could see it being a really cool feature in the vein of the micro tricks a lot of people are asking for.
I feel like it's the same effect as forcefield, forcing the other players units to move somewhere is just not a great mechanic. It leaves nothing for the zerg player to do but hope. It's a micro trick but in effect it's anti micro since it removes control of units.
I guess Vipers also move units... but that's not aoe or large scale
I like most of the changes except the new toss unit. We don't need another harass unit and the invulnerability seems so gimmicky... Another gateway unit that helps toss put on aggression before AoE tech would be nice
On December 18 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote: - Air units tend to come late in the game without the player having researched any upgrades for them. A normal interaction would be a +0 air unit versus a +1 anti-air unit. This implies a balance risk to fully upgraded air units. I think it's an issue with the upgrade system used and probably the best way to account for it is to remove air upgrades altogether and incorporate them into ones used by ground units and rebalance accordingly.
Yeah, I think the Terran Air upgrades are in a good place right now. Similar for Zerg upgrades, not the biggest fan of the Fleet Beacon requirment for Protoss ones. That's a very expensive tech building that you don't always want to get, while you may want to research +2attack for your air.
Hm, a different idea would be to make air weapons be related to bio attack upgrades and air armor be related to mech armor upgrades. This was the case in WC3 for a number of units and it might allow air units to synergize with any terran composition. It could be a bit confusing though.
On December 18 2014 05:18 Holdenintherye wrote: I like most of the changes except the new toss unit. We don't need another harass unit and the invulnerability seems so gimmicky... Another gateway unit that helps toss put on aggression before AoE tech would be nice
well, i personally think the unit sounds quite interesting. map control in the early game is one point protoss is lacking, especially vs zerg they play basically blind until the first hallucination is available/the first phoenix is out. the new unit could fulfill the same role reapers are playing for terran in giving an early game mapcontrol/scout unit.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
On December 18 2014 05:20 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: And Destiny said they don't interact with the community.
Posting a blog on what you're doing isn't interaction. It's retarded that people are so fucking content that Blizzard posts what they're doing as if they deserve a medal for keeping the Starcraft community up to date on what they're doing with Starcraft.
90% of these "changes" are previous changes that they didn't like and they're mostly minor. The large issues that have been adressed by pros and fans since SC2 release have been brushed away with a "we don't want that" and since ignored. They just say "we're looking forward to hearing your feedback" every time while not doing what is being asked for and people here eat it like candy rofl.
Acknowleding people's concerns and not doing anything to adress them is not interaction, it's just keeping them hopeful until the last bit of money is extracted.
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
Posts like this one take days or weeks to prepare, edit, get sent over to the web team for processing where they wait in a queue. Destiny's blog most likely had nothing to do with this.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
So much this. We need smth similar to dragoon.
Starbow has really cool solution: they moved stalkers to be more harass oriented unit and less multi purpose as they are currently in hots and added dragoons to fill the gap and allow protoss for more freedom to move on the map.
That might need tweaking warp gate tech, but blizzard already stated they gonna at least change it a bit. I'd like to test postponing WG, so 1base WG rushes won't be a thing.
Maybe add requirement for WG to have Twilight Council or even move WG to TC ?
But the lack of in the middle units make protoss to be more "tricky" race, which I really like. I find starcraft 2 to be more fun than BW simply because there's bigger differences between the races compared to BW. That just make things more interesting and forces players to have a variety of strategies in their arsenal (or that's what I think)
I agree entirely that Protoss really does not need another harassment unit, but rather something solid, that is able to compete with other races core units in early/mid game without relying on synergy effects (and without splash damage). That is probably way harder to integrate into the game than a harassment unit, but i hope they will try something along those lines.
On December 18 2014 05:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Protoss does not need a new harassment unit... please. I don't like all the gimmicky units, just add some more basic ones.
Herc change Meh why change a cool unit to keep a dull unit (hellbat). Knockback effect seems something that doesn't belong into Starcraft.
I like how they reference dota's doom spell.
Other changes seem logical enough. Economy change seems a little random.
Personally, I think the HERC could have really cool synergy with biomine play if it's worked right. Imagine a HERC knocking a group of banelings into range of a few mines, or even into tank range. I obviously don't know how exactly the ability would work or if that would be feasible, but I could see it being a really cool feature in the vein of the micro tricks a lot of people are asking for.
I feel like it's the same effect as forcefield, forcing the other players units to move somewhere is just not a great mechanic. It leaves nothing for the zerg player to do but hope. It's a micro trick but in effect it's anti micro since it removes control of units.
I guess Vipers also move units... but that's not aoe or large scale
Anti-micro isn't automatically evil, or else being able to kill your opponent's units would be a huge design flaw. Can't really counter-micro when you don't have units. It's not black or white, it's a matter of degrees, and there's no way to know if the HERC goes too far without playtesting it.
I'm very excited about the new HERC, especially as an upgrade to bio vP. Bio has needed more things to transition to apart from Ghosts, Medivacs and Vikings for forever. The old HERC felt very redundant not just with the Hellbat but with bio units in general, being so early and such a potent harasser. This might also allow Terrans to go exclusive bio vZ, cutting WMs out entirely in favor of the HERC's knockback. I'm eager to see if this is interesting for the game or not.
The mineral changes sound great, I don't think anyone proposed a solution quite like this, so bonus points to Blizzard or thinking outside the box on this one.
Good to know that they're trying to make the Infestor's new spell interesting.
Going to echo everyone else on the new Protoss unit, I'm as wary as it's possible to be without having seen it in action. Early/mid-game harassment - as if Blink Stalker/Oracle/Phoenix/DT wasn't frustrating enough when you just don't have the right counter because P went the wrong units. And becoming invulnerable... it might sound like a Protoss type of thing for a unit to do, but Protoss needs to be more punishing of poor control, not less. Invulnerability is a hard thing to scale with skill. Not impossible, but hard. I don't know why they'd go to that as one of the first ideas worth trying.
Good to know that they're thinking about nixing/replacing some of the obsolete upgrades, too. A great batch of changes overall. I'd like to hear more about what they're thinking with WG/Colo/Disruptor, but hopefully that's coming in the next update.
On December 18 2014 04:06 EatThePath wrote: Why do I get the impression whenever I read these that the sc2 design team has no idea what it's doing.
It never has... how bout this new unit called the Shredder, it did so well in our initial testing... I mean nevermind...
Introducing the Warhound! On second thoughts...
Mineral Shields for the Oracle! Everyone clap for the skilless ability! Actually we're going to remove that...
well, they got scrapped so blizzard knew what they do. Instead we got well designed units/ablilitys like swarmhosts, tempests, photon overcharge... they surely know what they do.
Give protoss a mini reaver that can be built from gateway only - not able to be warped in from warp gates. Same long range, homing-shot with splash that costs minerals, but make it slightly weaker and make the reaver slightly faster than the BW counter part. Then protoss can play with a unit that is effective all game, but takes skill to use and creates micro opportunities on both sides.
On December 18 2014 05:17 paddyz wrote: Surely having more than 10 workers would take away a bunch of early game low economy micro based strategies like proxies, rushes and early timings.
One of my biggest fears as an avid watcher of pro games. It's the fact it's low economy that makes it so seat of the pants.
Did anyone who attended BlizzCon get a ticket to the beta? There was a notice that claimed attendees of the Starcraft matches would get access... But I didn't see anyone get it..
On December 18 2014 05:50 Antonidas wrote: Did anyone who attended BlizzCon get a ticket to the beta? There was a notice that claimed attendees of the Starcraft matches would get access... But I didn't see anyone get it..
Man, I sort of hope they just go open beta right away. Two expansions in, you shouldn't really be bug testing the engine or servers any more.
One of our goals with the HERC is to help give Terran an advantage vs Zerglings and Banelings and encourage the Zerg player to tech switch.
"Players have complained for 3 years about the dumb and simplistic hardcounter design of SC2, so we felt it would be the right move to add yet another hardcounter to the key ZvT basic unit duo that is part of the most exciting asymetrical interactions in the history of the game."
So I commented on a few of these things in my latest video. I thought the Cyclone was actually balanced well, or thereabouts, I think it was drastically over-reacted to. It was MOST strong vs P on maps like Nimbus, which were very rare, and then only in the mid-late game with mech armies. Otherwise, it was rather irrelevant.
Z stuff looks good.
P: I don't know why they reverted the photon overcharge, I thought it was an adequate change... Maybe a bit annoying with banshees, but that is just a new meta you have to learn with a new game.
The thing I do not understand the most is: Immortals. As mentioned above I made a video in which I talked about them a bit somewhere at the end. They're literally terrible now compared to how they used to be. You will obviously still be making them vs Ultras and still making them vs mech, but the fact is that they're so incredibly awful now you might as well be going air. Like, simply put, they're not the ideal unit to deal with those compositions anymore. Now, this wouldn't be such a big deal to me if well... that wasn't their only purpose... so... other than a few to bolster army damage vs armored and to transition I feel that they're pretty horrendous now.... :/
great changes by Blizzard introduced at Blizzcon. These refinements sound really good.
we have an economy that is "up and running" right from the start of the game. really intricate cool micro possibilities. all we need is a bald guy named "Kane" and "basebuilding that is not a chore" and we'll be all set.
So many ex-C&C-ers now on the SC2 team and their influence is being felt. i'm hoping for a C&C style RTS with Blizzard level polish and Blizzard level post sales support. so far its looking good.
On December 18 2014 06:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote: great changes by Blizzard introduced at Blizzcon. These refinements sound really good.
we have an economy that is "up and running" right from the start of the game. really intricate cool micro possibilities. all we need is a bald guy named "Kane" and "basebuilding that is not a chore" and we'll be all set.
So many ex-C&C-ers now on the SC2 team and their influence is being felt. i'm hoping for a C&C style RTS with Blizzard level polish and Blizzard level post sales support. so far its looking good.
I agree, these changes are slowly moving towards C&C mechanics. However, I think the "basebuilding" should be a chore.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
So much this. We need smth similar to dragoon.
Starbow has really cool solution: they moved stalkers to be more harass oriented unit and less multi purpose as they are currently in hots and added dragoons to fill the gap and allow protoss for more freedom to move on the map.
That might need tweaking warp gate tech, but blizzard already stated they gonna at least change it a bit. I'd like to test postponing WG, so 1base WG rushes won't be a thing.
Maybe add requirement for WG to have Twilight Council or even move WG to TC ?
But the lack of in the middle units make protoss to be more "tricky" race, which I really like. I find starcraft 2 to be more fun than BW simply because there's bigger differences between the races compared to BW. That just make things more interesting and forces players to have a variety of strategies in their arsenal (or that's what I think)
Well, You could still go Blink Stalkers in mid game to harass and try to pin Terran in base long enough to allow for transition to robo OR You could go for dragoons + zealots and force some engagements on the map which right now with current gateway units is not possible after Marauder with CC occurs.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
OMG THIS THIS THIS
Protoss has many ways to harass already. We need a fucking fighting unit that doesn't cost 300/200.
Bring back infested terran upgrades or longer range neural. Infestors used to be the counter to mass air. But now fungal doesn't do damage and infested terran can't break through the ez to get air upgrades (for terran at least).
On December 18 2014 04:24 OtherWorld wrote: ...that Protoss unit design seems totally off, what Protoss needs is a core, non-gimmicky gateway unit that makes P less reliant on high-tech units, not another gimmicky, spell-based harass unit.
This ^^. Protoss needs a better early/mid game option (i.e. unit) without having to commit to a Stargate. Besides high-risk immortal/stalker/sentry attacks (which usually turn into an all-in), Protoss has very little option do anything for the first 10 minutes. You pretty much sit with a MSC and try to hold everything until you reach a big enough "ball." Contrast this with Terran or Zerg, who can move out with small amounts of units early game to get damage done, without it being all-in.
The MSC has always been a band-aid solution. Give me back the dragoon, or give me death.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
OMG THIS THIS THIS
Protoss has many ways to harass already. We need a fucking fighting unit that doesn't cost 300/200.
Strongly agree. The warpprism change turns anything and everything into a harassment option, and I like it. Now we need a way to afford harassment without dying.
meh horrible, I'll just stick to an old resources mod in LotV then. I just don't like to play this unsafe. Or I'll just play Terran. Being even at 12 workers is such a huge buff for Terran. Just personal preference, I hate being forced into playstyles.
On December 18 2014 06:10 DinoMight wrote: The biggest argument against the worker change.
12x5 = 60 additional HP at the start for Terran
12 SCV rush gonna destroy Z and P
I somehow think Rush distance Main Minerals to Main Minerals might be longer than 17 seconds. Also, Zerg workers die in the same amount of hits (even more, probably) and produce faster, so Zerg OP.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
OMG THIS THIS THIS
Protoss has many ways to harass already. We need a fucking fighting unit that doesn't cost 300/200.
I agree that this is the biggest problem we have. Please make it so that all toss openers dont have to rely on bullshit.
On December 18 2014 06:08 stevethemacguy wrote: Protoss definitely needs a better early/mid game option (i.e. unit) without having to commit to a Stargate. Besides high-risk immortal/stalker/sentry attacks (which usually turn into an all-in), Protoss has very little option do anything for the first 10 minutes. You pretty much sit with a MSC and try to hold everything until you reach a big enough "ball." Contrast this with Terran or Zerg, who can move out with small amounts of units early game to get damage done, without it being all-in.
a) there's nothing wrong with needing certain techs to do certain stuff. The same is true for Terran, if they don't go factory or in particular starport they are incapable of doing harass. People have just accepted that Terran goes Starport everygame pretty fast. b) Warp Prisms get buffed. Disruptors get introduced for that reason. Robo is getting pretty good for that sort of play from how it looks. c) it's not even true. You build a wall and a canon behind and zerg can't do anything with few units early on in ZvP. In contrary to what you say. You build 1-2stalkers early and Terran is contained vs Protoss early game.
On December 18 2014 06:17 FeyFey wrote: meh horrible, I'll just stick to an old resources mod in LotV then. I just don't like to play this unsafe. Or I'll just play Terran. Being even at 12 workers is such a huge buff for Terran.
Not quite vs Zerg. At 12-13 drones, Zerg has 0-1 larva currently. In LotV they have 3larva at that point, so you still pass Terran worker count fast.
On December 18 2014 06:17 FeyFey wrote: meh horrible, I'll just stick to an old resources mod in LotV then. I just don't like to play this unsafe. Or I'll just play Terran. Being even at 12 workers is such a huge buff for Terran.
Not quite vs Zerg. At 12-13 drones, Zerg has 0-1 larva currently. In LotV they have 3larva at that point, so you still pass Terran worker count fast.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
This is not the time to talk about balance. Its all about design atm.
There is no need for a Disruptor (or disruptor-like unit) as toss late game units are strong. I think a robo tech unit that helps with tech transitions is a better idea. Right now in TvP toss gets robo bay asap after robo is done (not immediately, but when they can). Maybe a small splash unit? I know toss have a lot of splash already but they really really need it and its the main reason why toss depends so much on slow tech transitions and are weak to SCV pulls. With faster expands, an in between splash unit might be good. It can also zone out mutas and focus fire vikings, but without the chasing potential of blink stalkers.
About the invunerable unit... it could be like a mini disruptor with separated invulnerability and exploding skills. I think its better if you can choose between running in - explode - get away invulnerable or get invulnerable - move in - explode and die. A visual clue for the detonation timing is necessary since it makes counter micro more effective.
For zerg we can solve both problems with a single idea, zergs needs an splash anti air damage and infestors needs a new spell right? How about a splash damage shot for festors, it could do gradual damage and trap the units... we could call it fungal growth. That zergling mutation thing was not the best idea so im glad its removed but im still wating for the new creep bomb ability for infestors (just throwing this here). But vipers don't need another spell and z anti air is fine in the late game.
The banshee change is reasonable. Glad about the Herc changes too, it was a silly unit. But i don't get why they have this obsession to kill muta ling bane in LotV. Zerg will just play ranged tech, no transition will happen. Armory for hellbats? Well it could be hercs so no bane nest go roaches instead. I guess bane nest will be used only for busts.
These mineral changes are admirably creative, but they're not moving in the right direction. Total minerals per bases has no need of lowering if mining can be more proportionately profitable off of more bases with the same number of workers.
I wish P had a unit built at the warpgate/gateway which is unlocked through twilight council
something that buffs P fighting power at t2. Atm theres really only the immortal at that stage (and to a lesser extend the voidray which has a different role though). If P had a unit from twilight council which for example recharges shields or anything that requires a bit of attention but generally makes the other units stronger then that would give P the possibility for a more mobile and offensive style as well, kind of like mmm works or roach&hydra (ravager/lurker).
The mineral change seems nice. The HERC and Cyclone are both stupid imo, the HERC because it fills an unnecessary role and the Cyclone because, although it fills a unique role, is very boring. I think reworking the Cyclone to be a more basic/core unit would be a good idea. I think the new Protoss unit would be okay if it were super early game like the Reaper and if they buffed gateway units somehow. I still think the Disruptor might be a shitty unit but it's hard to tell atm.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
yeah, I 100% agree. I don't care about new units or not. Like, I like the ravager, but if I could sacrifice it and just had a HUGE balance/design update on each and every zerg unit instead, it would make for a better LotV in my opinion.
Like I could immidiatly think of at least one factor I think that every zerg unit could be improved upon and the combination of those changes would have a much deeper impact on the game than 2 extra units and 3 changes have.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
Yeah, this; except perhaps for Zerg, where both the Lurker and the Ravager can be nice.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
true. Instead of trying to find some specific roles for new units to justify their existence they should make already existing unit more flexible and interesting. Corruptor, Overseer, infestor, reaper, thor, immortal, void ray etc need to be rethought
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
So we can create the mighty Soul Train into SentryArchon-Colossus push? d:
Soul Train is dead man, even Parting won't be able to make it work vs ravagers.
Maybe we should implement moving forcefields then, to create epic forcefield-ravager shots interactions (and make PartinG a happy man again)
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
I agree, as a zerg I just don't see how Protoss is supposed to survive versus roach maxes with a few ravagers. Protoss needs a new, solid gateway fighting unit. Let two sentries morph into one for exmaple, so they are still of use when they are out of energy.
So we can create the mighty Soul Train into SentryArchon-Colossus push? d:
Soul Train is dead man, even Parting won't be able to make it work vs ravagers.
Maybe we should implement moving forcefields then, to create epic forcefield-ravager shots interactions (and make PartinG a happy man again)
Force fields need blink!
*hides*
Even as a Protoss player this idea terrifies the shit out of me
I don't understand Blizz´s total obsession with making protoss a gimicky race. This is in no way balance whine or race hating but seriously, protoss has DTs, stormdrops and oracles. They want to give protoss more gimicky harass tools?
Terrans has reapers and banshees, zerg has... mutas? (I don't really think they count as gimicky do they?)
They want to give the gimicky harass race MORE gimicks and harass while T and Z gets more proper fighting tools as ususal.
Protoss usually defends a lot, so lets give them more units that can´t fight but that they can harass with while defending in their base..... This is the bloody reason protoss is the way they are, because you bloody only give them harassing gimicks..... Blizzards answer, give them more gimmicks. My mind is blown.
Surprisingly every other thing they mention sounds reasonable to me, but please protoss doesn´t need more invisible/blinking/oracle bullshit. They need proper units, that you know, fights!
Why not give the Infestor's "flat unit damage buff" to the new Protoss unit (but only affects gateway units)? Couple it with a few sentries (guardian shield, force fields on your ramp) and you get slightly stronger, beefier early game gateway armies to allow toss to survive until T3 (splash) units.
I think it would be perfect. Sentries/Stalkers/Zealots that do a little more damage against early game bio/roach pushes.
Make it slow like Sentries, and not have an attack of its' own, like HTs/Infestors.
On December 18 2014 07:04 SackOfWetMice wrote: Why not give the Infestor's "flat unit damage buff" to the new Protoss unit (but only affects gateway units)? Couple it with a couple sentries (guardian shield) and you get slightly stronger, beefier early game gateway armies to allow toss to survive until T3 (splash) units.
And then Protoss still builds the deathball with buffed gate units. No thanks.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
Yeah, this; except perhaps for Zerg, where both the Lurker and the Ravager can be nice.
They should remove the swarm host and replace it with the lurker, I think that's the superior choice. The game probably has enough units already, one more per race would be okay, but two is pushing it. Like, what's even the point of the cyclone and herc if not to simply add new units? The disruptor is there to fulfill a similar role as the colossus at the same tech level.
I don't know, actually, part of me thinks that if mobas can get away with 100+ heroes then it would be okay to have multiple overlapping units in sc2. It makes scouting more difficult, it adds to the knowledge entry barrier, the game becomes more difficult to balance and it loses some of its clarity. There are benefits though.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
Yeah, this; except perhaps for Zerg, where both the Lurker and the Ravager can be nice.
They should remove the swarm host and replace it with the lurker, I think that's the superior choice. The game probably has enough units already, one more per race would be okay, but two is pushing it. Like, what's even the point of the cyclone and herc if not to simply add new units? The disruptor is there to fulfill a similar role to the colossus at the same tech level.
I don't know, actually, part of me thinks that if mobas can get away with 100+ heroes then it would be okay to have multiple overlapping units in sc2. It makes scouting more difficult, it adds to the knowledge entry barrier, the game becomes more difficult to balance and it loses some of its clarity. There are benefits though.
SH can be good for the game. See: ForGG vs Life. When they take on the role of the BW tank and other Zerg units act as the vulture, the dynamic is very engaging.
On December 18 2014 06:52 DinoMight wrote: Also I don't understand what they're doing.
1) Upgrades should be meaningful. 2) Removes a core Immortal ability and makes it an upgrade.
-_____- ???
How about make the extended WP range thing an upgrade to address balance issues?
The whole point of Immortals is that they're tough. Without any sort of special shields or abilities they're pretty useless (Mortals).
Context is everything. If the immortal is functional without the ability and it's placed as an upgrade then that's a good example of having meaningful upgrades in the game that change unit interactions. However, if the immortal needs the shield to function and on top of that you were used to the shield ability to begin with then it becomes an annoying upgrade which perhaps merely exists as a necessary evil. It depends partly on one's point of view though.
On December 18 2014 07:04 SackOfWetMice wrote: Why not give the Infestor's "flat unit damage buff" to the new Protoss unit (but only affects gateway units)? Couple it with a few sentries (guardian shield, force fields on your ramp) and you get slightly stronger, beefier early game gateway armies to allow toss to survive until T3 (splash) units.
I think it would be perfect. Sentries/Stalkers/Zealots that do a little more damage against early game bio/roach pushes.
Make it slow like Sentries, and not have an attack of its' own, like HTs/Infestors.
I call it the number 3 deathball effect unit, the first is the colossus, the second is the sentry. I agree that toss needs something for the early/mid game specially with new z and t units and warpgate nerf, but not yet another thing that force the protoss army to stay clumped. @ Grumbels: i think overlapping units can make scouting less effective and its no good. You scout a robo bay and don't know if its disruptor or colossus. Or early armory and don't know if its Hercs or hellbats (or thor rush ). Its potentially bad.
I'm somewhat discouraged and confused that they're removing the Photon Overcharge nerf. LotV is the last opportunity Blizzard has to redesign Protoss in a way that they'll actually need--get ready for it--units (!!!) to defend aggression; NOT one hero unit and one click.
I like a lot of the other changes being discussed, particularly in regards to quickening the pace of the game and placing greater emphasis on macro and harassment as opposed to turtling into deathballs. Photon Overcharge remaining the way it is, though, seems to fly in the face of that philosophy.
On December 18 2014 07:04 SackOfWetMice wrote: Why not give the Infestor's "flat unit damage buff" to the new Protoss unit (but only affects gateway units)? Couple it with a few sentries (guardian shield, force fields on your ramp) and you get slightly stronger, beefier early game gateway armies to allow toss to survive until T3 (splash) units.
I think it would be perfect. Sentries/Stalkers/Zealots that do a little more damage against early game bio/roach pushes.
Make it slow like Sentries, and not have an attack of its' own, like HTs/Infestors.
That or something similar would be my wish. Imagine like sth that needs twighlight council tech and is some kind of adept templar or sth and has abilities like the flat damage buff or shield recharge.
These abilities could be interesting if they have to be controled correctly. Letz say they need the unit to channel and stand in one place for a while. This would also open possibilities for counterplay such as kiting away or target firing that unit.
On December 18 2014 07:04 SackOfWetMice wrote: Why not give the Infestor's "flat unit damage buff" to the new Protoss unit (but only affects gateway units)? Couple it with a few sentries (guardian shield, force fields on your ramp) and you get slightly stronger, beefier early game gateway armies to allow toss to survive until T3 (splash) units.
I think it would be perfect. Sentries/Stalkers/Zealots that do a little more damage against early game bio/roach pushes.
Make it slow like Sentries, and not have an attack of its' own, like HTs/Infestors.
I call it the number 3 deathball effect unit, the first is the colossus, the second is the sentry. I agree that toss needs something for the early/mid game specially with new z and t units and warpgate nerf, but not yet another thing that force the protoss army to stay clumped.
I dont think thats automatically true. The deathball effect from the sentry comes mostly from FF and the deathball effect from colossus comes from the fact that its AoE stacks. A P unit with an attack or shield buff which is reasonably sized and does not stack(!) would work just as well in small to medium sized groups.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
Yeah, this; except perhaps for Zerg, where both the Lurker and the Ravager can be nice.
They should remove the swarm host and replace it with the lurker, I think that's the superior choice. The game probably has enough units already, one more per race would be okay, but two is pushing it. Like, what's even the point of the cyclone and herc if not to simply add new units? The disruptor is there to fulfill a similar role to the colossus at the same tech level.
I don't know, actually, part of me thinks that if mobas can get away with 100+ heroes then it would be okay to have multiple overlapping units in sc2. It makes scouting more difficult, it adds to the knowledge entry barrier, the game becomes more difficult to balance and it loses some of its clarity. There are benefits though.
Yeah, really don't like the new SH at all from playing/watching the mod. I could see the cyclone has a great bio-->mech transition unit. Since it doesn't have obvious drawbacks and is somewhat mobile it could work as kind of "supermarine" to combat ultras and Protoss lategame in general when splash becomes too much too handle. Especially since the unit is gasheavy it might be very smooth. Herc, I don't know. I think it can be a fun unit, but as they write in that blog they too don't seem to have a clue what it really should do. Just *something* against ling/bling and light and some cool micro. I don't dislike that, because cool micro equals fun. I'm not sure the unit will really fullfill that.
for the overlap... just make reduce the actual buildable units to 7-10 and then prechoose your compositions. (then add a new unit every few months)
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
Yeah, this; except perhaps for Zerg, where both the Lurker and the Ravager can be nice.
They should remove the swarm host and replace it with the lurker, I think that's the superior choice. The game probably has enough units already, one more per race would be okay, but two is pushing it. Like, what's even the point of the cyclone and herc if not to simply add new units? The disruptor is there to fulfill a similar role to the colossus at the same tech level.
I don't know, actually, part of me thinks that if mobas can get away with 100+ heroes then it would be okay to have multiple overlapping units in sc2. It makes scouting more difficult, it adds to the knowledge entry barrier, the game becomes more difficult to balance and it loses some of its clarity. There are benefits though.
SH can be good for the game. See: ForGG vs Life. When they take on the role of the BW tank and other Zerg units act as the vulture, the dynamic is very engaging.
Well, the current swarm host is already gone and replaced with a different version. And even if the unit was the cause for various interesting games there were too many downsides and the game is better off without it. Like, if you had a new unit design and you would say to yourself: "well, this is broken some of the time, but it might also be cool sometimes" then it would be obvious you had to cut your losses and try again with something else.
Honestly though, it might be cool to have "wild-card" units like the new swarm host which do not fulfill a strictly necessary role, but which can be used as a surprise strategy to create unique games.
On December 18 2014 06:52 DinoMight wrote: Also I don't understand what they're doing.
1) Upgrades should be meaningful. 2) Removes a core Immortal ability and makes it an upgrade.
-_____- ???
How about make the extended WP range thing an upgrade to address balance issues?
The whole point of Immortals is that they're tough. Without any sort of special shields or abilities they're pretty useless (Mortals).
Context is everything. If the immortal is functional without the ability and it's placed as an upgrade then that's a good example of having meaningful upgrades in the game that change unit interactions. However, if the immortal needs the shield to function and on top of that you were used to the shield ability to begin with then it becomes an annoying upgrade which perhaps merely exists as a necessary evil. It depends partly on one's point of view though.
To adress Blizzard's post said that upgrades for late game units are redundant especially since the units need those upgrades to function and there's no reason to not have them. Like Ultralisks literally don't work without armor and you usually get yamato can as soon as you build battlecruisers.. they said that upgrades should be done to make lower power units more viable in the late game. I'm not sure how viable immortals will be without the upgrade but again blizzard is just trying different things to avoid impossible to stop immortal warp prison harrssment.
but yeah this all depends on how viable immortals are without the upgrade.
The resources is in the right direction. Focusing on how to make workers more efficient on multiple bases is important to give an economy advantage to riskier 5-6 base play (or something of that nature).
I really think 10 workers is better simply to allow an early worker to be sent out with the 15-30 seconds extra to proxy and give more room for openers. The games would be too cookie-cutter if they cross the fine line of early variations. It'd be boring seeing the same "solved" build beating every cheese or opener in the game.
Protoss need a fighting unit as stated. I could see a new T2 Protoss unit that did small AOE being a beneficial transition instead of colossus or templar instantly. I'm really sure a creative and fun unit can be made even without splash damage. One with the ability to cross through sentry force fields or had an extra attack every x seconds for hit and run potential can synergize better than another harassment unit. The extra attack could be anything from a slow to a psi blast. Just throwing out ideas.
It has been cool seeing mech be viable. For the Terran upgrades, if it needs to be split for balance issues then split the air and mech attack upgrades while keeping the armor shared. That'd make a mech/air composition 3 upgrades instead of 4 for viability sake. The herc knockback can actually be interesting.
Zerg changes seem well but are still developing like the rest of the game. I haven't thought of another useful infestor spell. A temporary move speed bonus aoe on creep could be a defensive spell. Clearly a baneling catapult is needed. Granted, being able to launch banelings at air units would be hilarious.
On December 18 2014 07:04 SackOfWetMice wrote: Why not give the Infestor's "flat unit damage buff" to the new Protoss unit (but only affects gateway units)? Couple it with a couple sentries (guardian shield) and you get slightly stronger, beefier early game gateway armies to allow toss to survive until T3 (splash) units.
And then Protoss still builds the deathball with buffed gate units. No thanks.
...You can obviously balance it. Smaller area of effect, smaller damage buff, etc. Just something to make early Sentries/Stalkers that are in a defensive position slightly more effective.
Blizzard is going about this expansion thing the wrong way. Rather than reducing the minerals in each patch, they should be reducing the amount of patches at each base, meaning saturation is fewer workers. This encourages more expanding to take advantage of the extra supply: suddenly you can make use of 4 or 5 bases simultaneously rather than just holding extra for when you run out in your other bases. The current form simply punishes players for not expanding, rather than rewarding them for doing so.
It also unnecessarily punishes players for falling behind. Come-backs become much harder when you can't build up for a while, try to take favorable engagements, and slowly expand. You run out of money before you can rebuild now, meaning one fight is more likely than ever to kill you. Reducing mineral patches will reduce income rates overall at the start of the game and will encourage more, but smaller, engagements and make deathballing harder and maxing out slower. The current system they are using will just make the game even more of a one and done.
I have been thinking, how bout for terran they give a bomber/stealth fighter type unit. There have been no new terran air units yet, and no air units that deal aoe to ground (not counting seeker missle). With this unit you draw a "bombing path" with your mouse LOL-esque. This path is visible to the opponent who then has to micro away from this red area. The user could use this ability to split armies in half or prevent the retreat of an army. Give it high health so it can't be focused down so quickly. Wahla!
On December 18 2014 07:16 SatedSC2 wrote: The more I hear, the less I like.
Between this and the map-pool going back to the horror that was season 3, I'm finding it very hard to get motivated to play...
It's just for two weeks, you know.
Yep. Two weeks. The two weeks where I don't have work because I'm off for the Christmas period, and not the last two weeks where I haven't had time to play at all.
EDIT:
I can't play in the WCS qualifiers because they're all scheduled on work-days and at a time that fucks over Britain specifically (not that I would qualify, but it's fun to test yourself!); I can't play over Christmas unless I'm prepared to play on maps that I hate; and Legacy of the Void is going to be god-awful if they continue down this path. It's not been a good week for SC2 news if you're me.
Honestly it seems as though you're predisposed towards negativity here, Blizz are clearly trying to step up their game and react to community concerns within the framework of technical issues and a rigorous QA process.
Sure, it's not going to be perfect for everyone but you need to look at it critically, for everyone, not just moaning about your own circumstances.
Most people who have been playing this season are OVER dreampool. S3 maps with a change to brand new map pool in a couple weeks is fantastic.
The LotV design changes are interesting and no-one, not even Blizzard, are qualified to remark on how fun or exciting, or how well or poorly thought out and designed it is, until we've got a huge amount of testing in from top players.
On December 18 2014 04:03 fruity. wrote: Oh blizzard, maybe you do have a PR department after all. Coincidence this came out one day ofter Destiny's blog? I think not.
Interesting to see the changes their working on, and their thoughts going forward.
Posts like this one take days or weeks to prepare, edit, get sent over to the web team for processing where they wait in a queue. Destiny's blog most likely had nothing to do with this.
And yet the grammar makes me want to stab myself in the eye.
- Zerg need more AntiAir splash? Scourges. (Add some AoE splash, like flying banelings) Lots of awesome micro ability there
- Protoss need a new unit? Reavers. Lots of awesome micro ability there.
- Terran Cyclone has no idea what it's meant to be? Vultures. Lots of awesome micro ability there.
Instead of coming up with new unit designs that don't work well or have very specific uses, don't be afraid of importing fully-fledged existing units that work really well, everyone loves, and have a lot of uses.
On December 18 2014 07:33 Whitewing wrote: Blizzard is going about this expansion thing the wrong way. Rather than reducing the minerals in each patch, they should be reducing the amount of patches at each base, meaning saturation is fewer workers. This encourages more expanding to take advantage of the extra supply: suddenly you can make use of 4 or 5 bases simultaneously rather than just holding extra for when you run out in your other bases. The current form simply punishes players for not expanding, rather than rewarding them for doing so.
It also unnecessarily punishes players for falling behind. Come-backs become much harder when you can't build up for a while, try to take favorable engagements, and slowly expand. You run out of money before you can rebuild now, meaning one fight is more likely than ever to kill you. Reducing mineral patches will reduce income rates overall at the start of the game and will encourage more, but smaller, engagements and make deathballing harder and maxing out slower. The current system they are using will just make the game even more of a one and done.
I agree with these points. Though, the gas would still need to be lowered or tweaked to fit with the less mineral patches. I remember a mod that went with one high-yield vespene geyser and less mineral patches. Not sure how it played out.
I'm not really a fan of the Viper DoT since it feels like a really weird version of Seeker Missile that they tried really hard to not make just another Seeker Missile, Irradiate, or Disintegration (New Tempest thingy). I hope they rework it to something a bit more original.
- Zerg need more AntiAir splash? Scourges. (Add some AoE splash, like flying banelings) Lots of awesome micro ability there
- Protoss need a new unit? Reavers. Lots of awesome micro ability there.
- Terran Cyclone has no idea what it's meant to be? Vultures. Lots of awesome micro ability there.
Instead of coming up with new unit designs that don't work well or have very specific uses, don't be afraid of importing fully-fledged existing units that work really well, everyone loves, and have a lot of uses.
I agree with you. But what's surprising is that in the few polls I've seen on TL asking whether Blizzard should bring back BW units, a substantial number of people don't like it, because they say "I can just play BW if I want to play w/ BW units." I think that mindset is flawed, but yeah...
Back to the "horror" of season 3 as opposed to the absolutely terrible dream pool? Hah.
While I like a lot of the changes they have made to the lotv build, their comments about protoss really concern and disappoint me. I made a post a while ago talking about how the resource change was going to be hard to adjust to for protoss, and that instead of re-tooling the race to be able to fight on multiple fronts on its own accord, blizzard would probably try to find the solution in niche buffs and other stupid mechanics. In their post, they acknowledge that protoss is having the hardest time with the new resource changes, and un-nerf photon overcharge to help with this? Re-patching up the band-aid that was introduced in HOTS, eh Blizzard? A band-aid that only works in the early / mid game and falls apart in the late game due to the sheer base count with the new resource changes.
This basically shows me that they have no plans on reworking forcefield, or rebalancing the race to not be entirely dependent on slow moving T3 splash units. Makes me sad.
News flash Blizzard! Protoss has trouble defending multiple bases because they can't go toe to toe with other races T1/T2 cost for cost in the mid/late game without their T3 splash! T3 splash is expensive to tech to, expensive and time consuming to get, vulnerable without proper support, and slow moving.... hence the existence of the deathball! That is why it is hard to split up a toss army into multiple chunks for defense. An immobile army that is weak in small numbers. Sounds like a disaster to me.
What Blizzard should be doing is trying to rework the race to be more viable across many bases, and less encouraged to be in one giant deathball. With the addition of the disruptor, toss has 3 T3 splash options now (4 with archons I guess), and 0 before that. I don't see why Blizz can't remove a unit like the colossus, and add a new one at the T1.5-T2 level with lower damage, lower radius splash. I also don't see why they can't try to add a new gateway unit / buff existing gateway units, and in turn change the cancer that is forcefield / offensive warpgates.
12 workers is ridiculous…even 10 is a little high, you cut out so much variability earlier (6 pool? 10 gate? 11/11?) I would like to start with 8, but id settle for 10
As a terran player I have to say mules are going to be more imbalanced if their are fewer mineral patches(ie half of them run out first so the other races cant fully saturate) right? or am I wrong?
I think they should just evenly distribute the minerals between patches
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
I wonder if Blizzard was inspired by this post to come up with the 1500/750 solution, since it has some similarities.
Disruptor was a really cool idea, its insane vs zerg whilst in combination with a warp prism, but protoss def dont need another harass unit. THEY NEED A MIDGAME UNIT to either help them get through there or allows them to be aggressive in midgame
We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Wait... Do they mean in just LotV testing, or in general...? Because Protoss has what I consider the most variety in openings. Terran would be second, but with the MSC, most aggressive openers by T/Z are shutdown by default. All they really have is the widow mine builds.
I don't know why Blizzard is obsessed with giving Protoss harass units. Harass units are not fun to play against. Ever. They are just annoying and don't tend to add much to the game. What the oracle added to the game was limiting Terrans so that they HAD to go certain build paths to be able to defend against the possible oracle -- and even when they did prepare for an oracle, the oracle should always still do some damage (indirectly or directly).
Other than that, they seem to have a good idea on what to do -- better than HotS imo.
On December 18 2014 06:52 DinoMight wrote: Also I don't understand what they're doing.
1) Upgrades should be meaningful. 2) Removes a core Immortal ability and makes it an upgrade.
-_____- ???
How about make the extended WP range thing an upgrade to address balance issues?
The whole point of Immortals is that they're tough. Without any sort of special shields or abilities they're pretty useless (Mortals).
That isn't exactly what they meant about meaningful upgrades.
They mean for late game units, there shouldn't be any upgrades necessary, because that unit took until the lategame to build towards. They used Ultralisks as an example. Most zergs will have started research on Ultralisk armor upgrade along with the first batch of ultras. So that first batch will already have the upgrades. Giving ultralisks the armor from the beginning would only save 1-2 Ultras maybe. Not much of an impact on the game huh?
They want earlier units to need upgrades so there is some meaning and changes the dynamic of that unit. Making Immortal's hardened shield as an upgrade does that. Immortals before having the shield would essential become a ranged damage dealer. After you research that upgrade, it not only deals damage but can now absorb it.
Late game units don't need upgrades, because it took a long time to even get those units out. For crying out, Solar had his Ultras around 24 minutes against Yoda in The Fight Before Christmas.
On December 18 2014 07:39 14681 wrote: Instead of coming up with new unit designs that don't work well or have very specific uses, don't be afraid of importing fully-fledged existing units that work really well, everyone loves, and have a lot of uses.
This. Bring back Vessel & Defiler, and make Carrier relevant please!
a slow harassment unit?.....umm how is this even possible. All the effective early mid game harassment units have one thing in common....speed. Having a slow harrassment? we dont need it, we have slow zealots for that
On December 18 2014 07:16 SatedSC2 wrote: The more I hear, the less I like.
Between this and the map-pool going back to the horror that was season 3, I'm finding it very hard to get motivated to play...
It's just for two weeks, you know.
Yep. Two weeks. The two weeks where I don't have work because I'm off for the Christmas period, and not the last two weeks where I haven't had time to play at all.
EDIT:
I can't play in the WCS qualifiers because they're all scheduled on work-days and at a time that fucks over Britain specifically (not that I would qualify, but it's fun to test yourself!); I can't play over Christmas unless I'm prepared to play on maps that I hate; and Legacy of the Void is going to be god-awful if they continue down this path. It's not been a good week for SC2 news if you're me.
The LotV design changes are interesting and no-one, not even Blizzard, are qualified to remark on how fun or exciting, or how well or poorly thought out and designed it is, until we've got a huge amount of testing in from top players.
Then don't participate in this thread. The rest of what you wrote isn't worth responding to if you truly believe that people shouldn't be forming opinions based on what Blizzard release. If Blizzard don't want us to comment then they can stop releasing updates and just make us wait for the finished product. Whilst they continue announcing terrible changes I will continue to call them terrible.
Putting your pants on your head, throwing hands up in the air and screaming how terrible something that you haven't played, haven't seen played by people that are actually good at the game, is not conducive to relevant or meaningful discussion.
I think a lot of people is too negative about the recent changes.
Its deffinetly an improvement compared to what it was before. They are clearly listening to community feedback, nobody should expect blizz to agree specifically with your own opinion. They are willing to change the game and make it fresh. So even if its not perfect i think LotV is going to be an improvement if they keep going on that direction.
I think there is more good than bad with recent updates and with the concept itself.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
I think it is a lot of fun from watching it. The numbers might need a tweaking (6range is a ton... marines and hydras should never touch that thing, you are probably going to be forced into vikings/mutas one way or another)
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
On December 18 2014 07:16 SatedSC2 wrote: The more I hear, the less I like.
Between this and the map-pool going back to the horror that was season 3, I'm finding it very hard to get motivated to play...
It's just for two weeks, you know.
Yep. Two weeks. The two weeks where I don't have work because I'm off for the Christmas period, and not the last two weeks where I haven't had time to play at all.
EDIT:
I can't play in the WCS qualifiers because they're all scheduled on work-days and at a time that fucks over Britain specifically (not that I would qualify, but it's fun to test yourself!); I can't play over Christmas unless I'm prepared to play on maps that I hate; and Legacy of the Void is going to be god-awful if they continue down this path. It's not been a good week for SC2 news if you're me.
The LotV design changes are interesting and no-one, not even Blizzard, are qualified to remark on how fun or exciting, or how well or poorly thought out and designed it is, until we've got a huge amount of testing in from top players.
Then don't participate in this thread. The rest of what you wrote isn't worth responding to if you truly believe that people shouldn't be forming opinions based on what Blizzard release. If Blizzard don't want us to comment then they can stop releasing updates and just make us wait for the finished product. Whilst they continue announcing terrible changes I will continue to call them terrible.
Putting your pants on your head, throwing hands up in the air and screaming how terrible something that you haven't played, haven't seen played by people that are actually good at the game, is not conducive to relevant or meaningful discussion.
Telling people not to discuss something isn't conductive to any discussion. Nor is acting as if people aren't capable of putting the pieces together based on what Blizzard say they're doing and what we already know about the game.
If Blizzard post what they're testing then people are going to form opinions. It's a simple concept. If you don't want to participate then don't read this thread and stop posting in it.
I'm not saying to not discuss anything. I'm saying noone is qualified to call anything fun or exciting, nor terribly designed. Your reading comprehension seems about as solid as your critical thinking and reasoning skills.
See, unlike you, I'm not arrogant enough to consider myself omniscient when it comes to how dozens of changes and brand new maps and units are going to play out. I'm fine with people speculating - but that's all it is - mere speculation.
It's going to change. Just wait until we can play it though, before claiming the sky is falling and the game is terrible. That helps absolutely noone at all.
On December 18 2014 06:35 Tsubbi wrote: i wish they would add just 1 unit per race and instead focus on adjusting existing ones, there is so much potential in underused things
Yeah, this; except perhaps for Zerg, where both the Lurker and the Ravager can be nice.
I agree. There is already a lot of units to work on here, and introducing a lot of new ones (AND changing the core gameplay hugely) is going to create so many balance problems... I fear we're still a long way playing LotV.
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
Based on what?
Based on the fact that making every Protoss unit able to blink is downright stupid. The numbers need heavy tweaking if they really want to go through with it, I don't care how fun it looks if it's broken -and I play toss. Overall it feels like a very poor idea.
On December 18 2014 07:16 SatedSC2 wrote: The more I hear, the less I like.
Between this and the map-pool going back to the horror that was season 3, I'm finding it very hard to get motivated to play...
It's just for two weeks, you know.
Yep. Two weeks. The two weeks where I don't have work because I'm off for the Christmas period, and not the last two weeks where I haven't had time to play at all.
EDIT:
I can't play in the WCS qualifiers because they're all scheduled on work-days and at a time that fucks over Britain specifically (not that I would qualify, but it's fun to test yourself!); I can't play over Christmas unless I'm prepared to play on maps that I hate; and Legacy of the Void is going to be god-awful if they continue down this path. It's not been a good week for SC2 news if you're me.
The LotV design changes are interesting and no-one, not even Blizzard, are qualified to remark on how fun or exciting, or how well or poorly thought out and designed it is, until we've got a huge amount of testing in from top players.
Then don't participate in this thread. The rest of what you wrote isn't worth responding to if you truly believe that people shouldn't be forming opinions based on what Blizzard release. If Blizzard don't want us to comment then they can stop releasing updates and just make us wait for the finished product. Whilst they continue announcing terrible changes I will continue to call them terrible.
Putting your pants on your head, throwing hands up in the air and screaming how terrible something that you haven't played, haven't seen played by people that are actually good at the game, is not conducive to relevant or meaningful discussion.
Telling people not to discuss something isn't conductive to any discussion. Nor is acting as if people aren't capable of putting the pieces together based on what Blizzard say they're doing and what we already know about the game.
If Blizzard post what they're testing then people are going to form opinions. It's a simple concept. If you don't want to participate then don't read this thread and stop posting in it.
I'm not saying to not discuss anything. I'm saying noone is qualified to call anything fun or exciting, nor terribly designed. Your reading comprehension seems about as solid as your critical thinking and reasoning skills.
See, unlike you, I'm not arrogant enough to consider myself omniscient when it comes to how dozens of changes and brand new maps and units are going to play out. I'm fine with people speculating - but that's all it is - mere speculation.
It's going to change. Just wait until we can play it though, before claiming the sky is falling and the game is terrible. That helps absolutely noone at all.
Well, but if you like the game as it is at the core, I understand where he is coming from. No reason to change certain fundamentals in experimental ways when you consider those fundamentals good right now.
So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
And I don´t like that they want the help from the community to make a new unit and give them a few possibilities to choose from. Its ok that they ask for feedback I like that. But saying: "Hey we want to give Protoss a new Unit and it should have Invulnerability or something else we suggest." This is just not good Design and will lead to horrible ideas made by noobs. A company like Blizzard (Hell even all companies) should always know what to do with their game on their own.
Some ideas seem good like having Late game Units no upgrades to research so they are useful once they are out. But why are they only thinking about the new Units and barely about exisitng ones? What about the Thor? It needs to be smaller, more mobile and adjusted in general.
I just can hope the know what they are doing and that I get a Beta key this time to test this out myself. So far only the Campaign is interesting for me but I don´t want to spend money only for the Campaign.
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
Based on what?
Based on the fact that making every Protoss unit able to blink is downright stupid. The numbers need heavy tweaking if they really want to go through with it, I don't care how fun it looks if it's broken -and I play toss. Overall it feels like a very poor idea.
Okay but I thought we were discussing design here, I can balance this unit to be completely worthless if I want to, and they can as well. Design wise it looks like they're trying to find another mechanism for a speedivac type of modification. Seems pretty good to me.
I would prefer a more elegant solution that includes diminishing returns, but Blizzard likes the easy way out, so...
Economy:
+ half gold (returns 7), half blue (returns 5) -- numbers can be tweaked + gold = 750, blue = 1500 (or vice versa for more sustain) + starting 6-8 workers + start will not be instantaneous as current 12 workers but will be quick yet smoother to scale up, i.e. still have an early game but less downtime + expansions have immediate boost to economy due to half gold + maynarding matters more + APM to pair up workers on gold at start and on new expansions
As far as the terran changes, Idgaf. I've never been a really big fan of terran and the new units are boring and seem to fill no needed roles either. The herc fus ro dah thing sounds broken as fuck though, so that's a start.
Agree with the lurker upgrade change, although I don't really like the fact that you have to morph the building to create lurkers from hydras in the first place. Once the thing dies, you can't make hydras or lurkers, then you have to make another hydra den, and morph it again before you can make lurkers again. This takes way too long, and feels like you are upgrading a tech all over again. Imagine if in BW you had to pay 200/200 to research lurker at the hydra den? You would just lose and people would drop your hydra den every time.
They need to either make it a separate building, make lurkers a separate unit, or just do it how BW did it.
It's not the same as late game with the spire/greater spire which are T2> T3.5 as it is assumed you have much more economy and army to protect and rebuild if need be. And Broodlords/Guardians are a more specific seige unit, where lurkers would be a core army unit in T2>T2.5(T2.75 really)
Infestor ability removal + add? Aggressive Mutation was only really effective when combined with Zerglings, due to the fact that ability provides a flat damage buff. At the same time, we also didn’t want to make a general upgrade that just generally buffs all Zerg ground units. If we feel that the buff its providing Zergling damage is needed and is good for the late game, we can just buff their Tier 3 attack speed upgrade. Therefore, we’re looking for other areas where the Infestor can be utilized.
Ok so what exactly is the goal of this infestor upgrade in the first place then? Are they just playing around with random shit because they took a spell out and want to put another?
Imho, zerg is very weak to mass air. Even when fungal, ravager spam is around, you still have shit like set and forget interceptors which only really hydras, queens, and spores are equipped to deal with. And fungaling interceptors is not consistent nor fun/efficient to do.
Afaik, the +5 damage buff was to help hydras with this sort of thing.
So if they are removing it, what will they get then?
Maybe an ability on the infestor much more like darkswarm, but not as powerful. Perhaps Infestor activates a AOE around his body for X time which reduces ranged damage or adds armor to units around him for 15 seconds or something? This might make him too easy of a target though, so perhaps allow him to burrow to do it as well?
On December 17 2014 02:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: What if disruptors instead did a sort of DoT attack. Where it sort of delayed their current ability, or segmented it.
Same exact cooldown , speed, invuln, and damage, just instead of activate and gets 3 second of speed and invuln before 1 big explode. It would do 1 sec of speed and invuln, explode for 1/3 damage, .5 second normal, 1 sec of speed and invuln, explode for 1/3 damage, .5 second normal, 1 sec of speed and invuln, explode for 1/3 damage.
So it sort of stutter steps and explodes as it does it. This is a soft nerf to the burst damage so that units can be microed a bit more safely/reliably.
Not sure exactly how much the total damage is, but obviously it could be reworked so that it can kill certain units with the first hit, etc. Such as workers.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
This is sort of sloppy writing, and a typo. I had to reread it 3 times to understand.
The upgrades for the hardened shield at the very least will make people aware of using it.
The ranged drop/lift did seem a little strong.
Strange to see nothing about the most imbalanced units though: Ravager, Corruptor, and Tempest. All of which need a ton of tweaks.
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
Based on what?
Based on the fact that making every Protoss unit able to blink is downright stupid. The numbers need heavy tweaking if they really want to go through with it, I don't care how fun it looks if it's broken -and I play toss. Overall it feels like a very poor idea.
Okay but I thought we were discussing design here, I can balance this unit to be completely worthless if I want to, and they can as well. Design wise it looks like they're trying to find another mechanism for a speedivac type of modification. Seems pretty good to me.
It's always the case with Blizzard : the intention is good, the idea is bad. Same goes for the worker/resources thing. Guess they've still got about a year to have some actually well thought ideas.
On December 18 2014 08:41 Tresher wrote: So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
You can see them in action, there is the LotV alpha mod which allows you to test the changes personally. I'm sure they will try to update the mod to include these new changes.
Resources Like a lot of the guys I think that expansions should be encouraged, but not forced. Anyway to make the advantage of expanding linear but not a leap would be cool. I know you guys tried a lot of workers counts, but I didn't see you specifically say 9 workers. Middle ground between 6 and 12. I think that would still allow for early pools/gates/rax and cut that early mining.
Units On the units, I really think you guys are following an excellent path, listening to the players, and noted fast what is not going to work. But I think that the idea of not bringing back old units can harm the game. The HERC for example is/was a complicated unit to fill a role clearly of the firebat/hellbat. Elegance is very good for the game mechanics. Achieving goals with units simple to understand (not to micro). Some units that were put in the game without a clear role has proven to mess with it, IMO. Warhounds, Cyclones, Hercs.
Terran As you guys are already doing, try to find a real role for the Cyclone and the Herc. I feel like the Herc is trying to be a Bio option vs Zealots and Banelings. Again, sounds a lot like the firebat. In the same amount they get good vs zealots and ling/bane they should get less effective vs stalkers and roaches. An early unit of a race "A" that shreds another early unit of the race "B" should never be "fairly" good vs all other early "B" unit. That should only occur with a high tech "A" unit, like Colossus, who does exceptionally good vs marines and farly good vs Marauders, but costs a lot to get. That goes to the Cyclone too. Please don't make any of them good vs all Zealots, Stalkers and Immortals like you did with the Warhound.
Tanks The current pick-drop sieged tanks is too strong, IMO. An idea: The Medivac picks it up, but the tanks still automatically goes to tank mode while hanging, so the Terran has to wait the 2 seconds to drop it again. And, when dropped, the tank automatically goes to siege mode with that 2 seconds animation. That way, the Terran could still pick-up micro, but not pick-drop-shoot instantly.
Battle Cruiser Anywhere teleport? Really? Not even the Mothership can do that, but a fleet of BC's can?
Zerg Does the Ravager really need splash damage? I mean, Zerg is accumulating a lot of splash damage units, Banes, Ravagers, Lurkers, Ultralisks. If they are not effective enough, shouldn't be better just to improve them instead of adding another one? If the Ravager is meant to do high damage vs slow, beefy units, they don't need splash. They would still be fairly good vs Tanks, Thors, Colossus, maybe even Carriers, BC's, Brood Lords. I'm just asking, I don't have a really strong opinion on this one.
AA vs mass air? Again, why not just use the scourge? It's a simple matter, and a simple unit to solve the problem. I know you guys don't want to bring many units back, but you're sacrificing the elegance, the simplicity, that makes the game beautiful. But you can still find a good answer in an ability I think.
Swarm Host / Infestor Isn't that the original, long gone idea behind the infestor? INFESTOR. That what its name says, but nobody uses it to infest. What about a better movement speed burrowed? The ability to go up-cliffs burrowed could be cool. Also, instead of flying locusts, cliff-climbing locusts looks way more logical and can still address the harass potential while not being overpowered as I think flying locusts would be. And a unit that hatches from a ground unit, flies, but has to get back to the ground to attack... I know the game hasn't to be 100% logical, but when it is, is way cooler.
Protoss The whole idea you're having of a new unit sounds very cool. I like the line of thought.
Disruptor As much as I think the disruptor is cool, I feel that a unit which does a lot of damage in one hit is not so cool to play with or against. I am a high gold Protoss player. I know I don't have the best point of view, but I see a lot of people complaining about Protoss being OP. I think that's because so much units feels a lot like a gamble. DT's and the deathball idea in general. For me, Disruptors, as the Widow Mines do, will shorten the joy of the game. Hit, win; don't hit, die. Disruptors will require more micro to hit though, that can be good. Still even when it hits, it doesn't feel as good as a victory on a micro-intensive multi-unit battle, at least for me. I have no idea how that feels and its dynamics on a Pro level play.
Immortals I love immortals! They are the bastion that protects all Protoss vs the ground heavy hitters. Still I know that it's to hard of a counter vs whatever it counters, and requires little to no micro. However, on the tests I saw, it's not being so easy to use it to counter tanks for example. Sentries and Stalkers already require some micro, I feel like adding too much micro on the immortals can make the Protoss midgame army a little too hard to micro. As Immortals are the only counter Protoss have to some units, please do not make it too hard to use, like " you need to micro 4 immortals like a platinum player to counter 6 Siege Tanks"
Mothership Please, give it a buff. It has a support role, but give it a little more damage. For the cost it has, I think it should not die to 2 vikings or 2 corruptors. Maybe better abilities. I never liked the cloak much. It just make it a target. What about a passive or click-to-activate "guardian shield"? A passive or click-to-activate psi field that we can warp-in directly beneath it? When we got a MS, gateway are not so effective anyway, I don't think it would be overpowered.
Warp Prism An idea that I had a time ago, what about a "morph" on the warp prism that permanently doubles its capacity but disable the phase mode ability? That way, we can drop more without sacrificing units.
Hmm with the auto cast change on Cyclone I wonder if Hellion-Cyclone will play anything like the Hellion-Diamond back unit comp that was possible in the WoL campaign... that play style was really fun, have always wanted to try something like that against real players.
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
Based on what?
Based on the fact that making every Protoss unit able to blink is downright stupid. The numbers need heavy tweaking if they really want to go through with it, I don't care how fun it looks if it's broken -and I play toss. Overall it feels like a very poor idea.
Okay but I thought we were discussing design here, I can balance this unit to be completely worthless if I want to, and they can as well. Design wise it looks like they're trying to find another mechanism for a speedivac type of modification. Seems pretty good to me.
It's always the case with Blizzard : the intention is good, the idea is bad. Same goes for the worker/resources thing. Guess they've still got about a year to have some actually well thought ideas.
Well history has shown that blizzard is actually very smart and has incredible designers. Your comment comes a bit off as whining especially since the vast majority of changes and features they are making are very successful. Think about how many cool things they have done so far (in general) before you make such a negative and generalized statement. This also takes away from the intelligent and constructive criticism i feel.
On December 18 2014 08:41 Tresher wrote: So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
You can see them in action, there is the LotV alpha mod which allows you to test the changes personally. I'm sure they will try to update the mod to include these new changes.
Im talking about the actual game. Not some badly designed fan mod that is done poorly by just watching the showmatches on Blizzcon 2014. Cyclone can´t even attack air there with their default weapon wtf. And Locusts that have almost the same Attack speed like stimmed Marines? At the Multiplayer Panel and the MP Update videos they said they wanted that Locusts have a stronger attack. Not faster.
Protoss doesn't need another "uncommon" unit - It needs a new gateway unit, a solid one that is versatile to make the protoss army more effective in small groups instead of just deathballs. A unit that deals well with big masses of units like MM balls and clumps of lings, without being some tier 3 very expensive very big very clunky unit. This would automatically reduce the deathball effect and improve the ability to defend spread out bases. Pretty much a win win. But how would such a unit look like? That's another story.
On December 18 2014 08:41 Tresher wrote: So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
You can see them in action, there is the LotV alpha mod which allows you to test the changes personally. I'm sure they will try to update the mod to include these new changes.
Im talking about the actual game. Not some badly designed fan mod that is done poorly by just watching the showmatches on Blizzcon 2014. Cyclone can´t even attack air there with their default weapon wtf. And Locusts that have almost the same Attack speed like stimmed Marines? At the Multiplayer Panel and the MP Update videos they said they wanted that Locusts have a stronger attack. Not faster.
On December 18 2014 08:41 Tresher wrote: So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
You can see them in action, there is the LotV alpha mod which allows you to test the changes personally. I'm sure they will try to update the mod to include these new changes.
Im talking about the actual game. Not some badly designed fan mod that is done poorly by just watching the showmatches on Blizzcon 2014. Cyclone can´t even attack air there with their default weapon wtf. And Locusts that have almost the same Attack speed like stimmed Marines? At the Multiplayer Panel and the MP Update videos they said they wanted that Locusts have a stronger attack. Not faster.
Actually, all of those things that are in that LotV alpha custom mode reflect the changes in actual LotV alpha, as designers of that mod are in touch with Blizzard, Locusts attack a lot faster, that is the only change made to them(yes, faster than stimmed Marines, you can even see that in one of those exhibition matches). Cyclones are bugged, and they are working on the fix. You are really talking out of your ass here.
Pretty much every guy that played alpha at Blizzcon(together with Pros) said that this mod is really really well made, and you happen to be a smart-ass that shits on it.
Man it seems like Blizzard doesn't want to bring back the reaver but I think it could be a perfect fit.
1. It would provide the early midgame splash that Protoss players want so they don't have to get colossus immediately.
2. If blizzard is really set on giving protoss another hurass unit then the reaver could always be dropped in mineral lines. If this is the case I think it should need 2 shots to kill workers. This way the reaver can harass without being another unit that can end a game in an instant.
3. The splash damage could originally be fairly weak and just useful for defending early pushes or light drop harass, but then maybe it could be upgraded at the robo bay to either do more damage or have a larger area. I think this would bring an "impactful change" to the unit which blizzard wants from upgrades.
4. After being upgraded it could be put at bases, maybe along with templar, to make it easier to defend which blizzard also feels is a problem for protoss.
On more minor suggestions: I think they should merge observer speed and warp prism speed into one upgrade. Barely anyone ever gets these upgrades especially since prims start with higher speed by default. Then that would also maybe make room for an upgrade on robo that's actually interesting.
On December 18 2014 05:03 DarkLordOlli wrote: So while the first two issues would already mess with protoss in its current state, LotV also introduces new units and abilities in the early-midgame for the other two races while protoss doesn't get any, has to expand faster and can't use defensive warpins anymore.
What's really needed for protoss is a strong, beefy unit or concept that you can leave on its own, or with little support, and it will do fine. Something like a super-stalker. Of course you'd have to be incredibly careful not to turn that into an easy to mass, go across the map and kill people type of unit, but it's what protoss needs the most.
I really think what they actually need is a DPS gateway unit. If combined with existing gateway units, such a thing could raise the capability of the entire force to be able to handle opposing forces in the mid-game (especially with limited support of HTs / Warp Prisms / etc).
Basically, make the gateway a holistic force that adds other forces simply to specialize.
I created an extension mod with such a unit that you can find by googling `[extension mod] LotV Protoss Unit Suggestion`.
It's not perfect, obviously, but it's the direction I'd rather Blizzard take with Protoss.
What protosss needs is a strong core gateway unit (but not as spameable) that is unlocked with twilight council that helps protoss not to die to stupid things in midgame.
In fact I wonder I'd moving the immortal now to gateway unit would be a bad thing. Also removing the immortal shields? That basically makes them a bad stalker. The immortal right now cost what 2 stalker cost and deals the same gamage as Two stalkers to non armored units, but it has less mobility less health and now won't have hardened shield and will need an upgrade on the robotics way which will Nerf midgame even more. And what about the 1-1-1 or tanks all in a? Now immortals will be worthless...
Protosss really need a buff to mid game not a Nerf.
On December 18 2014 09:43 H0i wrote: On more minor suggestions: I think they should merge observer speed and warp prism speed into one upgrade. Barely anyone ever gets these upgrades especially since prims start with higher speed by default. Then that would also maybe make room for an upgrade on robo that's actually interesting.
I don't know if that's necessary. Theoretically if you have one (merged) upgrade you can replace it with two upgrades that have the same total cost and research time. However, there is probably some sort of minimum cost to an upgrade for it to have a reason to exist in the game (be justified as a separate upgrade), which provides justification for merging. But imo, if observer speed is so sporadically relevant it can not exist separately it should probably be removed from the game. There might be some specific use to it though.
It bothers me that any time they add a unit for protoss it's a harass or aoe unit. They don't need more or them, what's wrong with giving them a new/unique core unit, with a potentially good mechanic? Their build order openings or list of cheeses/allin is just going to be longer and harder to account for properly.
Seems like LotV is JUST an expansion and not the revelation it had the potential to be. The units and their design seem pretty conservative to me, but let's see... I also don't see why you would want to stick so much on the concept that each unit has just it's one unique niche. I mean, slight overlapping AND more units is not bad as it hurts no one. Instead, it adds diversity and FUN!
On December 18 2014 08:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: "The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units"
Could it ever occur to you ranged pick up is retarded ?
Based on what?
Based on the fact that making every Protoss unit able to blink is downright stupid. The numbers need heavy tweaking if they really want to go through with it, I don't care how fun it looks if it's broken -and I play toss. Overall it feels like a very poor idea.
Okay but I thought we were discussing design here, I can balance this unit to be completely worthless if I want to, and they can as well. Design wise it looks like they're trying to find another mechanism for a speedivac type of modification. Seems pretty good to me.
It's always the case with Blizzard : the intention is good, the idea is bad. Same goes for the worker/resources thing. Guess they've still got about a year to have some actually well thought ideas.
Well history has shown that blizzard is actually very smart and has incredible designers.
When it comes to SC2, I'm not sure this would be my conclusion. There have been a lot of terrible design mistakes and impossible to understand decisions by Blizzard. Then again I'm confident LotV will be good, but that'll be because they'll scrap most of the "revolutionary" changes they brought at Blizzcon to make the hype strong.
On December 18 2014 07:33 Whitewing wrote: Blizzard is going about this expansion thing the wrong way. Rather than reducing the minerals in each patch, they should be reducing the amount of patches at each base, meaning saturation is fewer workers. This encourages more expanding to take advantage of the extra supply: suddenly you can make use of 4 or 5 bases simultaneously rather than just holding extra for when you run out in your other bases. The current form simply punishes players for not expanding, rather than rewarding them for doing so.
It also unnecessarily punishes players for falling behind. Come-backs become much harder when you can't build up for a while, try to take favorable engagements, and slowly expand. You run out of money before you can rebuild now, meaning one fight is more likely than ever to kill you. Reducing mineral patches will reduce income rates overall at the start of the game and will encourage more, but smaller, engagements and make deathballing harder and maxing out slower. The current system they are using will just make the game even more of a one and done.
I agree with these points. Though, the gas would still need to be lowered or tweaked to fit with the less mineral patches. I remember a mod that went with one high-yield vespene geyser and less mineral patches. Not sure how it played out.
Agreed, a single high yield geyser per base would likely be fine. The main concern with that is rebalancing, which is likely why blizzard is avoiding doing it. Reducing income rates across the board would have interesting effects on balance, but there's no better time to try it.
Also: I want to point out: starting at 12 workers is a direct nerf to Protoss. Protoss typically has it's first chronoboost at 11 supply, which lets them get slightly ahead on workers. Now, they start at 12 with no chrono at the same time the opponent has 12, which is a nerf. In addition, Protoss is the most dependent on gas of all races, and the least dependent on minerals. This is a boost, relatively speaking, to the other races against Protoss.
On December 18 2014 08:41 Tresher wrote: So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
You can see them in action, there is the LotV alpha mod which allows you to test the changes personally. I'm sure they will try to update the mod to include these new changes.
Im talking about the actual game. Not some badly designed fan mod that is done poorly by just watching the showmatches on Blizzcon 2014. Cyclone can´t even attack air there with their default weapon wtf. And Locusts that have almost the same Attack speed like stimmed Marines? At the Multiplayer Panel and the MP Update videos they said they wanted that Locusts have a stronger attack. Not faster.
Actually, all of those things that are in that LotV alpha custom mode reflect the changes in actual LotV alpha, as designers of that mod are in touch with Blizzard, Locusts attack a lot faster, that is the only change made to them(yes, faster than stimmed Marines, you can even see that in one of those exhibition matches). Cyclones are bugged, and they are working on the fix. You are really talking out of your ass here.
Pretty much every guy that played alpha at Blizzcon(together with Pros) said that this mod is really really well made, and you happen to be a smart-ass that shits on it.
Except that I never said something about the bugged Cyclone. I said the ACTUAL standard weapon (not the lockon) doesn´t attack air units while in the preview videos it says it does. Learn to read. Also deal with it that not everybody likes what you do. Im sure Im not the only one that doesn´t like it. I don´t have to like it just because the masses do, Im not that kind of person that goes with the masses just because everyone does. No need to be rude like this.
On December 18 2014 09:43 H0i wrote: On more minor suggestions: I think they should merge observer speed and warp prism speed into one upgrade. Barely anyone ever gets these upgrades especially since prims start with higher speed by default. Then that would also maybe make room for an upgrade on robo that's actually interesting.
I don't know if that's necessary. Theoretically if you have one (merged) upgrade you can replace it with two upgrades that have the same total cost and research time. However, there is probably some sort of minimum cost to an upgrade for it to have a reason to exist in the game (be justified as a separate upgrade), which provides justification for merging. But imo, if observer speed is so sporadically relevant it can not exist separately it should probably be removed from the game. There might be some specific use to it though.
On December 18 2014 08:41 Tresher wrote: So we get a bunch of changes that we can´t test or see in action...
Why? This just leads to useless theory crafting and balance whine BEFORE the game is even out.
You can see them in action, there is the LotV alpha mod which allows you to test the changes personally. I'm sure they will try to update the mod to include these new changes.
Im talking about the actual game. Not some badly designed fan mod that is done poorly by just watching the showmatches on Blizzcon 2014. Cyclone can´t even attack air there with their default weapon wtf. And Locusts that have almost the same Attack speed like stimmed Marines? At the Multiplayer Panel and the MP Update videos they said they wanted that Locusts have a stronger attack. Not faster.
Actually, all of those things that are in that LotV alpha custom mode reflect the changes in actual LotV alpha, as designers of that mod are in touch with Blizzard, Locusts attack a lot faster, that is the only change made to them(yes, faster than stimmed Marines, you can even see that in one of those exhibition matches). Cyclones are bugged, and they are working on the fix. You are really talking out of your ass here.
Pretty much every guy that played alpha at Blizzcon(together with Pros) said that this mod is really really well made, and you happen to be a smart-ass that shits on it.
Except that I never said something about the bugged Cyclone. I said the ACTUAL standard weapon (not the lockon) doesn´t attack air units while in the preview videos it says it does. Learn to read. Also deal with it that not everybody likes what you do. Im sure Im not the only one that doesn´t like it. I don´t have to like it just because the masses do, Im not that kind of person that goes with the masses just because everyone does. No need to be rude like this.
I am saying that it doesn't attack air because it is bugged, whole unit isn't working properly, I am not sure what you don't understand? Also, nobody is forcing you to like something, if you dislike something I am fine by that, but saying how mod is badly designed and done poorly is not about liking and opinion. It is about you being ignorant and spitting designers into face because of your assumptions.
Protoss already have builds that are able to harass a little bit in the early game. If Blizzard is looking to add more early game harassment mechanisms for Protoss because their data show that Protoss have difficulty expanding the most, and they are looking to even things up, then maybe they should look at things from a different angle.
My suggestion is to enable Protoss to defend expansions a little bit better. If Blizzard is thinking about a slow moving unit which can be invincible for x number of seconds, they can look to the Zealot for this. Blizzard can add a "Terrazine" ability for the Zealot which makes it impervious to attacks, and will allow it to deal with marine medivac drops. This spell can be cast by the Mothership Core, which will allow Protoss players to choose between activating Photon Overcharge, a static defense mechanism that only defends constructed Nexuses, or Terrazine, a slightly mobile defense mechanism that can also defend Nexuses that are still warping in.
It is still viable to use this mechanism for early harass due to the tanking ability of invincible zealots, but it will not be too overpowered due to the slow movement speeds of the Mothership Core + Zealot combo. It can also be used for late game zealot hit squads, but this would mean that the Mothership Core will be away from the main Protoss army, so there will be a risk-reward trade off that players can consider.
The ability may sound a bit similar to stimmed marines or frenzied zerglings from the HoTS campaign (though "Terrazined Zealots" only gain invincibility, no additional attack damage), but the need to build a unit to cast it, the need for energy to cast it, and the option of casting it over another spell should encourage players to develop more strategies and reward better in-game decision making.
I am a Terran player, and I hope that this suggestion is as objective as I wanted it to be.
P.S. I forgot to mention that this idea also brings the multiplayer side of Starcraft 2 closer to lore. Even if it is not implemented, it makes more sense compared to the idea of Hellions getting repaired by SCVs and Helbats getting healed by Medivacs.
*insert Protoss name* *some Ninja skin with some Psi-Shuriken or similar* Cost 75/75/2 80HP/20Shield/0armor, light, biological Attack: Damage 15(+2), Cooldown: 1.5 Attack range 5, ground only speed: 3.0 (like a speed roach) size: like a zealot drop-size: 2
Auto-Cast ability, 6second cooldown: When attacking, the *Ninja Super Trooper* immidiately performs a second attack. tech requirement: twilight council
Stats Analysis: good damage output: 13.75 dps, good burst (due to the double attack at the beginning of a combat), good upgrading can't take many hits, so it has bad tanking for the Colossus mediocre range, so only zealots and archons can tank reasonably for it quite mobile, so it can roam the map a lot does not go well with usual deathball units like stalkers and Colossi due to standing in front of the stalkers
Strategically: The unit does synergize very well with zealots and can kill enemy workers and stray units very fast. The high-burst damage (30 on the first shot) makes it very good in the midnumbers against Terran bio units, because the bio-units can get bursted down before the medivac-heal takes full effect. From a cost-balance point of view, the unit cannot be massed on its own in early rushes, because of the high gas:mineral ratio. It's weakness are faster units such as zerglings or hellions that can close the distance and force it into combat, however, due to the high damage output they can still take a good amount of enemies with them into the grave. It should offer Protoss players an alternative ranged combat and harassment unit to the stalker, with a very contrasting approach in gameplay.
Tactically: The unit can be microed against very well due to the 5range and sniped very fast. However, with a reasonable zealot buffer the unit can dish out its high burst damage and then use its high speed to fall back until more zealots arrive. While it doesn't quite bring the same longterm damage output onto the battlefield as marines or hydralisks, the high burst damage allows it to quickly overwhelm enemy forces to fight another day.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Building walls + forcefields + cannons + photon overcharge, what more could you want?
SC2 needs fundamental changes not bunch of cool stuff. I don't really understand them. Lotv is the last expansion, they could easily go balls deep. there is nothing really to lose if things go wrong.
On December 18 2014 12:22 saddaromma wrote: SC2 needs fundamental changes not bunch of cool stuff. I don't really understand them. Lotv is the last expansion, they could easily go balls deep. there is nothing really to lose if things go wrong.
They would lose the success of an already working game.
They would lose a lot of money if they essentially develop SC3 instead of an SC2 expansion.
For an expansion, the changes are spectacular already. Of course it is still SC2.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Since when is that /such/ a problem issue? This sounds like a TvP specific concern and frankly the boys aren't getting pulled as much .. which is the lone major exploit of that moment for Protoss, as far as I am aware. Open to your insights, though.
- It's an issue because protoss is the race that has the most trouble securing extra expansions and splitting up their army to defend them. In LotV, economy changes will force protoss to do this though. Defending three bases is already an issue in HotS, of course depending on maps. Being forced to expand faster will automatically spread you more thin - which is fine for terran and zerg because their armies move very fast and work fine in smaller battles. Protoss armies are slow and rely a lot on unit/terrain synergy (zealot/sentry/colossus armies to defend the front -> stalkers to defend drops). Expanding faster = more places to defend = even more difficult to split your army correctly. This change alone would be a big nerf to protoss in HotS.
- You also have to factor in the warpgate changes (8 second warpin time, 200% damage while warping in). Defensive emergency warpins won't exist anymore. Where you could previously warp in units to stall for time until your army or a part of it arrives, you won't be able to do that anymore. If you still warp in, those units will die incredibly fast and do nothing. It'd be like throwing resources at your opponent. This change alone would already be a gigantic problem in HotS.
- The first two changes would already be hugely problematic for protoss as is, and we haven't even factored in the new units yet. Currently, terran gets HERCs and Cyclones (both are early-midgame units) and zerg gets Ravagers and Lurkers (which are midgame and late-midgame units respectively). For this early-midgame stage in the game, protoss gets... well, nothing. Immortals might be a bit stronger now against units that previously countered them (which is questionable, we'll have to test this), Disruptors are a tier 3 unit that costs insane amounts of gas and is only available at robotics bay tech, which means they most likely can't be in the game that early. Ravagers make forcefields irrelevant and Cyclones look like they counter every protoss unit (I'm quite sure that the unit will be massively worked on though, so don't think about it too much).
So while the first two issues would already mess with protoss in its current state, LotV also introduces new units and abilities in the early-midgame for the other two races while protoss doesn't get any, has to expand faster and can't use defensive warpins anymore.
What's really needed for protoss is a strong, beefy unit or concept that you can leave on its own, or with little support, and it will do fine. Something like a super-stalker. Of course you'd have to be incredibly careful not to turn that into an easy to mass, go across the map and kill people type of unit, but it's what protoss needs the most.
The quoted post is a lot of my worries in a nutshell. Protoss currently leans on its crazy-powerful AoE units, and its core Gateway army doesn't stack up against other cores like Roach/Hydra or Marine/Marauder/Medivac. Every Protoss player is ultimately forced into:
1) Get Colossi 2) Get Templar 3) 2base all-in such as Soultrain [hitting before other army gets to full strength] 4) Cheese.
Problem is that neither option 1 or option 2 splits up to defend multiple bases very well as Templar float along at an insultingly slow pace, and it's hard to really split up those big, expensive 6 supply Colossi. If you have enough Colossi to split them up in multiple places, you should have A-moved across the map a while ago. 2base all-ins are going to suffer with Legacy, and cheese is... cheese.
I couldn't be any LESS excited about the Disruptor as it looks like an all-or nothing, frustration factory. Either it connects and deals mad damage, instantly obliterating your enemy's army... or they avoid it/you miss and you get steamrolled easily. The idea of a unit that's invulnerable at any time for any reason already unnerves me... and now this secret squirrel 'other unit' can apparently do it too?
I'd rather see something beefier/shootier step into the Gateway & accept corresponding nerfs to Warpgate/Stalkers. The Stalker is a bit of a stumbling block for Protoss armies: it's great early game because its speed and regenerating Shields let it be a nuisance and make free pickoffs, and Blink lets groups of them be incredibly dangerous on their own, but once the biggest guns come out the Stalkers can't exploit either ability well. They must stay near their fire support because their DPS is lousy, and they can't make many blink maneuvers in big fights because (a) ain't nobody got time for that micro and (b) can't abandon the big guns to fight on their own.
I feel like this game is crying out for a Dragoon - it's beefier, has more stopping power against the 'Armored' (previously known as Medium/Large) units, and still had some early-game micro potential to shoot and scoot, but not as much as the Stalker with Blink.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
So much this. We need smth similar to dragoon.
Starbow has really cool solution: they moved stalkers to be more harass oriented unit and less multi purpose as they are currently in hots and added dragoons to fill the gap and allow protoss for more freedom to move on the map.
That might need tweaking warp gate tech, but blizzard already stated they gonna at least change it a bit. I'd like to test postponing WG, so 1base WG rushes won't be a thing.
Maybe add requirement for WG to have Twilight Council or even move WG to TC ?
these changes would make me want to play Toss In Lotv
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
Building walls + forcefields + cannons + photon overcharge, what more could you want?
Other than the fact that walls work against protoss in PvT, I think the main problem is that protoss is forced to play passively and defensively when the opponent decides to choose an aggressive opening.
TvZ the zerg can try to get a map control by suddenly making a huge swell of lings, and technically terran can fight back the control if he doesn't lose all his hellions on the map and crank out a few more before he moves out again. Can be re-taken in 1-2 min.
PvZ it is already hard enough for protoss to get map control because of how slow its units are (and stalkers being expensive), it is generally not worth it to get map control. If the zerg suddenly gets like 20 lings and constantly patrolls around the map you can't even go out of your base until you have a sizeable army and a good defense back home ( so that the lings can't just run by). Well technically you can get vision if you go stargate, but zerg still gets the ground control which is more important imo.
PvT pure gateway (zealot stalker sentry) gets rekt by any decent bioball, especially with medivac support. Against bioball with medivac, even adding immortals, or having chargelots/blinkstalkers doesn't really help. Which is why protoss is forced to turtle until colossus/storm comes out, or kill the terran before they get medivac or large bioball. If the terran goes aggressive, the only way protoss can win is through landing good forcefield to split the terran army in half, which isn't going to happen easily on open areas, which is why protoss can only engage in chokes near their base in the early-mid game. (Or unless the protoss gets the perfect surround)
Because protoss early game is so shit (esp vs terran) they are forced to play passive until they get tier 3 units. They need to fix this, and to fix this they need to change warp gate as well.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
So much this. We need smth similar to dragoon.
Starbow has really cool solution: they moved stalkers to be more harass oriented unit and less multi purpose as they are currently in hots and added dragoons to fill the gap and allow protoss for more freedom to move on the map.
That might need tweaking warp gate tech, but blizzard already stated they gonna at least change it a bit. I'd like to test postponing WG, so 1base WG rushes won't be a thing.
Maybe add requirement for WG to have Twilight Council or even move WG to TC ?
these changes would make me want to play Toss In Lotv
Move warp gate to templar tech (still researched at cybernetics core though). Stalker change damage bonus from 12 +2 vs armored to 12 +2 vs light. Dragoon can be built at gateways, but requires robotic facility. Bam, now you get stalkers which are good at harrassment and decent in defending against harrassment too, and dragoons which aren't as expensive as immortals but still decent against marauders and roaches, and better against void rays. Also, no more retarded warp gate all-in in early-mid game. Then immortals can be changed to be the "tanking" unit instead of anti-seige-tank-ultralisk unit.
Also roll back the warp gate nerf that was added in LotV, I think pushing warp gate back to templar tech is good enough, and late game protoss would need quite a bit of help in defending against harrassment.
Or, since the warp gate is already pushed back we can make changes to the default gateway units (keep the warpgate nerf) to make them more powerful. Give zealots separate move speed upgrade and charge upgrade (move speed at twilight, charge at templar). Overall zealots would be faster than the current zealots we have, and late game zealots would be much more mobile, allowing for skirmishes to happen.
Protoss can now handle bioballs much easier in early-mid game with a force of zealot, dragoons, sentry, stalkers and maybe even immortals, and rely much less on forcefields. Since zerg already has ravagers to deal with forcefields, protoss might need that dragoon to support its gateway army which might get easily crushed by ling roach and ravagers.
Also, change colossus pls, but idk how we can do this.
they need something else than photon overcharge. its a crappy ability that requires no micro and nothing is cool about it. make the photon micro-able. THANKS.
- Zerg need more AntiAir splash? Scourges. (Add some AoE splash, like flying banelings) Lots of awesome micro ability there
- Protoss need a new unit? Reavers. Lots of awesome micro ability there.
- Terran Cyclone has no idea what it's meant to be? Vultures. Lots of awesome micro ability there.
Instead of coming up with new unit designs that don't work well or have very specific uses, don't be afraid of importing fully-fledged existing units that work really well, everyone loves, and have a lot of uses.
All these BW units you said may not work well in SC2 at all. The lurker which so many people wanted to bring back is struggling. What we need are units that function well in SC2. You could name them Reaver,Scourge or whatever. I don't care.
I don't like a thing about Lotv... Call me paranoid, but i think this all is entirely a wrong direction. Game already has shitloads of units and strategies that leads to randomness and unconsistency. But looks like blizzard is ok with that, as all they seem to care about is crowd reactions like "omg mine shoot all the probes/mutas/banes etc". All these new units (and Hots units like oracle and viper) remind me of some mediocre moba. BUT THIS IS RTS. Stop adding niche units with fancy micro mechanics!! They should remove units from the game, not add them. In Lotv each race will have like 15-16 playable units wtf?!! Is this Total Annihilation? Or starcraft?
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This is interesting idea. May be have the minerals change colors when they change yields.
On December 18 2014 07:33 Whitewing wrote: Blizzard is going about this expansion thing the wrong way. Rather than reducing the minerals in each patch, they should be reducing the amount of patches at each base, meaning saturation is fewer workers. This encourages more expanding to take advantage of the extra supply: suddenly you can make use of 4 or 5 bases simultaneously rather than just holding extra for when you run out in your other bases. The current form simply punishes players for not expanding, rather than rewarding them for doing so.
It also unnecessarily punishes players for falling behind. Come-backs become much harder when you can't build up for a while, try to take favorable engagements, and slowly expand. You run out of money before you can rebuild now, meaning one fight is more likely than ever to kill you. Reducing mineral patches will reduce income rates overall at the start of the game and will encourage more, but smaller, engagements and make deathballing harder and maxing out slower. The current system they are using will just make the game even more of a one and done.
I agree with these points. Though, the gas would still need to be lowered or tweaked to fit with the less mineral patches. I remember a mod that went with one high-yield vespene geyser and less mineral patches. Not sure how it played out.
Agreed, a single high yield geyser per base would likely be fine. The main concern with that is rebalancing, which is likely why blizzard is avoiding doing it. Reducing income rates across the board would have interesting effects on balance, but there's no better time to try it.
Also: I want to point out: starting at 12 workers is a direct nerf to Protoss. Protoss typically has it's first chronoboost at 11 supply, which lets them get slightly ahead on workers. Now, they start at 12 with no chrono at the same time the opponent has 12, which is a nerf. In addition, Protoss is the most dependent on gas of all races, and the least dependent on minerals. This is a boost, relatively speaking, to the other races against Protoss.
You could also argue it's a nerf to Zerg based on larvae typically putting Z at 12 workers before other races. Sounds like T benefits most.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This is interesting idea. May be have the minerals change colors when they change yields.
What do the economy gurus here think about this?
It's a copy / pasted solution from the other economic discussion thread, been discussed quite a bit. Wouldn't need any change in color as there's already visual cues for mineral patches at 0-499, 500-999, and 1,000-1,500 in the current state of the game.
On December 18 2014 11:05 Big J wrote: Protoss Gateway unit idea, lorewise it is Nerazim
*insert Protoss name* *some Ninja skin with some Psi-Shuriken or similar* Cost 75/75/2 80HP/20Shield/0armor, light, biological Attack: Damage 15(+2), Cooldown: 1.5 Attack range 5, ground only speed: 3.0 (like a speed roach) size: like a zealot drop-size: 2
Auto-Cast ability, 6second cooldown: When attacking, the *Ninja Super Trooper* immidiately performs a second attack. tech requirement: twilight council
Stats Analysis: good damage output: 13.75 dps, good burst (due to the double attack at the beginning of a combat), good upgrading can't take many hits, so it has bad tanking for the Colossus mediocre range, so only zealots and archons can tank reasonably for it quite mobile, so it can roam the map a lot does not go well with usual deathball units like stalkers and Colossi due to standing in front of the stalkers
Strategically: The unit does synergize very well with zealots and can kill enemy workers and stray units very fast. The high-burst damage (30 on the first shot) makes it very good in the midnumbers against Terran bio units, because the bio-units can get bursted down before the medivac-heal takes full effect. From a cost-balance point of view, the unit cannot be massed on its own in early rushes, because of the high gas:mineral ratio. It's weakness are faster units such as zerglings or hellions that can close the distance and force it into combat, however, due to the high damage output they can still take a good amount of enemies with them into the grave. It should offer Protoss players an alternative ranged combat and harassment unit to the stalker, with a very contrasting approach in gameplay.
Tactically: The unit can be microed against very well due to the 5range and sniped very fast. However, with a reasonable zealot buffer the unit can dish out its high burst damage and then use its high speed to fall back until more zealots arrive. While it doesn't quite bring the same longterm damage output onto the battlefield as marines or hydralisks, the high burst damage allows it to quickly overwhelm enemy forces to fight another day.
From what i read, i like it. Also, i think its kind of interesting somehow to give protoss a ranged unit that cant shoot air. Immortal behaves like this but that unit is so specialised.
Nah, they would function quite differently. The more diamondbacks you got, you could swarm in and do raids. Cyclones effectiveness I imagine would dwindle substantially the more the game goes on given overkill is insane and high cool down (like tanks from BW), but without the splash / range.
Why not make a viable choice between WG and GW just by changing the cooldown time of those? Warp only around nexus or something. And THEN move on with redesigning toss.
The unbalanced mineral patch is crap. Now Zerg and Protoss will have bases running at half efficiency half the time. Terrans can benefit by using mule to mine out the bigger patches first. Now forcing the need to take more base is again beneficial for terran with pf and turret and bunker.
The idea of immortal change is good. An upgrade from the bay to make it much stronger. A 'power' unit that fills a mid game role and a late game role. As for the Protoss early game unit(gateway), it should be a unit that counters the marauders. Not by aoe again. But requiring micro. Like a siphon life spell that does incremental damage to bio. Much tougher micro that blind stutter step or shift A click. Individual unit target individual marauder for maximum effect. Needs to use with force field to prevent marauder from running away. Becomes obselete when you have medivac for pickup. Same effect against roaches. Encourages Zerg to research burrow to escape. Upgrade at citadel to target 2 units.
Nah. 12 pool will not work. 6 zerglings will get drilled to death by 20 scv.
The only early game cheese that gets buffed by 12 workers is proxy 2 rax at 12/12 because marine is ranged and you have bunker.
Proxy gate will useless. Because most likely the first free pylon will be in-base.
But I do see cannon rushes becoming stronger. Zerg is nerfed(compared to 6 workers start), Protoss is not much difference and terran got a little buffed from the change. Because compared to now, Zerg reaches 12 worker first, then Protoss and terran reaches 12 worker last plus the lost mining time from the scv building an additional depot. Which is another small buff, Zerg gets 1 free larva from the additional overlord. Protoss got nothing.
I think the economy change sounds pretty good, I would still prefer a change to saturation.
Good call on banshee and Lurker I think.
Protoss new unit, I can only agree with what others have said. They need something that is a bit tougher which can stand up against other t1-2 units, making base defense and splitting of army better.
I would also echo the idea of warp-in working around nexus and not pylon. That way you can get Warp in back to the same speed as before, making defense better for P and stopping the boring part of warp in. The never ending attack.
If you see this blizzard here is my idea for a new Protoss unit: it is a unit that has the same movement speed of a Helion, has very little HP (mabe 20hp 20shild or something like that) dose quite high damage to light and not much to armored (mabe 25 to light and 10 to armored) and to not make it a unit that only is useful in the early game there is an upgrade that dose so it can fly for a short period of time (max 5sec) and this will require a robobay. As for model I am thing something like the TAU drones from Warhammer 40k. I like the idea of it but mabe it is horrible.
I've been reading a lot of everyone's comments to the proposed changes to the current development to LotV, I see alot some praise for blizzard, but I see also see ALOT of hate, we all play sc2, we all love it, majority of us have played blizzard games since the beginning, I dare say a lot of this hate towards blizzard completely unnecessary, they are making drastic changes to the economy and the way it works to provide us with a fast action packed game that will entertain fans and most of the all the dedicated gamers and pros, I absolutely love this game, I work a full time job that requires 11 hours a day of work but I Still get home and play this game virtually every night, I'm no top tier player by any means I'm also not bad, I've played sc2 since the day it was released.
I see tons of posts whining about how blizzard are forcing them to play a style they don't want to play, the whole point of a real time strategy game is to provide almost an infinite amount of game play options, every game is supposed to be different, never the same stuff, sure there is the meta-game and there are builds that the pros and many great players developed which are safe an efficient, its not blizzard that is forcing everyone to play a play style, the play style comes from player which could quite possibly be on the other side of the world and yourself you're not locked to play a style your only limits are you on initiative and skills as a player...
I say instead of hating blizzard, why not provide solutions, here are some of my thoughts.
I propose rework the carrier and battle cruiser entirely, give the battle cruiser multiple abilities, air to ground missiles spells that deal splash damage that costs energy to use much like some hero skills in Warcraft 3 allow the battle cruiser to fly and fire at the same time, keep its jump abilities, give it some awesome abilities and make the battlecruiser worth building, make its skills researchable at the fusion core like they always have open up interesting late game options that provide epic entertainment and are fun to use...
Give the carrier its own basic defensive weaponry mainly Air to ground attacks so it doesn't also always rely on interceptors, give it a choice of different types of interceptors that do bonus damage to certain armor types even some that only attack air, make these units more legendary, of course if the changes were to be made they would need to be even more expensive but these units need to be feared by players fear instead of laughed at, you shouldn't be able to shoot them down with marines or stalkers these capital ships should lay waste to any low to mid tier units on the ground...
Next thing remove the ravagers ability to destroy force fields, but allow forcefields to be breakable with hitpoints allow the sentries to use energy to charge the forcefields, when the forcefield is damaged it doesn't die, it should shrink and get smaller allowing units to move past it up ramps...
Give zerg t3 units the ability to evolve into legendary creatures at a large cost that have multiple skills too, on ground or flying, allow them it to knock smaller units flying across the screen give it weaknesses for example, attacking the unit from behind or certain angles makes the creatures take more damage, this promotes micro and positioning from the enemy allowing them to exploit, also give it higher regeneration when not in combat or add a ability to increase health regeneration or armor temporarily.
I'd love to see this game take a more Warcraft 3 approach, allowing players to utilitise these super units to make early game units seem like they are nothing on the main battlefield in the late game, this these type of skills allow players with superior apm and control to take advantage thus displaying skill more.
Terran mech needs to be made more dynamic, add a mechanical field engineer that repairs and boost efficiency, give protoss mobile shield battery's that boosts shield regeneration in a certain radius but only for a short amount of time, give tanks an upgrade in techlab allowing bonus damages to shields and the ability to fire in none siege mode while moving using their turret, remodel the collosus so its not so easy to use, remove its sweep style attacks give it a smaller splash damage but give it an ability to rapid fire at the cost of energy using shift clicks much like snipe on the ghost so the collosus is not just not an attack move unit and kite unit, also give it secondary abilities that sends a shockwave that slows the movement speeds of nearby enemy unit temporarily change its cost to balance it and make not such a main stream unit.
Make zealot charge manual click and not autocast but give them a passive skill that works in synergy with other zealots allowing them to stay in a line formation of a triangle formation use charge in line formation gives them a defensive bonus,charge in triangle formation allows the units to push through the enemy allowing the zealots to get right inside the bio ball or zerg swarm... Give zerglings a manual cast leap ability allowing then to jump inside a bio ball ripping it apart apart, that has weaknesses to if hellbats are in the mix the jump into a BBQ, of course all these skills should be researched in the their required tech buildings.
Give roaches a Melee and Ranged mode, give melee a small damage increase to armored... keep the ranged attack the way it is. Melee mode will promote aggressive burrowing...
I think the changes made to the swarm host in LotV are cool, HotS swarmhost literally took excitement away from the game...
Make the maps more interesting and interactive, make parts of certain maps large areas of dense vegetation, sandstorms or blizzards limiting vision for ground units... and certain areas in the sky limiting vision for air units, with map control these environments could promote ambushes and exploits a player that is lacking map presence or map control...
Make Starcraft 2's Battle.Net experience more like Warcraft 3's, give players accounts proper leveling that can decay and level up with experience much like warcraft 3, this promoted players putting alot more effort into how their account and something to work for, blind MMR isnt as fun, Warcraft 3's system also punished inactivity, which is a must on a good ladder system.
There are a million possible ways you could make this already awesome RTS game even better, possibly the best of all time, of course these proposals are huge changes, but something needs to be done, RTS games need to be saved from the MOBA plague, RTS games display true gaming skill and should be the main stage on every major tournament, Starcraft should be the game with the most viewers, not League of Legends...
If you have taken the time to read my post thank you, if not oh well it was a cruisey afternoon at work anyways.
Why are People so upset with 12 workers at the begining? It just brings the game faster to the point where it's best to watch. Casters always have to somehow entertain the viewers in the first ~5min, because there is absolutly nothing happening. You cant explain the basics every time....
On December 18 2014 16:43 pieroog wrote: Why not make a viable choice between WG and GW just by changing the cooldown time of those? Warp only around nexus or something. And THEN move on with redesigning toss.
I think the problem with current warp gate is that it is being used as a macro tool for protoss. If I'm not wrong warp gate was meant to allow protoss much larger map presence - being able to push out and reinforce your army on the go, warp in back home and defend, or warp in when you get caught out of position, etc etc.
However, due to the warp gate being researched early in the game, it has turned into a macro tool for protoss. Chronoboosted warp gate churns out units faster, if you also take into consideration the reinforcement time (time taken for units to reach the battlefield, which doesn't exist for warp gates). It makes early game mass-gateway attacks really swarming, and because of this protoss gateway units were nerfed to the point they can't even handle the bioball without tier 3 support.
To buff the gateway units back you have to do two things. Firstly, move the warp gate research to either twilight or templar archives tech, so that early game warp gate all-ins aren't as powerful. Secondly, make warp gates more expensive to use, or give it more cooldown, so that protoss needs to pay the price for having the instant reinforcement.
On December 18 2014 15:03 insitelol wrote: I don't like a thing about Lotv... Call me paranoid, but i think this all is entirely a wrong direction. Game already has shitloads of units and strategies that leads to randomness and unconsistency. But looks like blizzard is ok with that, as all they seem to care about is crowd reactions like "omg mine shoot all the probes/mutas/banes etc". All these new units (and Hots units like oracle and viper) remind me of some mediocre moba. BUT THIS IS RTS. Stop adding niche units with fancy micro mechanics!! They should remove units from the game, not add them. In Lotv each race will have like 15-16 playable units wtf?!! Is this Total Annihilation? Or starcraft?
I agree with you. But terrans are still using MMM so it doesn't really matter if there are 100 units.
Actually is you compare to bw, Protoss did not get much more units. Sentry from gate. Tempest from stargate and immortal from robo. Arbitar = mothership(less effective spells). And lost of Dark Archon.
Zerg only got roach, bane, viper infestors. Lost lurker, defiler and scourge.
Terran got hellbat, Thor, reaper. Lost medic although it's function is greatly improved by medivac.
Worrying that Herc purpose overlaps with Hellbat and then changing the Herc's tech level to Armory feels contradictory.
Secondly, I feel that Armory is too far along the tech tree for a Barracks unit such as the Herc. Even the Ghost would be easier to create than Herc due to the fact that you don't need a Factory to create a Ghost Academy, only a Barracks is required.
I suggest changing the Herc's tech requirement to either Factory, or Engineering Bay.
On December 18 2014 07:33 Whitewing wrote: Blizzard is going about this expansion thing the wrong way. Rather than reducing the minerals in each patch, they should be reducing the amount of patches at each base, meaning saturation is fewer workers. This encourages more expanding to take advantage of the extra supply: suddenly you can make use of 4 or 5 bases simultaneously rather than just holding extra for when you run out in your other bases. The current form simply punishes players for not expanding, rather than rewarding them for doing so.
It also unnecessarily punishes players for falling behind. Come-backs become much harder when you can't build up for a while, try to take favorable engagements, and slowly expand. You run out of money before you can rebuild now, meaning one fight is more likely than ever to kill you. Reducing mineral patches will reduce income rates overall at the start of the game and will encourage more, but smaller, engagements and make deathballing harder and maxing out slower. The current system they are using will just make the game even more of a one and done.
I agree with these points. Though, the gas would still need to be lowered or tweaked to fit with the less mineral patches. I remember a mod that went with one high-yield vespene geyser and less mineral patches. Not sure how it played out.
Agreed, a single high yield geyser per base would likely be fine. The main concern with that is rebalancing, which is likely why blizzard is avoiding doing it. Reducing income rates across the board would have interesting effects on balance, but there's no better time to try it.
Also: I want to point out: starting at 12 workers is a direct nerf to Protoss. Protoss typically has it's first chronoboost at 11 supply, which lets them get slightly ahead on workers. Now, they start at 12 with no chrono at the same time the opponent has 12, which is a nerf. In addition, Protoss is the most dependent on gas of all races, and the least dependent on minerals. This is a boost, relatively speaking, to the other races against Protoss.
You could also argue it's a nerf to Zerg based on larvae typically putting Z at 12 workers before other races. Sounds like T benefits most.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This is interesting idea. May be have the minerals change colors when they change yields.
What do the economy gurus here think about this?
It's a copy / pasted solution from the other economic discussion thread, been discussed quite a bit. Wouldn't need any change in color as there's already visual cues for mineral patches at 0-499, 500-999, and 1,000-1,500 in the current state of the game.
Protoss still gets it worse than zerg. Zerg loses out on a larva, but Protoss loses out on around 50 chronoboost energy. Zerg is also slightly more mineral reliant early than Toss is. Still, you are correct that Terran wins out in spades.
The mineral rate decreasing thing is interesting, but ultimately doesn't solve the primary problem, which is that you don't want to saturate more than 3 bases at a time because of the supply sink. It would not be as effective at encouraging expanding as 6 mineral patches and one rich geyser per base would be.
Hey here's an idea, lets wait till the game comes out before we start complaining, what do ya say folks.
And also it is pointless to be doing balance changes when there is no balance testing outside of ... I dunno blizzcon games and I guess top secret confidential classified pro gamer meet ups playing LotV alpha in Blizzard's private sector.
EDIT :
I wish they would release replays / more data about how balance testing is done with David Kim and others in the ' balance team ' ect....I mean there has to be replays of them playing in order to figure out the game, right? Or do they only use pro gamers data, if that is true then I am so confused...
On December 18 2014 18:02 GGzerG wrote: Hey here's an idea, lets wait till the game comes out before we start complaining, what do ya say folks.
And also it is pointless to be doing balance changes when there is no balance testing outside of ... I dunno blizzcon games and I guess top secret confidential classified pro gamer meet ups playing LotV alpha in Blizzard's private sector.
EDIT :
I wish they would release replays / more data about how balance testing is done with David Kim and others in the ' balance team ' ect....I mean there has to be replays of them playing in order to figure out the game, right? Or do they only use pro gamers data, if that is true then I am so confused...
Any big changes has to be done now before we're in beta, they won't make sweeping economic changes in the beta to mineral patches, etc.
I was really looking for a part of this article where there will talk about what there plan to do about microtransaction. I hope that this update is not just a way to make us forget about that.
I think it means that the HERC will not be a good unit for simply massing and A-moving. I don't think they're saying that it's going to be shit, just that you won't be massing it like you would marines or tanks.
I get the feeling that LotV is going to be quite boring. They are doing the same mistake they made with WoL and HotS. They come up with crazy, fun ideas at first (to creat a hype train and sell the game probably) and then they ruin everything by scraping the craziest ideas and keeping the boring ones. People remember a game for the crazy things you can do when playing it, in ten years from now no one will say "remember this time when blizzard split apart the mech and air upgrades ? xDDD Damn I wish today's game devs could take such crazy decisions !".
On December 18 2014 15:03 insitelol wrote: I don't like a thing about Lotv... Call me paranoid, but i think this all is entirely a wrong direction. Game already has shitloads of units and strategies that leads to randomness and unconsistency. But looks like blizzard is ok with that, as all they seem to care about is crowd reactions like "omg mine shoot all the probes/mutas/banes etc". All these new units (and Hots units like oracle and viper) remind me of some mediocre moba. BUT THIS IS RTS. Stop adding niche units with fancy micro mechanics!! They should remove units from the game, not add them. In Lotv each race will have like 15-16 playable units wtf?!! Is this Total Annihilation? Or starcraft?
I agree the number of units seems really high and their obsession with MOBA-like abilities for every unit bothers me.
I wish blizzard would stop give each and every unit a spell or an ability. Just make units with different speed, attack range, damage, armor value ... and there you have it. A great game. I don't want to play starcraft-moba-of-legend.
On December 18 2014 18:51 aXa wrote: I wish blizzard would stop give each and every unit a spell or an ability. Just make units with different speed, attack range, damage, armor value ... and there you have it. A great game. I don't want to play starcraft-moba-of-legend.
different cost and production time too, I totally agree there
Holy cow they think the new protoss unit should be a slow harasser (lolwut) that is not effective for the cost and becomes invulnerable while it does harass... Seems doable and the kinda unit everyone will love.
Resource changes First, we’d like to give an update on the resource changes we showed at Blizzcon. In that build, resources were reduced to 70% of what they currently are in Heart of the Swarm. From our playtesting, we really liked that this set-up encouraged players to move out more and take expansions more aggressively which led to action packed games. One element we were still concerned about was the potential diminished importance of harassment since workers were being transferred much earlier. Since Blizzcon, we’ve looked at changes that keep the positive aspect of encouraging players to take more bases, while still providing incentives to harass bases in various locations. The change we are currently testing is as follows:
Half of the mineral patches have 1500 (same as HotS), and the other half has 750. Gas is at 75% of total. The main things we like with this change so far are:
Players are still encouraged to move out and take bases aggressively. There are still reasons to harass most of the bases since they remain operational at half efficiency. Macro on bases and transferring workers throughout the game becomes more meaningful and more rewarding to players who do this better. We currently feel like this solution help resolve the main negative side of the change we proposed at Blizzcon, but we’ve only been testing this for a few weeks, so we can’t say with 100% certainty. We’d definitely like to hear your thoughts in this area.
It's mostly nonsense. They're mixing up "encouraged to" and "forced to". There should be incentives to expand, that's interesting and allows players with good positioning and game sense to get an advantage out of it. But players should not be forced to expand everywhere because their resources are just running out.
I love the scrappy feel the new minerals will give, it's the struggle for resources. They now tell players in a more 'mild' manner, you will need to expand soon, instead of the hard cap with same minerals on each patch. Terran will also not screw themselves over with the MULE, since you now have dedicated MULE patches.
On December 18 2014 19:09 Salteador Neo wrote: Holy cow they think the new protoss unit should be a slow harasser (lolwut) that is not effective for the cost and becomes invulnerable while it does harass... Seems doable and the kinda unit everyone will love.
Everything else is fine I guess.
It sounds almost exactly like the disruptor, just on a different tier. The imagination at their design department must be completely drained or something; I mean, they've been working on the Protoss campaign for quite some time now, surely there must be more unit concepts in there they could convert to multiplayer other than something phasing in and out and is another damn harasser?
Neat changes, especially the economy one. It basically give you time to expand while you're at full economy on one base (16 workers on minerals), then you've to transfer half of them remaining at 8 workers in the main base and 16 on the natural, then again, 8 - 8 - 16 and so on. I think it will promote towards more natural expansion patterns but at the same time it will descourage excessive turtling.
I will discuss only the changes I don't agree with:
MSC
No, thanks. Instead on get the easy-way and drop again a one-click ability to help protoss players defend, why don't you try to resolve the problem at its roots? It would benefit the entire protoss race.
Aside of just removing it, why don't you return to the first design of the MSC? Remember way back in the HotS beta when that thing was an extention of a nexus? That was freaking cool, it was way better designed than this slow and useless or broken ball. I will refresh your memory:
- The MSC was attached to a nexus, you had ana ability to transfer it from a nexus to another one - The nexus cannon was possible to use only on the nexus with the MSC on it and if you had a cannon activated your MSC was in a sort of "stasis", so you hadn't the ability to use two nexus cannons at the same time. - The MSC had the ability to recall the units on the nexus, from distance, that was really cool because you had the opportunity to get aggressive with a bunch of fast units (blink stalkers uh?) and save them all recalling into a nexus, you could have done multi pronged attacks with two groups of blink stalkers, like blink on the main of your opponent, drag attention, attack with another group and teleport at home the first group. That was cool, not the current one that promotes a deathball play or an allin-ish play because the MSC is just too slow. - The energy refill ability, I really don't get why they removed it after a couple of weeks. That was so cool, you could've used to the nexus to have more chronoboost, to a sentry to have more forcefields, to a templar to have a fast psi-storm, but it was just one, not an AoE refill, it costed MSC's energy (so no nexus cannon, nor recall) and you had to be near to the MSC (so to a nexus) to use it.
I still think that the first design was way better than the actual one, they felt that it wasn't like a unit because was attached to the nexus, and this is one of the worst motivations that I've ever read from Blizz.
New Toss Unit
So basically you want to add the disruptor to the protoss arsenal, ok, and then you want to add a mini-disruptor? Why?
Instead of giving another harass-unit that will develop into stupid one base proxy or something like that, design a reliable, core unit for the protoss army that isn't high-tier/high-cost and could lead to a more skirmish-play from the protoss players. I got really tired to be unable to fight basic T/Z compositions until I don't have AoE, even a bunch of speedlings can contain a protoss on two bases.. that's really unenjoyable.
In those developer updates and at the Blizzcon panel, they focused down on key problems of the protoss race. They feel that the forcefields are a problem and so they designed more and more counters to them and that's fine, then they nerfed the warpins, and you know I'm still fine with that.. but they gave nothing to early game protoss units in compensation. So basically in an expansion that will lead towards a more spreaded and skirmished play protoss players will be even more weak into the early-mid game and what the new protoss unit is?
A big ball that deals big splash damage and require t3 infrastructures and costs 300 gas..
I'm not upset about the unit, I've used it in the Alpha mod and is great.. it is really fun, maybe a little too powerful, but I like the high-risk high-reward thing. Still I don't get why we've still sentries and Colossi if forcefields will be countered hard and colossi will be nerfed to the ground (or we will still use them, or into a more correct way, we will still be forced to use them). Every aspect of the protoss race that is pointed out from the community as bullshit from the SC2 beta will be addressed in LotV, but why don't Blizzard want to get cocky and redesign it from scratch, remove the colossus, remove the sentry.. let's redesign gateway tech and robo tech in order to make them more fun and less gimmicky deathball or allin centric. You added back the Lurker? Fuck, give back the Reaver! Is it slow as fuck and you think that it won't be good without micro? That's what a unit with so much AoE should be, easy to pickoff but devastating if used well (and with skill). Fuck the sentry and give a microable gateway unit that will stand against basic T/Z compositions. It is too strong with Warp Gate? Fuck warpgate, let this unit be built only from gateways
Blizzard has the tools to change a lot, they're just too scared. Go totally insane with the changes, you're in pre-Alpha, if you aren't insane now you won't be ever.
On December 18 2014 18:51 aXa wrote: I wish blizzard would stop give each and every unit a spell or an ability. Just make units with different speed, attack range, damage, armor value ... and there you have it. A great game. I don't want to play starcraft-moba-of-legend.
On December 18 2014 18:51 aXa wrote: I wish blizzard would stop give each and every unit a spell or an ability. Just make units with different speed, attack range, damage, armor value ... and there you have it. A great game. I don't want to play starcraft-moba-of-legend.
On December 18 2014 19:50 KelvaroN wrote: Just a thought, but... BRING BACK THE REAVER!! :D *BBBBOOOOMMM!!!*
Edit: someone already mentioned it, sorry!
Not someone, but everyone, for thousand times. :D
But to be honest, Disruptor is pretty fun and good unit that requires quite a bit of skill to use and is really close to Reaver when used with Warp Prism. It is more like an Scarab from Reaver, but it still has the same effect.
On December 18 2014 11:05 Big J wrote: Protoss Gateway unit idea, lorewise it is Nerazim
*insert Protoss name* *some Ninja skin with some Psi-Shuriken or similar* Cost 75/75/2 80HP/20Shield/0armor, light, biological Attack: Damage 15(+2), Cooldown: 1.5 Attack range 5, ground only speed: 3.0 (like a speed roach) size: like a zealot drop-size: 2
Auto-Cast ability, 6second cooldown: When attacking, the *Ninja Super Trooper* immidiately performs a second attack. tech requirement: twilight council
Stats Analysis: good damage output: 13.75 dps, good burst (due to the double attack at the beginning of a combat), good upgrading can't take many hits, so it has bad tanking for the Colossus mediocre range, so only zealots and archons can tank reasonably for it quite mobile, so it can roam the map a lot does not go well with usual deathball units like stalkers and Colossi due to standing in front of the stalkers
Strategically: The unit does synergize very well with zealots and can kill enemy workers and stray units very fast. The high-burst damage (30 on the first shot) makes it very good in the midnumbers against Terran bio units, because the bio-units can get bursted down before the medivac-heal takes full effect. From a cost-balance point of view, the unit cannot be massed on its own in early rushes, because of the high gas:mineral ratio. It's weakness are faster units such as zerglings or hellions that can close the distance and force it into combat, however, due to the high damage output they can still take a good amount of enemies with them into the grave. It should offer Protoss players an alternative ranged combat and harassment unit to the stalker, with a very contrasting approach in gameplay.
Tactically: The unit can be microed against very well due to the 5range and sniped very fast. However, with a reasonable zealot buffer the unit can dish out its high burst damage and then use its high speed to fall back until more zealots arrive. While it doesn't quite bring the same longterm damage output onto the battlefield as marines or hydralisks, the high burst damage allows it to quickly overwhelm enemy forces to fight another day.
On December 18 2014 04:06 EatThePath wrote: Why do I get the impression whenever I read these that the sc2 design team has no idea what it's doing.
Exactly. It feels like they're just doing some random stuff and hope that eventually something will work out. Then again, the lack of any other competitive RTS videogame suggests that this genre is really, really difficult.
On December 18 2014 11:05 Big J wrote: Protoss Gateway unit idea, lorewise it is Nerazim
*insert Protoss name* *some Ninja skin with some Psi-Shuriken or similar* Cost 75/75/2 80HP/20Shield/0armor, light, biological Attack: Damage 15(+2), Cooldown: 1.5 Attack range 5, ground only speed: 3.0 (like a speed roach) size: like a zealot drop-size: 2
Auto-Cast ability, 6second cooldown: When attacking, the *Ninja Super Trooper* immidiately performs a second attack. tech requirement: twilight council
Stats Analysis: good damage output: 13.75 dps, good burst (due to the double attack at the beginning of a combat), good upgrading can't take many hits, so it has bad tanking for the Colossus mediocre range, so only zealots and archons can tank reasonably for it quite mobile, so it can roam the map a lot does not go well with usual deathball units like stalkers and Colossi due to standing in front of the stalkers
Strategically: The unit does synergize very well with zealots and can kill enemy workers and stray units very fast. The high-burst damage (30 on the first shot) makes it very good in the midnumbers against Terran bio units, because the bio-units can get bursted down before the medivac-heal takes full effect. From a cost-balance point of view, the unit cannot be massed on its own in early rushes, because of the high gas:mineral ratio. It's weakness are faster units such as zerglings or hellions that can close the distance and force it into combat, however, due to the high damage output they can still take a good amount of enemies with them into the grave. It should offer Protoss players an alternative ranged combat and harassment unit to the stalker, with a very contrasting approach in gameplay.
Tactically: The unit can be microed against very well due to the 5range and sniped very fast. However, with a reasonable zealot buffer the unit can dish out its high burst damage and then use its high speed to fall back until more zealots arrive. While it doesn't quite bring the same longterm damage output onto the battlefield as marines or hydralisks, the high burst damage allows it to quickly overwhelm enemy forces to fight another day.
Different mineral patches is a good idea, forces players to spread out to more bases faster but also actually have more operational bases which just depleting every patch doesn't really do.
Terran changes I don't know. Splitting air upgrades is good I think, as it creates more options, now it's just mech+air or bio and more mixes should be potentially viable. Just make it cheap enough. Herc and cyclone unit still feel a bit overlapping and a bit mediocre.
Zerg looks very cool so far, love the roach upgrade and the lurker is awesome. Some other changes like removing ultralisk upgrade, tweaking infestor more all look good.
Protoss changes seem very lackluster so far. New unit feels kinda stupid and that's about it. Some new options definately needed here.
Seems nice, except the PO shooting air again kills Banshees openings and also enough with the Protoss harass options. The last thing they need is another opening that can kill the game if not scouted in time.
I'm not really persuaded by the mineral patch idea. With a typical upper limit of about 70 active workers, once you've gone to the trouble of securing a base with 8 patches, and if it's a major increase in the risk of taking harass damage to spread your workers over more bases, then you can just transfer all workers from a partially mining base to a fully mining base. At least until you're out of bases to expand to, the change doesn't negate the basic problem that there is no marginal advantage from having more than three actively mining bases.
On December 18 2014 20:54 AmericanUmlaut wrote: I'm not really persuaded by the mineral patch idea. With a typical upper limit of about 70 active workers, once you've gone to the trouble of securing a base with 8 patches, and if it's a major increase in the risk of taking harass damage to spread your workers over more bases, then you can just transfer all workers from a partially mining base to a fully mining base. At least until you're out of bases to expand to, the change doesn't negate the basic problem that there is no marginal advantage from having more than three actively mining bases.
It will create more scenarios where players don't get to the 3 base economy so easily. Once you've gotten a lockdown on even 4 base, your main is mined out and your natural is on half the patches. I find this change damn sexy! and minerals gone overall means less big balls of doom.
Soooooo hard to say if i like these changes without playing games with them. Gimme Alpha, and then i'll play test. Then i can say if i like each one of these.
I don't know what people are thinking when they're disliking the worker count. That shit can only be good for the playability of the game. It puts the game at a stage where you directly have to make a decision most of the time, this is good. What are people afraid of? No early Tastosis banter early game? The number of interesting builds who rely on a earlier worker count are not worth keeping the game super slow to start for all the other builds. One thing that it won't do is kill cheese. It will just spawn other cheese or proxy builds. No 6pool though. Are we really going to miss that?
Reduce mineral count to 7 per base. Initial worker count to 10. Increase slightly the worker speed/mining time in order to change mining efficiency?
Redesign mothership core completely. Horrible design for interesting gameplay IMO. Even take it away along with the sentry and give protoss another unit so that they have a decent army out of gateways and not have to rely on forcefields.
Maybe give a modified version of the cyclone to Protoss? And take it away from Terran. I don't like the Herc change at all... Knock back? What's next? Stun? Really...
Maybe it would be a great idea for Protoss to get a ranged (only vs ground?), light unit from the gateway and then make Stalker a little bit more expensive but also make it do full damage vs everything instead of only vs armored. This unit could shoot while moving in order to chase bio or something (without additional damage vs light). Stalker could even require Twilight Council tech if the other unit was well designed. And make force-field targetable (or however its written).
I was thinking also about a unit that could climb up cliffs, but not down (harassing option for the zerg maybe?), but I'm not sure if it would fit in any race right now. Perhaps an upgrade or ability for the Ravager. (Sacrifice them in order to snipe some workers or something).
Armory upgrade for reactored tech lab? (Then you have to upgrade them manually so they cost the same coming from reactor or tech lab)
Make Xel'Naga towers destructible too.
Make overseers poop larva for the same cost of changelings.
Protoss gateways produce faster than its warpgate counterpart.
Reduce viking transformation timings in order to allow for more harassing options.
I don't know the current state of the siege tank drop mechanics, but it should be able to be picked when in siege mode but be in unsiege mode when dropped (have an animation on the medivac so you can't insta drop them).
Maybe make lair and hive produce larva faster or allow for 2 queen production at the same time. It could even be an upgrade.
And please don't put in any units which gain invulnerability...
Please Blizzard, test crazy ideas now that not even the beta is out...
I'd have liked to have some update on Warpgate by the way. I don't really like the way they're doing it ; instead of making defensive warp-ins (which are needed) quite useless, why don't they try to give us any incentive to use gateways or only weaken offensive warp-ins ? With the greater need to expand quickly, I fear that with such a heavy WG nerf P will be in trouble while you'll still have to use warpgates because they have faster cycles. That doesn't seem to be the right way to deal with the issue -if there is any.
On December 18 2014 04:06 EatThePath wrote: Why do I get the impression whenever I read these that the sc2 design team has no idea what it's doing.
Exactly. It feels like they're just doing some random stuff and hope that eventually something will work out. Then again, the lack of any other competitive RTS videogame suggests that this genre is really, really difficult.
Rather that you dont like these design changes (another hardcounter unit etc), that why you think they have no clue about it.
I highly dislike their complete sc2 design. I dont care about balance if there are too many NoFun and trash units, to many units with almost no micro potential. Many units with bad interaction etc.
On December 18 2014 22:12 Flood1993 wrote: Please Blizzard, test crazy ideas now that not even the beta is out...
They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
It’s really not possible to definitively say how good or bad a change is until we’ve had a lot of playtesting. Recently we’ve seen some feedback and discussion turn into definitive conclusions on certain subjects, many of which differ from what we’re seeing in our internal playtesting. We’d like to make sure that everyone understands that nothing is final, and while the discussion on these changes is helpful, there’s no need to overreact to any of these changes we’ve previewed so far. There will be a time for everyone to test these changes personally and see how they play out. We’d really love to heavily test various, sometimes more extreme, ideas during the upcoming Beta.
im ok with nerfs to protoss. Sure WG will hurt a lot , however since we can assume that blizzard wont ignore the problems of a certain race in the final expansio, im positive we will gain things to compensate and help us defend. In the end i hope theu make more "silly" changes that lead to fixes in the end.
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
I'm cautiously optimistic, so far they already seem to be willing to make more big changes than in HotS.
On December 18 2014 04:06 EatThePath wrote: Why do I get the impression whenever I read these that the sc2 design team has no idea what it's doing.
Exactly. It feels like they're just doing some random stuff and hope that eventually something will work out.
its not random, its taking a strong turn towards a C&C style RTS. the 1st 3 minutes of a game of RA2 is a lot more fun than the first 3 minutes of an SC2 game. guess who was the lead designer or RA2? Dustin Browder.
tim morton, greg black, jason bender, dustin browder.... it seems like 1/2 the SC2 team is ex-C&C guys.
Rob Pardo is gone and now many of the fundamentals he based SC2 on are finally being abandoned. That's what is going on and it is not random at all.
On December 18 2014 20:22 RHoudini wrote: Then again, the lack of any other competitive RTS videogame suggests that this genre is really, really difficult.
good point. and i'd say impossible to gain mass appeal if "mass appeal" is someone's defintion of success that is.
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
Well HotS is amazing a lot better than WoL, and LotV will be amazing-er.
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
Well HotS is amazing a lot better than WoL, and LotV will be amazing-er.
Meh, WoL felt like a finished game with issues. HotS feels like it was abbandoned half-way through it's development. Apart from balancing TvZ (which didn't need an expansion but a patch) and turning PvZ and PvP into better matchups, HotS hasn't done much good. TvT is slightly worse, TvP and ZvZ are just worse and feel like dumbed-down versions of their WoL-selves to me.
On December 18 2014 09:32 H0i wrote: Protoss doesn't need another "uncommon" unit - It needs a new gateway unit, a solid one that is versatile to make the protoss army more effective in small groups instead of just deathballs. A unit that deals well with big masses of units like MM balls and clumps of lings, without being some tier 3 very expensive very big very clunky unit. This would automatically reduce the deathball effect and improve the ability to defend spread out bases. Pretty much a win win. But how would such a unit look like? That's another story.
Can't help but feel that it's a linchpin to the entire deathball dynamic for SC2 since this is it. Must think hard I suppose.
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
Well HotS is amazing a lot better than WoL, and LotV will be amazing-er.
WoL's balance was off 75% of the time but the core concepts were superior.
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
Well HotS is amazing a lot better than WoL, and LotV will be amazing-er.
WoL's balance was off 75% of the time but the core concepts were superior.
Why, I think the way the mine works is better than perfect!! It's so exciting to see whether the RNG decided Terran may win or Zerg may win! Siege Tanks were ugly and slow and stupid
On December 18 2014 23:00 ZAiNs wrote: They said before specifically that they are waiting for beta to be out before they go completely crazy with changes so that they can get proper feedback instead of speculation.
Seeing what they did with HotS I don't have too much faith really...
Well HotS is amazing a lot better than WoL, and LotV will be amazing-er.
WoL's balance was off 75% of the time but the core concepts were superior.
Why, I think the way the mine works is better than perfect!! It's so exciting to see whether the RNG decided Terran may win or Zerg may win! Siege Tanks were ugly and slow and stupid
Widow Mine is the best thing that exists in SC2. It's random and you must be so good to make it effective but anyway it can deal damage even if you are bad. It's like Reaver in BW. This game of Random and Skill makes the game beautiful. Random is highly underrated by SC2 developers. But the funny thing that it makes the game even more random or just boring.
Mines just aren't random... don't know who came up with it being random, when it is a 100% predictable behavior when you play them. Just for viewers and opponents it is not predictable, but that's the same for every unit. You never know which one of yours it is going to attack until it does.
I can only voice my support that protoss needs some core unit to make to stand its ground against Roaches, and marauders. As it is now, the Zealot / immortal and to some extent the archon - feel like the only units that cant hold their ground without a lot of support or micro
This post is great but also full of bullshit. They gave us feedback which is nice but for a lot of stuff it seems they have no clue of what they are doing !
I just don't understand blizzard's design philosophy with Protoss (honestly, i don't think they even know).
Instead of all these funky gimmicks and bandaids, why don't they just admit the mistake, nuke the sentry and colossus from the game, and return the gateway back to it's former glory. Beefy zealots and deadly dragoons. The stalker, being a pretty cool unit w/ nice micro potential, could then be pushed more into a harass type of unit, with high mobility & blink, but be squishier.
With strong gateway units, protoss doesn't need the nexus overcharge to stay safe and they have a solid core to get to high tech units without hiding behind forcefields or other boring/gimmicky tricks. This also fits into the new LOTV theme of expanding quicker, because now they have a core set of units that can be effective without all being clumped up in a deathball. Seriously, sentries and colossus require you be clumped up because they all suck on their own, but because they are such powerful units, they would be imba if gateway units were strong on their own. Hence why we have crappy gateway units.
If mid-game splash is something that would still be needed they could always look at bringing in some reincarnation of the reaver. Or perhaps redesign the immortal to be a small-radius splashy unit (tho this may have too much overlap with archon).
With colossus and sentry gone, you could fix a lot of the lame bandaids on other races too
On December 18 2014 09:32 H0i wrote: Protoss doesn't need another "uncommon" unit - It needs a new gateway unit, a solid one that is versatile to make the protoss army more effective in small groups instead of just deathballs. A unit that deals well with big masses of units like MM balls and clumps of lings, without being some tier 3 very expensive very big very clunky unit. This would automatically reduce the deathball effect and improve the ability to defend spread out bases. Pretty much a win win. But how would such a unit look like? That's another story.
Can't help but feel that it's a linchpin to the entire deathball dynamic for SC2 since this is it. Must think hard I suppose.
If only we could draw inspiration from an older RTS game of a tier 2 unit that was strong at harassment/small engagements, had efficient AoE damage, and rewarded player micro/control with the weakness of being maybe really slow and being easily picked off without appropriate support.
On December 18 2014 11:05 Big J wrote: Protoss Gateway unit idea, lorewise it is Nerazim
*insert Protoss name* *some Ninja skin with some Psi-Shuriken or similar* Cost 75/75/2 80HP/20Shield/0armor, light, biological Attack: Damage 15(+2), Cooldown: 1.5 Attack range 5, ground only speed: 3.0 (like a speed roach) size: like a zealot drop-size: 2
Auto-Cast ability, 6second cooldown: When attacking, the *Ninja Super Trooper* immidiately performs a second attack. tech requirement: twilight council
Stats Analysis: good damage output: 13.75 dps, good burst (due to the double attack at the beginning of a combat), good upgrading can't take many hits, so it has bad tanking for the Colossus mediocre range, so only zealots and archons can tank reasonably for it quite mobile, so it can roam the map a lot does not go well with usual deathball units like stalkers and Colossi due to standing in front of the stalkers
Strategically: The unit does synergize very well with zealots and can kill enemy workers and stray units very fast. The high-burst damage (30 on the first shot) makes it very good in the midnumbers against Terran bio units, because the bio-units can get bursted down before the medivac-heal takes full effect. From a cost-balance point of view, the unit cannot be massed on its own in early rushes, because of the high gas:mineral ratio. It's weakness are faster units such as zerglings or hellions that can close the distance and force it into combat, however, due to the high damage output they can still take a good amount of enemies with them into the grave. It should offer Protoss players an alternative ranged combat and harassment unit to the stalker, with a very contrasting approach in gameplay.
Tactically: The unit can be microed against very well due to the 5range and sniped very fast. However, with a reasonable zealot buffer the unit can dish out its high burst damage and then use its high speed to fall back until more zealots arrive. While it doesn't quite bring the same longterm damage output onto the battlefield as marines or hydralisks, the high burst damage allows it to quickly overwhelm enemy forces to fight another day.
Thumbs up!
Exactly this. Since the HotS beta I feel Protoss needs a new core unit that actually helps battle speedlings/roaches/bio in the early to mid game, cost by cost. A mobile one too, because Protoss moves fucking slow right now.
Please remove the HERC... How are you to ever achieve balance when you clearly want to give 1 race an advantage over another?
As far as i'm concerned, Terran already has an advantage over ling/bane...
The viper change is another that I also disagree with. I think the best thing to do is what quite a few people have already said, and just add the Scourge! Or they could always just tweak the stats on the corruptor. I guess it all depends on how well the viper ability will work in game, but from what I have just read it seems like a bad idea.
I really hope they decide to add a new gateway unit to the game. Protoss doesn't need another trash unit that gets smashed by every other races tier 1. I way always under the assumption that protoss was supposed to be the race with the strongest units, which is why they are expensive.
I don't understand the point of that protoss unit. ANOTHER harass unit? Right now the problem with gateway armies is that they are easily kited (zealots) and/or don't deal enough damage (stalkers, and zealots don't scale well).
I think what protoss needs is something to help zealot/archon or twilight comps. Robotics is getting a new unit, stargate is getting huge upgrades, but nothing is being done with templar tech. Gateway armies are just going to look even worse in LOTV and they're already pretty bad.
There's no other way to say it: protoss needs the dark archon. A nerfed maelstrom that functions as an AOE movement and attack speed slow would be a huge help to zealots, and it would put the hurt on those cheesy/infuriating muta floods. Twilight armies also need some way to deal with hellbats and widow mines. To round out its abilities, the dark archon ought to have some form of detection, and a nuke like yamato cannon to snipe key units. I imagine that would make zealot/archon more viable in PvP as well if you could take out a colossus with a couple dark archon spells (200 damage each maybe?). Besides, an archon with a kamehameha spell just seems fucking awesome.
On December 19 2014 01:19 BaronVonOwn wrote: I don't understand the point of that protoss unit. ANOTHER harass unit? Right now the problem with gateway armies is that they are easily kited (zealots) and/or don't deal enough damage (stalkers, and zealots don't scale well).
I think what protoss needs is something to help zealot/archon or twilight comps. Robotics is getting a new unit, stargate is getting huge upgrades, but nothing is being done with templar tech. Gateway armies are just going to look even worse in LOTV and they're already pretty bad.
There's no other way to say it: protoss needs the dark archon. A nerfed maelstrom that functions as an AOE movement and attack speed slow would be a huge help to zealots, and it would put the hurt on those cheesy/infuriating muta floods. Twilight armies also need some way to deal with hellbats and widow mines. To round out its abilities, the dark archon ought to have some form of detection, and a nuke like yamato cannon to snipe key units. I imagine that would make zealot/archon more viable in PvP as well if you could take out a colossus with a couple dark archon spells (200 damage each maybe?). Besides, an archon with a kamehameha spell just seems fucking awesome.
I've wanted my Brood War cracklings back for so long. That upgrade used to have devastating consequences, and in its current form I don't even notice it. I really hope they choose to increase zergling attack speed as a late-game upgrade rather than add a new infestor ability to accomplish the same goal.
What protoss needs is not another spellcaster but a core unit with micro potential. Thats why i would love to see existing units tweaked for all races to fix the micro vs micro overall. The depth would increase alot by doing that.
I liked big J unit idea. A core unit that is good in combat mostly, functions well with zealots and other units. The burst it has is good vs medivac healing and roach regenerate. Perfect opportunity to improve the micro potential for the roach with this kind of burst unit.
When i make my units i wanna feel that iam in control of what i do. Should give me a good feel and those units should be able to do stuff. If its necessary to build Vikings to deal with warpprism harass->Its lame and boring. I would like it to be available to deal with prism harass with my ground units, the core units.
The new mech unit for example needs to be atleast decent with harass and good in combat. There is no way it would be fun if a unit all can do is harass and not fight. When i look at stalker against terran i see this unit that doesnt rly fight the bio force but purely attacks medivacs or vikings. It becomes dull quite fast.
On December 19 2014 01:19 BaronVonOwn wrote: I think what protoss needs is something to help zealot/archon or twilight comps. Robotics is getting a new unit, stargate is getting huge upgrades, but nothing is being done with templar tech. Gateway armies are just going to look even worse in LOTV and they're already pretty bad.
While I would love to see a Dark Archon or just a new beefy gateway unit, I think a lot of the problems with protoss gateway units can be solved through small changes. BW style zealot leg speed for instance. If the zealots move as fast as stimmed bio does then they could be effectively split from widow mine shots and just have a much higher micro potential in general. Another idea which also comes from the best RTS, would be to remove the dark shrine, and allow dts to be built by having a templar archives. I think these two things alone would push protoss in the right direction without tweaking any stats to the current units.
For the new protoss unit, perhaps something similar to the hellion / hellbat, where you can constantly activate or deactivate something which makes the unit more powerful but slower? You can't really dynamically use the hellion phase change because of the animation delay, but for this new unit it could be instant. Or perhaps as an ability which activates for 10s with a 30s cooldown.
On December 19 2014 01:19 BaronVonOwn wrote: I think what protoss needs is something to help zealot/archon or twilight comps. Robotics is getting a new unit, stargate is getting huge upgrades, but nothing is being done with templar tech. Gateway armies are just going to look even worse in LOTV and they're already pretty bad.
While I would love to see a Dark Archon or just a new beefy gateway unit, I think a lot of the problems with protoss gateway units can be solved through small changes. BW style zealot leg speed for instance. If the zealots move as fast as stimmed bio does then they could be effectively split from widow mine shots and just have a much higher micro potential in general. Another idea which also comes from the best RTS, would be to remove the dark shrine, and allow dts to be built by having a templar archives. I think these two things alone would push protoss in the right direction without tweaking any stats to the current units.
I posted this in the Balance Discussion Thread yesterday, but it might also apply in this thread:
On December 18 2014 03:40 SC2Toastie wrote: SSL SPOILERS ! ! ! ! !
So, I have a minor complaint on how TvP lategame works out ^_^ This is a result of watching the series in SSL today.
The problem is with the Zealot. More specifically, the low amounts of attention the Zealot needs compared to the countermicro that is required from Terran, but also the lack of micro that can be spend on Zealots.
It is very visible in SSL Game 3 between Classic and Cure, where Classic made a ton of Zealots, Cure kills the collosi and kites the Zealots until they pretty much all die. There is nothing Classic can do in such a situation; either he retreats and loses units to Concussive Shells, or he moves on and tries to equalize the damage he takes by sniping Medivacs and Vikings with his Stalkers. Whilst he proceeds to win the game, I noticed this stupid situation in the game.
In Game 5 the exact opposite happens. Classic shows and excellent understanding of the matchup and abuses the excessive amounts of micro and attention Terran needs to spend on units to trade efficiently for 10 minutes. Charge Zealots have such a good AI, speed and strenght they trade really efficiently with Terran bio. As a rule of thumb, bio needs to be in about 1.5x the supply for Terran to only Stim and trade well. If Terran has less supply at location, he'll have to kite to ensure a decent trade. Now, this is a stupid situation as it's either... or .... Terran either loses a marauder for 4 Zealots, or he loses 3 marauders and 4 marines for 4 zealots. The only difference is whether the Terran player can spend the time on handling the engagement.
Now, Classic abuses this 'imbalance' in attention required. On King Sejong Station, he greatly abuses the AI on Zealots by repeating the same pattern over and over and over. A) he moves a force of approx. 6 Zealots to Cure's natural or fifth expansion. B) he moves his army towards Cures fifth base and C) he does some move with a pair of High Templar. The problem lies in the fact that each and every of these moves is a simple move command for Classic whilst looking at the High Templar to aim his storms and the minimap to retreat his main army. For Cure, however, this means extremely careful micro in 3 locations. Verse the Zealots, he needs to scramble an army at location, either position it in a tight choke (TIGHT!, thanks to Charge) or kite. He meanwhile needs to perfectly position his main army so his Ghost and Vikings zone out Classics main army, AND he has to be watching the minimap to respond within a second to minimize the damage the HT are going to do.
Classic won this game five after being behind by messing up an engagement and macro-ing like a silver leaguer only by repeating this pattern.
I have thought of two possible solutions for this. A: change Warpgate. Won't happen, so I'll ignore that. The second one is to change the Charge upgrade to increase movement speed and possibly decrease the effect of movement restricting spells like Concussive Shells, Fungal Growth and Time Warp (either by 100% or by a lower percentage) and remove the actual Charge. Note, this is not necessarily a nerf. Zealots move faster across the map and they will become substantially better when micro'd compared to the current situation in which micro usually decreases their effectiveness compared to a simple amove.
This change completely changes the Zealot verse kiting bio scenario. Currently, Zealots sort of 'shuffle' when being kited: the Zealots in the back Charge, get a free hit on the bio, and are now in front. Combined with Concussive Shells, this perfectly distributes damage across all Zealots that are following the Bio army, forcing Terran to kite continuously until most zealots are dead. This is because a 10 HP Zealot still deals the same amount of damage a 150 HP Zealot deals. Protoss, on the other hand, cannot really do anything. Retreating means just losing some Zealots. Good bio players will abuse this majorly. I think this interaction might be a part in why Protoss needs to have it's long range AOE: it covers the Zealots and removes the scenario of Terran continuously poking the Protoss army with impunity (See for an example of this Maru in Proleague earlier this year - his relentless pokes essentially force Protoss to take a late third because without a good number of Collosi, Maru kites the army back and forth until there is simply nothing left). Now, with this change in effect, Protoss first of all gets the flexibility to disengage from Terran without taking major losses. This decreases the snowballing effect where Protoss is really never allowed to disengage (one of the reasons we have Recall in it's current form). Protoss harassment will also cost more attention. Without Charge, Zealots won't get free hits in and Terran has an easier time abusing Terrain against Protoss.
As a first noteworthy side effect, this change may help the beloved Templar openings. The aforementioned problem of Terran poking and kiting until there is nothing left to shoot at is greatly reduced by this, because the reliance on long range damage (Psionic Storm) is reduced and can to some extend be compensated for by Photon Overcharge and Immortals when defending to get the Templar transition done. It also helps with suiciding Zealots into the Bio Ball to drag Mines, as Marauders won't stop them dead in their tracks.
For other matchups, in PvP I cannot estimate the effects. On one hand, Zealots will move faster through Time Warp, but they will usually be more clumped up against Archons, unless split up ahead of time. The initial clash of Zealots into army will occur a second later because the armies do not activate Charge. This may have as a result that heavy Zealot armies get somewhat less popular. On the other hand, in extended engagements and for flanking, Zealots will be better.
I don't expect big effects for PvZ. Charge Zealots are not a popular go-to for the main army. They may see a slight increase in utility as they are no longer pinned by Fungal Growth. They will also be faster when Protoss wants to dump Zealots into spread out Zerg bases and they may be stronger against a Swarm Host Zerg (when well microed). Zerg, on the other hand, should have an easier time defending against them as they no longer automatically shuffle the high health Zealots forwards.
I'm interesting in hearing other opinions on the matter. I want to emphasize again: Zealot Charge upgrade is changed to Zealot Leg Enhancement, which increases Movement Speed and gives a resistance to spells that effect movement. This is not a buff, nor a nerf, it's a change.
Have a good day, Toastie
TLDR: Zealot Charge changed to a new upgrade than increases movement speed and gives a resistance to movement reduction (Concussive Shells, Fungal etc). Pro: Zealots are more microable, Protoss army can disengage better, may be a buff to Templar Openers, faster attacking at distant locations. Con: Zealots require more attention because they no longer shuffle when kited, they autosurround slower.
don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
On December 19 2014 01:40 Charoisaur wrote: don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
You should look into a career in comedy... Please go play a game right now and just 4gate a zerg. Any decent zerg player will go 15 hatch and beat it with pure lings.
Terrans don't whine about bio being weak because bio is not weak... How can you possibly argue that bio is weak when terrans can fight almost every composition with MMMM?
On December 19 2014 01:39 SC2Toastie wrote: TLDR: Zealot Charge changed to a new upgrade than increases movement speed and gives a resistance to movement reduction (Concussive Shells, Fungal etc). Pro: Zealots are more microable, Protoss army can disengage better, may be a buff to Templar Openers, faster attacking at distant locations. Con: Zealots require more attention because they no longer shuffle when kited, they autosurround slower.
I don't think BW-style leg enhancements are going to solve all the problems zealots have in SC2. Firstly I think it's unfair to just make zealots completely immune to concussive shells for the rest of the game when it's pretty clear that concussive shells are targeted against zealots in the TvP matchup. You may as well remove concussive shells from the game. Beyond that, you also have widow mines, colossus, hellbats, and balling AI (which makes ranged units more DPS efficient than melee in large armies). Pure gateway/twilight comps just have no way of dealing with any of those things.
On December 19 2014 01:40 Charoisaur wrote: don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
You should look into a career in comedy... Please go play a game right now and just 4gate a zerg. Any decent zerg player will go 15 hatch and beat it with pure lings.
Terrans don't whine about bio being weak because bio is not weak... How can you possibly argue that bio is weak when terrans can fight almost every composition with MMMM?
MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
This post is hilarious. The opening made it clear it would be full of ridiculous changes, but I was still surprised. Building Sentries from a Nexus that are forever tied to that one Nexus, really?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We’ve gone through lots of iterations on various units and abilities, and this is just a snapshot of where we are at right now.
Changes to the HERC The main things we didn’t like about the HERC were:
Too much overlap with Hellbats Grapple ability isn’t really needed for the unit to function well. Changes:
Tech level changed to Armory requirement No longer deals splash damage No longer effective for cost Grapple is to target ground When landing from grapple, knocks enemy units in that area back
One of our goals with the HERC is to help give Terran an advantage vs Zerglings and Banelings and encourage the Zerg player to tech switch. By adding a knockback to Grapple, the HERC can counter Banelings in a way that makes the ability more core. And while these changes clearly fixed the two main issues we had with the HERC, it also brings in new challenges with the unit. If Grapple is too spammable, it takes too much control away from the opponent. We’re seeing that it feels silly because players using HERCs can shut down the ability for micro on the opposing side by timing the knockbacks correctly. In general, what we want is the potential for micro on both sides, and this new HERC was going against that philosophy. Therefore, we’re currently not in a good place on the HERC, and we’re working towards a better solution.
Would be good if you tried to look at zergling/baneling/zealot here and try and imrpove those units so they can micro more? This way it could maybe work well with a pushback of herc.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
Well *my* suggestion wasn't to make mass tier 1 zealots unstoppable. I was proposing a new tier 3 templar tech unit to support zealots and stalkers. This would be the equivalent of starport tech. Just because it comes from a gateway doesn't mean you're not teching.
On December 19 2014 01:40 Charoisaur wrote: don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
You should look into a career in comedy... Please go play a game right now and just 4gate a zerg. Any decent zerg player will go 15 hatch and beat it with pure lings.
Terrans don't whine about bio being weak because bio is not weak... How can you possibly argue that bio is weak when terrans can fight almost every composition with MMMM?
MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
I agree with your point about gateway units not being weak, but they aren't costefficient in equal cost battles. And the units Protoss needs to combat costefficiently all unlock quite later than mines/hydras/mutas/medivacs etc. Which makes for unfun playstyles in which the Protoss somehow needs to rush hightech and turtle until he gets such units on the battlefield. It's not really that gateway units are weak, but there is no real midtier unit for Protoss that can sustain in a macro game. Such a midtier unit could be gateway, stargate or robo, it's not a necessity to be gateway.
On December 19 2014 01:39 SC2Toastie wrote: TLDR: Zealot Charge changed to a new upgrade than increases movement speed and gives a resistance to movement reduction (Concussive Shells, Fungal etc). Pro: Zealots are more microable, Protoss army can disengage better, may be a buff to Templar Openers, faster attacking at distant locations. Con: Zealots require more attention because they no longer shuffle when kited, they autosurround slower.
I don't think BW-style leg enhancements are going to solve all the problems zealots have in SC2. Firstly I think it's unfair to just make zealots completely immune to concussive shells for the rest of the game when it's pretty clear that concussive shells are targeted against zealots in the TvP matchup. You may as well remove concussive shells from the game. Beyond that, you also have widow mines, colossus, hellbats, and balling AI (which makes ranged units more DPS efficient than melee in large armies). Pure gateway/twilight comps just have no way of dealing with any of those things.
Yes, and there is also people that only think in hyperbole that get forum accounts. Firstly I think it's unfair to just make zealots completely immune to concussive shells for the rest of the game when it's pretty clear that concussive shells are targeted against zealots in the TvP matchup. The second statement is false and so the first statement is unexplained. You may as well remove concussive shells from the game. Concussive Shells affects more than just Zealots lol you also have widow mines Explained that in my post
colossus Mentioned
hellbats Common sense aka Archons?
balling AI (which makes ranged units more DPS efficient than melee in large armies). ?????????????
Pure gateway/twilight comps just have no way of dealing with any of those things. That's exactly why it was the preferred style in WOL AMIRITE??
The fact I included a TLDR doesn't mean you can respond like this without reading the rest.
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
This post is hilarious. The opening made it clear it would be full of ridiculous changes, but I was still surprised. Building Sentries from a Nexus that are forever tied to that one Nexus, really?
This post is hilarious. The fact is it so tiny and short means it must be full of thoughtless ramble, but I was still surprised. Replying to a FUCKING MOUNTAIN OF A POST with 2 silly sentences, really?
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
This post is hilarious. The opening made it clear it would be full of ridiculous changes, but I was still surprised. Building Sentries from a Nexus that are forever tied to that one Nexus, really?
IIRC in some of the Alpha/Beta HotS builds the MSC was tied to a Nexus, but it could warp between Nexi
On December 19 2014 01:40 Charoisaur wrote: don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
You should look into a career in comedy... Please go play a game right now and just 4gate a zerg. Any decent zerg player will go 15 hatch and beat it with pure lings.
Terrans don't whine about bio being weak because bio is not weak... How can you possibly argue that bio is weak when terrans can fight almost every composition with MMMM?
MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
I agree with your point about gateway units not being weak, but they aren't costefficient in equal cost battles. And the units Protoss needs to combat costefficiently all unlock quite later than mines/hydras/mutas/medivacs etc. Which makes for unfun playstyles in which the Protoss somehow needs to rush hightech and turtle until he gets such units on the battlefield. It's not really that gateway units are weak, but there is no real midtier unit for Protoss that can sustain in a macro game. Such a midtier unit could be gateway, stargate or robo, it's not a necessity to be gateway.
Well, in pvz lately many players are going mass blinkstalkers in the midgame and tech to collossi later, so i don't think a buff to gateway units is really necessary. For Pvt i agree with you that protoss is forced to rush to collossi, but this is mainly caused by the absurd widow mine +shield damage that makes collossi absolutely necessary. If the +shield damage would be nerfed templar openings would be viable again, which would enable toss to compete with terran with mosly gateway units in the midgame.
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
Those are some neat ideas. After 4 years of seeing the same problems with the Protoss race it is indeed time to remove warpgate (or make it lategame only) and get rid of the MSCore (bandaid to a problem which will no longer exist with good changes). The problem is Blizz hasn't done anything for 4 years despite many, many complaints from players and fans so I guess Protoss will remain the same. Warp gate will be nerfed but it will still be better than Gateways and the deathball effect will still exist. My hopes are high, but my expectations are low.
On December 19 2014 02:23 SatedSC2 wrote: Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. Also, I believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss and so don't feel it should be removed from being an early-game consideration. I do however feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly; the best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within a specific radius of a Gateway or a Nexus.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus?
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
I don't so much disagree with this - I just think that ARBITTERZZZZZ should replace them.
That different way of producing units is a dumb gimmick. It causes a lot of problems, actually. It negates defenders advantage, which is stupid. Making it so you warp in within range from gateway or nexus only makes it clunkier. The solution as mentioned by TheDwf is to make Gateways basic again and Warpgate a lategame utility you can combine with Arbitempest. You use the words 'early-game consideradion', but the problem is, there is nothing to consider. WG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW any day of the week.
The sentry obviously has to be changed, but it comes down to forcefield being purely defensive now and possibly a Shield battery effect. Essentially, he made the sentry become what the MSC was initially supposed to be and named it sentry instead of Pre Alpha MSC
On December 19 2014 01:40 Charoisaur wrote: don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
You should look into a career in comedy... Please go play a game right now and just 4gate a zerg. Any decent zerg player will go 15 hatch and beat it with pure lings.
Terrans don't whine about bio being weak because bio is not weak... How can you possibly argue that bio is weak when terrans can fight almost every composition with MMMM?
MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
I agree with your point about gateway units not being weak, but they aren't costefficient in equal cost battles. And the units Protoss needs to combat costefficiently all unlock quite later than mines/hydras/mutas/medivacs etc. Which makes for unfun playstyles in which the Protoss somehow needs to rush hightech and turtle until he gets such units on the battlefield. It's not really that gateway units are weak, but there is no real midtier unit for Protoss that can sustain in a macro game. Such a midtier unit could be gateway, stargate or robo, it's not a necessity to be gateway.
Well, in pvz lately many players are going mass blinkstalkers in the midgame and tech to collossi later, so i don't think a buff to gateway units is really necessary. For Pvt i agree with you that protoss is forced to rush to collossi, but this is mainly caused by the absurd widow mine +shield damage that makes collossi absolutely necessary. If the +shield damage would be nerfed templar openings would be viable again, which would enable toss to compete with terran with mosly gateway units in the midgame.
Completely, completely out of context. This works ONLY because the strategy you're describing constantly pressures zerg with recall and forcefields, making them stay on low tier units themselves. If you sit in your base and "go mass blink stalkers" without being in their face constantly, you die. In some ways, the build is a constant all in on the edge of falling apart. If zergs fends off your pressure cost effectively just once, you're massively behind.
So gateway units here are still only an option in a niche type of scenario.
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
Those are some neat ideas. After 4 years of seeing the same problems with the Protoss race it is indeed time to remove warpgate (or make it lategame only) and get rid of the MSCore (bandaid to a problem which will no longer exist with good changes). The problem is Blizz hasn't done anything for 4 years despite many, many complaints from players and fans so I guess Protoss will remain the same. Warp gate will be nerfed but it will still be better than Gateways and the deathball effect will still exist. My hopes are high, but my expectations are low.
On the other hand, they have never seemed as willing to make massive changes to their game as they currently appear to be, which is somewhat hopegiving ?
On December 19 2014 02:23 SatedSC2 wrote: Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. Also, I believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss and so don't feel it should be removed from being an early-game consideration. I do however feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly; the best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within a specific radius of a Gateway or a Nexus.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus?
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
I don't so much disagree with this - I just think that ARBITTERZZZZZ should replace them.
That different way of producing units is a dumb gimmick. It causes a lot of problems, actually. It negates defenders advantage, which is stupid. Making it so you warp in within range from gateway or nexus only makes it clunkier. The solution as mentioned by TheDwf is to make Gateways basic again and Warpgate a lategame utility you can combine with Arbitempest. You use the words 'early-game consideradion', but the problem is, there is nothing to consider. WG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW any day of the week.
The sentry obviously has to be changed, but it comes down to forcefield being purely defensive now and possibly a Shield battery effect. Essentially, he made the sentry become what the MSC was initially supposed to be and named it sentry instead of Pre Alpha MSC
In Blizzard's eyes, the sentry is no longer a problem in LotV because Ravagers exist. They are doing what they have been doing for the past few years, fixing a problem by adding a straight up counter instead of looking at the core of the issue. There's plenty of time left so I hope they at least try new things but I don't think they will be looking at making fundamental changes to the race.
Edit: I was thinking about sentry having shield battery instead of forcefield as well (gateway units would have to be buffed to compensate though)
On December 19 2014 02:23 SatedSC2 wrote: Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. Also, I believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss and so don't feel it should be removed from being an early-game consideration. I do however feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly; the best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within a specific radius of a Gateway or a Nexus.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus?
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
I don't so much disagree with this - I just think that ARBITTERZZZZZ should replace them.
That different way of producing units is a dumb gimmick. It causes a lot of problems, actually. It negates defenders advantage, which is stupid. Making it so you warp in within range from gateway or nexus only makes it clunkier. The solution as mentioned by TheDwf is to make Gateways basic again and Warpgate a lategame utility you can combine with Arbitempest. You use the words 'early-game consideradion', but the problem is, there is nothing to consider. WG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW any day of the week.
The sentry obviously has to be changed, but it comes down to forcefield being purely defensive now and possibly a Shield battery effect. Essentially, he made the sentry become what the MSC was initially supposed to be and named it sentry instead of Pre Alpha MSC
In Blizzard's eyes, the sentry is no longer a problem in LotV because Ravagers exist. They are doing what they have been doing for the past few years, fixing a problem by adding a straight up counter instead of looking at the core of the issue. There's plenty of time left so I hope they at least try new things but I don't think they will be looking at making fundamental changes to the race.
Edit: I was thinking about sentry having shield battery instead of forcefield as well (gateway units would have to be buffed to compensate though)
Ravagers in their current form have enough problems of their own, to be honest.
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
This post is hilarious. The opening made it clear it would be full of ridiculous changes, but I was still surprised. Building Sentries from a Nexus that are forever tied to that one Nexus, really?
I'm loving the visual. Snow globe sentry with reindeer horns instead of its weird head thing for christmas #$kinz
On December 19 2014 02:23 SatedSC2 wrote: Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. Also, I believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss and so don't feel it should be removed from being an early-game consideration. I do however feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly; the best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within a specific radius of a Gateway or a Nexus.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus?
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
I don't so much disagree with this - I just think that ARBITTERZZZZZ should replace them.
That different way of producing units is a dumb gimmick. It causes a lot of problems, actually. It negates defenders advantage, which is stupid. Making it so you warp in within range from gateway or nexus only makes it clunkier. The solution as mentioned by TheDwf is to make Gateways basic again and Warpgate a lategame utility you can combine with Arbitempest. You use the words 'early-game consideradion', but the problem is, there is nothing to consider. WG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW any day of the week.
The sentry obviously has to be changed, but it comes down to forcefield being purely defensive now and possibly a Shield battery effect. Essentially, he made the sentry become what the MSC was initially supposed to be and named it sentry instead of Pre Alpha MSC
In Blizzard's eyes, the sentry is no longer a problem in LotV because Ravagers exist. They are doing what they have been doing for the past few years, fixing a problem by adding a straight up counter instead of looking at the core of the issue.
Yeah, but look at it from Blizzard's perspective: if they add a counter forcefield stops being problematic and is promoted to being merely a nuisance, but if they outright remove the sentry there are all sorts of issues with box art, player expectations and so on. The effect is similar, but one is safer and smaller in scope and also promises 'counterplay', whatever that is.
On December 19 2014 02:23 SatedSC2 wrote: Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. Also, I believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss and so don't feel it should be removed from being an early-game consideration. I do however feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly; the best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within a specific radius of a Gateway or a Nexus.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus?
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
I don't so much disagree with this - I just think that ARBITTERZZZZZ should replace them.
That different way of producing units is a dumb gimmick. It causes a lot of problems, actually. It negates defenders advantage, which is stupid.
It won't negate defender's advantage of it's tied to Warpgates/Nexus. Unless you think a proxy Warpgate is a realistic proposition in the early game...
Making it so you warp in within range from gateway or nexus only makes it clunkier.
It wouldn't be clunky at all. You see the radius the same way you do with Pylons now. You click to warp-in like you do now. It would be fine, no more clunky than Warpgates currently are.
The solution as mentioned by TheDwf is to make Gateways basic again and Warpgate a lategame utility you can combine with Arbitempest.
Unlike Terran, Protoss doesn't want nor need to produce units constantly. They're produced semi-responsively. You don't want to have to queue up units constantly as Protoss. The way you get a unit first and then wait for a cool-down as opposed to the other way around (which is what Barracks do) is important for Protoss to work properly.
In fact, don't bother talking to me about Warpgates: If you still hate Warpgates no matter whether or not they can be used offensively then it's pointless.
You use the words 'early-game consideradion', but the problem is, there is nothing to consider. WG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW any day of the week.
So they should be. They're the key difference between Protoss and the other two races.
The sentry obviously has to be changed, but it comes down to forcefield being purely defensive now and possibly a Shield battery effect. Essentially, he made the sentry become what the MSC was initially supposed to be and named it sentry instead of Pre Alpha MSC
The Nexus-bound MSC was stupid for the same reasons a Nexus-bound Sentry would be stupid. The casting range on Forcefields would need to be ridiculous for it to work. Same with Guardian Shield. It would be really fucking weird. It would put massive constraints on map-makers as well. If he wants a Shield Battery then just put in the Shield Battery.
In fact, don't bother talking to me about Warpgates: If you still hate Warpgates no matter whether or not they can be used offensively then it's pointless.
We differ in opinion in that you see it as a "race defining mechanic" and I see it as a "RTS unworthy mechanic". Warpgates are forgiving (lol caught out of position WARPWARP), unfair (hmm at this exact point in time I want to hit him right there lol WARPWARP), ignore basics of RTS like defenders advantage (in current state that is) and the importance of army positioning. (as a sidenote, Protoss was fine without warpgate in BW so 'racedefining' makes no sense as is)
You talk about the functioning of Protoss that doesn't want to build gateway units until they need them. That is what TheDwf aims to change - Gateway units should be threatening and dangerous. You should be happy to have a standing army. We want to get rid of the turtletoss that plays the game like it's sim city and allow/force protoss to be on the map more.
Lastly, warp in range from gate/nexus WOULD be super weird. Say you have 8 gates. 4 in main, 2 at your wall, 2 at your third (this is not unreasonable in PvZ). You decide to warp in. SC2 takes the closest spellcaster to location first, so you warp in at your third. Warpwarp 8 zealots. Now, oddness comes into play when you want to warp in at multiple or a distant location. Warpwarp 6 defensive zealots, SHIT, I don't have range on my last gateways to warp 2 HT in on location XYZ. You make an aggressive pylon but 2 gateways are just barely too far away, darn, you gotta move screen half a map for every single warp in. Now that I mention it, how do you see where to place pylons? Nexus range? That puts hefty limits on map design if we want to balance around that, you can never have bases of P and the opponent too close to each other as we balanced for Warpgate to be less powerful when used aggressively so no nexus can every be in XYZ distance of other bases. So many stupid and weird things you have to find a solution for and weird limitations you can to pay attention to. It's much easier to have one easy to follow rule (Warp In At Pylon, Warp In At Arbitempest) than have a 100 page guideline on how to use Warpgate.
On December 19 2014 01:40 Charoisaur wrote: don't understand where this myth that gateway units are weak comes from. actually they are much stronger than barrack units or hatch tech units.
-Mass chargelots are insane vs bio and an extremely strong harassment unit. -mass blinkstalker are probably the monocomposition that has won the most games by itself. -well placed forcefields by the sentry can make your army MUCH more cost effective. -DTs are maybe the best harrassment unit in the game. -HTs can evaporate an army in seconds with storms and can make other spellcasters completely useless with 1 click. -Archons are very cost-efficient melee monster that can tank an incredible amount of damage.
if you really think these units need a buff, then I'm really glad blizzard doesn't listen to people with such a lack of game knowledge. Of course you have to transition at one point to collossi but every race has to transition at one point. probably you just want play every game with pure gateway units and never build a robo or a stargate but that isn't how sc2 works. In sc2 there are different tech trees that have different uses and you can't just stay on one techtree the entire game. Even terran has to incorporate starport or factory units to support their core units (bio units) but we don't whine that barrack units suck.
You should look into a career in comedy... Please go play a game right now and just 4gate a zerg. Any decent zerg player will go 15 hatch and beat it with pure lings.
Terrans don't whine about bio being weak because bio is not weak... How can you possibly argue that bio is weak when terrans can fight almost every composition with MMMM?
MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
I agree with your point about gateway units not being weak, but they aren't costefficient in equal cost battles. And the units Protoss needs to combat costefficiently all unlock quite later than mines/hydras/mutas/medivacs etc. Which makes for unfun playstyles in which the Protoss somehow needs to rush hightech and turtle until he gets such units on the battlefield. It's not really that gateway units are weak, but there is no real midtier unit for Protoss that can sustain in a macro game. Such a midtier unit could be gateway, stargate or robo, it's not a necessity to be gateway.
Well, in pvz lately many players are going mass blinkstalkers in the midgame and tech to collossi later, so i don't think a buff to gateway units is really necessary. For Pvt i agree with you that protoss is forced to rush to collossi, but this is mainly caused by the absurd widow mine +shield damage that makes collossi absolutely necessary. If the +shield damage would be nerfed templar openings would be viable again, which would enable toss to compete with terran with mosly gateway units in the midgame.
Completely, completely out of context. This works ONLY because the strategy you're describing constantly pressures zerg with recall and forcefields, making them stay on low tier units themselves. If you sit in your base and "go mass blink stalkers" without being in their face constantly, you die. In some ways, the build is a constant all in on the edge of falling apart. If zergs fends off your pressure cost effectively just once, you're massively behind.
So gateway units here are still only an option in a niche type of scenario.
isn't that basically the way terran is forced to play vs toss and zerg? constantly pressuring to keep them on low tier units. why is it then considered gimmicky when protoss does it but not when terran does?
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
On December 19 2014 01:19 BaronVonOwn wrote: I think what protoss needs is something to help zealot/archon or twilight comps. Robotics is getting a new unit, stargate is getting huge upgrades, but nothing is being done with templar tech. Gateway armies are just going to look even worse in LOTV and they're already pretty bad.
While I would love to see a Dark Archon or just a new beefy gateway unit, I think a lot of the problems with protoss gateway units can be solved through small changes. BW style zealot leg speed for instance. If the zealots move as fast as stimmed bio does then they could be effectively split from widow mine shots and just have a much higher micro potential in general. Another idea which also comes from the best RTS, would be to remove the dark shrine, and allow dts to be built by having a templar archives. I think these two things alone would push protoss in the right direction without tweaking any stats to the current units.
On December 18 2014 03:40 SC2Toastie wrote: SSL SPOILERS ! ! ! ! !
So, I have a minor complaint on how TvP lategame works out ^_^ This is a result of watching the series in SSL today.
The problem is with the Zealot. More specifically, the low amounts of attention the Zealot needs compared to the countermicro that is required from Terran, but also the lack of micro that can be spend on Zealots.
It is very visible in SSL Game 3 between Classic and Cure, where Classic made a ton of Zealots, Cure kills the collosi and kites the Zealots until they pretty much all die. There is nothing Classic can do in such a situation; either he retreats and loses units to Concussive Shells, or he moves on and tries to equalize the damage he takes by sniping Medivacs and Vikings with his Stalkers. Whilst he proceeds to win the game, I noticed this stupid situation in the game.
In Game 5 the exact opposite happens. Classic shows and excellent understanding of the matchup and abuses the excessive amounts of micro and attention Terran needs to spend on units to trade efficiently for 10 minutes. Charge Zealots have such a good AI, speed and strenght they trade really efficiently with Terran bio. As a rule of thumb, bio needs to be in about 1.5x the supply for Terran to only Stim and trade well. If Terran has less supply at location, he'll have to kite to ensure a decent trade. Now, this is a stupid situation as it's either... or .... Terran either loses a marauder for 4 Zealots, or he loses 3 marauders and 4 marines for 4 zealots. The only difference is whether the Terran player can spend the time on handling the engagement.
Now, Classic abuses this 'imbalance' in attention required. On King Sejong Station, he greatly abuses the AI on Zealots by repeating the same pattern over and over and over. A) he moves a force of approx. 6 Zealots to Cure's natural or fifth expansion. B) he moves his army towards Cures fifth base and C) he does some move with a pair of High Templar. The problem lies in the fact that each and every of these moves is a simple move command for Classic whilst looking at the High Templar to aim his storms and the minimap to retreat his main army. For Cure, however, this means extremely careful micro in 3 locations. Verse the Zealots, he needs to scramble an army at location, either position it in a tight choke (TIGHT!, thanks to Charge) or kite. He meanwhile needs to perfectly position his main army so his Ghost and Vikings zone out Classics main army, AND he has to be watching the minimap to respond within a second to minimize the damage the HT are going to do.
Classic won this game five after being behind by messing up an engagement and macro-ing like a silver leaguer only by repeating this pattern.
I have thought of two possible solutions for this. A: change Warpgate. Won't happen, so I'll ignore that. The second one is to change the Charge upgrade to increase movement speed and possibly decrease the effect of movement restricting spells like Concussive Shells, Fungal Growth and Time Warp (either by 100% or by a lower percentage) and remove the actual Charge. Note, this is not necessarily a nerf. Zealots move faster across the map and they will become substantially better when micro'd compared to the current situation in which micro usually decreases their effectiveness compared to a simple amove.
This change completely changes the Zealot verse kiting bio scenario. Currently, Zealots sort of 'shuffle' when being kited: the Zealots in the back Charge, get a free hit on the bio, and are now in front. Combined with Concussive Shells, this perfectly distributes damage across all Zealots that are following the Bio army, forcing Terran to kite continuously until most zealots are dead. This is because a 10 HP Zealot still deals the same amount of damage a 150 HP Zealot deals. Protoss, on the other hand, cannot really do anything. Retreating means just losing some Zealots. Good bio players will abuse this majorly. I think this interaction might be a part in why Protoss needs to have it's long range AOE: it covers the Zealots and removes the scenario of Terran continuously poking the Protoss army with impunity (See for an example of this Maru in Proleague earlier this year - his relentless pokes essentially force Protoss to take a late third because without a good number of Collosi, Maru kites the army back and forth until there is simply nothing left). Now, with this change in effect, Protoss first of all gets the flexibility to disengage from Terran without taking major losses. This decreases the snowballing effect where Protoss is really never allowed to disengage (one of the reasons we have Recall in it's current form). Protoss harassment will also cost more attention. Without Charge, Zealots won't get free hits in and Terran has an easier time abusing Terrain against Protoss.
As a first noteworthy side effect, this change may help the beloved Templar openings. The aforementioned problem of Terran poking and kiting until there is nothing left to shoot at is greatly reduced by this, because the reliance on long range damage (Psionic Storm) is reduced and can to some extend be compensated for by Photon Overcharge and Immortals when defending to get the Templar transition done. It also helps with suiciding Zealots into the Bio Ball to drag Mines, as Marauders won't stop them dead in their tracks.
For other matchups, in PvP I cannot estimate the effects. On one hand, Zealots will move faster through Time Warp, but they will usually be more clumped up against Archons, unless split up ahead of time. The initial clash of Zealots into army will occur a second later because the armies do not activate Charge. This may have as a result that heavy Zealot armies get somewhat less popular. On the other hand, in extended engagements and for flanking, Zealots will be better.
I don't expect big effects for PvZ. Charge Zealots are not a popular go-to for the main army. They may see a slight increase in utility as they are no longer pinned by Fungal Growth. They will also be faster when Protoss wants to dump Zealots into spread out Zerg bases and they may be stronger against a Swarm Host Zerg (when well microed). Zerg, on the other hand, should have an easier time defending against them as they no longer automatically shuffle the high health Zealots forwards.
I'm interesting in hearing other opinions on the matter. I want to emphasize again: Zealot Charge upgrade is changed to Zealot Leg Enhancement, which increases Movement Speed and gives a resistance to spells that effect movement. This is not a buff, nor a nerf, it's a change.
Have a good day, Toastie
TLDR: Zealot Charge changed to a new upgrade than increases movement speed and gives a resistance to movement reduction (Concussive Shells, Fungal etc). Pro: Zealots are more microable, Protoss army can disengage better, may be a buff to Templar Openers, faster attacking at distant locations. Con: Zealots require more attention because they no longer shuffle when kited, they autosurround slower.
I, for one, really prefer speedlots to chargelots. The specifics about concshell need hashing out, but there's a lot more micro potential for both players.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus and only allowing one each? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus? Blech.
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
Don't see what's so gimmicky in that, think of that "Sentry Nexus" as an upgrade like Orbitals or PFs are for CCs.
Casting range for Forcefield: same as now, 9. Don't see any map where you couldn't Forcefield the main ramp from that distance. It would work just like now, you select the area and the Forcefield appears. Guardian Shield could have a similar range as well, unchanged AoE. The Hallucination would spawn on top of the Sentry (unchanged).
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
I don't so much disagree with this, I just think that you might as well replace them with Arbiters. Only problem: How does Protoss deal with Brood Lord/Infestor without Tempests? It's incredibly difficult to do so at the moment.
Carriers would be able to properly deal with that.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
zealots sentrys and stalkers CAN compete with pure bio; once medivacs are added they have to tech out of pure zealot sentry stalker. I already admitted that i think it's bad that protoss has to tech to collossi that early, but this is mainly caused by the stupid +shield damage on widow mines, otherwise templar openings would be viable and toss could compete in the midgame with pure gateway units again. (high templar are a gateway unit).
gateway units arent weak. we see blinkstalker and chargelot in both PvT and PvZ basically every mid and lategame. its just before blink and charge both are weak because they suck in an open field without the needed mobility and protection vs surrounds. problem is that earlier blink is too strong as seen many times (1 base blink all ins with MSC giving vision was so OP).
imo P needs a antilight small AoE radius gateway unit that protects the small numbers of preblink/charge/critical number gateway units from mass marines/scvs or lings with roach support. the unit would need to be designed so it gets useless as the game goes on (see reaper) to not buff deathball play.
also you need to really look at comparing P, T and Z in these scenarios. the marine is just a bit too strong in all game stages. a slight nerf to marines (5 less hp?) especially with the coming early game buffs to T in LotV might be really good to make T transition out of bio.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
I just want to say it's pretty silly to not come up with reasonable counter arguments and instead draw the "he hates ... so his opinion is invalid" card.
Regarding mineral changes, I'd rather see more minerals added to the maps, rather then less, just bcuz we could make more stuff. Having less minerals just means u cant buy as many units/upgrades, without worrying how cost efficient ur being. With more minerals, both players would be throwing units at each other, instead of saving the ones they have, imho
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
I just want to say it's pretty silly to not come up with reasonable counter arguments and instead draw the "he hates ... so his opinion is invalid" card.
that may be true but gateway units not being able to compete with terran bio is an ancient concept. Its been discussed to death and is pretty much accepted. Its weird to think people would actually argue this still
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
I just want to say it's pretty silly to not come up with reasonable counter arguments and instead draw the "he hates ... so his opinion is invalid" card.
that may be true but gateway units not being able to compete with terran bio is an ancient concept. Its been discussed to death and is pretty much accepted. Its weird to think people would actually argue this still
Well, IMO (very symplistically)
Upgraded + Medivac MMM > Upgraded Gateway units >> Gateway Units >>> Basic MM
So there is some merit to it, but the current metagame has MM upgrades out usually before engagements happen.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This is a really dumb suggestion. Tying the Sentry to a Nexus and only allowing one each? That's just gimmicky and I thought you didn't want gimmicks. What is the casting range of Guardian Shield going to be if they're tied to a Nexus? How does Forcefield work if they're tied to a Nexus? Blech.
It would be better to just keep Sentries as a Gateway unit. Remove Forcefield and replace it with Time Warp so that they're still a space-control unit, but make Time Warp cost so much that you can't cast it twice using the same Sentry. Keep Guardian Shield as it is.
Don't see what's so gimmicky in that, think of that "Sentry Nexus" as an upgrade like Orbitals or PFs are for CCs.
Casting range for Forcefield: same as now, 9. Don't see any map where you couldn't Forcefield the main ramp from that distance. It would work just like now, you select the area and the Forcefield appears. Guardian Shield could have a similar range as well, unchanged AoE. The Hallucination would spawn on top of the Sentry (unchanged).
I think probably the max range that Blizzard will seriously consider is 15, because if it's more than that the unit and the target can't fit on the same screen together.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
I just want to say it's pretty silly to not come up with reasonable counter arguments and instead draw the "he hates ... so his opinion is invalid" card.
that may be true but gateway units not being able to compete with terran bio is an ancient concept. Its been discussed to death and is pretty much accepted. Its weird to think people would actually argue this still
most people who say that gateway units can't compete with bio mean only zealots and stalkers although high templar and archons are also gateway units. if you say zealots and stalkers can't compete with bio (marines, marauder +MEDIVACS) than i agree with you. however zealot archon templar can very well compete with bio if it wasn't for the stupid +shield mine damage. since templars and archons are gateway units, the statement that gateway units can't compete with bio is technically wrong. also it seems weird to say I'm blinded by protoss hate although i support a revert of the +shield damage.
On December 19 2014 03:24 Charoisaur wrote: zealots sentrys and stalkers CAN compete with pure bio; once medivacs are added they have to tech out of pure zealot sentry stalker. I already admitted that i think it's bad that protoss has to tech to collossi that early, but this is mainly caused by the stupid +shield damage on widow mines, otherwise templar openings would be viable and toss could compete in the midgame with pure gateway units again. (high templar are a gateway unit).
yeah I think this is what people aren't understanding, medivacs are a tier 3 support unit. It would be stupid if plain zealots etc. could beat that comp. Maybe part of the problem is that if you look at the tech paths needed, terran has it a lot easier in terms of building costs and time. Barracks -> factory -> starport. Protoss has an extra step: gateway -> cycore ->robo/twilight -> bay/archives. And then if you look at the total cost of upgrades, terran is 250/250 for stimpak/shields/shells, whereas protoss needs WAY more. Thermal lance 200/200, zealot charge 200/200, blink 150/150, psi storm 200/200. On top of that, you need time for sentries/templar to charge up their energy. I think all this causes considerable delays in protoss being able to push out early on which leads to turtling, the most boring of starcraft playstyles.
On December 19 2014 03:28 Decendos wrote: gateway units arent weak. we see blinkstalker and chargelot in both PvT and PvZ basically every mid and lategame. its just before blink and charge both are weak because they suck in an open field without the needed mobility and protection vs surrounds. problem is that earlier blink is too strong as seen many times (1 base blink all ins with MSC giving vision was so OP).
Oh I didn't know just because the units are built that makes them good. Trust me, if it was actually possible to not use gateway units and build a pure colossus templar army with air every game then that is what would happen.
Gateway units are the core of the protoss army whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Mass zealots have to be built late game to act as what many have said multiple times a MEAT SHIELD. Not a unit that actually does good damage because chargelots get 1 hit when they charge and then they are kited until they charge again. PvZ is a way different story, but for PvT stalker are used for nothing more than to snipe vikings and medivacs. Why is that?? I'll tell you the answer. It is because stalkers can't fight marines and marauders.
I understand the Mothership Core hate. It makes it so the Protoss plays a lot more timid. You're either completely allin on heavy teching so you can compete to a certain point, untill Stim/medivacs or you sit super defensively inside your base relying on your Photon Overcharge till Splash comes and saves the day. However Sentry/WarpGate are things I hold very dearly and is actually one of the reasons I enjoy playing Protoss.
We've already gone from "we stick to new ideas because old ideas are bad because they're old" to "yeah Lurkers were great so they're back" so can Blizzard just pick the best unit designs from BW and bring them back already?
Also this complaint about balancing the amount of micro needed in every is absurd. Forcing your opponent into situations where they are at a disadvantage in control has been part of the game since forever.
Think it's too many units trying to be what Gateway is supposed to be in 1-2 units. Zealots, Sentries, Stalkers, MsC, Immortals are all the early game's Protoss strength diluted over time and tech. Gateways are "weak" because: Full Upg MM > Full Upg Gateway > Partial MM > Partial Upg Gateway. Spam Roach/Ling > Full Upg Gateway too.
Without fusing of roles, we probably won't be able to get the number down, but what we can do is make a path through Templar like people have been pointing out. I was thinking of some unit that is very strong but dilutes the imapct of DPS density. Fresh out the box from Twilight with no need for upgrades or any of that crap, mineral heavy. And what's his MO? Like an AoE KB of sorts. The KB can wreck Lings but not Roaches. The KB can split Marine packs. This also disincentivizes the focus on AoE dps on both sides and more on stuff like Voids/Carriers/Phoenix/Stalkers. Should be fast and tanky but do little damage so its focus is disrupt and annoy. Can be used for mineral harass with the same KB. Reducing the gimmickiness of Gateway can only be accomplished by tweaking Zealot/Stalker/Sentry themselves. I do like the Dark Archon idea for the unit design, combined with Dark Templar being unlocked at Templar archives, since tech timings have been destroyed by 12 worker start.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
I just want to say it's pretty silly to not come up with reasonable counter arguments and instead draw the "he hates ... so his opinion is invalid" card.
that may be true but gateway units not being able to compete with terran bio is an ancient concept. Its been discussed to death and is pretty much accepted. Its weird to think people would actually argue this still
most people who say that gateway units can't compete with bio mean only zealots and stalkers although high templar and archons are also gateway units. if you say zealots and stalkers can't compete with bio (marines, marauder +MEDIVACS) than i agree with you. however zealot archon templar can very well compete with bio if it wasn't for the stupid +shield mine damage. since templars and archons are gateway units, the statement that gateway units can't compete with bio is technically wrong. also it seems weird to say I'm blinded by protoss hate although i support a revert of the +shield damage.
Ghosts are also bio, feel free to include them if you're going to include high templar.
As for zealot archon, it's a midgame strategy, and one that doesn't really work anymore anyway. It gets crushed if terran just waits for critical mass and a few extra medivacs, and EMP solves all of your gateway problems.
It's irrelevant anyway, all this bio vs. gateway stuff is just a nonsense discussion anyway. What compositions do and do not work is irrelevant to a balance discussion, only the timings of them matter.
Since Protoss doesn't go pure gateway and terran doesn't go pure barracks, I don't even know why this discussion is happening.
On December 19 2014 02:06 Charoisaur wrote: MMMM includes units from the factory and the starport (medivac and mine). terran techs to medivacs and mines and zerg techs to hydras or mutas; Only protoss seems to have a problem with teching to higher tier units;
You can't be serious... So all the pros/casters that have said that gateway units cant compete with bio for years have been full of shit and YOU are correct? Your widow mine support costs 75/25 while support for protoss is 300/200. And that is just the cost of the units. We can add building a robo, robo bay, and colossus range if you'd like. I don't think you would though because that's an extra 700 gas needed while the most gas heavy unit terran needs is 100...Hell, none of your buildings even cost more than 100 gas besides a fusion core. Everything terran uses vs protoss besides the ghost is ridiculously cheap for how well they shred through anything protoss.
Cost should be somewhat of an indicator to the strength of a unit overall. When you look at bio that all goes out the window.
I think he's just blinded by protoss hate, I wouldn't bother.
I just want to say it's pretty silly to not come up with reasonable counter arguments and instead draw the "he hates ... so his opinion is invalid" card.
Fair enough, you're right. In the context of the argument I thought Ouija hit the big points, but I'll throw something in.
The relationship between the tech and the lower tier units bothers me. A Terran army seems to be a core of marines and marauders supported by medivacs/vikings/mines/ghosts, a protoss army plays like a core of colossi/Templar/archons supported by zealots/stalkers/sentries.
What I want to see is a protoss army that scales more smoothly into the midgame, and late game units that are toned down to compensate. Especially if we're expected to expand beyond three bases before 15 minutes.
And as a little extra, comparing the cost efficiency of marines and marauders to the cost efficiency of zealots, stalkers, and sentries is a little whacky to begin with given that pretty much all the muscle comes from the sentry, and they can run out of ff's.
Marines and Marauders don't run out of bullets.
And even if he wants to believe that gateway units can contend with bio, in a vacuum, I think most of us can agree making protoss less top heavy makes the game more fun.
On December 19 2014 03:28 Decendos wrote: gateway units arent weak. we see blinkstalker and chargelot in both PvT and PvZ basically every mid and lategame. its just before blink and charge both are weak because they suck in an open field without the needed mobility and protection vs surrounds. problem is that earlier blink is too strong as seen many times (1 base blink all ins with MSC giving vision was so OP).
Oh I didn't know just because the units are built that makes them good. Trust me, if it was actually possible to not use gateway units and build a pure colossus templar army with air every game then that is what would happen.
Gateway units are the core of the protoss army whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Mass zealots have to be built late game to act as what many have said multiple times a MEAT SHIELD. Not a unit that actually does good damage because chargelots get 1 hit when they charge and then they are kited until they charge again. PvZ is a way different story, but for PvT stalker are used for nothing more than to snipe vikings and medivacs. Why is that?? I'll tell you the answer. It is because stalkers can't fight marines and marauders.
??? so they have their role, you just dont like it? i mean try fighting marines without 10000 banelings as Z...you cant...or fight MMM with roaches....again you cant (at least not once you reach 150+ supply of MMM). thats MMM being too strong, not gateway or roach ling being too weak. if you want to talk weak, lets talk about hydras....
imo they need to tone down MMM strenght in LotV while buffing other T stuff like BCs which they finally do.
On December 19 2014 04:48 Whitewing wrote: As for zealot archon, it's a midgame strategy, and one that doesn't really work anymore anyway. It gets crushed if terran just waits for critical mass and a few extra medivacs, and EMP solves all of your gateway problems.
It's irrelevant anyway, all this bio vs. gateway stuff is just a nonsense discussion anyway. What compositions do and do not work is irrelevant to a balance discussion, only the timings of them matter.
Since Protoss doesn't go pure gateway and terran doesn't go pure barracks, I don't even know why this discussion is happening.
It's not just a balance discussion, it's about fun gameplay and game design. Having an entire tech path be effectively dead is not good game design. Maybe some people don't like being forced into building colossus every game as their major tech choice? I don't find A-moving colossus to be a fun playstyle and I want an alternative. And as a zerg player I think games would be more interesting if protoss could be active on the map throughout the game rather than conceding dominance until they've reached their deathball/all-in timing.
On December 19 2014 04:51 Decendos wrote: ??? so they have their role, you just dont like it? i mean try fighting marines without 10000 banelings as Z...you cant...or fight MMM with roaches....again you cant (at least not once you reach 150+ supply of MMM). thats MMM being too strong, not gateway or roach ling being too weak. if you want to talk weak, lets talk about hydras....
imo they need to tone down MMM strenght in LotV while buffing other T stuff like BCs which they finally do.
Well that's like the same thing i'm saying... You think bio is too strong, which I agree with. I just think buffing gateway units would be a better option, because then protoss can become less reliant upon big splash damage. Where as you think that bio should just be nerfed ( which I wouldn't mind either ), in which case gateway units can stay as is.
For terran and zerg though, what I was trying to point out is that their core units are capable of fighting each other and trading. And this is true for PvZ as well. But PvT is really the only match up where those units cant fight each other and trade somewhat decent.
On December 19 2014 04:48 Whitewing wrote: As for zealot archon, it's a midgame strategy, and one that doesn't really work anymore anyway. It gets crushed if terran just waits for critical mass and a few extra medivacs, and EMP solves all of your gateway problems.
It's irrelevant anyway, all this bio vs. gateway stuff is just a nonsense discussion anyway. What compositions do and do not work is irrelevant to a balance discussion, only the timings of them matter.
Since Protoss doesn't go pure gateway and terran doesn't go pure barracks, I don't even know why this discussion is happening.
It's not just a balance discussion, it's about fun gameplay and game design. Having an entire tech path be effectively dead is not good game design. Maybe some people don't like being forced into building colossus every game as their major tech choice? I don't find A-moving colossus to be a fun playstyle and I want an alternative. And as a zerg player I think games would be more interesting if protoss could be active on the map throughout the game rather than conceding dominance until they've reached their deathball/all-in timing.
High templar and archons are used in virtually every game? I don't think you can make a case that there is "an entire tech path [which is] effectively dead".
On December 19 2014 05:33 Grumbels wrote: High templar and archons are used in virtually every game? I don't think you can make a case that there is "an entire tech path [which is] effectively dead".
yeah they are tacked on to a colossus based army if it fails to do the job after the first couple fights. Are you purposefully not seeing the point?
On December 19 2014 04:51 Decendos wrote: ??? so they have their role, you just dont like it? i mean try fighting marines without 10000 banelings as Z...you cant...or fight MMM with roaches....again you cant (at least not once you reach 150+ supply of MMM). thats MMM being too strong, not gateway or roach ling being too weak. if you want to talk weak, lets talk about hydras....
imo they need to tone down MMM strenght in LotV while buffing other T stuff like BCs which they finally do.
Well that's like the same thing i'm saying... You think bio is too strong, which I agree with. I just think buffing gateway units would be a better option, because then protoss can become less reliant upon big splash damage. Where as you think that bio should just be nerfed ( which I wouldn't mind either ), in which case gateway units can stay as is.
For terran and zerg though, what I was trying to point out is that their core units are capable of fighting each other and trading. And this is true for PvZ as well. But PvT is really the only match up where those units cant fight each other and trade somewhat decent.
in PvT gateway units are also able to fight bio. chargelot blinkstalker sentry can do that. problem is that T can just doomdrop and P dies. in openfield chargelots alone with some blinkstalker sentry is able to fight MMM.
but no need to discuss single things like this. the game needs a lot of changes for all 3 races (although P and Z need the most changes while T is already in a decent state).
Sounds like they are still willing to try stuff that is a bit more out there. So happy :D Upgrade philosophy sounds right. Always loved crack lings in BW. I also really like the take on FRPB.
For Zerg AA spell maybe a Dota2 Lich Chain Frost like ability? Should work good against many, not against few, has to be microed against, not just shot down...
We've already gone from "we stick to new ideas because old ideas are bad because they're old" to "yeah Lurkers were great so they're back" so can Blizzard just pick the best unit designs from BW and bring them back already?
Now you can build Scarabs Disruptors instead of Reavers. You can even micro them Could work great with the increased pick up range on the Warp prism.
One thing I strongly disagree with you : warp-in is the mechanic that makes Protoss production interesting and different from T and Z, it should remain the standard way to produce. However, I agree offensive warp-ins should be weakened. Is it that hard to make it so that the further a unit is warped from the associated warpgate, the longer it takes for it to warp in (and optionally the more damage it takes) ? Defensive warp-ins remain as they are, and offensive warpgate timings don't exist anymore, with a now clear defender advantage.
Besides, sentry attached to the Nexus seems mostly nonsensical and I don't really get why you want to change the archon vs bio damage. Overall it looks like a bit of Starbow mixed with arbiters.
I like the idea of making gateway units the core of Protoss army, but I believe it can be achieved by modifying a lot less than what you suggest. I like the idea of moving immortals to gateway so that stalkers can have more of a raider role though.
One thing I strongly disagree with you : warp-in is the mechanic that makes Protoss production interesting and different from T and Z, it should remain the standard way to produce. However, I agree offensive warp-ins should be weakened. Is it that hard to make it so that the further a unit is warped from the associated warpgate, the longer it takes for it to warp in (and optionally the more damage it takes) ? Defensive warp-ins remain as they are, and offensive warpgate timings don't exist anymore, with a now clear defender advantage.
Besides, sentry attached to the Nexus seems mostly nonsensical and I don't really get why you want to change the archon vs bio damage. Overall it looks like a bit of Starbow mixed with arbiters.
I like the idea of making gateway units the core of Protoss army, but I believe it can be achieved by modifying a lot less than what you suggest. I like the idea of moving immortals to gateway so that stalkers can have more of a raider role though.
I would much much rather see Warpgate research reduce Gateway build times slightly, and have Warpgate cooldown be something like 33%-50% more than standard build time. It would really solidify Warpgate into the "offensive" role, while also not allowing for constant waves of units that poop all over defender's advantage and gives you a reason to keep using Gateways. The method you describe would change the effectiveness greatly based on spawn points...which is just weird and more complicated than it needs to be, imo.
I'm also sort of starting to agree with looking at moving Immortals to the Gateway, especially if the shielding thing is going to be an upgrade now. It gives Protoss an intermediary power unit to stand up to things like stimmed marauders and mass roach at the times when Protoss is really weakest (due to the damage bonus vs armored). Makes Photon Overcharge less absolutely necessary as well, so perhaps we can look at nerfing that further.
On December 19 2014 05:33 Grumbels wrote: High templar and archons are used in virtually every game? I don't think you can make a case that there is "an entire tech path [which is] effectively dead".
yeah they are tacked on to a colossus based army if it fails to do the job after the first couple fights. Are you purposefully not seeing the point?
That's a balance issue though. Colossi will be slightly weaker in lotv and after next patch will be less necessary anyway to stop mines. Maybe blizzard will rollback the ghost buff too.
One thing I strongly disagree with you : warp-in is the mechanic that makes Protoss production interesting and different from T and Z, it should remain the standard way to produce. However, I agree offensive warp-ins should be weakened. Is it that hard to make it so that the further a unit is warped from the associated warpgate, the longer it takes for it to warp in (and optionally the more damage it takes) ? Defensive warp-ins remain as they are, and offensive warpgate timings don't exist anymore, with a now clear defender advantage.
Besides, sentry attached to the Nexus seems mostly nonsensical and I don't really get why you want to change the archon vs bio damage. Overall it looks like a bit of Starbow mixed with arbiters.
I like the idea of making gateway units the core of Protoss army, but I believe it can be achieved by modifying a lot less than what you suggest. I like the idea of moving immortals to gateway so that stalkers can have more of a raider role though.
I would much much rather see Warpgate research reduce Gateway build times slightly, and have Warpgate cooldown be something like 33%-50% more than standard build time. It would really solidify Warpgate into the "offensive" role, while also not allowing for constant waves of units that poop all over defender's advantage and gives you a reason to keep using Gateways. The method you describe would change the effectiveness greatly based on spawn points...which is just weird and more complicated than it needs to be, imo.
I'm also sort of starting to agree with looking at moving Immortals to the Gateway, especially if the shielding thing is going to be an upgrade now. It gives Protoss an intermediary power unit to stand up to things like stimmed marauders and mass roach at the times when Protoss is really weakest (due to the damage bonus vs armored). Makes Photon Overcharge less absolutely necessary as well, so perhaps we can look at nerfing that further.
I don't know if that's weird... If we suppose the unit is teleported from the warpgate itself, it actually kind of makes sense. I honestly think this would be an elegant way to balance warpgate (though, admittedly, not giving any incentive to use gateways).
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it, especially the general theme that Protoss is becoming more and more gimmicky the further along the SC2 timeline we get. Gateway units need to be beefier, the MSC is fucking retarded especially in early-game PvP and a caster like the Sentry shouldn't be the backbone of an army. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. I also believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss in the first place, I strongly feel that it shouldn't be removed from being an early-game upgrade. However, I do feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly, especially if the Immortal is given the new role that you suggest. The best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within the radius of a Warpgate or a Nexus.
One thing I strongly disagree with you : warp-in is the mechanic that makes Protoss production interesting and different from T and Z, it should remain the standard way to produce. However, I agree offensive warp-ins should be weakened. Is it that hard to make it so that the further a unit is warped from the associated warpgate, the longer it takes for it to warp in (and optionally the more damage it takes) ? Defensive warp-ins remain as they are, and offensive warpgate timings don't exist anymore, with a now clear defender advantage.
Even if we weaken or get rid of offensive warp-ins the way you suggest, I don't like Warpgate as the standard way to produce because:
1. It mitigates too much mild positioning failures. I don't like the fact you can use a round of warp-in to deal with a ling raid or a small drop even if you're completely out of position. Pre-positioning should be more important and positioning mistakes should be punished accordingly. It also provides a stronger incentive for activity and map control, as one of the ways you don't get caught out of position is to make sure your opponent is too busy for that. Offense is the best defence. Of course the HotS theme of over-mobility (boost Medivacs, faster mutas with regen) has to go for that, but I included that.
2. Adding the constraint of constant production and a harder rally management raises the mechanical difficulty of the race. As of now, one of the signs of great Protoss macro is… not do anything at times, because you're skipping rounds of warp-ins or banking for future cycles of production (besides, I don't like how this functions as a built-in "greed" feature; hence the previous 1 gate tech into +5 gates builds in PvT). Rain has really great macro, and I have yet to read constant praises from viewers/fans about this. Similarly, I am under the impression that people don't see or see less Zest's weakness in PvT regarding this. Terran and Zerg are better designed in this regard (more units to produce, individually cheaper = more actions to perform), so Protoss could do with an upgrade here.
3. Last but not least, if Protoss is to be made a micro-intensive race, it means you have to watch/babysit carefully your units in fight. This does not go well with the necessity to switch your camera to one of your Nexus to produce. Imagine for instance if Terran had to do that in TvZ fights: sorry for the 20 Marines pack, no more time to declump, hf with the banes, I have to produce!
Besides, sentry attached to the Nexus seems mostly nonsensical and I don't really get why you want to change the archon vs bio damage.
Well, I tried to reuse the Sentry the best I could. I think it can be interesting to provide that boost to Protoss' defender's advantage; plus it allows differentiation between aggressive and macro builds, and decisions between using energy to scout/create spotters or banking mana for defensive purposes (just like now, except the decision is more important since you have less Sentries to begin with). As I said, it would be like the Orbital/PF upgrade for CCs, or you could think of it as a Queen near its Hatchery. Don't see what's so shocking/gimmicky with the concept, but well, if you don't want it…
The Archon change is to balance how the unit performs vs bio, bio/Tanks and mech: slightly weaker than now against bio (and bio/Tanks since bio units are still the core here), slighly better against mech (remember that the current Immortal is gone in this scenario) and air (including Medivacs).
and fuck the herc XD stupid design they have landmines and hellions for dealing with ling bane don't need something that jumps on them.......... Try a mobile bunker type thing
On December 19 2014 07:34 Tentative wrote: Dark archons and an archon from a high and dark hybrid> Cmon that is soooooo obviously something amazing to work with
That's more superhightech stuff. Protoss is stacked at superhightech and absolutely doesn't need more lategame options on top of Tempest, Templar, Dark Templar, Archon, Colossus, Mothership - and in the future the Disruptor and Carrier too... That just means more turtle into ultimate lategame tech play...
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it, especially the general theme that Protoss is becoming more and more gimmicky the further along the SC2 timeline we get. Gateway units need to be beefier, the MSC is fucking retarded especially in early-game PvP and a caster like the Sentry shouldn't be the backbone of an army. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. I also believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss in the first place, I strongly feel that it shouldn't be removed from being an early-game upgrade. However, I do feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly, especially if the Immortal is given the new role that you suggest. The best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within the radius of a Warpgate or a Nexus.
One thing I strongly disagree with you : warp-in is the mechanic that makes Protoss production interesting and different from T and Z, it should remain the standard way to produce. However, I agree offensive warp-ins should be weakened. Is it that hard to make it so that the further a unit is warped from the associated warpgate, the longer it takes for it to warp in (and optionally the more damage it takes) ? Defensive warp-ins remain as they are, and offensive warpgate timings don't exist anymore, with a now clear defender advantage.
Even if we weaken or get rid of offensive warp-ins the way you suggest, I don't like Warpgate as the standard way to produce because:
1. It mitigates too much mild positioning failures. I don't like the fact you can use a round of warp-in to deal with a ling raid or a small drop even if you're completely out of position. Pre-positioning should be more important and positioning mistakes should be punished accordingly. It also provides a stronger incentive for activity and map control, as one of the ways you don't get caught out of position is to make sure your opponent is too busy for that. Offense is the best defence. Of course the HotS theme of over-mobility (boost Medivacs, faster mutas with regen) has to go for that, but I included that.
2. Adding the constraint of constant production and a harder rally management raises the mechanical difficulty of the race. As of now, one of the signs of great Protoss macro is… not do anything at times, because you're skipping rounds of warp-ins or banking for future cycles of production (besides, I don't like how this functions as a built-in "greed" feature; hence the previous 1 gate tech into +5 gates builds in PvT). Rain has really great macro, and I have yet to read constant praises from viewers/fans about this. Similarly, I am under the impression that people don't see or see less Zest's weakness in PvT regarding this. Terran and Zerg are better designed in this regard (more units to produce, individually cheaper = more actions to perform), so Protoss could do with an upgrade here.
3. Last but not least, if Protoss is to be made a micro-intensive race, it means you have to watch/babysit carefully your units in fight. This does not go well with the necessity to switch your camera to one of your Nexus to produce. Imagine for instance if Terran had to do that in TvZ fights: sorry for the 20 Marines pack, no more time to declump, hf with the banes, I have to produce!
Besides, sentry attached to the Nexus seems mostly nonsensical and I don't really get why you want to change the archon vs bio damage.
Well, I tried to reuse the Sentry the best I could. I think it can be interesting to provide that boost to Protoss' defender's advantage; plus it allows differentiation between aggressive and macro builds, and decisions between using energy to scout/create spotters or banking mana for defensive purposes (just like now, except the decision is more important since you have less Sentries to begin with). As I said, it would be like the Orbital/PF upgrade for CCs, or you could think of it as a Queen near its Hatchery. Don't see what's so shocking/gimmicky with the concept, but well, if you don't want it…
The Archon change is to balance how the unit performs vs bio, bio/Tanks and mech: slightly weaker than now against bio (and bio/Tanks since bio units are still the core here), slighly better against mech (remember that the current Immortal is gone in this scenario) and air (including Medivacs).
I actually like how Protoss is about producing units when you truly need it (which will be far earlier if msc is gone as you suggested ; I kinda agree with that suggestion, msc feels out of place). Of course if Protoss playstyle is changed to rely more heavily on gateway units this will be different.
+200% damage to warping in units -as suggested in Blizzcon- can be kept to help making positioning relevant.
Overall I do like warpgate while it seems you don't. I think it's a really distinctive feature, one of the things I found really cool when watching videos as I hadn't even bought the game and made me want to play Protoss. I'd be sad if this was gone and Protoss production was just identical to Terran, but I can get over it if it's for the greater good -which I'm not entirely convinced atm.
i dont get this, with all the changes especially eco, everything is overboard.
its essentially a new strategy game what can players bringt over to LotV that played the last years SC2? mechanics? most players had the mechanics even before SC2, most even better than now.
was is not the beauty of BW that there werent any balance patches/new units for years? so players could really excell at this game?
this brings everything back to start, we will se 2 years long new cheeses every month that dominate the game for weeks.
to really get good at something it must stay the same for a very long time, no sport has constant rule changes all the time, thats just silly.
i dont get why they dont just expand the campaign, make improvments to multiplayer (not balance / not new units) and sell this.
this is basically SC3. everything is back to start.
On December 19 2014 09:18 phil.ipp wrote: i dont get this, with all the changes especially eco, everything is overboard.
its essentially a new strategy game what can players bringt over to LotV that played the last years SC2? mechanics? most players had the mechanics even before SC2, most even better than now.
was is not the beauty of BW that there werent any balance patches/new units for years? so players could really excell at this game?
this brings everything back to start, we will se 2 years long new cheeses every month that dominate the game for weeks.
to really get good at something it must stay the same for a very long time, no sport has constant rule changes all the time, thats just silly.
i dont get why they dont just expand the campaign, make improvments to multiplayer (not balance / not new units) and sell this.
this is basically SC3. everything is back to start.
The game needs big changes because there is a lot wrong with it that needs to be fixed. That's the only way it's going to survive and gain any popularity and freshness. Imagine in pre-bw times if someone were to say "they shouldn't release bw, it changes too much". Stupid right?
Wow, it was so clear that they would revert much of the groundbreaking changes they did with the Blizzcon build. Above all, the mineral almost-revert.
If you want changes, you need to fight through the wind. Of course people will protest if big things are changed. People almost ALWAYS dislike changes at first, wether it be politics, web site design or sc2. But instead of being convinced of themselves and be determined to make the current snoozefest-earlygame more action-packed they buckle...
So, I was just wondering, has anyone made any really good discussion points in this thread? And another question: does anyone actually follow through threads like this the whole way through? It just seems like there is so much superficial content...
On December 19 2014 09:50 SatedSC2 wrote: It doesn't really matter though. As it stands, there is a 90% chance I won't be playing LotV except for the campaign. Not even sure I'll keep playing HotS with that new map-pool. GJ Blizzard.
I feel you. Not going to be unreasonably pissed like you (let's get real, you love that game), but I fully understand where you are coming from.
A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game. There isn't a role for it to fulfil that isn't already fulfilled by other Terran options. It's role as a scout becomes less important later in the game because Terran has more access to Scans and usually does most of their composition scouting by being in their opponent's face. It's role as a harassment unit is replaced by the Medivac.
It's true that the medivac basically invalidates the reaper, but it still seems unsatisfying to just cast them aside after a certain point. Is there any other unit in the game as limited in scope?
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game. There isn't a role for it to fulfil that isn't already fulfilled by other Terran options. It's role as a scout becomes less important later in the game because Terran has more access to Scans and usually does most of their composition scouting by being in their opponent's face. It's role as a harassment unit is replaced by the Medivac.
It's true that the medivac basically invalidates the reaper, but it still seems unsatisfying to just cast them aside after a certain point. Is there any other unit in the game as limited in scope?
midgame upgrade for reapers: reapers now are able to heal, medivac healing removed.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game. There isn't a role for it to fulfil that isn't already fulfilled by other Terran options.
Really? For over four years Terrans have been complaining about having no options except MMMVG in TvP and you don't see how another viable bio unit, whether it's added onto the bio ball or replaces something, could possibly make TvP more diverse and more interesting?
- 8 second warp in change is taken back, warping in takes standard time - Warped in units have x% less shields, possibly balanced only for certain units with individually adjusted shield deficits at the start and possibly also faster shield regen directly after warping in, not in general. Note: This means not that gateway units will have less shields overall, it means that they start with less shields and should regen their shields before they come into battle. For example, a zealot would start with 100 health and only 25 shield, but after 10 ingame seconds, the shields start to fill up to the full potential of 50
Advantages:
- Emergency warp in not as effective as in Hots, the same as with the 8-sec warp in model - Possibility of giving warpgate units a general buff, because Warpgate rushes are less powerful against Z and T, thus giving them fighting power in the midgame
I would like to hear what others think on this suggestion since I am by far not an expert on gameplay.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game. There isn't a role for it to fulfil that isn't already fulfilled by other Terran options.
Really? For over four years Terrans have been complaining about having no options except MMMVG in TvP and you don't see how another viable bio unit, whether it's added onto the bio ball or replaces something, could possibly make TvP more diverse and more interesting?
I understand the call for Terran to have more options, but you need to think of the role that needs to be filled first rather than trying to change existing units without any clear reasoning to do so. MMMVG doesn't need anything else as it stands: It's the standard composition in TvP because it can deal with anything Protoss can throw at it.
"Terran needs more diversity" is such a far-reaching "problem" that it won't be solved by one unit changing and probably requires Terran to be completely re-worked. I don't think Terran needs re-working, it's the best-designed race in the game right now. Zerg is second and Protoss has always been is the bastard child of SC2 when it comes to design...
I think that it's very easy to fall into the trap of underestimating small-seeming changes. Look at TvZ mech in HOTS, the only changes we saw in the last year were combined mech/air upgrades, removal of Transformation Servos, a tiny buff to tank attack speed and a change to Thor attack priority that many, including myself, thought would do absolutely nothing... and in that time, mech has gone from a gimmicky pressure build to a macro style that isn't just a response to SH, it actually forces SH out of the Zerg. We've seen pure bio, pure mech, bio openings into mech play, mech openings into bio play, and every biomech style under the sun (WM-heavy, tank-heavy, Thor-heavy, Hellbat-heavy).
It's impossible to say what the tier2/3 Reaper's role ought to be without really knowing what Protoss looks like in LOTV, but I would have liked to see Blizzard try some ideas out and see if they become worthwhile. But it seems like they're now retooling the HERC to be the tier 2+ bio supplement, so the Reaper's role has depreciated in priority for me. I still think it's inelegant as all get out to have an entire unit for such a niche purpose, but there are bigger fish to fry.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game. There isn't a role for it to fulfil that isn't already fulfilled by other Terran options.
Really? For over four years Terrans have been complaining about having no options except MMMVG in TvP and you don't see how another viable bio unit, whether it's added onto the bio ball or replaces something, could possibly make TvP more diverse and more interesting?
I understand the call for Terran to have more options, but you need to think of the role that needs to be filled first rather than trying to change existing units without any clear reasoning to do so. MMMVG doesn't need anything else as it stands: It's the standard composition in TvP because it can deal with anything Protoss can throw at it.
Yeah, I don't really see what the reaper should be used for past the early game. A combat shield, unstimmed marine with the stim upgrade has basically the same combat stats with the option to stim and anti-air and 50gas cheaper and half the production time. The additional healing only comes in play out of combat and is inferior to medivac healing. Marine drops are cheaper and much more powerful than reaper cliff-jumping harrass. The only real advantage is the built in extra-speed.
A buff upgrade for the unit would have to buff it very strongly to be better in any way than the marine... and then Terran gets an even better marine, which I'm not sure can withstand the test of balance. The alternative would be to have an upgrade that changes the unit function fundamentally, (example: making it straight up fly). That could be cool, but depends strongly on what it is and would be like introducing a new unit.
One of the things im most hyped for LotV is Biomech in TvP. Just changing the immortal allows terran to get tanks. And that chages the whole matchup. Stargate openings for protoss hopefully not having to transition to colossi as much as in HotS/WoL, and suddenly terran is getting thors too vs continuous stargate production. Thors are good vs phoenixes but terran gets vikes vs phoenix colossus because the colossus is the core of the toss army and immos melt thors too. Im really looking foward to a new TvP with TvZ/ZvP levels of diversity.
edit: Maybe blizzard should remove the immortal and give toss another new unit. Something that can deal with both roaches and bio in the early robo tech.
Nothing should be added to the game solely for early game scouting. That's pretty much the only use it has now so ... yeah, it needs some utility.
Why not? At the end of WoL it was commonly suggested that Terran needed better early-game scouting/harassment against Zerg and Protoss to keep them honest. The Reaper - a unit that wasn't really used at the end of WoL - was re-tooled to fit this gap in the Terran arsenal. There was a problem, the problem was fixed.
If you want the Reaper to be changed for the mid/late-game then come up with a specific problem that it could fix. Like I just said: "Terran needs more diversity" is such a far-reaching "problem" that it won't be solved by one unit changing and probably requires Terran to be completely re-worked.
Because having a unit that can only do one thing and then is useless (especially outside of 5 minute window in the early game) is such a waste. Especially when that one thing is basically: see what's going on.
I'm not arguing that terran needs more diversity ... I'm just saying that this unit being useful for a very short duration, then useless, is boring and unnecessary. Blizzard can do better than that.
They even suggested a way to do better themselves: add an upgrade to convert the early-game unit into a more-useful version of itself. Building attack? Extra damage versus light? Anything's possible.
On December 19 2014 23:59 Superbanana wrote: One of the things im most hyped for LotV is Biomech in TvP. Just changing the immortal allows terran to get tanks. And that chages the whole matchup. Stargate openings for protoss hopefully not having to transition to colossi as much as in HotS/WoL, and suddenly terran is getting thors too vs continuous stargate production. Thors are good vs phoenixes but terran gets vikes vs phoenix colossus because the colossus is the core of the toss army and immos melt thors too. Im really looking foward to a new TvP with TvZ/ZvP levels of diversity.
edit: Maybe blizzard should remove the immortal and give toss another new unit. Something that can deal with both roaches and bio in the early robo tech.
I really cannot see the Immortal changes meaning not transitioning to Colossi as much to be honest; they're too important. The threat of mass marines with Medivac support is so potent that you can't afford to mess about with "should I be getting splash this game or not". You have to tech to splash, its a necessity. And with the increased number of bases needed I can't see Templar being all that favourable; and the new splash unit is still robo and hideously expensive; so Colossi are likely to remain a staple of the matchup.
In short: Although we obviously don't have it to play yet, based on what has been said its almost certainly safer to go Colossi and run into Mech than it is to go Airtoss and run into MMM. So people will tend towards the safer option.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game. There isn't a role for it to fulfil that isn't already fulfilled by other Terran options.
Really? For over four years Terrans have been complaining about having no options except MMMVG in TvP and you don't see how another viable bio unit, whether it's added onto the bio ball or replaces something, could possibly make TvP more diverse and more interesting?
I understand the call for Terran to have more options, but you need to think of the role that needs to be filled first rather than trying to change existing units without any clear reasoning to do so. MMMVG doesn't need anything else as it stands: It's the standard composition in TvP because it can deal with anything Protoss can throw at it.
"Terran needs more diversity" is such a far-reaching "problem" that it won't be solved by one unit changing and probably requires Terran to be completely re-worked. I don't think Terran needs re-working, it's the best-designed race in the game right now. Zerg is second and Protoss has always been is the bastard child of SC2 when it comes to design...
I think that it's very easy to fall into the trap of underestimating small-seeming changes. Look at TvZ mech in HOTS, the only changes we saw in the last year were combined mech/air upgrades, removal of Transformation Servos, a tiny buff to tank attack speed and a change to Thor attack priority that many, including myself, thought would do absolutely nothing... and in that time, mech has gone from a gimmicky pressure build to a macro style that isn't just a response to SH, it actually forces SH out of the Zerg. We've seen pure bio, pure mech, bio openings into mech play, mech openings into bio play, and every biomech style under the sun (WM-heavy, tank-heavy, Thor-heavy, Hellbat-heavy).
I'm not underestimating small changes, I'm saying that you should have a very clear goal in mind before making changes. "Terran needs more diversity" isn't a small change. It is a very wide-reaching change. It's also a change that isn't born out of necessity but out of boredom and those changes are the ones we should be making last. The Reaper change to become a scouting unit was a necessary change because Terran needed an early-game scout.
When Protoss needed an early scout, they got free Hallucination. There are other ways of giving Terrans an early-game scout than taking up an entire unit to do it. Give them 1 free Scan at their first OC. Just as inelegant, but it doesn't take up a unit in the race's roster to do it!
You cited the change to Mech/Air upgrades but that was a change that did have a clear goal in mind. Was it born out of necessity? Given that both Mech and Bio are supposed to be viable Terran options, I think that it was. It didn't quite go the whole way because it hasn't really convinced Terrans that Mech vs. Protoss can work as a standard play (although some players have made it work and I personally think it is under-explored), but we do see Mech more often in TvT and TvZ.
"Give Terrans more viable things to tech to in TvP so that they can surprise Protoss and catch them off guard with an unexpected unit composition" is a legitimate goal, no?
Until you can come up with a hole in the Terran arsenal that changing the Reaper can fill, there's no point in changing the bloody Reaper. The thing is that Terran has very few holes in it's arsenal. The fact that MMMVG has lasted so long is testament to that. Instead of being upset, Terran players should be happy that their race was relatively well designed since day one in both HotS and WoL bar unit balance tweaks.
I agree that Terran is very well designed, but there's always room for improvement!
On December 19 2014 23:59 Superbanana wrote: One of the things im most hyped for LotV is Biomech in TvP. Just changing the immortal allows terran to get tanks. And that chages the whole matchup. Stargate openings for protoss hopefully not having to transition to colossi as much as in HotS/WoL, and suddenly terran is getting thors too vs continuous stargate production. Thors are good vs phoenixes but terran gets vikes vs phoenix colossus because the colossus is the core of the toss army and immos melt thors too. Im really looking foward to a new TvP with TvZ/ZvP levels of diversity.
edit: Maybe blizzard should remove the immortal and give toss another new unit. Something that can deal with both roaches and bio in the early robo tech.
I really cannot see the Immortal changes meaning not transitioning to Colossi as much to be honest; they're too important. The threat of mass marines with Medivac support is so potent that you can't afford to mess about with "should I be getting splash this game or not". You have to tech to splash, its a necessity. And with the increased number of bases needed I can't see Templar being all that favourable; and the new splash unit is still robo and hideously expensive; so Colossi are likely to remain a staple of the matchup.
In short: Although we obviously don't have it to play yet, based on what has been said its almost certainly safer to go Colossi and run into Mech than it is to go Airtoss and run into MMM. So people will tend towards the safer option.
Im pretty much assuming they will give toss something to fill the gap of nerfed warpgates and no thermal lance colossi. To increase diversity in PvT the immos must be changed, but toss also needs a new spash damage unit.
People always complain that toss have too many splash damage units, but gate units are tanks with poke guns (stakers tank damage with blinks) so spash damage units are necessary for the mid game. Chargelot archon is not enough on the long run so without a new splash unit toss is really really dead with no thermal lance. Might as well make it a faster transition (like early robo or twilight tech) to reduce the dependacy on slow tech transitions that force turtle play (or make it a big comitment when you do move out).
edit: about the Disruptor, i dislike the design. Its a huge cost for a unit that can potentially decide a battle alone or die with no damage done for a huge cost. Its like a widow mine on this matter, but on bigger proportions. Its also colossus tech so if its supposed to work vs late game bio its a replacement for the (very) nerfed colossus so they might as well remove it.
On December 20 2014 01:17 ejozl wrote: Are we just neglecting the Disruptor?
The disruptor is a step in the right direction IMO. Having just one of those things blow up in the middle of an MMM ball could easily turn the battle in protoss's favor. 1 colossus does not have the same effect. Disruptors aren't countered by vikings either, in fact I don't know how terran is supposed to deal with them. Bloody hell, do we need lockdown now too?
It does overlap with the colossus a lot, honestly I would like the colossus a lot more if they doubled its damage from 15x2 to 30x2 and also doubled its attack cooldown (make it twice as long). Same DPS, but that first shot will always one-shot marines and SCVs much like the reaver used to do. Then we wouldn't need the disruptor.
On December 20 2014 01:17 ejozl wrote: Are we just neglecting the Disruptor?
The disruptor is a step in the right direction IMO. Having just one of those things blow up in the middle of an MMM ball could easily turn the battle in protoss's favor. 1 colossus does not have the same effect. Disruptors aren't countered by vikings either, in fact I don't know how terran is supposed to deal with them. Bloody hell, do we need lockdown now too?
This honestly does concern me, but what if EMP disabled the disruptor's ability/reset the cooldown?
On December 20 2014 02:06 The_Templar wrote: This honestly does concern me, but what if EMP disabled the disruptor's ability/reset the cooldown?
Well I'm thinking, instead of making it invulnerable, make it ignore the first 10 points of damage. That would make it strong versus MMM and other units it's intended to counter, but weak against mech. Widow mines would counter them pretty hard though...
On December 19 2014 21:25 SatedSC2 wrote: I don't think the Reaper needs to be more useful in the mid-to-late game.
I do.
Nothing should be added to the game solely for early game scouting. That's pretty much the only use it has now so ... yeah, it needs some utility.
They could just merge the reaper and the herc imo. Create an upgrade that gives the reaper a bunch of extra hp and a "rocket boost" that works the same way as the grappling hook and you'll create more utility for the reaper, both in combat and for harassing. The herc is basically just the hook mechanic anyway, giving it to another unit is fine.
Additional new Protoss unit We haven’t finalized design on a new Protoss unit, but it’s something we’re heavily focused on these days. We have general concepts and ideas we’re trying, but haven’t nailed down something solid yet. Generally speaking, we’re experimenting with allowing Protoss to play a more aggressive containment game in the early game by utilizing a new unit. We feel this will give some more variety to Protoss openings, since Protoss generally tends to play defensively. If you have good ideas or feedback in this area, it would be appreciated.
We’re currently exploring a very different type of harassing unit. We don’t yet have the specific details yet but these are the things we’re thinking right now:
Early game unit Slow movement speed (to differentiate from other early game harassers) Phase shift ability. Unit goes completely invulnerable for X seconds on a short cooldown (to be able to move in and harass and to get out in a different way compared to say like Blink harass) Doesn’t counter core units for cost (idea of having a core unit that goes invulnerable just sounds like it would be too much. Plus with this effective ability, this unit could still be a great harasser even if it’s not effective for cost). But like we said, we’re still in the concept/discussion phase of this unit so additional feedback is welcome. It could even be suggestions on a completely different unit that the Protoss can use to make the game more exciting for everyone.
Mothership Core’s Photon Overcharge ability now hits both ground and air again. Because of the resource changes we’re currently testing, Protoss is most impacted as they’re the ones that struggle the most with taking additional bases. We felt this nerf was no longer needed because to this.
Immortal Barrier ability is an upgrade The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
We're going backwards and/or in the wrong direction here. I don't understand what you're doing. LotV is your last chance to finally fix the massive mess that is Protoss since the first days of WoL. Last chance. After that it will be too late.
I read stuff about 300 gas (lol) Disruptors. I read stuff about PO still in the game, Warpgate still there, Colossi still there. I read stuff about a new "harass unit" when Oracles, Phoenixes, DTs, Prisms, Zealot raids and Blink Stalkers already exist. I read stuff about another Faerie Dragon Phase shift ability. I still witness that dangerous obsession about Protoss having a braindead dedicated anti-Tank unit. All of this needs to go. Protoss does not need any more weird, wonky niche units that eventually all end up revolving- around the same bad old deathball model. Protoss needs to be normalized.
Before thinking about new stuff, fix what already exists. You can't build anything on top of fragile foundations. Why not start by reworking those:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
MSC - Removed from the game; this unit is a disgrace to Starcraft. The HotS Mothership can stay for teamgames/lategame PvX.
Protoss should be able to operate without PO. PvT is much better without this, and with Warpgate gone PvP should be fine.
ZEALOT - "Charge" ability removed. - Passive boost to movement speed increased (final value would be anywhere from 3.5 to 4). - Damage point and attack backswing animation can be changed at will to balance the interaction between Zealots chasing bio or Roaches hitting & running.
Behold the birth of Zealot micro in large engagements.
SENTRY - Removed from the Gateway (still unlocked by Core though). - Each Nexus can now build one Sentry that remains attached to that Nexus. - Same abilities as before, except Guardian Shield is a targetted AoE spell.
This way, Protoss would have a compensation in defender's advantage, but not one that is abusable since it would remain around their bases—and around their bases alone. Cost (resources/supply) can be tweaked.
IMMORTAL - Removed from the Robotics. - Hardened Shields removed. - Added to the Gateway as a 80/100, 2 supply, 4 or 4.5 range unit dealing 20 damage to Armored targets. - 100/100 range upgrade at Core tech, increasing the final range to 6. Tweak search time accordingly.
STALKER Can now be further differentiated from the Immortal-Dragoon: cost, production time, damage point, attack, Blink, movement speed—everything can be tweaked to make it more like a mobile raider now that another unit fulfills the role of a stronger and sturdier medium-ranged shooter. Besides, the bad synergy with the MSC has been broken and the snowballing effect of Warpgate reinforcements are no longer there, so there is actually much more freedom to change the unit.
ARCHON - No more bonus damage against biological targets. - Damage changed to 30 + 3 against everything.
Maybe implement some kind of semi-gliding shot, i.e. the Archon doesn't fully decelerate before attacking (so an issued order at this time can make him keep better with retreating ranged units). Can also lower the damage point so it has better synergy with Prisms.
HIGH TEMPLAR - Storm damage changed from 80 damage over 4 seconds (20 dps) to 90 damage over 6 seconds (15 dps).
Reasoning: - Strong but slightly less devastative against light infantry; - Better zoning power; - Better against medium/large targets such as Roaches, Marauders, Protoss units overall; - Better Storm drops against workers; - Better against stationary targets such as Sieged Tanks or Lurkers.
DARK SHRINE Removed from the game. Dark Templars are unlocked by the Templar archives. Remember, they're no longer being warped in or near your base; no more low-skill fluke wins with random DT rushes. Besides, it would add clarity to the game: no one would proxy a building that important in a dark corner of the map. As a result, Dark Templars could probably be made slightly cheaper (cost and/or production). Also adds harassing options to the Templar tech.
COLOSSUS
On November 11 2014 21:19 TheDwf wrote: That's nice, but instead of nerfing they should completely remake it. The Colossus suffers from everything that is wrong in SC2: supply inflation, anticonceptual unit (= artillery without the weaknesses of an artillery), poor microability, horrible interactions, exponential growth of firepower leading to deathball play...
- Supply should be reduced from 6 to 4. - Cost should be decreased (e. g. 200/150); same for the range upgrade if it's kept (100/100 or 150/150). The range should be anywhere from 7-8 (native, depending on the existence of a range upgrade or not) to 9-10 (with the upgrade). - Decrease production time. - Decrease mobility (remove cliffwalking, decrease movement speed). This is a piece of artillery and in some situations it arrives faster than regular "infantry" ... Besides, it would promote Prism usage (which, by the way, should not get this weird distance lifting, there's a reason dropships have to be close to the target they pick...). - Decrease attack speed. - Change damage accordingly; of course it should still slaughter low hit points targets such as workers, Marines, Zerglings and keep a good efficiency against medium hit point targets such as Marauders, Roaches, etc. - Change the form of the splash. Instead of a line that naturally spouses the enemy concave, promoting a-move instead of focusing (micro), change it to a normal impact like the Siege Tank or the Reaver so that hitting clumps is rewarded. - Lose the vulnerability to anti-air. The shift focus contest between Corruptors/Vikings and Stalkers to determine how long Colossi are going to live is insanely bland. Not only this allows a much needed reworking of Corruptors and Vikings, but it also breaks the fact the same anti-air simultaneously deals with Prisms and Colossi and Carriers. - Thanks to this we can decrease hit points now that they're no longer vulnerable to medium or long distance anti-air. Artillery should be fragile. - Of course it would no longer hover over other units (end of the aesthetically horrible cluster of units) nor give air vision, since it's no longer consider an air unit.
WARP PRISM - Renamed War Prism. - Removed Phase Mode. No more possibilities to warp anything. - 80/80, 200 minerals, 40 seconds. - Increase acceleration (important). - Increase movespeed slightly, to 3 or 3.25.
No picking from the other side of the universe gimmick; just a basic, functional Shuttle. Remember that this Protoss is no longer heavily dependent on robo production time (and thus can afford more Observers and/or Prisms). Terrans or Zergs would also no longer build anti-air (Vikings, Corruptors) from the get-go because Colossi would no longer be an air unit. An accelerated energy regeneration upgrade for its cargo could also be tested for better synergy with Archon drops (?).
ORACLE Should decrease the cost (resources/supply), slightly increase range and free Terran from the 6 Marines constraint in early game PvT (should be down to 4-5); the effect of an Oracle on an unprotected mineral line should be weaker. Revelation is interesting but it should be mechanically more demanding (i.e. the spell should cost 25 mana and the effect should not last one minute to begin with). The Stasis stuff seems interesting and could be used to set tactical traps, but it should not last 3 years nor affect 50 units at the same time either.
CARRIER - Increase native armor by 1. - Decrease production time by 10-15 seconds. Interceptors need to be more robust. They should have a single attack and not a double one (e. g. 8x1 or 9x1 instead of 5x2 as of now). They should regenerate when coming back to the Carrier. I don't know if the leash micro has been properly implemented—didn't they put a half-arsed variant?
TEMPEST Now that the Carrier has finally reclaimed its capital ship role with a siege component, the Tempest can get a new identity and be the support of the "teleporting race" theme with Recall/Warpgate. There you can go with an actual 300 gas cost, because it fits the theme of a powerful lategame air unit! You could for instance implement:
- Recall: 125 energy, teleports 6 units beneath the Tempest. - Phase mode: 100 energy, the Tempest can warp gate units like the current Prism does.
Remove Medivac boost (no more PO or Warpgate, huge positive effect on TvT); Mines reworked as 1 supply zoning unit (support instead of core, Tanks would have to come back in TvZ); Hellbats removed/weakened (mech should not have an easy counter to Zealot; also would fix a bit the bio vs mech relationship in HotS); Remove muta regen (so there is a non-Phoenixes solution to mutas; positive effects on ZvT); Keep an eye on Roaches max and the impact of Speedlings on early game ZvP (since there are no more Sentries).
CONSEQUENCES: - A normalized race freed from the deathball syndrome; - Possibilities of a standard game play based around multitasking and harassment; - Much higher microability of all standard units; - Combined with the disparition of Warpgate timings and the increased complexity of positioning (no more warp-ins to salvage mistakes) and management rally, the skill floor of the race would be considerably increased; - There would be diversity in TvP!
Depth in simplicity please. Come on Blizzard, make Protoss the race of proud and fiery warriors it deserves to be!
Considering it's TheDwf, it's not as completely anti-Protoss as you might expect. I agree with a lot of it, especially the general theme that Protoss is becoming more and more gimmicky the further along the SC2 timeline we get. Gateway units need to be beefier, the MSC is fucking retarded especially in early-game PvP and a caster like the Sentry shouldn't be the backbone of an army. I disagree with:
WARPGATE Removed as the standard Protoss production. The Warpgate upgrade can be moved anywhere. Pylons cannot receive warp-ins anymore; see below with Tempests.
I like that Protoss produces units differently to other races. It promotes the idea that we have three very different races. I also believe that Warpgate is the reason a lot of people choose to play Protoss in the first place, I strongly feel that it shouldn't be removed from being an early-game upgrade. However, I do feel that offensive warp-ins can be too strong and make it difficult to balance Gateway units properly, especially if the Immortal is given the new role that you suggest. The best solution would be to make it so that you can only warp-in within the radius of a Warpgate or a Nexus.
On December 19 2014 06:23 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On December 19 2014 01:50 TheDwf wrote:
One thing I strongly disagree with you : warp-in is the mechanic that makes Protoss production interesting and different from T and Z, it should remain the standard way to produce. However, I agree offensive warp-ins should be weakened. Is it that hard to make it so that the further a unit is warped from the associated warpgate, the longer it takes for it to warp in (and optionally the more damage it takes) ? Defensive warp-ins remain as they are, and offensive warpgate timings don't exist anymore, with a now clear defender advantage.
Even if we weaken or get rid of offensive warp-ins the way you suggest, I don't like Warpgate as the standard way to produce because:
1. It mitigates too much mild positioning failures. I don't like the fact you can use a round of warp-in to deal with a ling raid or a small drop even if you're completely out of position. Pre-positioning should be more important and positioning mistakes should be punished accordingly. It also provides a stronger incentive for activity and map control, as one of the ways you don't get caught out of position is to make sure your opponent is too busy for that. Offense is the best defence. Of course the HotS theme of over-mobility (boost Medivacs, faster mutas with regen) has to go for that, but I included that.
2. Adding the constraint of constant production and a harder rally management raises the mechanical difficulty of the race. As of now, one of the signs of great Protoss macro is… not do anything at times, because you're skipping rounds of warp-ins or banking for future cycles of production (besides, I don't like how this functions as a built-in "greed" feature; hence the previous 1 gate tech into +5 gates builds in PvT). Rain has really great macro, and I have yet to read constant praises from viewersfans about this. Similarly, I am under the impression that people don't see or see less Zest's weakness in PvT regarding this. Terran and Zerg are better designed in this regard (more units to produce, individually cheaper = more actions to perform), so Protoss could do with an upgrade here.
3. Last but not least, if Protoss is to be made a micro-intensive race, it means you have to watch/babysit carefully your units in fight. This does not go well with the necessity to switch your camera to one of your Nexus to produce. Imagine for instance if Terran had to do that in TvZ fights: sorry for the 20 Marines pack, no more time to declump, hf with the banes, I have to produce!
Besides, sentry attached to the Nexus seems mostly nonsensical and I don't really get why you want to change the archon vs bio damage.
Well, I tried to reuse the Sentry the best I could. I think it can be interesting to provide that boost to Protoss' defender's advantage; plus it allows differentiation between aggressive and macro builds, and decisions between using energy to scout/create spotters or banking mana for defensive purposes (just like now, except the decision is more important since you have less Sentries to begin with). As I said, it would be like the Orbital/PF upgrade for CCs, or you could think of it as a Queen near its Hatchery. Don't see what's so shocking/gimmicky with the concept, but well, if you don't want it…
The Archon change is to balance how the unit performs vs bio, bio/Tanks and mech: slightly weaker than now against bio (and bio/Tanks since bio units are still the core here), slighly better against mech (remember that the current Immortal is gone in this scenario) and air (including Medivacs).
1. No it doesn't. This is a total myth. First of all, it assumes Warpgates are always off cool-down, which isn't true. Second of all, it ignores the fact that the optimal way to defend drops is by leaving units to defend, not relying on desperation warp-ins. Besides, Speedivacs remove punishment for getting yourself into fights you shouldn't have, but I guess it's fine when Terran can get out of making positional mistakes...
2. The ability to queue units really adds a lot to the macro intensity of a race and makes it harder to play. More seriously, do you really think Protoss players aren't capable of doing that? We already do it with Robo or Stargate units. We don't constantly warp-in Gateway units because they're shit, not because we're incapable of it. Ironically, since Warpgates can't be queued, it's actually harder to constantly make Protoss units than it is to make Terran units. Maybe queues on Terran buildings should be removed if you're so worried about unit production being easy?
3. You actually have a point here... except your argument relies on the assumption that Protoss doesn't require micro already and that makes you wrong.
You're approaching this discussion with a misplaced "racial warfare" mindset.
1. I didn't say Warpgates are always available, nor did I claim that Protoss doesn't have to split/position his units at all. There's no need for inappropriate hyperboles here. Accusing me of double standards regarding this when I said Medivac boost should be removed as well is stupid.
2. Excellent point about Goody, thanks; I forgot it in my pro-gates argumentation. The queueing system indeed creates a tension between "underqueuing" (= risks of gap in the production) and "overqueuing" (= inefficient spending of resources). The middle ground is very difficult to find and that's why we can admire Bomber/Bogus/Flash/etc. while we laugh when Goody has 5 Thors per fact. Warp removes that since you can't saturate Warpgates. No offense but people who claim "Terran macro is easy because you can queue" are generally those who never offraced; go play a 4M macro TvZ and do come back afterwards to tell us that queuing 45 units per minute without gap or excessive overlap during a prolonged lapse of time is easy/comfortable. I didn't say Protoss players were incapable of queuing, random jab once again… Robo and Stargate produce at most 1-2 units per minute and units coming from there often barely represent 10-15% of your army. But now, since you bring this, good point: what's harder, constantly producing Zealots from Warpgates with an icon telling you when Warpgates are ready or having your Voids from 3 Stargates perfectly chrono'ed and queued? [I add chrono in this example to simulate the constraint of a regular macro action which must be done every X seconds.] I want Protoss to move towards that last direction. No more no less.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think you can make Reapers useful by midgame without implementing some kind of odd concept from a costly upgrade, simply because they cost 50m 50g and take a long time to produce. I suggested this before the last patch:
On July 02 2014 21:42 TheDwf wrote: Nitro Packs Researched from: Tech Lab Barracks Cost: 150m 150g 140s Requirements: Factory.
Effects: increases the Reaper's movement speed to 4.25 and restores their WoL attack. [WoL attack: same as the current one except +5 bonus damage to Light; secondary attack against buildings: 30 (+3). Both range 5.]
Target: lategame TvP, lategame TvZ. Fairly straighforward. As of now, the Reaper has absolutely no use past early game. With this upgrade, it could be used in lategame, particularly in TvP to defend Zealots/DTs harassement and pressure remote expands without committing Medivacs.
Reapers would probably remain marginal, but well, at least the possibility would be there in some lategame scenarii.
I think it's difficult to find a good upgrade for the reaper. The unit already has various quirks: jet packs, combat drugs, very high initial speed for a T1 unit, high build time. I doubt it's a good idea to add even more gimmicks to the unit. I also don't think the unit is an unqualified success to be able to fulfill one role in the early game only after very obtrusive design efforts by Blizzard.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the concept of a cliff-jumping unit that it should prove so difficult for Blizzard to balance the reaper. Obviously cliff-jumping is broken at the start of the game, but it should not be too complicated to work around this. (giving health regeneration, which is also broken at the start of the game and worthless late-game probably does not help the unit though)
We should still take into account that if a game requires more and more micro, at one point progamers will not play the game anymore as they would have to retire really early and it's not worth the time and investment. People lose their micro capacity pretty fast after the age of 25 (so I have heard). So if the game requires a lot of micro, player in their late 20s will not do well despite their experience in the game and more and more player will retire early and without much cash in their pockets to be worth it.
I know a lot of micro battles are fun, but let's not go overboard. We have to think of the player in the pro scene too at some point, as "the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."
As it is now, reapers can't fight and can't run. There were so many opportunities to improve this unit that were given to other units: medivac boost, cyclone shoot-while-moving, herc splash damage upgrade, etc. The only thing that's left is some kind of lockdown ability that could mechanical units like tanks or disruptors, or buildings. God knows terran is going to need it with the disruptor the way it is.
What if reapers can lay bombs. For damage, for knockback or something else. Since the herc knockback effect is to countermicro for the enemy, these bombs could trigger after 1sec and reapers would need to be in melee range to plant it.
If cliffjumping becomes to broken with a buffed reaper, just make it an upgrade. Why not change the cost of reaper to?
With bombs, the synergy would be there with marines versus zerglings. Could be cool to maybe micro these bomb reapers versus roaches or stalkers. Like vultures vs dragoons in bw.
While we are at it, what about the ghost? I feel its pretty lame the ghost is there purely for its emp ability. Like it exists to hardcounter other stuff.
On December 20 2014 06:21 swissman777 wrote: We should still take into account that if a game requires more and more micro, at one point progamers will not play the game anymore as they would have to retire really early and it's not worth the time and investment. People lose their micro capacity pretty fast after the age of 25 (so I have heard). So if the game requires a lot of micro, player in their late 20s will not do well despite their experience in the game and more and more player will retire early and without much cash in their pockets to be worth it.
I know a lot of micro battles are fun, but let's not go overboard. We have to think of the player in the pro scene too at some point, as "the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."
That's nonsense. Pro players retire early in general because they either tire of the game, decide to do something else with their life, don't make enough money, or less commonly because of injuries. Age don't play a part in it when it comes to micro potential.
On December 20 2014 06:21 swissman777 wrote: We should still take into account that if a game requires more and more micro, at one point progamers will not play the game anymore as they would have to retire really early and it's not worth the time and investment. People lose their micro capacity pretty fast after the age of 25 (so I have heard). So if the game requires a lot of micro, player in their late 20s will not do well despite their experience in the game and more and more player will retire early and without much cash in their pockets to be worth it.
I know a lot of micro battles are fun, but let's not go overboard. We have to think of the player in the pro scene too at some point, as "the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."
That's nonsense. Pro players retire early in general because they either tire of the game, decide to do something else with their life, don't make enough money, or less commonly because of injuries. Age don't play a part in it when it comes to micro potential.
Yeah, if starcraft is chess+piano+poker combined, then there is ample precedent for continuing into middle-age. I just think that keeping up with the nosleepplay20hoursaday schedule Koreans have becomes literally physically exhausting at some point facilitating burnout at which point they go into the military and never recover.
On December 20 2014 07:25 Foxxan wrote: What if reapers can lay bombs. For damage, for knockback or something else. Since the herc knockback effect is to countermicro for the enemy, these bombs could trigger after 1sec and reapers would need to be in melee range to plant it.
If cliffjumping becomes to broken with a buffed reaper, just make it an upgrade. Why not change the cost of reaper to?
With bombs, the synergy would be there with marines versus zerglings. Could be cool to maybe micro these bomb reapers versus roaches or stalkers. Like vultures vs dragoons in bw.
While we are at it, what about the ghost? I feel its pretty lame the ghost is there purely for its emp ability. Like it exists to hardcounter other stuff.
Didn't reapers have an ability essentially the same as corrosive bile (ravager's ability) in Starbow at some point? You would throw a grenade and x seconds later it would explode to hit ground units?
On December 20 2014 07:25 Foxxan wrote: What if reapers can lay bombs. For damage, for knockback or something else. Since the herc knockback effect is to countermicro for the enemy, these bombs could trigger after 1sec and reapers would need to be in melee range to plant it.
If cliffjumping becomes to broken with a buffed reaper, just make it an upgrade. Why not change the cost of reaper to?
With bombs, the synergy would be there with marines versus zerglings. Could be cool to maybe micro these bomb reapers versus roaches or stalkers. Like vultures vs dragoons in bw.
While we are at it, what about the ghost? I feel its pretty lame the ghost is there purely for its emp ability. Like it exists to hardcounter other stuff.
Didn't reapers have an ability essentially the same as corrosive bile (ravager's ability) in Starbow at some point? You would throw a grenade and x seconds later it would explode to hit ground units?
reapers had grenades during development stage of wol, they functioned very differently though, more as an anti building thing.
Btw i recommend to every SC enthusiast to rewatch some of the earliest sc2 demos. It's really cool to see how things evolved since then. Also I was able to relive the hype of that time which was very enjoyable!
On December 20 2014 07:25 Foxxan wrote: What if reapers can lay bombs. For damage, for knockback or something else. Since the herc knockback effect is to countermicro for the enemy, these bombs could trigger after 1sec and reapers would need to be in melee range to plant it.
If cliffjumping becomes to broken with a buffed reaper, just make it an upgrade. Why not change the cost of reaper to?
With bombs, the synergy would be there with marines versus zerglings. Could be cool to maybe micro these bomb reapers versus roaches or stalkers. Like vultures vs dragoons in bw.
While we are at it, what about the ghost? I feel its pretty lame the ghost is there purely for its emp ability. Like it exists to hardcounter other stuff.
Didn't reapers have an ability essentially the same as corrosive bile (ravager's ability) in Starbow at some point? You would throw a grenade and x seconds later it would explode to hit ground units?
Yep! Exactly right.
Other things that could be tried for Reapers - giving them mines that must be manually detonated like Banelings (to provide buffer zone for your own tanks, mines' lack of mobility doesn't synergize with bio), giving them permanent flight and an anti-air attack (make them mini-Mutalisks), giving them a Lockdown-type ability that affects armored and massive ground units (helps bio against tank/lurker/ultra/disruptor/colo), giving them the Overseer's Contaminate, giving them an attack that can physically destroy resources (eg, attacking minerals destroys 3 minerals in that patch per attack).
Zerg AA vs. mass air strategies We’re currently trying out an ability on the Viper to help deal with large numbers of air units (but not small numbers of them). This new ability deals an AoE dot to enemy air units. If only a few air units are in play, it’ll be easy for the opponent to micro against this ability, whereas when the air unit count gets really high, dealing with this ability will be exponentially more difficult.
We’ve tried out abilities like this in the past and we’ve experienced a couple problems. Counter micro on the opposing side is to just kill the unit that has the DoT on it. This is problematic, because it’s not difficult to just select everything you have and kill the one afflicted unit. Design wise, this type of enemy reaction is also problematic because it just becomes a doom type spell, and not the spell we’re going for. To solve this, we’ve tried versions in the past where burst damage goes through if the unit is killed. The problem in this case is that I can then cast this spell on the enemy unit and quickly focus fire it down.
In order to solve both of these issues, we’re trying a version where if you use the ability, the effect is applied to the enemy air unit, but if the unit is killed before the DoT damage expires, the DoT damaging effect still remains flying in the air at the location where the unit died. This way, the optimal move for the opposing player is to move the affected unit away from the other units rather than just killing it. On the user’s side, it’s slightly more effective to have the affected unit move around with the DoT damage, than to have the DoT damage remain stationary, so there’s little incentive to quickly focus fire the affected unit down.
We haven’t had as much testing with this ability yet, and we’re not even sure if the Viper is the correct unit for this ability, but the general idea of exploring a late game Zerg AA vs. mass air armies is something we’re focusing on.
How about you redesign the entire air fleet of protoss. These tempests can kite vs hydras infinite off-creep. This is really boring to watch. Is the design intent here that zerg needs infestors or corruptors against these tempests?
Not sure why u dont want ground units to work such as the hydralisk. Its not fun if the race is forced to build hardcounter. If the race needs x unit or else it will not work to engage/attack/poke, its such a high limit on gameplay imo.
Same with the voidray, the unit relationships are so dull overall, i am not sure why u believe the air fleet of protoss is fun? Or is it because of balance purposes?
Voidray is essentially a deathball unit. The toss amove this unit with support of hightemplar/forcefield. What can zerg do against this?
The oracle seems to be a cool unit in lotv. Choice between damage or vision in the early game. Good scout unit. In lategame it has utility with its new mine. If terran would need less than 6marines here it could be a fun unit overall.
When something limits the other race it become dull. Its fun when it is about unit interactions. Choices.
The phoenix is another unit i dislike. Protoss opens this unit and its forced damage. I feel like none of these air units have a fun relationship. The necessity that protoss needs phoenix vs mutas is something that is really lame to on top of this.
Hope you really reconsidder to redesign the air fleet of protoss. Hell, maybe the other races to. When you need air unit to deal with a dropharass or the other guys air, its usually not fun. The core units should be able to do more of its job, maybe not perfect but still doable. That creates alot of action and more decisions.
If you insist of going this route to bring some additional power for zerg vs air fleets. Perhaps you could considder to do that with a ground unit. Example: Maybe the swarmhost can shoot "scourges" from broodwar. So they have two modes. One air mode and one ground mode. Groundmode=locust like now Airmode=They shoot scourges.
Good defence against this would be archons since they splash good.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think you can make Reapers useful by midgame without implementing some kind of odd concept from a costly upgrade, simply because they cost 50m 50g and take a long time to produce. I suggested this before the last patch:
On July 02 2014 21:42 TheDwf wrote: Nitro Packs Researched from: Tech Lab Barracks Cost: 150m 150g 140s Requirements: Factory.
Effects: increases the Reaper's movement speed to 4.25 and restores their WoL attack. [WoL attack: same as the current one except +5 bonus damage to Light; secondary attack against buildings: 30 (+3). Both range 5.]
Target: lategame TvP, lategame TvZ. Fairly straighforward. As of now, the Reaper has absolutely no use past early game. With this upgrade, it could be used in lategame, particularly in TvP to defend Zealots/DTs harassement and pressure remote expands without committing Medivacs.
Reapers would probably remain marginal, but well, at least the possibility would be there in some lategame scenarii.
The reaper is one of the units that bothers me the most - not beause its incredibly bad or makes the gameplay worse like the MSC, sentry or colossus. It's because nobody ever fuckign builds them past the first scout(s). That's not enough reason to exist for a unit in SC2 IMO.
My idea would be to give the reaper an upgrade that allows it to place one widow mine. I think the widowmine is a crappy "unit" and this way they become less weird due to their limited production and the inability to relocate them, that plus making the reaper useful again. it should probably also get a very slight damage increase (maybe together with the nitro packs). But I know terran players probably love their mine so whatever :p
Actually in the HotS beta I asked that Blizzard would revert the Reaper to WoL Reaper, but remove Tech Lab requirement. So that it could have more lategame utility with the Building Grenades, as well as powerful harass in the early game. They did remove the Tech Lab requirement, but I'm actually glad they kept the Combat Healing, it makes it so the more multitask the player has, the better the Reapers become. Still think they could have lategame Grenades though.
Wow, so much Protoss hatred there. Specially considering that other races have a big maxing/spamming units potential.
For the comment of air fleet, I think that protoss has an interesting set of air units, the most interesting air set of the game. Most of them are specifically designed, with low damage against everything that they don't counter directly, expensive, and quite weak, adding a need of progression or switch. They rely on upgrades or fancy abilities. Just the opposite of bio, which has strong potential against everything and easily masseable. Or mutas, which are a number unit, mass them, start disrupting the enemy. What the Void Ray needs is some speed or micro potential, and also a new AI to maintain the range close to 6 (pursuit attack) to create more useful Voidrays, that could be more dangerous but also exploited to be dragged. Tempest simply needs a bit less range and tweaks to its new ability, and maybe be rebuilt with + damage vs buildings.
Again, the Terran thing is that they don't need to use a big set of high tech units to achieve huge strength. The reaper upgrade to have the WoL antibuilding attack creates micro efficient packs other than drops, so they add some new types of micro and harass to Terran. I don't see why diversity being an option is so disliked. More damage or health could be interesting, too. Specially inespecific damage, up to 6x2 or 7x2. WIth it being stronger than a marine but less efficient vs armor than a marauder, it's not a bad option. Reaper stutter step + Herc knockback could be worth considering.
On December 19 2014 07:25 TheDwf wrote: 2. Adding the constraint of constant production and a harder rally management raises the mechanical difficulty of the race. As of now, one of the signs of great Protoss macro is… not do anything at times, because you're skipping rounds of warp-ins or banking for future cycles of production
This is one of the points where the mindset of a protoss and that of a terran will really diverge. You present this as an inconvenient and I would say it's an advantage.
Certainly you can expose your macro skills by producing units constantly, and separate yourself from people who are incapable of producing units as constantly as you. That is just a basic fact, and it's impressive to have flawless macro, nobody in these forums should be denying that.
I would counter that having to choose whether you want to produce units or not is also a skill, and that it adds depth to the game. As someone who is more into the S part of RTS than the RT part, those are the aspects I'm drawn to. Basically, I am more attracted to what you can do with your brain than to what you can do with your fingers and muscle memory.
The problem is that this isn't always clear: when you forget a round of warp-in and when you willingly don't warp-in, the result is the same (units aren't made), so it's not as evident whether the player knows what he's doing as when you're just looking at whether the barracks are constantly producing or not. You can just stumble into having the right amount of gateway units, which you can't with a bioball obviously.
One of my favorites games is when San brained Hydra on Polar Night at IEM, by showing a certain amount of zealots to pressure, so Hydra would build just the right amount of zerglings to beat that, and right after he was done cleaning up and started droning again, nine zealots arrived at his natural... The caster's in-game reaction was that they weren't sure whether that was done on purpose or not, because it's simply harder to tell, there's no in-game marker for that.
On December 19 2014 07:25 TheDwf wrote: 2. Adding the constraint of constant production and a harder rally management raises the mechanical difficulty of the race. As of now, one of the signs of great Protoss macro is… not do anything at times, because you're skipping rounds of warp-ins or banking for future cycles of production
This is one of the points where the mindset of a protoss and that of a terran will really diverge. You present this as an inconvenient and I would say it's an advantage.
Certainly you can expose your macro skills by producing units constantly, and separate yourself from people who are incapable of producing units as constantly as you. That is just a basic fact, and it's impressive to have flawless macro, nobody in these forums should be denying that.
I would counter that having to choose whether you want to produce units or not is also a skill, and that it adds depth to the game. As someone who is more into the S part of RTS than the RT part, those are the aspects I'm drawn to. Basically, I am more attracted to what you can do with your brain than to what you can do with your fingers and muscle memory.
The problem is that this isn't always clear: when you forget a round of warp-in and when you willingly don't warp-in, the result is the same (units aren't made), so it's not as evident whether the player knows what he's doing as when you're just looking at whether the barracks are constantly producing or not. You can just stumble into having the right amount of gateway units, which you can't with a bioball obviously.
One of my favorites games is when San brained Hydra on Polar Night at IEM, by showing a certain amount of zealots to pressure, so Hydra would build just the right amount of zerglings to beat that, and right after he was done cleaning up and started droning again, nine zealots arrived at his natural... The caster's in-game reaction was that they weren't sure whether that was done on purpose or not, because it's simply harder to tell, there's no in-game marker for that.
I wouldn't necessarily call it "Protoss" or "Terran" mindset since Protoss used to operate like that, and still partially does (robo/Stargate); besides, as far as I'm concerned, the SC2 revamp mutilated the identity of Protoss far more than it redefined it. In my argument, there's also a general stance about mechanical difficulty that isn't particularly specific to a race.
The point you raise is valid and I am aware of it, but for me the – still outweigh the +. A certain part of this "I decide not to produce" aspect, for instance, is already pre-incorporated into builds (which indeed makes their elaboration more complex, but not their execution). You also have to consider that skipping production is sometimes decided by default because of the exorbitant initial investment costs of some (required) tech paths; for example you can't produce constantly from gates when you have to pay 500/400 for your first Colossus. Last but not least, the queuing system can also decide to cut production for reasons X or Y, so it's not like that strategic/decision aspect is completely absent from it.
An idea I've been thinking of to change the warpgate mechanic a bit would be to increase the amount of time it takes a unit to warp in based on how far it is from the gate that it is warping from. You could buff warpgate units a bit to offset the disadvantage of not being able to reinforce their army as quickly. This would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in.
On December 21 2014 04:25 bigbadgreen wrote: An idea I've been thinking of to change the warpgate mechanic a bit would be to increase the amount of time it takes a unit to warp in based on how far it is from the gate that it is warping from. You could buff warpgate units a bit to offset the disadvantage of not being able to reinforce their army as quickly. This would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in.
I think Blizzard stated they did not like how easy it was to defend against ling run bys, etc. and that it felt as if other races struggled at punishing toss.
Cant' remember where I read that as I still think they are damn useful, but I don't think they'd particularly like your decision.
DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal.
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal.
That seems like a severe abuse of logic. You can't just equate warpgate with harassment options and then harassment options with anti-deathball play and conclude that removing warpgate will ruin the game. It's a very spurious causal chain with multiple badly defined statements which seems to ignore potential other changes to protoss. I can use your logic to argue for a super harassment unit that can teleport all over the map and if some people dislike it I'll just paraphrase Charoisaur: "do you want to go back to deathball play??"
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal.
That seems like a severe abuse of logic. You can't just equate warpgate with harassment options and then harassment options with anti-deathball play and conclude that removing warpgate will ruin the game. It's a very spurious causal chain with multiple badly defined statements which seems to ignore potential other changes to protoss. I can use your logic to argue for a super harassment unit that can teleport all over the map and if some people dislike it I'll just paraphrase Charoisaur: "do you want to go back to deathball play??"
It's actually a pretty good deduction. Why would I want to make a WP and risk losing a ton of warping in zealots that take 8 seconds and 200% damage when I can just build a stronger main army and send zealots around the map instead? Although I do not agree deathball is going to be mainstream after playing lotv customs so much but it definitely something to consider. I certainly am in the same camp that I do not like the 200% 8 second thing, it really is kind of overkill imo.
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal.
That seems like a severe abuse of logic. You can't just equate warpgate with harassment options and then harassment options with anti-deathball play and conclude that removing warpgate will ruin the game. It's a very spurious causal chain with multiple badly defined statements which seems to ignore potential other changes to protoss. I can use your logic to argue for a super harassment unit that can teleport all over the map and if some people dislike it I'll just paraphrase Charoisaur: "do you want to go back to deathball play??"
It's actually a pretty good deduction. Why would I want to make a WP and risk losing a ton of warping in zealots that take 8 seconds and 200% damage when I can just build a stronger main army and send zealots around the map instead? Although I do not agree deathball is going to be mainstream after playing lotv customs so much but it definitely something to consider. I certainly am in the same camp that I do not like the 200% 8 second thing, it really is kind of overkill imo.
You can still use blink stalkers, zealot run-by's, oracles, phoenixes, dark templar, void rays to harass besides the warp prism, which btw received a buff in lotv and now has better synergy with immortals. Then there are the two new protoss units (both of which have harassment capability). There is the intended increased base spread which also strengthens harassment. Nerfs to the colossus and forcefield and time warp (all 3 of which have deathball-ish synergy). And for the other races, a nerf to warpgate is an increase in defender's advantage which allows you to devote more units to harassment and get more bases (which in turn promotes protoss harassment), and the nerf is also a decrease in defender's advantage for protoss which promotes zerg/terran harassment.
etc. picking out one change and saying that death ball play now reigns victorious is one of the more ridiculous things I've read (although Charoisaur's posts are always bad tbh).
Also, if your zealots are caught by enemy troops then leave phasing mode and afaik the zealots will cancel and you won't lose any resources(?). That way there is still zero risk.
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal.
The point being that Protoss gets different options in the form of very strong regular drop/pick up play with the huge buff to the warp prism, the Oracle gets buffed and the disruptor looks like a great option for drop-play. On top of that, they are thinking about adding an additional harassment focused unit to the gateway/warpgate tech (harassment-focused without relying on warp-ins that is). And we don't know if there is more to come or if the metagame will allow the new carriers or tempests to be used in harassment as well.
Hence, what Protoss loses in harassment play from the Warpgate, they try to add back in in other ways. On another note, warpgate play as harassment tool comes in pretty late in the current metagame, hence, in the 90% of games that are decided (decided, not ended) before the lategame warp-in for harassment is a very minor factor.
Also your argument about splitting up the deathball with warpgate play is a pretty poor one, because having pylons or a warp prism around the map does not split up the deathball. In that situation, good Protoss players will only produce (which is similar to splitting up the deathball) if the opportunity is good to do damage. Compared to a loaded dropship of any kind or just roaming units on the map which have to be away from the deathball BEFORE you know whether the opportunity is going to open up or not, this sort of warpgate harassment does much less to take away from big-army syndrome.
I like the warpgate, but it's current form is way to allin friendly. I'm not sure if the changes are the best solution for what I see as the biggest problem with warpgate, but it feels like it could be a legit one. I'd hope in the light of that change they tune down stuff like boostervacs and supermutas as well (worse defensive warpins).
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
On December 18 2014 04:08 Estancia wrote: I think protoss don't need another harrassment unit, but a solid late game unit that can replace the a-move unit called colossus. I'm pretty sure disruptor ( is it correct? Forgot the name, the one that turns invulnuerable and explodes) can be quite effective in harrassment with the new warp prism.
Also, is blizzard ever going to change the mining efficiency to be gradual slope instead of having a flat limit at 24 workers? That would encourage people to kill workers, not snipe bases
THIS.
EDIT: Forgot the actual post part of my post: Making killing workers better than killing bases automatically buffs multi-pronged harrassment IMMENSELY. Currently, only Terran can really do powerful harassment because a single dropship full of marine-marauder not only kills workers but threatens to kill hatches/nexuses. Mutas or zealot drops/phoenix harass can't really kill bases (except in the case of gross incompetence or having already won the game).
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game.
I usually translate this kind of opening lines into "I am heavily biased and unable to fairly assess any discussion that does not agree with my picture of the game".
1- The HERC is no longer cost effective? What does that mean? It sounds like it's just bad when it's worded that way. 2- A slow early game harassing unit for protoss. Whoop dee fucking doo, that'll keep the bitches coming... Don't give me any more slow shit for the love of god, I don't want your slow shit. I don't play Starcraft for slow shit. In fact I don't play starcraft at all but won't come back for slow early game harassing units I can guarantee that. 3- The immortal loses its main characteristic, just like that? So if you build a Robo and immediately build an immortal it's just a slow (sigh) hard-hitting wussy with no ability to survive any better than any other unit? How is that an immortal?
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small contingent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
You do see them send out continents () of other units though, dts, zealot, oracle, phoenix, blink stalkers. Not sure if it affects your point though.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
...
Well you cannot send them because these slow units are kamikaze units in fact. They are meant to bomb the target and never return where a good Terran player returns(!!!) with their drop(ideally with all units). This is not possible with slow units and concussive shells. How are you supposed to retreat with immortals when there are 2 stimmed marauders? Or with zealots? Zerglings/roaches stops these units from retreating too. That is why we see immortal drops, because with WP you can take them back.
Zerg has super mobile army(and creep spread) so they actually can retreat just with the army itself(all core units have speed buff(zergling, baneling, roach, hydra) or high speed from the start(mutalisk)), Terran has medevacs and stim. Protoss does not have anything like this. They used to have the recall from Mothership but actual version of recall cannot support 2 mobile groups(where you could, in theory, with full MS, recall 2 groups). But because MS is so stupidly overpriced and useless, nobody was using it(well, some players were using it from time to time, I remember some PvZ on Taldarim Altar where Grubby(I think) used this recall strategy).
If you want from P players mobile skirmish scenarios, you need to add the option to retreat, that is why we have the recall and MSC, stupid and idiotic solution, but it works. Oracle is fast(and flies) and can retreat -> it is used for harassment, blink stalkers are fast and have blink, phoenixes = oracles, DTs have stealth. And that is it. Zealots cannot retreat(usually), templars? Sentries? Colossi? Immortals? Only in combination with warp prism and very rarely, because then these expensive(!) units miss in defense.
Damn SC2 bug with turning off the ability to switch keyboard ><
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
[...]Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins.[...]
Then maybe WG should me moved to later parts of the game (mid-game?) and we could buff gateway units form the get-go? I believe that the later stage the game is, the less impact for all-in play WG mechanic brings.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
On December 21 2014 22:47 ejozl wrote: The Nexus Recall was the thing I was most hyped for in HotS. I hope a redesign for MothershipCore/Mothership is something they will look into.
Starbow has functioning recall, a nexus ability that recalls only a few units in exchange for energy. But I think that the reason Blizzard prefers the mothership core over incorporating its abilities in the nexus is because the former is a fully functional unit that is identifiable and can be marketed as separate content for the expansion etc.
On December 21 2014 22:47 ejozl wrote: The Nexus Recall was the thing I was most hyped for in HotS. I hope a redesign for MothershipCore/Mothership is something they will look into.
Starbow has functioning recall, a nexus ability that recalls only a few units in exchange for energy. But I think that the reason Blizzard prefers the mothership core over incorporating its abilities in the nexus is because the former is a fully functional unit that is identifiable and can be marketed as separate content for the expansion etc.
Their reasoning was that the nexus was imbalanced as far as I recall. The old version of photon overcharge that could be cast on any building anywhere from any nexus led to problems with proxies. So they made that Nexus hopping MsC which they scrapped due to the recall being too strong as far as I remember. I think it just appeared simpler to balance midway in the development to make it a unit. Putting these things on the nexus imposes the risk that massing nexi (e.g as lategame mineral only PO-static defense; having infinite get out of jail cards in the lategame through recall; having infinite mana through the manatransfer spell they once had on the MsC) becomes broken and the abilities need to be nerfed. (Their old argument about why the overseer has to suck if it doesnt cost supply). Which then may render them useless early.
On December 21 2014 22:47 ejozl wrote: The Nexus Recall was the thing I was most hyped for in HotS. I hope a redesign for MothershipCore/Mothership is something they will look into.
Starbow has functioning recall, a nexus ability that recalls only a few units in exchange for energy. But I think that the reason Blizzard prefers the mothership core over incorporating its abilities in the nexus is because the former is a fully functional unit that is identifiable and can be marketed as separate content for the expansion etc.
Their reasoning was that the nexus was imbalanced as far as I recall. The old version of photon overcharge that could be cast on any building anywhere from any nexus led to problems with proxies. So they made that Nexus hopping MsC which they scrapped due to the recall being too strong as far as I remember. I think it just appeared simpler to balance midway in the development to make it a unit. Putting these things on the nexus imposes the risk that massing nexi (e.g as lategame mineral only PO-static defense; having infinite get out of jail cards in the lategame through recall; having infinite mana through the manatransfer spell they once had on the MsC) becomes broken and the abilities need to be nerfed. (Their old argument about why the overseer has to suck if it doesnt cost supply). Which then may render them useless early.
As far as I know the initial design was mass recall on the nexus for 75 energy; then the design was a mothership core that could teleport between nexuses and eventually they switched to the current mobile mothership core.
Kim: Since MLG we’ve changed a lot of the Heart of the Swarm game. And some of the tweaks that we made are: The Mothership Core - We had a problem, internally, of it being a new unit, we put so much effort into it. It’s a full caster, but it doesn’t feel like a new unit, because it is attached to the nexus in this current build. We changed it, so that it moves at a very slow speed. In doing this change there is some stuff that we have to look out for. So for example, if air to air distance is a little to close between you and your opponent, can actually be used easily as an offensive unit. So there is some stuff that we are watching carefully, but at the same time we do want it feeling like a unit. And if it moves then it kind of does feel like a new unit, so that’s why we changed that.
I don't remember everything David Kim says about gameplay to be honest, but the "MsC has to be a unit" stuck with me. It might be the case that there were also various balance concerns, but the only thing I recall is that there was a lot of initial discussion on TL about building macro nexuses and so on. I think my personal suggestion was to give a shared cooldown to the mass recall ability to prevent it from being broken, but then Blizzard came out with the mothership core which not only solved those issues but also added a new unit to the game. I don't think photon overcharge as a nexus ability with cast range would have been difficult to balance in my opinion, but Blizzard probably cares about making abilities with either infinite range or with visible short range in order to make it clearer for players, so maybe they felt it was a problem.
On December 22 2014 00:44 atuor wrote: Why are changes to a game that's not even out cared about? I could see it there were a few of us playing it but since no one is... why does it matter?
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
You do see them send out continents () of other units though, dts, zealot, oracle, phoenix, blink stalkers. Not sure if it affects your point though.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
...
Well you cannot send them because these slow units are kamikaze units in fact. They are meant to bomb the target and never return where a good Terran player returns(!!!) with their drop(ideally with all units). This is not possible with slow units and concussive shells. How are you supposed to retreat with immortals when there are 2 stimmed marauders? Or with zealots? Zerglings/roaches stops these units from retreating too. That is why we see immortal drops, because with WP you can take them back.
Zerg has super mobile army(and creep spread) so they actually can retreat just with the army itself(all core units have speed buff(zergling, baneling, roach, hydra) or high speed from the start(mutalisk)), Terran has medevacs and stim. Protoss does not have anything like this. They used to have the recall from Mothership but actual version of recall cannot support 2 mobile groups(where you could, in theory, with full MS, recall 2 groups). But because MS is so stupidly overpriced and useless, nobody was using it(well, some players were using it from time to time, I remember some PvZ on Taldarim Altar where Grubby(I think) used this recall strategy).
If you want from P players mobile skirmish scenarios, you need to add the option to retreat, that is why we have the recall and MSC, stupid and idiotic solution, but it works. Oracle is fast(and flies) and can retreat -> it is used for harassment, blink stalkers are fast and have blink, phoenixes = oracles, DTs have stealth. And that is it. Zealots cannot retreat(usually), templars? Sentries? Colossi? Immortals? Only in combination with warp prism and very rarely, because then these expensive(!) units miss in defense.
Damn SC2 bug with turning off the ability to switch keyboard ><
Are you just trying to reinforce my entire point? You just restated my post, fleshed out in further detail, on what is wrong with Protoss.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss.
2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense.
3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable.
Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss.
2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense.
3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable.
Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it."
I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point.
On December 21 2014 04:25 bigbadgreen wrote: An idea I've been thinking of to change the warpgate mechanic a bit would be to increase the amount of time it takes a unit to warp in based on how far it is from the gate that it is warping from. You could buff warpgate units a bit to offset the disadvantage of not being able to reinforce their army as quickly. This would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in.
I think Blizzard stated they did not like how easy it was to defend against ling run bys, etc. and that it felt as if other races struggled at punishing toss.
Cant' remember where I read that as I still think they are damn useful, but I don't think they'd particularly like your decision.
If they want to weaken runby defense they should look at forcefields and how easily 2 sentries can prevent any aggression and not hamper warpgates. I play zerg and i'm less worried about a round of warpins than i am about getting my units trapped next to a nexus cannon. Recall also defeats runbys. If they are worried about this then why do they keep introducing mechanics to the contrary.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss.
2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense.
3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable.
Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it."
I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point.
Ah, good stuff. Arguing from what you think is higher authority. That's about as good an argument as your previous ones.
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss.
2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense.
3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable.
Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it."
I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point.
Ah, good stuff. Arguing from what you think is higher authority. That's about as good an argument as your previous ones.
Indeed, only as a response to your even better "I'm sorry, I was assuming you knew how the game was played." You know, it's actually very true that the better you are, the more you understand the intricacies of the race. You experience all facets of the game, not just the few you watch on stream.
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.
I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so.
I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat).
Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo.
This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc.
Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss.
2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense.
3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable.
Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it."
I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point.
Ah, good stuff. Arguing from what you think is higher authority. That's about as good an argument as your previous ones.
Indeed, only as a response to your even better "I'm sorry, I was assuming you knew how the game was played." You know, it's actually very true that the better you are, the more you understand the intricacies of the race. You experience all facets of the game, not just the few you watch on stream.
How convenient then that I listed them for you. A fact that you keep avoiding.
Call to authority is a bit unwelcome on TL. Also: alot of TL posters, and high level analysts have proven that you don't need a high ladder rank to understand SC2 very well on an analytical level. I remember Day9 stating this a few years ago since he has alot of experience and interaction with lower ranked players.
Especially as an observer who has some analytical knowledge.
To come back to the argument: I think we have seen alot of pure lategame and early-mid allin deathballs of P and it seems to be the most effective way to at least stay alive. The more spread out and multitasking P styles are something we see more and more vs mech play and swarmohost turtling but more often then not P still needs to build up a supply efficient deathball army behind the harassment and zealot runbys. It's not like with T mmm where the whole army is split up on the map or with Mutalingbaneling. P multitask/harass style doesnt build up enough momentum to be able to deal with straight up roach ling hydra busts or anything T can frontally throw at them. In the end P still needs to build those high tech units even in the more mobile styles. They only do it slower in that case.
On December 22 2014 14:39 TedCruz2016 wrote: Swarm host needs to be removed. Not only do tons of free units make it unfair in late game, but swarm host's role kind of overlaps with lurker.
They function similarly but accomplish two completely different rolls...
Maybe, but spawning locust should have a cost - either energy or minerals. SH turtling is already OP in late game, let alone the new upgrade in LotV that allows locusts to fly across barriers and destroy bases without any cost.
On December 22 2014 18:28 TedCruz2016 wrote: Maybe, but spawning locust should have a cost - either energy or minerals. SH turtling is already OP in late game, let alone the new upgrade in LotV that allows locusts to fly across barriers and destroy bases without any cost.
The unit is crap but it isn't OP in any way. If anything the unit isn't even strong enough to be a consistend strategy in toplevel Korean play in any matchup (unless it's Zerg vs Mech).
On December 22 2014 18:28 TedCruz2016 wrote: Maybe, but spawning locust should have a cost - either energy or minerals. SH turtling is already OP in late game, let alone the new upgrade in LotV that allows locusts to fly across barriers and destroy bases without any cost.
I don't think that SH turtling is even viable anymore in LotV because: 1) Swarm Hosts cost 100/200 now instead of 200/100. 2) Spawn Locust cooldown is 60 seconds now, while Locusts last for 30 seconds. 3) Spawn Locust isn't on auto-cast anymore(which isn't exactly a big problem, but still it depends from game to game, sometimes it can be).
Yes, Locusts are stronger in terms of dps, but their health is same as before, which means that they die to any AoE, but unlike before you don't have a new wave the moment your first wave dies. If you just mass Swarm Hosts, and opponent has enough AoE to push through them, you will just die in 30 seconds window when you don't have Locusts.
They are changed, and I am pretty sure that they will mostly be used for harassment, taking down bases with few Swarm Hosts because of the new Locusts or something like that. Players won't mass them anymore since they will take a huge chunk of supply for something that will be able to fight for 30 seconds and then doing absolutely nothing for next 30 seconds.
I agree that upon these changes SH will be used for harassment instead of stalling enemy's push in late game. With the new upgrade, a few SHs could spawn locusts at anywhere around a base and immediately crawl away, and the locusts will fly across gaps, cliffs or any other kind of barrier to take the base down to the ground. It will be harder to defend than MM drop or muta fly-by. This strategy worked very well in showmatch videos.
I want to suggest a possibile solution to warp-in nerf: have it so that Nexuses "power up" warp-ins in their proximity so that they are like the old ones. This solution makes sense in game mechanics and also in lore and in-game coherence. What do you think?
On December 22 2014 23:23 Espers wrote: I don't see why you'd ever use Swarm Hosts over Mutalisks in this "harass" role.
1. Higher DPS 2. Ground attack (turrets and spores would be useless) 3. Unpredictable (compared to mutas, your opponents will immediately know what you're up to when your spire is detected) 4. No resource cost.
On December 22 2014 23:23 Espers wrote: I don't see why you'd ever use Swarm Hosts over Mutalisks in this "harass" role.
I think the following will hold for most sets of two units with overlapping roles: one unit will be mainstream while the other will be primarily used for timing and meta-game purposes. So if the mutalisk is the most prominent threat then swarm host play can punish you if you excessively prepare anti-air. Swarm hosts also facilitate a quicker transition to hive and infestor compositions.
For a more fundamental difference between the two units, I suppose you could characterize them as immobile army harassment versus mobile multi-purpose harassment. There are situations where the former is more useful maybe.
On December 22 2014 23:23 Espers wrote: I don't see why you'd ever use Swarm Hosts over Mutalisks in this "harass" role.
1. Higher DPS 2. Ground attack (turrets and spores would be useless) 3. Unpredictable (compared to mutas, your opponents will immediately know what you're up to when your spire is detected) 4. No resource cost.
I really can't see these making up for the lack of mobility of both Swarm Hosts and Locusts.
Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
What if they just introduced a strong core gateway unit that could only be built from actual gateways, not warpgates? You can leave warpgate in just fine, as long as that strong unit can't be built from them. That would give protoss tons of strategic options. How many WGs, how many regular gates?
Once that's established, phasing out sentries and perhaps even overcharge as the prime defensive tools becomes a hell of a lot easier.
I know I've brought this up before but I feel like it would solve pretty much everything - and happens to be the exact thing protoss seems to lack in Blizzard's current LotV package.
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
Sadly with the ravager I think Blizzard is more in the state of mind of trying to nullify the strength of FF in ZvP instead of something revolving around the removal of forcefield -which is a mistake if you ask me, Protoss is indeed doing fine with very little sentries in TvP/PvP.
On December 23 2014 02:47 DarkLordOlli wrote: What if they just introduced a strong core gateway unit that could only be built from actual gateways, not warpgates? You can leave warpgate in just fine, as long as that strong unit can't be built from them. That would give protoss tons of strategic options. How many WGs, how many regular gates?
Once that's established, phasing out sentries and perhaps even overcharge as the prime defensive tools becomes a hell of a lot easier.
I know I've brought this up before but I feel like it would solve pretty much everything - and happens to be the exact thing protoss seems to lack in Blizzard's current LotV package.
I was told StarBow had this during a while with the Dragoon, don't know if they left it that way or changed it.
The only solution that would really work isn't any of this janky, exception to exception kind of changes people are proposing. Just solid macro mechanics with units whose impact is amplified by player control would be nice (e.g. Speed Zealots vs. Chargelots).
On December 23 2014 02:47 DarkLordOlli wrote: What if they just introduced a strong core gateway unit that could only be built from actual gateways, not warpgates? You can leave warpgate in just fine, as long as that strong unit can't be built from them. That would give protoss tons of strategic options. How many WGs, how many regular gates?
Once that's established, phasing out sentries and perhaps even overcharge as the prime defensive tools becomes a hell of a lot easier.
I know I've brought this up before but I feel like it would solve pretty much everything - and happens to be the exact thing protoss seems to lack in Blizzard's current LotV package.
I was told StarBow had this during a while with the Dragoon, don't know if they left it that way or changed it.
They still do, it has worked greath for them, I think is a really good idea, besides its not like it will be the only thing they would be taking from Starbow
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think you can make Reapers useful by midgame without implementing some kind of odd concept from a costly upgrade, simply because they cost 50m 50g and take a long time to produce. I suggested this before the last patch:
On July 02 2014 21:42 TheDwf wrote: Nitro Packs Researched from: Tech Lab Barracks Cost: 150m 150g 140s Requirements: Factory.
Effects: increases the Reaper's movement speed to 4.25 and restores their WoL attack. [WoL attack: same as the current one except +5 bonus damage to Light; secondary attack against buildings: 30 (+3). Both range 5.]
Target: lategame TvP, lategame TvZ. Fairly straighforward. As of now, the Reaper has absolutely no use past early game. With this upgrade, it could be used in lategame, particularly in TvP to defend Zealots/DTs harassement and pressure remote expands without committing Medivacs.
Reapers would probably remain marginal, but well, at least the possibility would be there in some lategame scenarii.
The reaper is one of the units that bothers me the most - not beause its incredibly bad or makes the gameplay worse like the MSC, sentry or colossus. It's because nobody ever fuckign builds them past the first scout(s). That's not enough reason to exist for a unit in SC2 IMO.
My idea would be to give the reaper an upgrade that allows it to place one widow mine. I think the widowmine is a crappy "unit" and this way they become less weird due to their limited production and the inability to relocate them, that plus making the reaper useful again. it should probably also get a very slight damage increase (maybe together with the nitro packs). But I know terran players probably love their mine so whatever :p
Actually, this would be kind of a cool idea for the reaper. Give each one like 1-2 mines they can plant and remove the widow mine from the factory. That makes it more like a Vulture from BW and gives it a use all game long: Scouting and map control via mines.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think you can make Reapers useful by midgame without implementing some kind of odd concept from a costly upgrade, simply because they cost 50m 50g and take a long time to produce. I suggested this before the last patch:
On July 02 2014 21:42 TheDwf wrote: Nitro Packs Researched from: Tech Lab Barracks Cost: 150m 150g 140s Requirements: Factory.
Effects: increases the Reaper's movement speed to 4.25 and restores their WoL attack. [WoL attack: same as the current one except +5 bonus damage to Light; secondary attack against buildings: 30 (+3). Both range 5.]
Target: lategame TvP, lategame TvZ. Fairly straighforward. As of now, the Reaper has absolutely no use past early game. With this upgrade, it could be used in lategame, particularly in TvP to defend Zealots/DTs harassement and pressure remote expands without committing Medivacs.
Reapers would probably remain marginal, but well, at least the possibility would be there in some lategame scenarii.
The reaper is one of the units that bothers me the most - not beause its incredibly bad or makes the gameplay worse like the MSC, sentry or colossus. It's because nobody ever fuckign builds them past the first scout(s). That's not enough reason to exist for a unit in SC2 IMO.
My idea would be to give the reaper an upgrade that allows it to place one widow mine. I think the widowmine is a crappy "unit" and this way they become less weird due to their limited production and the inability to relocate them, that plus making the reaper useful again. it should probably also get a very slight damage increase (maybe together with the nitro packs). But I know terran players probably love their mine so whatever :p
Actually, this would be kind of a cool idea for the reaper. Give each one like 1-2 mines they can plant and remove the widow mine from the factory. That makes it more like a Vulture from BW and gives it a use all game long: Scouting and map control via mines.
I don't think the Reaper is the good unit for that. Besides, the Mine as an autonomous unit is one of the few domains where SC2 innovated in a way that didn't turn into something worse or a disaster. But even if it's pretty much the only good HotS addition, it can be further improved:
- First it should be released from its core role in bio TvZ (aiming for Marines/Tanks/Mines as the bio midgame TvZ composition would be ideal) and TvP against Templar play. It should act as a support unit, both for bio and mech (right now the latter is not viable because of the 2 supply cost). - Turn it into a 1 supply unit. This will allow Terran to place Mines on the map, for control and defence, without a significant commitment in supply. Supply inflation is really a major problem in SC2 and tons of units should be reworked around a decreased supply cost in order to allow more army splitting. - Damage should be toned down accordingly. Oracles should have less impact on early game PvT (and PvP!) so that the bonus damage to shields can go. This way, primary Protoss units would no longer be one-shot by Mines. The splash damage should be decreased as well since it would be possible to build more Mines. Regarding splash damage, a differentiation between ground and air units could be introduced.
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
wait. with chrono and mules . .doesnt this make zerg really weak early game? With faster minerals comes faster responsibility . . . i mean aggressive possibility, where the zerg needs to drone as their starter units arent as strong . . or is it just 6 queen openers every game?
On December 23 2014 10:17 StatixEx wrote: wait. with chrono and mules . .doesnt this make zerg really weak early game? With faster minerals comes faster responsibility . . . i mean aggressive possibility, where the zerg needs to drone as their starter units arent as strong . . or is it just 6 queen openers every game?
Zerg can still inject and make 4 of anything at once. Including workers.
On December 22 2014 23:23 Espers wrote: I don't see why you'd ever use Swarm Hosts over Mutalisks in this "harass" role.
1. Higher DPS 2. Ground attack (turrets and spores would be useless) 3. Unpredictable (compared to mutas, your opponents will immediately know what you're up to when your spire is detected) 4. No resource cost.
Also, set and forget. Don't need to micro or worry about being kill efficient with them.
On December 19 2014 21:23 Grumbels wrote: A question out of curiosity. I thought it would be obvious that the reaper's weakness past early game could be amended by giving them a mid-game upgrade. A prime candidate would be combat shields: it does not come so early as to affect various reaper rushes and it can be argued that the unit is too squishy later on anyhow. However, there is a potential stumbling block in implementing this because there is a precedent for combat shields to effect some graphical change in marines and this might require a similar adjustment to the reaper model. So while allowing reapers to benefit from combat shields might seem like a harmless option to experiment with, there are hidden costs. Even if Blizzard thought of this change they have to question whether they can make the reaper model work with shields, whether the gameplay benefits (more reaper use) will compensate for the resources expended in creating the model, and so on. Am I overthinking this?
I don't think you can make Reapers useful by midgame without implementing some kind of odd concept from a costly upgrade, simply because they cost 50m 50g and take a long time to produce. I suggested this before the last patch:
On July 02 2014 21:42 TheDwf wrote: Nitro Packs Researched from: Tech Lab Barracks Cost: 150m 150g 140s Requirements: Factory.
Effects: increases the Reaper's movement speed to 4.25 and restores their WoL attack. [WoL attack: same as the current one except +5 bonus damage to Light; secondary attack against buildings: 30 (+3). Both range 5.]
Target: lategame TvP, lategame TvZ. Fairly straighforward. As of now, the Reaper has absolutely no use past early game. With this upgrade, it could be used in lategame, particularly in TvP to defend Zealots/DTs harassement and pressure remote expands without committing Medivacs.
Reapers would probably remain marginal, but well, at least the possibility would be there in some lategame scenarii.
The reaper is one of the units that bothers me the most - not beause its incredibly bad or makes the gameplay worse like the MSC, sentry or colossus. It's because nobody ever fuckign builds them past the first scout(s). That's not enough reason to exist for a unit in SC2 IMO.
My idea would be to give the reaper an upgrade that allows it to place one widow mine. I think the widowmine is a crappy "unit" and this way they become less weird due to their limited production and the inability to relocate them, that plus making the reaper useful again. it should probably also get a very slight damage increase (maybe together with the nitro packs). But I know terran players probably love their mine so whatever :p
Actually, this would be kind of a cool idea for the reaper. Give each one like 1-2 mines they can plant and remove the widow mine from the factory. That makes it more like a Vulture from BW and gives it a use all game long: Scouting and map control via mines.
I have a simple suggestion. How about giving the anti-building grenade back to reaper as an upgrade? Also, make it HEAVELY benefit from weapon upgrade, so a few 2A or 3A reapers can quickly blow up a base and run away before the enemy force draws back - a task that 0A or 1A reapers are unable to accomplish in early game.
On December 23 2014 10:17 StatixEx wrote: wait. with chrono and mules . .doesnt this make zerg really weak early game? With faster minerals comes faster responsibility . . . i mean aggressive possibility, where the zerg needs to drone as their starter units arent as strong . . or is it just 6 queen openers every game?
How do you surmise that at all? Assuming Zerg still starts with 3 larvae, it will have the fastest early game production based on that.
Protoss gets shafted the most as they hit 12 workers before the other races via chrono. Terran benefits the most, as it gets there the slowest. Also, they don't lose mining time either when building a depot.
I wonder how this 12-worker economic system will work. Seems like it'll be only one worker for each mineral field and two for each vespene gaser. If that's the case, losing workers will hurt the economy more than ever before, thus harassments and blitzes will target at workers instead of smashing the base. I think that's the main purpose of this change.
On December 22 2014 23:39 Alexalder wrote: I want to suggest a possibile solution to warp-in nerf: have it so that Nexuses "power up" warp-ins in their proximity so that they are like the old ones. This solution makes sense in game mechanics and also in lore and in-game coherence. What do you think?
I have another idea: pylon upgrade, unlocked by Cyber Core. Only can gateway units be warped in the power field generated by an UPGRADED pylon - or a prism, of course. This upgraded pylon could be a shield battery that automatically heals nearby toss units' shield (already existed in the SC1 Campaigns' SC2 Remake) or a cannon that attacks enemies (that could replace Photon Charge). Meanwhile, both gateway and warp-in tech in the Cyber Core be removed, which means you can directly build warp gates but you can't warp in anything without an upgraded pylon.
On December 22 2014 23:39 Alexalder wrote: I want to suggest a possibile solution to warp-in nerf: have it so that Nexuses "power up" warp-ins in their proximity so that they are like the old ones. This solution makes sense in game mechanics and also in lore and in-game coherence. What do you think?
I have another idea: pylon upgrade, unlocked by Cyber Core. Only can gateway units be warped in the power field generated by an UPGRADED pylon - or a prism, of course. This upgraded pylon could be a shield battery that automatically heals nearby toss units' shield (already existed in the SC1 Campaigns' SC2 Remake) or a cannon that attacks enemies (that could replace Photon Charge). Meanwhile, both gateway and warp-in tech in the Cyber Core be removed, which means you can directly build warp gates but you can't warp in anything without an upgraded pylon.
On December 23 2014 02:47 DarkLordOlli wrote: What if they just introduced a strong core gateway unit that could only be built from actual gateways, not warpgates? You can leave warpgate in just fine, as long as that strong unit can't be built from them. That would give protoss tons of strategic options. How many WGs, how many regular gates?
Once that's established, phasing out sentries and perhaps even overcharge as the prime defensive tools becomes a hell of a lot easier.
I know I've brought this up before but I feel like it would solve pretty much everything - and happens to be the exact thing protoss seems to lack in Blizzard's current LotV package.
- Add dragoon - move WG to mid-game (WG research needs TC or WG is moved to TC) - keep Blizzard change of 8 sec warping - replace FF with time warp (FF-radius) - slightly modify Stalker stats from all-around unit to more harass oriented (slightly faster, lower HP/SH, flat & lower dmg)
then it could be possible to remove MsC/Mothership from the game. - Scrap recall from MsC and add it to Nexus (maybe some upg) reduces radius drastically (FF like). - Add new defensive building/ability to nexus like: Energize/Shield recharge etc
- Scrap recall from MsC and add it to Nexus (maybe some upg) reduces radius drastically (FF like). - Add new defensive building/ability to nexus like: Energize/Shield recharge etc
I agree with you about removing MSC together with MS and giving their abilities to nexus, but I disagree with the decrease of mass recall's radius. I think this ability, if given to nexus, should be able to teleport an entire deathball back. With 3, 4 or more bases, P should be rewarded to SPAM it like CC's scan. It would be difficult for the enemy to kill a dt, an oracle, a prism drop or even a disruptor right after a supernova, because P could always immediately pull them back as long as there's a nexus with enough energy to cast a mass recall. The point is, since WoL, P has been bad at harassment because its units are too expensive to die. This would fundamentally solve that problem.
The said defensive ability could be mothership's cloaking field as an ability that cloaks all nearby toss units (buildings not included) for a short period. It would be very effective against early push or harassment due to both sides' lack of detecting abilities in the early game, and compared to photon charge, it would require a small army to defend the base.
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
Zerg got my mind control.
Yes and no. The Infestor, a feeble and inferior creature, was unable to match the spiritual power of the Dark Archon to control other targets permanently.
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
Zerg got my mind control.
Yes and no. The Infestor, a feeble and inferior creature, was unable to match the spiritual power of the Dark Archon to control other targets permanently.
Thinking about Protoss things... -Zealot legs. Base Speed 2.25 -> 2.4. Zealot Charge removed and replaced with 2.75 -> 3.5 Speed with 25% snare resist. -Removal of MsC. -Sentry acquires Time Warp instead of FF. Hallucination 50 energy. Revert WoL Beta nerf of 6 -> 8 damage attack. 2.25 -> 2.5 base speed. -Stalker +2 instead of +1 per weapon attack upg. Lower damage point. -Push Warpgate upgrade to Twilight unlock. -Casting Chronoboost on regular Gateways is free. -Two Sentry fuse into a unit, the Sentinel. High armor, dual energy cannon bionic. Low attack rate single target that can attack air, +light. Active AoE knockback ion bomb ~6-7 range cast 2-3 radius AoE effect. High shield/hp ratio. 2.25 move speed. -Dark Shrine removed. Templar archives now unlocks DTs. DT Blink now researchable for 150/150. HT move speed buffed from 1.875 -> 2.25. -Reaver-esque unit instead of Disruptor at Robo.
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
Zerg got my mind control.
Yes and no. The Infestor, a feeble and inferior creature, was unable to match the spiritual power of the Dark Archon to control other targets permanently.
What doesn't make sense is that DT and HT teches are combined in SC1 (archive unlocks both) yet separated in SC2, while you could make an archon with either two HTs, two DTs or a HT and a DT!
On December 23 2014 01:53 Grumbels wrote: Would it be fun if sentries were given defensive matrix instead of guardian shield? I've been thinking recently that all "field" abilities like time warp and guardian shield need to be removed from the game for visibility reasons and defensive matrix seems to fit with protoss. Also, guardian shield is one of those "synergy" abilities on a gas-heavy unit that (maybe) promotes death balling.
Out of principle I am opposed to SC2 Protoss pillaging the BW Vessel legacy.
I don't think Defensive Matrix would be a good spell for the Sentry, as it once again reinforces the logic of individually powerful units like Immortals or Colossi (perhaps Voids too in PvZ) when that system should be erased to begin with. You're right that Guardian Shield contributes to the ball aspect though; even literally.
Regardless of what happens to the Sentry, I think the priority is to rework Protoss in such a way the race can operate without the MSC and without Sentries, even in early game. Sentries are for instance marginalized in midgame TvP/PvP and it's a good thing. The same thing should happen in ZvP.
Zerg got my mind control.
Yes and no. The Infestor, a feeble and inferior creature, was unable to match the spiritual power of the Dark Archon to control other targets permanently.
Infestors seem based on brain bugs from starship troopers, which are highly intelligent.
If warpgate tech is really the main balance issue for P then I would suggest that they use energy for warp ins but also lower the time required for switching between warpgate and gateway significantly.
That way warpgate pressure would still be a strong tactic while it would run out of steam quicker. This would also increase the mechanical ceiling for playing P which is a good thing considering that it has the lowest so far.
I don't like the idea of restricting warpgates with ressources or by limiting it's unit options. The only other suggestion that I like is moving warpgate tech to the twilight council and or prolonging the upgrade time in conjunction with the higher warp in time (+4s). Because past 2-3 base play it is really not that much of an issue anymore but gives P the option to be more mobile. The talk about defenders advantage is bollocks. Literally only the first warpin round circumvents the defenders advantage and the following ones are on the timing of a normally rallied army. The mobility you get from warpgate during lategame is not more or less than what T gets through medivacs and Z through sheer unit speed, creep and nydus.
On December 24 2014 06:28 clickrush wrote: If warpgate tech is really the main balance issue for P then I would suggest that they use energy for warp ins but also lower the time required for switching between warpgate and gateway significantly.
That way warpgate pressure would still be a strong tactic while it would run out of steam quicker. This would also increase the mechanical ceiling for playing P which is a good thing considering that it has the lowest so far.
I don't like the idea of restricting warpgates with ressources or by limiting it's unit options. The only other suggestion that I like is moving warpgate tech to the twilight council and or prolonging the upgrade time in conjunction with the higher warp in time (+4s). Because past 2-3 base play it is really not that much of an issue anymore but gives P the option to be more mobile. The talk about defenders advantage is bollocks. Literally only the first warpin round circumvents the defenders advantage and the following ones are on the timing of a normally rallied army. The mobility you get from warpgate during lategame is not more or less than what T gets through medivacs and Z through sheer unit speed, creep and nydus.
Finally some statement with brain. The question about warpgate is that is a top must upgrade for protoss, because without it production times are awful for the protoss (which is a huge disadvantage). Reducing gateway times and increasing warpgate times a bit (4-5 seconds) solves the problems. Also you could rebalance it with slightly longer building times for pylons (potentially solving the 2gate rush issue).
No need for bonus damage or slow warpin mechanic. It's unfair, specially considering the low mobility of the protoss options against other race's options. Protoss balance has remained quite well with it.
The real problem (and I tell this as a protoss player myself) is the Mothership Core and nexus cannon mechanic. Photon overcharge should be moved to a nexus ability, an Energyze should return to the core. So the activation combo is Energize (MSC) + Nexus Cannon (nexus). Or maybe some building protective mechanic (So you can use Protect Building + Nexus cannon).
As energy is not abusable on the MSC, Photon overcharge mechanic could be somewhat expensive (so chronoboost is not used when using nexus cannon): this way nexus ability provides only one advantage at a time (base defense or production buff). This would also sinergize with longer cooldowns on warpgates.
This way to rebalance things could be interesting.
Would anyone miss the Collosus if it was removed? I would love to see the reavers in the game just for nostalgia's sake, seing how Lurkers are making a comeback. They were such a potent unit.
The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
This change is terrible. The general idea of Barrier ability is terrible. It literally makes immortal MORTAL as it will have zero abilities as a T2 unit. If this change is applied, who would bother to waste resources on immortals' production? Let alone an upgrade of an ability that you need to manually activate just to make this unit more microable.
I think an option to enhance immortal's role of meat shield is "shared HP" as a passive ability. It works like the Soul Walker's spell in Warcraft3: when an immortal is heavily fired upon and there are X-1 immortals nearby, then each immortal takes 1/X damage.
The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
This change is terrible. The general idea of Barrier ability is terrible. It literally makes immortal MORTAL as it will have zero abilities as a T2 unit. If this change is applied, who would bother to waste resources on immortals' production? Let alone an upgrade of an ability that you need to manually activate just to make this unit more microable.
I think an option to enhance immortal's role of meat shield is "shared HP" as a passive ability. It works like the Soul Walker's spell in Warcraft3: when an immortal is heavily fired upon and there are X-1 immortals nearby, then each immortal takes 1/X damage.
The goal is to remove deathballs, not reinforce them...
The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
This change is terrible. The general idea of Barrier ability is terrible. It literally makes immortal MORTAL as it will have zero abilities as a T2 unit. If this change is applied, who would bother to waste resources on immortals' production? Let alone an upgrade of an ability that you need to manually activate just to make this unit more microable.
I think an option to enhance immortal's role of meat shield is "shared HP" as a passive ability. It works like the Soul Walker's spell in Warcraft3: when an immortal is heavily fired upon and there are X-1 immortals nearby, then each immortal takes 1/X damage.
The goal is to remove deathballs, not reinforce them...
The goal is a smooth transition from T1 units to T3 units, which means stronger T2 units. The maximum of X could be 4 or 5, so when immortals are under attack by a sieged tank, each one will take 12.5 or 10 damage, which is equivalent to hardened shield's effect. And also, like hardened shield, this ability no longer works when an immortal's shield is reduced to zero.
On December 24 2014 06:28 clickrush wrote: If warpgate tech is really the main balance issue for P then I would suggest that they use energy for warp ins but also lower the time required for switching between warpgate and gateway significantly.
That way warpgate pressure would still be a strong tactic while it would run out of steam quicker. This would also increase the mechanical ceiling for playing P which is a good thing considering that it has the lowest so far.
I don't like the idea of restricting warpgates with ressources or by limiting it's unit options. The only other suggestion that I like is moving warpgate tech to the twilight council and or prolonging the upgrade time in conjunction with the higher warp in time (+4s). Because past 2-3 base play it is really not that much of an issue anymore but gives P the option to be more mobile. The talk about defenders advantage is bollocks. Literally only the first warpin round circumvents the defenders advantage and the following ones are on the timing of a normally rallied army. The mobility you get from warpgate during lategame is not more or less than what T gets through medivacs and Z through sheer unit speed, creep and nydus.
Oh wow, energy on warpgates is actually a really good idea. I think that would fix a lot of the balance issues around it. Obviously other things would need tweaked (like gateway build times, unit build times, etc), but having a finite amount of warpins within a given time-span would still allow some aggressive and reactive use, but it would peter out faster, meaning they couldn't endlessly negate defenders advantage with constant warp-in reinforcements. You'd also have to make the conscious choice of doing harrassment warp-ins at the cost of having defensive warpins later. Perhaps warpgates would allow traditional queuing as well as the energy based warp-in "spell". That way you could still macro out units while you waited on warpgates to regain their energy and you don't run into this awkward "shit, no energy, can't make units, money getting so high, lemme convert all my WG's back to GW's, ah shit" type scenerio.
On December 24 2014 06:28 clickrush wrote:The only other suggestion that I like is moving warpgate tech to the twilight council and or prolonging the upgrade time in conjunction with the higher warp in time (+4s). Because past 2-3 base play it is really not that much of an issue anymore but gives P the option to be more mobile. The talk about defenders advantage is bollocks. Literally only the first warpin round circumvents the defenders advantage and the following ones are on the timing of a normally rallied army. The mobility you get from warpgate during lategame is not more or less than what T gets through medivacs and Z through sheer unit speed, creep and nydus.
I agree with this part. I think increasing Warp Gate research cost and time to something like 150/150/190 and keeping the increased warp-in time/damage taken will allow the Gateway units to be buffed while keeping them balanced.
I always believe that if each race is imbalanced in its own way, the game will be naturally balanced and players will have a lot of fun. Case in reality is that when everyone is armed with a gun, the crime rate is lower and everyone is friendlier to each other. Nerfing every supposed OP unit will only make the units mediocre and the game boring.
The Barrier ability combined with the new ranged pick up from Warp Prisms has been too difficult to defend against without having air units. We’re currently testing having the ability as an upgrade. We may need to make tweaks to improve the ability if needed, but this is something we’ll look at going forward.
This change is terrible. The general idea of Barrier ability is terrible. It literally makes immortal MORTAL as it will have zero abilities as a T2 unit. If this change is applied, who would bother to waste resources on immortals' production? Let alone an upgrade of an ability that you need to manually activate just to make this unit more microable.
I think an option to enhance immortal's role of meat shield is "shared HP" as a passive ability. It works like the Soul Walker's spell in Warcraft3: when an immortal is heavily fired upon and there are X-1 immortals nearby, then each immortal takes 1/X damage.
Cause adding making an upgrade necessary to effectively use a unit (like the ultralisk and plating) is what Blizzard wants to increase more of... or wait, was it remove the need for that?
You're idea is cool; i can forsee it being broken, but it sounds cool and goes with the idea of an immortal
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Removal of MsC.
Bandaid to the wound we intend to close.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Zealot legs. Base Speed 2.25 -> 2.4. Zealot Charge removed and replaced with 2.75 -> 3.5 Speed with 25% snare resist.
With upgrade, Stim Marine is 3.325. Zergling is anywhere from 3.8-6.1. Balances basic unit dynamic with no upgrades and also full upgrades. Differentiates Bisu Zealots from decent Zealots.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Sentry acquires Time Warp instead of FF. Hallucination 50 energy. Revert WoL Beta nerf of 6 -> 8 damage attack. 2.25 -> 2.5 base speed.
Sentries need buffs and are too niche if they're going to hold on their own. Time Warp shouldn't be spammable so no area overlapping, limited cast range, and 125 energy. Hallucination made cheaper is part of replacing MsC as a scout and making it less gimmicky.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Stalker +2 instead of +1 per weapon attack upg. Lower damage point.
Stalkers early game are already decent they just lack punch the further the games on, this is as direct of a change as I can think of. Early Speedlings may be trouble but with a new Gateway unit it might not be an issue.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Push Warpgate upgrade to Twilight unlock. -Casting Chronoboost on regular Gateways is free.
Compensatory nerfs and reworking of Gateway. Pushback is the most palatable nerf without compromising the Protoss identity. Chronoboost uptime on the Gateways will always be skill dependent, flashy so spectators and commentators can can always refer to it when casting, and gives an interesting advantage to vanilla Gateways without changing much.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Two Sentry fuse into a unit, the Sentinel. High armor, dual energy cannon bionic. Low attack rate single target that can attack air, +light. Active AoE knockback ion bomb ~6-7 range cast 2-3 radius AoE effect. High shield/hp ratio. 2.25 move speed.
My idea pitch. High armor to punish lowbie tiers so Protoss equivalent to a moderately cost efficient Roach. Move speed needs to be competitive in skirmish format. +light and can attack air to help deal with Mutas/Bio/Zerglings/Banes without going Colossus/Stalker. The active AoE KB ability can be used for both defensive and offensive purposes. It ruins the effectiveness of AoE on both sides and disincentivizes you to clump. Should make for some hairy and scrappy fights.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Dark Shrine removed. Templar archives now unlocks DTs. DT Blink now researchable for 150/150. HT move speed buffed from 1.875 -> 2.25.
Tech has gotten nerfed since the 12 worker change, and DTs were already a nonissue. Super Banshees have come to town so DT should follow. Templar Archives combine makes sense and DT blink is a logical step in upping their mobility. Also Blink DTs can't really deathball all too well, but surgical strikes maybe so. HT move speed buff is a quality of life thing.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Reaver-esque unit instead of Disruptor at Robo.
An expensive melee unit has to have ridiculous mechanics like invulnerability to be useful. The Widow Mine is much better version of a similar concept because it sends out a disposable copy that has the near same instagibbness of the Disruptor for a fraction of the price. If you whiff a Disruptor that's guaranteed death, being in the middle of your opponent's deathball, while a whiffed Widow Mine is probably sitting comfy behind Siege lines. Thus, the expensive unit being far away from danger combined with the uncertain chaotic explosion ball lends itself to more of a Reaver-like unit than a Baneling-like unit.
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Two Sentry fuse into a unit, the Sentinel. High armor, dual energy cannon bionic. Low attack rate single target that can attack air, +light. Active AoE knockback ion bomb ~6-7 range cast 2-3 radius AoE effect. High shield/hp ratio. 2.25 move speed.
Impossible. Sentinel (sentinelle) is already the french word for sentry I have a hard time understanding how it would look like but we need a protoss unit with a laser whiplash
On December 24 2014 05:43 Cloak wrote: -Two Sentry fuse into a unit, the Sentinel. High armor, dual energy cannon bionic. Low attack rate single target that can attack air, +light. Active AoE knockback ion bomb ~6-7 range cast 2-3 radius AoE effect. High shield/hp ratio. 2.25 move speed.
Impossible. Sentinel (sentinelle) is already the french word for sentry I have a hard time understanding how it would look like but we need a protoss unit with a laser whiplash
Well, Dragoon was French for Dragon. Maybe I just like French words, but it does imply that French is better/advanced. Can call the Sentry whatever Scout is in French.
Also, I'm willing to admit that I was wrong about combining Relevation and Envision, only because Envision ended up getting nerfed as a result. You have to land that initial cast rather than have a meaty detector for Xs. A tech-free form of the detection should be a goal for Protoss' expansion, much like the Overseer and Orbital. The most obvious tech-free venue is Chronoboost, where a boosted unit can acquire certain properties which can be played around with like haste or detection.
One thing I picked up on during my second reading of the list: "Protoss having trouble taking more bases, Photon Overcharge un-nerfed to compensate."
This upsets me on some level, saying that Photon Overcharge will be expected to help expanding somehow? Great. MAYBE Overcharge helps defend thirds (a bit, assuming that your Nexus can even complete in order to be overcharged), but it's sure not going to help defend my fourth as by that point in the game the damage of Overcharge can be ignored - a single photon cannon of damage isn't meaningful when they can smash the Nexus in a few seconds.
You all nailed it, what was i thinking, oh yes of course the zerg player can build 4 workers at once with the inject, ah yes i was forgetting. ask any zerg player what happens if he chooses to build workers instead of attacking units, and from the show matches, it looks like the zerg if they DONT build more than enough units then they are going to die. sounds great, all the while protoss have chronoed out a steady stream of 8 workers and the mules, well, less said about the mules.
lotv wants aggressive expansion. Great. Zerg has to stay one base ahead of all other races as their units as said are weaker. 1 unit for zerg is direct cost of their larva as well. 1 staler doesnt kill 1 set of lings, 1 lings kills a marine with micro but we had to choose army/eco where the other two are boosting their eco with their race mechanics.
I know im just that guy on the internet but im a graduate game programmer as well, i understand all of the mechanics of the game, tried to program similar games myself, i can just see early potential for harass vs the zerg in particular is going to be hard. Just look how effective 2rax and proxy gateways/cannons are if they go un scouted, streamers regularly bz-masters using these builds.
Ask any zerg player what his units are like one on one vs any other no direct counter unit ask any zerg player if sometimes it a bit harder to inject when things are happening and the other races can constantly CONSTANTLY build workers.
now lotv make the early game really stressful for zerg, and of course if its not balanced correctly the zerg are just going to suffer no economy vs constant economy damaging harass. just my thoughts but there werent many people happy with sc2wol at the very start untill we got the savior queen buff.
Look, sc2 and sc to me seemed like a lot of time went into making all of the races feel different, while making them very similar interms of their eco production.
TO GUY BELOW. yes but the new units seem tier 2 or rather 1.5 units, dont affect before maybe 6 minutes. Hmm just looking at it and playing games on the custom map, this shit is hard
You all nailed it, what was i thinking, oh yes of course the zerg player can build 4 workers at once with the inject, ah yes i was forgetting. ask any zerg player what happens if he chooses to build workers instead of attacking units, and from the show matches, it looks like the zerg if they DONT build more than enough units then they are going to die. sounds great, all the while protoss have chronoed out a steady stream of 8 workers and the mules, well, less said about the mules.
lotv wants aggressive expansion. Great. Zerg has to stay one base ahead of all other races as their units as said are weaker. 1 unit for zerg is direct cost of their larva as well. 1 staler doesnt kill 1 set of lings, 1 lings kills a marine with micro but we had to choose army/eco where the other two are boosting their eco with their race mechanics.
I know im just that guy on the internet but im a graduate game programmer as well, i understand all of the mechanics of the game, tried to program similar games myself, i can just see early potential for harass vs the zerg in particular is going to be hard. Just look how effective 2rax and proxy gateways/cannons are if they go un scouted, streamers regularly bz-masters using these builds.
Ask any zerg player what his units are like one on one vs any other no direct counter unit ask any zerg player if sometimes it a bit harder to inject when things are happening and the other races can constantly CONSTANTLY build workers.
now lotv make the early game really stressful for zerg, and of course if its not balanced correctly the zerg are just going to suffer no economy vs constant economy damaging harass. just my thoughts but there werent many people happy with sc2wol at the very start untill we got the savior queen buff.
Look, sc2 and sc to me seemed like a lot of time went into making all of the races feel different, while making them very similar interms of their eco production.
"The savior Queen buff," muahaha. Look, there's not much point freaking out about ZvX balance when the game is not even at the alpha stage. Personally I wish they would redesign Zerg around a less powerful larva inject/banking with increased supply efficiency for their lower tier units, and/or rework Roaches and Hydralisks around a 1 supply variant, but anyway Zerg seems to receive more supply-efficient units with the Ravager and the Lurker.
On December 25 2014 19:47 StatixEx wrote: You all nailed it, what was i thinking, oh yes of course the zerg player can build 4 workers at once with the inject, ah yes i was forgetting. ask any zerg player what happens if he chooses to build workers instead of attacking units, and from the show matches, it looks like the zerg if they DONT build more than enough units then they are going to die. sounds great, all the while protoss have chronoed out a steady stream of 8 workers and the mules, well, less said about the mules.
lotv wants aggressive expansion. Great. Zerg has to stay one base ahead of all other races as their units as said are weaker. 1 unit for zerg is direct cost of their larva as well. 1 staler doesnt kill 1 set of lings, 1 lings kills a marine with micro but we had to choose army/eco where the other two are boosting their eco with their race mechanics.
I know im just that guy on the internet but im a graduate game programmer as well, i understand all of the mechanics of the game, tried to program similar games myself, i can just see early potential for harass vs the zerg in particular is going to be hard. Just look how effective 2rax and proxy gateways/cannons are if they go un scouted, streamers regularly bz-masters using these builds.
Ask any zerg player what his units are like one on one vs any other no direct counter unit ask any zerg player if sometimes it a bit harder to inject when things are happening and the other races can constantly CONSTANTLY build workers.
now lotv make the early game really stressful for zerg, and of course if its not balanced correctly the zerg are just going to suffer no economy vs constant economy damaging harass. just my thoughts but there werent many people happy with sc2wol at the very start untill we got the savior queen buff.
Look, sc2 and sc to me seemed like a lot of time went into making all of the races feel different, while making them very similar interms of their eco production.
TO GUY BELOW. yes but the new units seem tier 2 or rather 1.5 units, dont affect before maybe 6 minutes. Hmm just looking at it and playing games on the custom map, this shit is hard
There is no change from how it's currently in HOTS so your points are pretty moot.
I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
I don't think so: hellion, mutalisk, medivac, warp prism to some extend the banshee in TvT and TvZ to some extend all the "fast" zerg core units like roaches, banelings and most prominently speedlings in all matchups infestors when the game gets to it can be used for harass
Those are all units that aren't pidgeonholed harass units (useful or even strong in proper engagment play), but they excell at harassing. That's what an "harass unit" should can like. That's what most units that aren't specialized on combat superiority and tactical/positional play should look like. The problem isn't harass units, the problem is that blizzard isn't putting enough work into their unit ideas and still surf on ancient Dune/CnC/Broodwar unit designs in which the main idea was giving the unit a purpose to be built. Not whether the unit is actually fun to play with or play against. In particular the second part is where they keep on failing, not just with units but with whole races, their core mechanics and matchups. Because they keep on being satisfied with having stuff in the game that people use. "Oracle so good because Protoss build them"; seems to be enough for them.
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
small groups of units have to avoid the main army, which is hard if expansions run dry even faster. They'll speed up expanding with LotV, but that won't add more places to attack. They'll make it even easier for deathballs, because the mining bases will get closer to each other faster. So you can defend and deny mining at the same time.
But there are alot units that work in small groups already, doubt there can be added lots more, or they would have to be even faster and would just replace the current pack units.
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
I don't think so: hellion, mutalisk, medivac, warp prism to some extend the banshee in TvT and TvZ to some extend all the "fast" zerg core units like roaches, banelings and most prominently speedlings in all matchups infestors when the game gets to it can be used for harass
Those are all units that aren't pidgeonholed harass units (useful or even strong in proper engagment play), but they excell at harassing. That's what an "harass unit" should can like. That's what most units that aren't specialized on combat superiority and tactical/positional play should look like. The problem isn't harass units, the problem is that blizzard isn't putting enough work into their unit ideas and still surf on ancient Dune/CnC/Broodwar unit designs in which the main idea was giving the unit a purpose to be built. Not whether the unit is actually fun to play with or play against. In particular the second part is where they keep on failing, not just with units but with whole races, their core mechanics and matchups. Because they keep on being satisfied with having stuff in the game that people use. "Oracle so good because Protoss build them"; seems to be enough for them.
This is exactly what I meant, my last sentence is probably really not accurate. What I meant is any unit that is good only at harassing and has no other role should not exist. It's just frustrating to play against and even to use because it becomes useless once deflected. Your examples are good and we indeed have enough harass units.
I was just reacting on their proposing another "harass unit" for Protoss. That infuriates me.
In the end, I'd like them to just acknowledge HotS did a lot of things wrong : I'm pretty sure than WoL with the infestor nerf that came with HotS, phoenix +1 base range and HotS hydras (only three things, we can add vipers if you wish) would be a far superior game. They need to take away everything that's plain boring or not working, not to keep adding bandaids over bandaids. And I'm afraid they're not doing that : speed medivacs, muta regen, swarm hosts, widow mines, mothership core, oracles, tempests and everything that made the game stale and uninteresting will still be there (OK, some of them will be tweaked... but can you make a good unit out of such bad ones ?).
On a more general note, I don't get why they think they have to add new units to create hype / justify the price of the expansion. I don't think any of the units HotS added was necessary in the end and I'm convinced the same will hold true for LotV units : do any of the units proposed seem to fulfill a role that no existing unit could fulfill ? I'd have been more than happy to pay for the campaign + tweaks on the WoL units that would have made the game perfect, because I believe WoL was quite well designed unit wise and only the corruptor should have got worked on. Only the viper seems to have some point existing. I'm happy they're trying to mess up with the economy and some mechanics like WG (and maybe forcefields, who knows) for LotV though, just worried that the end result could very well be simply worse.
I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
The oracle's problem isn't that it's a harass unit. Instead, it's just that it's a poorly designed unit that relies on critical mass and catching the enemy off guard rather than execution. Harass-units that relies on micro w/ counterplay is on the other hand a lot more interesting.
What I meant is any unit that is good only at harassing and has no other role should not exist. It's just frustrating to play against and even to use because it becomes useless once deflected. Your examples are good and we indeed have enough harass units
I think Blizzard is aware of this, and this was what they intended by giving Oracle revelation. Unfortunately, it was just a super boring way to give it more utility. Maybe the trap-thing will be more interesting, tough to say.
I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.'
If 50% of the players experiencing an oracle are extremely frustrated by it, I do think it is a unit with a problem. Of course there will always be the tryhards who don't like any unit that is used against them and only play to win, but most players differentiate between better and worse matchups/gameplay and what you are playing against is one of the single biggest factors in that.
Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.'
Actually, it does. A single unit should not require so much reactions from the opponent (stalkers in mineral lines / 6 marines in each mineral line and very often turrets / spores) while barely allowing any counterplay. The oracle has far too much game ending potential for the map control it provides, especially against T and P. It should deal less damage or use more energy per shot.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
The Oracle is a unit that could be made great, but its current form is awful, leading to coinflips via proxy Stargates + too many low effort/fluke instant wins against all races. When Rain killed 10 drones against Solar in the Conn.Si WB Finals, I immediately tabbed out because I knew he had already won the game. Just look at the following sequence until the end of the game: http://www.twitch.tv/connsi/b/602414981?t=2h02m50s Who wants to watch that? Stupid and anticlimatic.
On top of that the unit has limited midgame usage. In PvT the Oracle is so powerful in early game that it has to be one-shot by Mines; and while an Oracle spectacularly crashing at full speed into a Mine never fails to make me grin, things should unwind differently. More back-and-forth, less "hit-or-miss".
a) a proper risk/reward to Oracle usage should be introduced. Lesser initial investment but no low commitment complete security behind it (= goodbye MSC; if Oracles existed in WoL PvT they would be unplayable there).
b) the impact of a single Oracle should be scaled down, the reward for extra Oracles should be higher (comparatively). Currently 2, 3, 4, 5 Oracles add little compared with the first one that already triggers (costly) defensive measures and assures map control alone. It goes without saying that a single Oracle should have considerably less chances to win the game on its own; it should deal a sizeable amount of damage to an undefended mineral line, of course, but without bulldozing 1/3 - 1/2 of the workers here in a few seconds. At any rate, reducing the impact of a single Oracle is forced anyway since there is no particular way to prevent Stargate proxies, especially if the Stargate tree tech is largely/completely irrelevant afterwards (as it's the case nowadays in PvT if you have no intention to build Phoenixes).
The cost of Oracles should be decreased, of course. I'm so tired of SC2 being plagued with overexpensive units. My interest for the Disruptor immediately dropped to zero when I read it was to cost 300 gas. It's like they learnt nothing from 4 years of Protoss deathballing. Please stop with 300 gas units. 300 gas is the cost of a capital ship. Is the Disruptor a capital ship? I'm already facepalming at how much the third generation of the Goliath will cost in SC3 … SC1 100/50/2 … SC2 300/200/6 … SC3 1000/450/18? Please. Can I split my army? Can Protoss players decide where they want to put their resources instead of having 1.5 minutes of gas blocked in one unit for their first Oracle or their first Colossus? The 150/150/3 cost of the Oracle could easily be reduced to 150/100/2, if not 100/75/2. Small is beautiful.
The interaction with other units needs to be reworked as well. 6 Marines kill 1 Oracle, always; no micro can change that. 1 Oracle kills 5 Marines, always, no micro can change that. Compare with the far superior Banshee vs Marines relationship.
If the unit is properly redesigned, then its shield/life ratio can be tweaked to 1:1, i.e. 80/80 instead of 60/100. This will reward a bit more activity.
Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason. Behind that change lies their dangerous obsession with "uncatchable harass units" — Blizzard tries to fix their own failures regarding the passivity of the game but the roots of the deathball/inactivity problems lie elsewhere (economy, critical mass, bad unit design, etc.) and cannot be fixed via things like Oracles, Medivac boost or muta regen—things that are bound to become new issues of their own, adding a burden that SC2 doesn't need...
The LotV trap idea sounds nice, as long as it's not overdone; AoE disables are frustrating to play against, plus spells are generally easy to cast in SC2, so their efficiency shouldn't be disproportionate. But if they're done nicely, they could bring that little plus to small Oracles squads and increase tactical depth—a good point!
But all of this is irrelevant anyway. The fact they want to add other "harassment units" shows they haven't understood that you have to break the deathball model first. You can add 36 "harass units" to Protoss, they will simply be used to build the deathball in a more comfortable position. As long as Protoss has to rely on excessive teching + units like Sentries, Immortals or Colossi, their model will never be skirmishes/multi-pronged attacks but timings/all-ins or deathball with a bit of harassment specifically built to disrupt their opponent's attempts at breaking them first. The problem lies at the core and needs to be addressed as such. Peripheral reworking cannot succeed here. You have to tackle that head on.
If you want more "harass," here's a much simpler way to do it: add versatility to existing units (and then, ask yourselves if others are needed…). Higher movement speed for Zealots instead of Charge. A proper synergy between a reworked Colossus and the Prism, rather than this dumb long distance pick (or whatever it is; I can't believe how many basic rules you're willing to break just to accomodate flawed nonsense). A race that doesn't have a critical resource called ''robo production time'' so that it can build more Prisms to begin with. A race that doesn't have to assume a defensive stance in macro games so it can afford to send more Storm drops, etc. A revamped Oracle would fit nicely into that normalized model, but in the current system it's bound to fail.
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
I don't think so: hellion, mutalisk, medivac, warp prism to some extend the banshee in TvT and TvZ to some extend all the "fast" zerg core units like roaches, banelings and most prominently speedlings in all matchups infestors when the game gets to it can be used for harass
Those are all units that aren't pidgeonholed harass units (useful or even strong in proper engagment play), but they excell at harassing. That's what an "harass unit" should can like. That's what most units that aren't specialized on combat superiority and tactical/positional play should look like. The problem isn't harass units, the problem is that blizzard isn't putting enough work into their unit ideas and still surf on ancient Dune/CnC/Broodwar unit designs in which the main idea was giving the unit a purpose to be built. Not whether the unit is actually fun to play with or play against. In particular the second part is where they keep on failing, not just with units but with whole races, their core mechanics and matchups. Because they keep on being satisfied with having stuff in the game that people use. "Oracle so good because Protoss build them"; seems to be enough for them.
This is exactly what I meant, my last sentence is probably really not accurate. What I meant is any unit that is good only at harassing and has no other role should not exist. It's just frustrating to play against and even to use because it becomes useless once deflected. Your examples are good and we indeed have enough harass units.
I was just reacting on their proposing another "harass unit" for Protoss. That infuriates me.
In the end, I'd like them to just acknowledge HotS did a lot of things wrong : I'm pretty sure than WoL with the infestor nerf that came with HotS, phoenix +1 base range and HotS hydras (only three things, we can add vipers if you wish) would be a far superior game. They need to take away everything that's plain boring or not working, not to keep adding bandaids over bandaids. And I'm afraid they're not doing that : speed medivacs, muta regen, swarm hosts, widow mines, mothership core, oracles, tempests and everything that made the game stale and uninteresting will still be there (OK, some of them will be tweaked... but can you make a good unit out of such bad ones ?).
On a more general note, I don't get why they think they have to add new units to create hype / justify the price of the expansion. I don't think any of the units HotS added was necessary in the end and I'm convinced the same will hold true for LotV units : do any of the units proposed seem to fulfill a role that no existing unit could fulfill ? I'd have been more than happy to pay for the campaign + tweaks on the WoL units that would have made the game perfect, because I believe WoL was quite well designed unit wise and only the corruptor should have got worked on. Only the viper seems to have some point existing. I'm happy they're trying to mess up with the economy and some mechanics like WG (and maybe forcefields, who knows) for LotV though, just worried that the end result could very well be simply worse.
I don't think HotS has done everything wrong. WMs have made it possible for terran to be constantly active on the map vs zerg and not just turtle to the critical mass of tanks and then doing a timing push. you can complain about the design of the mothershipcore as much as you want but nobody can deny that it was just necessary for protoss to be more safe in the early game and to be able to be more active on the map with recall. The hellbat also added a well needed meatshield for mech, and i also think the buffs to the harass units(medivac, mutalisk, warpprism) have made the game much more dynamic. For oracles, tempests and swarmhosts i agree with you; they are completely garbage and i hope they all get removed/redesigned.
For the LotV units i'm as sceptical as you because currently i just don't see the point of any of those units. But who knows, maybe blizzard will surprise me and they all find a good place in the metagame. For me it will be reason enough to buy lotv that swarmhosts, tempests and maybe the collossus are getting redesigned; those three units take imo all the fun out of the game.
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
I don't think so: hellion, mutalisk, medivac, warp prism to some extend the banshee in TvT and TvZ to some extend all the "fast" zerg core units like roaches, banelings and most prominently speedlings in all matchups infestors when the game gets to it can be used for harass
Those are all units that aren't pidgeonholed harass units (useful or even strong in proper engagment play), but they excell at harassing. That's what an "harass unit" should can like. That's what most units that aren't specialized on combat superiority and tactical/positional play should look like. The problem isn't harass units, the problem is that blizzard isn't putting enough work into their unit ideas and still surf on ancient Dune/CnC/Broodwar unit designs in which the main idea was giving the unit a purpose to be built. Not whether the unit is actually fun to play with or play against. In particular the second part is where they keep on failing, not just with units but with whole races, their core mechanics and matchups. Because they keep on being satisfied with having stuff in the game that people use. "Oracle so good because Protoss build them"; seems to be enough for them.
This is exactly what I meant, my last sentence is probably really not accurate. What I meant is any unit that is good only at harassing and has no other role should not exist. It's just frustrating to play against and even to use because it becomes useless once deflected. Your examples are good and we indeed have enough harass units.
I was just reacting on their proposing another "harass unit" for Protoss. That infuriates me.
In the end, I'd like them to just acknowledge HotS did a lot of things wrong : I'm pretty sure than WoL with the infestor nerf that came with HotS, phoenix +1 base range and HotS hydras (only three things, we can add vipers if you wish) would be a far superior game. They need to take away everything that's plain boring or not working, not to keep adding bandaids over bandaids. And I'm afraid they're not doing that : speed medivacs, muta regen, swarm hosts, widow mines, mothership core, oracles, tempests and everything that made the game stale and uninteresting will still be there (OK, some of them will be tweaked... but can you make a good unit out of such bad ones ?).
On a more general note, I don't get why they think they have to add new units to create hype / justify the price of the expansion. I don't think any of the units HotS added was necessary in the end and I'm convinced the same will hold true for LotV units : do any of the units proposed seem to fulfill a role that no existing unit could fulfill ? I'd have been more than happy to pay for the campaign + tweaks on the WoL units that would have made the game perfect, because I believe WoL was quite well designed unit wise and only the corruptor should have got worked on. Only the viper seems to have some point existing. I'm happy they're trying to mess up with the economy and some mechanics like WG (and maybe forcefields, who knows) for LotV though, just worried that the end result could very well be simply worse.
I don't think HotS has done everything wrong. WMs have made it possible for terran to be constantly active on the map vs zerg and not just turtle to the critical mass of tanks and then doing a timing push.
Widow Mines aren't really bad for gameplay, but they wouldn't really be necessary without the HotS zerg additions/buffs, especially mutalisk speed+regen and partly Blinding Cloud, assuming that WoL TvZ were to be more balanced than it was with BL/Infestor. You gotta remember that WoL maps were smaller on average than HotS maps Catallena 164x164 Deadwing 172x172 MGR 160x166 Nimbus 152x152 ...
Only Whirlwind (160x160) was that size in WoL, which is now the standard size. Daybreak (148x120) and similarily and smaller sized maps Antiga Shipyard, Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, Bel'Shire Vestige were the average. So the effects of units like mines/mutalisks and medivacs have simply been balanced out to some degree by maps, and on those smaller maps doing multiple tank pushes or drops was really not that uncommon. Even though doing single 2-2 pushes with tank/marine/medivac seemed to be the way to go towards the end, due to gameplans revolving around "killing him before BL/Infestor". And it is rather HotS that really killed those strategies (leapfrogging Antiga or CK or Daybreak is just way easier than doing the same on Deadwing, or god forbid, Alterzim).
you can complain about the design of the mothershipcore as much as you want but nobody can deny that it was just necessary for protoss to be more safe in the early game and to be able to be more active on the map with recall.
Hm, well, without speedmedivacs, mine (and in early HotS hellbat) drops the necessity of PO wasn't really given in PvT. It feels more like the power of the MsC just allows Protoss to be greedier or more aggressive, to balance out the plainly buffed (in comparison to HotS) Terran midgame standard play in HotS. PvZ I think the MsC is much healthier, though I don't think Time Warp should have ever been given to the MsC. And in all honesty, I think that there would be ways to make PvZ gateway expand possible without the PO or the Time Warp (which are the abilities that I think aren't really that necessary). After all, the untouchable MsC has an AtG attack capable of shutting down most early plays of zerg if paired with proper setup+scouting anyways and is only used for offense. All other applications of the PO are mainly used to help with HotS Zerg builds, like buffed hydralisk and mutalisk builds.[/QUOTE]
The hellbat also added a well needed meatshield for mech,
I don't think so. Mech was working as well as bio in TvT and TvZ without it, so it didn't really need it. In TvP my personal belief is that it was even better before HotS, because banshees were more viable in PvT. In either case, it wasn't played in WoL or HotS in that matchup, so a discussion about its state is mood. The hellbat did nothing here.
and i also think the buffs to the harass units(medivac, mutalisk, warpprism) have made the game much more dynamic.
As I said previously, what happened was that the maps got bigger to prevent those units from being overpowered. Which led to not using those units to be unviable. F.e.(drop-comparison): There have been some pretty good drop-based games in WoL, because on small maps it was easy to drop. There are still many games in HotS in which drops don't play all to big of a role, because the distances for dropping are very long and the drop counters have been buffed as well.
I think that PvZ aside, the improvements to the gamedesign haven't been that big in HotS. There has been the one or other nice thing (ultralisks viable against Protoss in HotS; tense TvZ combats with mines) but a lot of it has come on the expense of other cool things. HotS didn't really build on the solid parts of WoL, and it didn't really build its own fundament. And I fear Lotv is repeating the same mistake with lots of pin-up ideas ("we change the economy", "we change warpgate"), but little ideas that go along the lines of "guys, roaches aren't as fun to control as they could be. here are a bunch of design and stat-changes we want to apply to that unit, so that combat interactions with Immortals and zealots change to the better!".
HotS didn't do everything wrong (I said : did a lot of things wrong). Some things were needed : phoenix base range buff, hydra buff and infestor nerf (with infested terrans benefiting from upgrades again). The reaper redesign was really great and in the end I like banshee cloak cost reduction. Ultralisks buffs were also needed and it's great to see them become a threat in ZvP.
Now imagine WoL with just those simple things, plus : some tweak to the corruptor to make it more interesting (and not another ability), the colossus range is 6(8) instead of 6(9), snipe becomes again powerful against anything biological, and viper is redesigned to help greatly (not counter) against colossi while not hardcountering tanks ; hell viper is maybe not even needed if your corruptor tweak is clever. The carrier buff they're doing could also have been added back then instead of making another capital ship with retarded range that only has a role because swarm hosts exist.
I didn't add any unit to the WoL setup and I think we'd have gotten a far more better game that would have allowed them to then make the revolution (economy, FFs, warpgate) they're preparing for LotV in good conditions.
The problem is that they're doomed from the start with that stupid three expansions thing : they had to add units to justify the price of the expansion, right ? And those units had to be shiny and powerful so that everyone use them, right ? WoL set of units was already quite well designed and you could (should ?) have balanced the game around those units + maybe 1 per race. Not more. With HotS + LotV all we get are units that don't fulfill any role another unit couldn't fulfill and a lot of the things added were added to balance imbalance novelties created, not problems WoL had ; no need of the msc if no medivac speed ; no need of the widow mine and spore biological buff without muta regen ; no need of tempests after the infestor nerfs.
Muta regen, speed medivac and mothership core are seriously the worst things that happened to the game (OK no, the worst thing is swarm hosts, but most people realize it for that one). I like how the msc allowed me to be absurdly greedy in PvT, to at last play solid gate expands in PvZ and to have a stable PvP, but the price of my comfort was too high : all those things ended up creating a metagame that is stale, and the mothership core is in the end the contrary of what it should have been. Instead of encouraging moveouts with recall, it helps turtling and deathballing. Notice how PvP had already moved away from the 4 gates era at the end of WoL and was becoming a fully fledged match-up. Contrary to the common belief, msc was not needed, especially with the no warp in on high ground nerf.
I fear I'm not explaining what I mean very well, but the general idea is that I don't like how they're working on LotV with the mindset that the things added in HotS had their place and were the right things to add ; I think it's far more compelling to remove speed boost on medivacs, muta regen, msc, swarm hosts than to rework an already functional (though admittedly not perfect) economy and nerf warpgate to the ground. But they didn't even talk about it once ; if you ask me, they're building a castle on sand.
On December 27 2014 07:02 Big J wrote: HotS didn't really build on the solid parts of WoL, and it didn't really build its own fundament. And I fear Lotv is repeating the same mistake.
That guy said it all. Instead of relying on what WoL did right -and WoL did some things wrong (4 gates or broodlord infestor era), but for a first iteration a lot of things right-, they just threw everything away. No problem if the end product was undisputably better ; that's not the case. I hope it's the case for LotV, but I fear the outlook is bleak.
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
I don't think so: hellion, mutalisk, medivac, warp prism to some extend the banshee in TvT and TvZ to some extend all the "fast" zerg core units like roaches, banelings and most prominently speedlings in all matchups infestors when the game gets to it can be used for harass
Those are all units that aren't pidgeonholed harass units (useful or even strong in proper engagment play), but they excell at harassing. That's what an "harass unit" should can like. That's what most units that aren't specialized on combat superiority and tactical/positional play should look like. The problem isn't harass units, the problem is that blizzard isn't putting enough work into their unit ideas and still surf on ancient Dune/CnC/Broodwar unit designs in which the main idea was giving the unit a purpose to be built. Not whether the unit is actually fun to play with or play against. In particular the second part is where they keep on failing, not just with units but with whole races, their core mechanics and matchups. Because they keep on being satisfied with having stuff in the game that people use. "Oracle so good because Protoss build them"; seems to be enough for them.
This is exactly what I meant, my last sentence is probably really not accurate. What I meant is any unit that is good only at harassing and has no other role should not exist. It's just frustrating to play against and even to use because it becomes useless once deflected. Your examples are good and we indeed have enough harass units.
I was just reacting on their proposing another "harass unit" for Protoss. That infuriates me.
In the end, I'd like them to just acknowledge HotS did a lot of things wrong : I'm pretty sure than WoL with the infestor nerf that came with HotS, phoenix +1 base range and HotS hydras (only three things, we can add vipers if you wish) would be a far superior game. They need to take away everything that's plain boring or not working, not to keep adding bandaids over bandaids. And I'm afraid they're not doing that : speed medivacs, muta regen, swarm hosts, widow mines, mothership core, oracles, tempests and everything that made the game stale and uninteresting will still be there (OK, some of them will be tweaked... but can you make a good unit out of such bad ones ?).
On a more general note, I don't get why they think they have to add new units to create hype / justify the price of the expansion. I don't think any of the units HotS added was necessary in the end and I'm convinced the same will hold true for LotV units : do any of the units proposed seem to fulfill a role that no existing unit could fulfill ? I'd have been more than happy to pay for the campaign + tweaks on the WoL units that would have made the game perfect, because I believe WoL was quite well designed unit wise and only the corruptor should have got worked on. Only the viper seems to have some point existing. I'm happy they're trying to mess up with the economy and some mechanics like WG (and maybe forcefields, who knows) for LotV though, just worried that the end result could very well be simply worse.
I don't think HotS has done everything wrong. WMs have made it possible for terran to be constantly active on the map vs zerg and not just turtle to the critical mass of tanks and then doing a timing push.
Widow Mines aren't really bad for gameplay, but they wouldn't really be necessary without the HotS zerg additions/buffs, especially mutalisk speed+regen and partly Blinding Cloud, assuming that WoL TvZ were to be more balanced than it was with BL/Infestor. You gotta remember that WoL maps were smaller on average than HotS maps Catallena 164x164 Deadwing 172x172 MGR 160x166 Nimbus 152x152 ...
Widow Mines force Zerg to micro in battle. Without WMs, battles become way too mechanically easy for Zerg compared to Terran. There absolutely have to be "oh no I got stressed out and done goofed up" checks throughout the game, and whether you're dealing well with WMs is a huge one for Zergs.
you can complain about the design of the mothershipcore as much as you want but nobody can deny that it was just necessary for protoss to be more safe in the early game and to be able to be more active on the map with recall.
Hm, well, without speedmedivacs, mine (and in early HotS hellbat) drops the necessity of PO wasn't really given in PvT. It feels more like the power of the MsC just allows Protoss to be greedier or more aggressive, to balance out the plainly buffed (in comparison to HotS) Terran midgame standard play in HotS. PvZ I think the MsC is much healthier, though I don't think Time Warp should have ever been given to the MsC. And in all honesty, I think that there would be ways to make PvZ gateway expand possible without the PO or the Time Warp (which are the abilities that I think aren't really that necessary). After all, the untouchable MsC has an AtG attack capable of shutting down most early plays of zerg if paired with proper setup+scouting anyways and is only used for offense. All other applications of the PO are mainly used to help with HotS Zerg builds, like buffed hydralisk and mutalisk builds.
My understanding is that the MSC plays a huge role in PvP, which was entirely unwatchable in WOL and now actually can, on occasion, produce diverting games.
The hellbat also added a well needed meatshield for mech,
I don't think so. Mech was working as well as bio in TvT and TvZ without it, so it didn't really need it. In TvP my personal belief is that it was even better before HotS, because banshees were more viable in PvT. In either case, it wasn't played in WoL or HotS in that matchup, so a discussion about its state is mood. The hellbat did nothing here.
Mech only worked in TvT without Hellbats. In TvZ, it was used for supremely high pressure builds, nothing more. Not macro games. Look at ForGG vs Life g3 and tell me that's possible without Hellbats.
I think that PvZ aside, the improvements to the gamedesign haven't been that big in HotS. There has been the one or other nice thing (ultralisks viable against Protoss in HotS; tense TvZ combats with mines) but a lot of it has come on the expense of other cool things. HotS didn't really build on the solid parts of WoL, and it didn't really build its own fundament. And I fear Lotv is repeating the same mistake with lots of pin-up ideas ("we change the economy", "we change warpgate"), but little ideas that go along the lines of "guys, roaches aren't as fun to control as they could be. here are a bunch of design and stat-changes we want to apply to that unit, so that combat interactions with Immortals and zealots change to the better!".
Blizzard could have done a lot more with HOTS, no question about it, but the things they did do made the game substantively better. Eventually.
On December 26 2014 06:43 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope they get the "we don't want more harass units part". "Harass" units are specialized, boring, frustrating, even infuriating sometimes. Hell, look at the oracle. To promote multitasking and reward actual skill, we need units that can operate in small packs (marines), not the disgraces they call harass units (oracle).
I don't think so: hellion, mutalisk, medivac, warp prism to some extend the banshee in TvT and TvZ to some extend all the "fast" zerg core units like roaches, banelings and most prominently speedlings in all matchups infestors when the game gets to it can be used for harass
Those are all units that aren't pidgeonholed harass units (useful or even strong in proper engagment play), but they excell at harassing. That's what an "harass unit" should can like. That's what most units that aren't specialized on combat superiority and tactical/positional play should look like. The problem isn't harass units, the problem is that blizzard isn't putting enough work into their unit ideas and still surf on ancient Dune/CnC/Broodwar unit designs in which the main idea was giving the unit a purpose to be built. Not whether the unit is actually fun to play with or play against. In particular the second part is where they keep on failing, not just with units but with whole races, their core mechanics and matchups. Because they keep on being satisfied with having stuff in the game that people use. "Oracle so good because Protoss build them"; seems to be enough for them.
This is exactly what I meant, my last sentence is probably really not accurate. What I meant is any unit that is good only at harassing and has no other role should not exist. It's just frustrating to play against and even to use because it becomes useless once deflected. Your examples are good and we indeed have enough harass units.
I was just reacting on their proposing another "harass unit" for Protoss. That infuriates me.
In the end, I'd like them to just acknowledge HotS did a lot of things wrong : I'm pretty sure than WoL with the infestor nerf that came with HotS, phoenix +1 base range and HotS hydras (only three things, we can add vipers if you wish) would be a far superior game. They need to take away everything that's plain boring or not working, not to keep adding bandaids over bandaids. And I'm afraid they're not doing that : speed medivacs, muta regen, swarm hosts, widow mines, mothership core, oracles, tempests and everything that made the game stale and uninteresting will still be there (OK, some of them will be tweaked... but can you make a good unit out of such bad ones ?).
On a more general note, I don't get why they think they have to add new units to create hype / justify the price of the expansion. I don't think any of the units HotS added was necessary in the end and I'm convinced the same will hold true for LotV units : do any of the units proposed seem to fulfill a role that no existing unit could fulfill ? I'd have been more than happy to pay for the campaign + tweaks on the WoL units that would have made the game perfect, because I believe WoL was quite well designed unit wise and only the corruptor should have got worked on. Only the viper seems to have some point existing. I'm happy they're trying to mess up with the economy and some mechanics like WG (and maybe forcefields, who knows) for LotV though, just worried that the end result could very well be simply worse.
I don't think HotS has done everything wrong. WMs have made it possible for terran to be constantly active on the map vs zerg and not just turtle to the critical mass of tanks and then doing a timing push.
Widow Mines aren't really bad for gameplay, but they wouldn't really be necessary without the HotS zerg additions/buffs, especially mutalisk speed+regen and partly Blinding Cloud, assuming that WoL TvZ were to be more balanced than it was with BL/Infestor. You gotta remember that WoL maps were smaller on average than HotS maps Catallena 164x164 Deadwing 172x172 MGR 160x166 Nimbus 152x152 ...
Widow Mines force Zerg to micro in battle. Without WMs, battles become way too mechanically easy for Zerg compared to Terran. There absolutely have to be "oh no I got stressed out and done goofed up" checks throughout the game, and whether you're dealing well with WMs is a huge one for Zergs.
Again, I don't think WMs were a bad addition. They weren't really necessary. And without problematic additions such as mutalisk regeneration they would be a bad addition. If you have to balance something good with something bad the result is a little meh. I don't think that current TvZ is much better than WoL TvZ, better balance aside. It's also not worse. HotS didn't do a lot here besides balance imo. The micro-argument for WMs is a lame comparison, because the reason mines work is that Zerg has to go muta/ling/bling and micro it. WoL Zerg didn't have to go muta/ling/bling to begin with (which also lifts a lot of the Terran micro-burden) and the eventual counters to marine/tank/medivac in WoL were overpowered so micro-comparisons with BL/Infestor are moot. Not to mention that you are talking about the bio-Terran playstyle which requires these sorts of micro, not the Terran race that can be played with a Mech-Terran playstyle too and just choose not to be that micro-reliant.
you can complain about the design of the mothershipcore as much as you want but nobody can deny that it was just necessary for protoss to be more safe in the early game and to be able to be more active on the map with recall.
Hm, well, without speedmedivacs, mine (and in early HotS hellbat) drops the necessity of PO wasn't really given in PvT. It feels more like the power of the MsC just allows Protoss to be greedier or more aggressive, to balance out the plainly buffed (in comparison to HotS) Terran midgame standard play in HotS. PvZ I think the MsC is much healthier, though I don't think Time Warp should have ever been given to the MsC. And in all honesty, I think that there would be ways to make PvZ gateway expand possible without the PO or the Time Warp (which are the abilities that I think aren't really that necessary). After all, the untouchable MsC has an AtG attack capable of shutting down most early plays of zerg if paired with proper setup+scouting anyways and is only used for offense. All other applications of the PO are mainly used to help with HotS Zerg builds, like buffed hydralisk and mutalisk builds.
My understanding is that the MSC plays a huge role in PvP, which was entirely unwatchable in WOL and now actually can, on occasion, produce diverting games.
Till mid 2013 I would have agreed. Because back in those days there were a lot of different PvP playstyles emerging. However, in 2014 it looks a lot to me like 4gate has been replaced with blink rushing and fast expanding is still dead. VR styles have died and so have heavy phoenix styles. In both periods, WoL and HotS, PvP eventually turned into a game in which macro after heavy aggression of some form is the norm. The more interesting macro games - compared to the mass Colossus WoL PvPs - are more a result of the Tempest than the MsC imo, making 3base mass Colossus impossible and allowing people to rely on Archons/Immortals in the midgame for longer. I do believe HotS made PvP better. I still don't think it is a good matchup.
The hellbat also added a well needed meatshield for mech,
I don't think so. Mech was working as well as bio in TvT and TvZ without it, so it didn't really need it. In TvP my personal belief is that it was even better before HotS, because banshees were more viable in PvT. In either case, it wasn't played in WoL or HotS in that matchup, so a discussion about its state is mood. The hellbat did nothing here.
Mech only worked in TvT without Hellbats. In TvZ, it was used for supremely high pressure builds, nothing more. Not macro games. Look at ForGG vs Life g3 and tell me that's possible without Hellbats.
Come on, that is quite a cheap argument. "A hellbat game could not have happened without the hellbat..." I have no clue how to respond to that. Squirtle vs Mvp would also not have happened in HotS because fuck BCs in TvP nowadays... Here are some great Mech macro games from WoL (g1 and g3) as a response to your statement without the example:
If you are into Mech turtle games - just to show you that macro really was viable - Goody vs Stephano on Metropolis from the last HSC in 2012. (can't find the Vod atm) The only problem Mech had was that it BL/Infestor usually beat it between 15-20mins... a common problem with each and every TvZ style towards the end of WoL, with no connection to the hellbat whatsoever.
I think that PvZ aside, the improvements to the gamedesign haven't been that big in HotS. There has been the one or other nice thing (ultralisks viable against Protoss in HotS; tense TvZ combats with mines) but a lot of it has come on the expense of other cool things. HotS didn't really build on the solid parts of WoL, and it didn't really build its own fundament. And I fear Lotv is repeating the same mistake with lots of pin-up ideas ("we change the economy", "we change warpgate"), but little ideas that go along the lines of "guys, roaches aren't as fun to control as they could be. here are a bunch of design and stat-changes we want to apply to that unit, so that combat interactions with Immortals and zealots change to the better!".
Blizzard could have done a lot more with HOTS, no question about it, but the things they did do made the game substantively better. Eventually.
Anytime I pick Zerg in HotS I have to endure the pain in the ass that is HotS ZvZ. That matchup got substantively worse. Anytime I pick Terran in HotS I have to endure mass doom dropping in TvT and the utter randomness of proxygalore in TvP. I fail to see the improvements to my fun here.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
Also known as using the minimap ;D
Maybe having a yellow or blue box on the minimap that shows your allies current camera position (with the trapezoid) would be good to show players not on teamspeak or voicechat what their ally is paying attention to. This could be disabled using a hotkey for those with better communication capabilities.
A problem I could see with it though is too much clutter/movement on the minimap but using a dimmer, yet still noticeable color for the box would help differentiate from allied units and enemy units.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
See this is where all of you lose me (I'm quoting you but I could quote anyone). Please don't quantify the fun I'm having. It makes no sense.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
See this is where all of you lose me (I'm quoting you but I could quote anyone). Please don't quantify the fun I'm having. It makes no sense.
That's the whole point of designing an entertainment product. Apart from moneymaking, answering these questions is where it starts and ends. You may disagree with him or anyone else, but trying to answer these questions is what our feedback to blizzard should be about.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
See this is where all of you lose me (I'm quoting you but I could quote anyone). Please don't quantify the fun I'm having. It makes no sense.
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
Did you miss the bolded part? And wouldn't it be better if you could actually design units that people enjoyed playing against and using at the same time?
The characteristica of those units is that they incentivize actual micro-interactions for both players. Cat-and-mouse units where one player just tries to catch the enemy unit is really only fun for one of the players. Per design, the Oracle is just not intended to ever be part of an actual engagement.
On December 26 2014 11:03 ejozl wrote: I think the Oracle is a great unit. It is actually extremely hard to optain it's full value, if not impossible. It is very cutthroat and extremely frustrating to play against, but that doesn't make it a unit with a 'problem.' The guy on the other end is having the time of his life. With Stasis Trap added to it, it will provide even more depth to the game, which is great. On the Protoss side, the new Oracle is what I'm the most excited about,
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
See this is where all of you lose me (I'm quoting you but I could quote anyone). Please don't quantify the fun I'm having. It makes no sense.
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
Did you miss the bolded part? And wouldn't it be better if you could actually design units that people enjoyed playing against and using at the same time?
Well I don't want to get into this again. 'People' don't enjoy one thing, what you mean is the majority of the community. And that's a perfectly legit thing to say btw, if the majority of the community prefers something, Blizzard should probably do it. I can't imagine I'll stay around for the result, as terran makes me fall asleep, but that's not a concern in itself.
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
I don't see why mutalisks are more fun to play against than an oracle for example. TBH some of my friends who started playing sc2 were pretty annoyed of "retarded mutalisk balls".
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
I don't see why mutalisks are more fun to play against than an oracle for example. TBH some of my friends who started playing sc2 were pretty annoyed of "retarded mutalisk balls".
But i guess this is very subjective in the end
Mutalisks got retarded when they got the insane regeneration in HotS just because of widow mines.
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
I don't see why mutalisks are more fun to play against than an oracle for example. TBH some of my friends who started playing sc2 were pretty annoyed of "retarded mutalisk balls".
But i guess this is very subjective in the end
Mutalisks got retarded when they got the insane regeneration in HotS just because of widow mines.
their movement speed got a buff too remember , they are much faster than they were in WoL too no?
Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against.
I don't see why mutalisks are more fun to play against than an oracle for example. TBH some of my friends who started playing sc2 were pretty annoyed of "retarded mutalisk balls".
But i guess this is very subjective in the end
Mutalisks got retarded when they got the insane regeneration in HotS just because of widow mines.
their movement speed got a buff too remember , they are much faster than they were in WoL too no?
Merely by 0.25, so from 3.75 to 4. They could just nerf medivac boosts, phoenix speed and mutalisk speed by 0.25 at this point and it would probably only make the game better. Those relations are the only reasons those sorts of speeds have to be at these exact values. For most micro/combat applications it is a minor factor whether a medivac goes by 4.25 or 4.0, for as long as it isn't 0.5 faster than a mutalisk. But it would take a tiny bit away from the superfast position switching of drops&doom drops and mutalisk clouds, that make the one unit require the other as a counter.
On December 27 2014 22:38 algue wrote: I wish Blizzard's Sc2 Balance team could have a twitter and communicate about their work on a daily/weekly basis
Most of the time they would have nothing to say/discuss with such a regular schedule. But it's quite off topic anyway.
On December 27 2014 22:38 algue wrote: I wish Blizzard's Sc2 Balance team could have a twitter and communicate about their work on a daily/weekly basis
Most of the time they would have nothing to say/discuss with such a regular schedule. But it's quite off topic anyway.
A single tweet saying something like "what about a jetpack upgrade for the zealot ?" would give us something to argue about for days.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
Also known as using the minimap ;D
Don't be shittin on my good idea
In all seriousness, the idea itself isn't bad (I'm all for having a better idea of what your ally is looking at), but the intended use you mentioned typically correspond to the kind of infos that are given by good minimap usage :D
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
On December 18 2014 04:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss needs an early/midgame unit that keeps us alive. Harassing isn't an issue when you can open blink, oracle, warp prism, phoenixes, etc. But what's a real issue is that protoss needs to be able to survive the bridge between gateway units and high tech AoE.
The mothership core is supposed to be that stop-gap towards higher tech. Unfortunately, it's a crappy solution.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Right, you don't see mass muta much because players typically pre-empt it. They either have phoenix, or threaten with a large enough army so the zerg can't risk a base trade with a muta switch. Doesn't make it fun to play against or make it less game ending. Oracles, even cheesy oracles, often accomplish nothing because the terran had marines in his mineral lines. That doesn't change the fact that it's not fun to play against. I'm not arguing balance, I'm just saying that the idea that mutas are a fun unit to play against in PvZ is ridiculous. It's either frustrating or dull. It doesn't promote interesting or enjoyable interactions.
You can deal with a muta switch, just like you can deal with oracles. If oracles were as strong as people imply they are, you'd see oracle rushes in half of all games: but you don't see that. Instead, it's an occasional build to keep the opponent guessing and stop them from playing greedy. But my complaint isn't their strength, it's how downright annoying they are to play against. Unit design should not be fun for only one player. There are plenty of other unit interactions that are great, like ghost vs. high templar.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Right, you don't see mass muta much because players typically pre-empt it. They either have phoenix, or threaten with a large enough army so the zerg can't risk a base trade with a muta switch. Doesn't make it fun to play against or make it less game ending. Oracles, even cheesy oracles, often accomplish nothing because the terran had marines in his mineral lines. That doesn't change the fact that it's not fun to play against. I'm not arguing balance, I'm just saying that the idea that mutas are a fun unit to play against in PvZ is ridiculous. It's either frustrating or dull. It doesn't promote interesting or enjoyable interactions.
You can deal with a muta switch, just like you can deal with oracles. If oracles were as strong as people imply they are, you'd see oracle rushes in half of all games: but you don't see that. Instead, it's an occasional build to keep the opponent guessing and stop them from playing greedy. But my complaint isn't their strength, it's how downright annoying they are to play against. Unit design should not be fun for only one player. There are plenty of other unit interactions that are great, like ghost vs. high templar.
I think it's a matter of preference. The simple fact that you can prepare adequately for mutas preemptively makes it not a big deal to me. Oracles work in a different way - you don't prepare for them because you scout it in time and put up adequate defences and then proceed to outplay your opponent. You blindly prepare because of the threat at an insanely early stage of the game.
And I personally loathe HT vs Ghost and think it's probably one of the absolute worst unit interactions in the game. In fact, I'd say it could possible be my LEAST favorite unit interactions in the game against each other (specific unit matchup at least - I think SH is overall the absolute worst unit). When I think of fun unit interaction, I think of baneling vs marines, chargelot/archon vs MMM, ling/infestor vs MMM, etc. I actually don't even mind phoenix vs muta/corrupter...
I don't think I've built a Ghost in TvP in my last 200+ games in that matchup...
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Right, you don't see mass muta much because players typically pre-empt it. They either have phoenix, or threaten with a large enough army so the zerg can't risk a base trade with a muta switch. Doesn't make it fun to play against or make it less game ending. Oracles, even cheesy oracles, often accomplish nothing because the terran had marines in his mineral lines. That doesn't change the fact that it's not fun to play against. I'm not arguing balance, I'm just saying that the idea that mutas are a fun unit to play against in PvZ is ridiculous. It's either frustrating or dull. It doesn't promote interesting or enjoyable interactions.
You can deal with a muta switch, just like you can deal with oracles. If oracles were as strong as people imply they are, you'd see oracle rushes in half of all games: but you don't see that. Instead, it's an occasional build to keep the opponent guessing and stop them from playing greedy. But my complaint isn't their strength, it's how downright annoying they are to play against. Unit design should not be fun for only one player. There are plenty of other unit interactions that are great, like ghost vs. high templar.
I think it's a matter of preference. The simple fact that you can prepare adequately for mutas preemptively makes it not a big deal to me. Oracles work in a different way - you don't prepare for them because you scout it in time and put up adequate defences and then proceed to outplay your opponent. You blindly prepare because of the threat at an insanely early stage of the game.
And I personally loathe HT vs Ghost and think it's probably one of the absolute worst unit interactions in the game. In fact, I'd say it could possible be my LEAST favorite unit interactions in the game against each other (specific unit matchup at least - I think SH is overall the absolute worst unit). When I think of fun unit interaction, I think of baneling vs marines, chargelot/archon vs MMM, ling/infestor vs MMM, etc. I actually don't even mind phoenix vs muta/corrupter...
I don't think I've built a Ghost in TvP in my last 200+ games in that matchup...
Chargelot/archon vs. MMM is lame. You don't actually do anything with the chareglots and archons except attack move, then pull back after you realize you're being kited too well. There's no real micro for the protoss there, that's a lame interaction. Same goes for banelings vs. marines: you run the banes at them and the micro is all in the hands of the terran. The reason that one is fine is because the zerg's micro is being used on zerglings to wrap around marines and on mutalisks to pick off key units while the banes keep the marines running. Thus, it's Muta/ling/bane vs. bio, not pure bane vs. bio, that is good.
Ghost vs. High Templar has micro on both sides: the High Templar have to nuke the terran army with storms, and the terran needs to neutralize your high templar. Thus you get into an intense micro war on both sides with templar trying to feedback ghosts to protect other templar while ghosts snipe and EMP templar to stop the storms (and feedbacks). To protect ghosts, terran will often send small balls of marines and marauders forwards to snipe them. The unit ball is small enough that protoss can't use a storm usefully. Then protoss tries to pull the templar back and blink in stalkers or use colossi to kill the unit ball, which backs off. Both players have to manage multiple groups of units in order to win the micro war, which makes it a good interaction that's skill intensive on both sides. That's a good interaction. It's even better when you realize that both players often introduce additional elements to this one micro war: protoss will use warp prisms to protect the templar, so then terran tries to zone out the prisms with vikings, or have ghosts in position to spam EMP when they try to unload. Protoss will use small groups of blink stalkers to poach forwards to snipe ghosts and prevent ghosts from leading the pack, and Terran uses marauders to force them back. Terran cloaks and can EMP flank, Protoss can storm flank, the interaction is great, for the same reason that muta/ling/bane vs. bio+mine is a good interaction: there are high micro requirements on both players to make that engagement work.
Phoenix vs. muta/corrupter by contrast is lame. Protoss can't use the phoenix aggressively because of threat of a counter (phoenix can't wipe out bases) and for fear of a single fungal ruining the game. Micro'ing phoenix is also easy: the only difficulty is in multi-tasking your macro with it. During the engagement, you mostly just spam move commands in different places, while all the zerg has to do is position the corrupters in between the phoenix and the mutas while the mutas kill everything else. Neither player has a particularly difficult time controlling the interaction, and there's no counter play potential from protoss, or additional options really. Zerg can add infestors, vipers to yank phoenix into the corrupter/muta, and work on a tech switch for when the mutas aren't useful. Protoss has to keep making phoenix until there's no amount of muta/corrupter that can win because nothing they have on the ground is useful vs. mutas once the count gets large.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
Also known as using the minimap ;D
Don't be shittin on my good idea
In all seriousness, the idea itself isn't bad (I'm all for having a better idea of what your ally is looking at), but the intended use you mentioned typically correspond to the kind of infos that are given by good minimap usage :D
So ideally a good player must pay attention to the minimap and stop his macroing every couple of seconds to look at what his ally is scouting and fighting assuming that you are constantly gving him things to harass and scout with. So in other words, sort of guesstimating when to look.
What a good team would do is be on skype and communicate constantly, which is great.
So why not take it to the next level and just give you a camera. Both audio, visual, and overall minimap senses. More senses the better.
Hider wrote: Disagree. I honestly think there is a very strong correlation between whether you enjoy playing a certain unit and playing against it. Mutalisks are imo fun to play with and fun to play against. At least in TvZ (pvz might be a different story). Running around with an Oracle and trying to run away from Marines and attack scv's isn't interesting at all.
I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
TheDwf wrote: Increasing the movement speed of the Oracle was a bad idea. It lowered the skill floor of the unit, made it more forgiving for no reason.
In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Right, you don't see mass muta much because players typically pre-empt it. They either have phoenix, or threaten with a large enough army so the zerg can't risk a base trade with a muta switch. Doesn't make it fun to play against or make it less game ending. Oracles, even cheesy oracles, often accomplish nothing because the terran had marines in his mineral lines. That doesn't change the fact that it's not fun to play against. I'm not arguing balance, I'm just saying that the idea that mutas are a fun unit to play against in PvZ is ridiculous. It's either frustrating or dull. It doesn't promote interesting or enjoyable interactions.
You can deal with a muta switch, just like you can deal with oracles. If oracles were as strong as people imply they are, you'd see oracle rushes in half of all games: but you don't see that. Instead, it's an occasional build to keep the opponent guessing and stop them from playing greedy. But my complaint isn't their strength, it's how downright annoying they are to play against. Unit design should not be fun for only one player. There are plenty of other unit interactions that are great, like ghost vs. high templar.
I think it's a matter of preference. The simple fact that you can prepare adequately for mutas preemptively makes it not a big deal to me. Oracles work in a different way - you don't prepare for them because you scout it in time and put up adequate defences and then proceed to outplay your opponent. You blindly prepare because of the threat at an insanely early stage of the game.
And I personally loathe HT vs Ghost and think it's probably one of the absolute worst unit interactions in the game. In fact, I'd say it could possible be my LEAST favorite unit interactions in the game against each other (specific unit matchup at least - I think SH is overall the absolute worst unit). When I think of fun unit interaction, I think of baneling vs marines, chargelot/archon vs MMM, ling/infestor vs MMM, etc. I actually don't even mind phoenix vs muta/corrupter...
I don't think I've built a Ghost in TvP in my last 200+ games in that matchup...
Chargelot/archon vs. MMM is lame. You don't actually do anything with the chareglots and archons except attack move, then pull back after you realize you're being kited too well. There's no real micro for the protoss there, that's a lame interaction. Same goes for banelings vs. marines: you run the banes at them and the micro is all in the hands of the terran. The reason that one is fine is because the zerg's micro is being used on zerglings to wrap around marines and on mutalisks to pick off key units while the banes keep the marines running. Thus, it's Muta/ling/bane vs. bio, not pure bane vs. bio, that is good.
Ghost vs. High Templar has micro on both sides: the High Templar have to nuke the terran army with storms, and the terran needs to neutralize your high templar. Thus you get into an intense micro war on both sides with templar trying to feedback ghosts to protect other templar while ghosts snipe and EMP templar to stop the storms (and feedbacks). To protect ghosts, terran will often send small balls of marines and marauders forwards to snipe them. The unit ball is small enough that protoss can't use a storm usefully. Then protoss tries to pull the templar back and blink in stalkers or use colossi to kill the unit ball, which backs off. Both players have to manage multiple groups of units in order to win the micro war, which makes it a good interaction that's skill intensive on both sides. That's a good interaction. It's even better when you realize that both players often introduce additional elements to this one micro war: protoss will use warp prisms to protect the templar, so then terran tries to zone out the prisms with vikings, or have ghosts in position to spam EMP when they try to unload. Protoss will use small groups of blink stalkers to poach forwards to snipe ghosts and prevent ghosts from leading the pack, and Terran uses marauders to force them back. Terran cloaks and can EMP flank, Protoss can storm flank, the interaction is great, for the same reason that muta/ling/bane vs. bio+mine is a good interaction: there are high micro requirements on both players to make that engagement work.
Phoenix vs. muta/corrupter by contrast is lame. Protoss can't use the phoenix aggressively because of threat of a counter (phoenix can't wipe out bases) and for fear of a single fungal ruining the game. Micro'ing phoenix is also easy: the only difficulty is in multi-tasking your macro with it. During the engagement, you mostly just spam move commands in different places, while all the zerg has to do is position the corrupters in between the phoenix and the mutas while the mutas kill everything else. Neither player has a particularly difficult time controlling the interaction, and there's no counter play potential from protoss, or additional options really. Zerg can add infestors, vipers to yank phoenix into the corrupter/muta, and work on a tech switch for when the mutas aren't useful. Protoss has to keep making phoenix until there's no amount of muta/corrupter that can win because nothing they have on the ground is useful vs. mutas once the count gets large.
You can keep incessantly trying to argue every single point I make, but the manner in which you're doing it is getting quite old. It's simply a difference in preference. I currently cannot think of a single type of unit interaction I despise more than HT vs Ghost, simple as that.
Ironically, you try to correct me on MMM vs. muta/ling/bane, as opposed to simply marine vs bane, and then you do the exact same thing with you Ghost vs HT scenario. It's like you're trying to be confrontational.
On December 28 2014 10:23 ejozl wrote: [quote] I don't know, the Mutalisk can be extremely annoying to play against aswell. Might just be a case of one accepting that the unit exists, since the Mutalisk is such an essential iconic unit of Starcraft. I think in the end we are all just big bullies and the frustration the opponent is going through correlates to the huge smile on your face.
[quote] In general increasing the speed of a unit makes that unit harder to optimize and thereby increases the skill floor of that unit. As you wrote however, it makes it so getting the second Oracle makes less sense, since the first one can be essentially everywhere.
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Right, you don't see mass muta much because players typically pre-empt it. They either have phoenix, or threaten with a large enough army so the zerg can't risk a base trade with a muta switch. Doesn't make it fun to play against or make it less game ending. Oracles, even cheesy oracles, often accomplish nothing because the terran had marines in his mineral lines. That doesn't change the fact that it's not fun to play against. I'm not arguing balance, I'm just saying that the idea that mutas are a fun unit to play against in PvZ is ridiculous. It's either frustrating or dull. It doesn't promote interesting or enjoyable interactions.
You can deal with a muta switch, just like you can deal with oracles. If oracles were as strong as people imply they are, you'd see oracle rushes in half of all games: but you don't see that. Instead, it's an occasional build to keep the opponent guessing and stop them from playing greedy. But my complaint isn't their strength, it's how downright annoying they are to play against. Unit design should not be fun for only one player. There are plenty of other unit interactions that are great, like ghost vs. high templar.
I think it's a matter of preference. The simple fact that you can prepare adequately for mutas preemptively makes it not a big deal to me. Oracles work in a different way - you don't prepare for them because you scout it in time and put up adequate defences and then proceed to outplay your opponent. You blindly prepare because of the threat at an insanely early stage of the game.
And I personally loathe HT vs Ghost and think it's probably one of the absolute worst unit interactions in the game. In fact, I'd say it could possible be my LEAST favorite unit interactions in the game against each other (specific unit matchup at least - I think SH is overall the absolute worst unit). When I think of fun unit interaction, I think of baneling vs marines, chargelot/archon vs MMM, ling/infestor vs MMM, etc. I actually don't even mind phoenix vs muta/corrupter...
I don't think I've built a Ghost in TvP in my last 200+ games in that matchup...
Chargelot/archon vs. MMM is lame. You don't actually do anything with the chareglots and archons except attack move, then pull back after you realize you're being kited too well. There's no real micro for the protoss there, that's a lame interaction. Same goes for banelings vs. marines: you run the banes at them and the micro is all in the hands of the terran. The reason that one is fine is because the zerg's micro is being used on zerglings to wrap around marines and on mutalisks to pick off key units while the banes keep the marines running. Thus, it's Muta/ling/bane vs. bio, not pure bane vs. bio, that is good.
Ghost vs. High Templar has micro on both sides: the High Templar have to nuke the terran army with storms, and the terran needs to neutralize your high templar. Thus you get into an intense micro war on both sides with templar trying to feedback ghosts to protect other templar while ghosts snipe and EMP templar to stop the storms (and feedbacks). To protect ghosts, terran will often send small balls of marines and marauders forwards to snipe them. The unit ball is small enough that protoss can't use a storm usefully. Then protoss tries to pull the templar back and blink in stalkers or use colossi to kill the unit ball, which backs off. Both players have to manage multiple groups of units in order to win the micro war, which makes it a good interaction that's skill intensive on both sides. That's a good interaction. It's even better when you realize that both players often introduce additional elements to this one micro war: protoss will use warp prisms to protect the templar, so then terran tries to zone out the prisms with vikings, or have ghosts in position to spam EMP when they try to unload. Protoss will use small groups of blink stalkers to poach forwards to snipe ghosts and prevent ghosts from leading the pack, and Terran uses marauders to force them back. Terran cloaks and can EMP flank, Protoss can storm flank, the interaction is great, for the same reason that muta/ling/bane vs. bio+mine is a good interaction: there are high micro requirements on both players to make that engagement work.
Phoenix vs. muta/corrupter by contrast is lame. Protoss can't use the phoenix aggressively because of threat of a counter (phoenix can't wipe out bases) and for fear of a single fungal ruining the game. Micro'ing phoenix is also easy: the only difficulty is in multi-tasking your macro with it. During the engagement, you mostly just spam move commands in different places, while all the zerg has to do is position the corrupters in between the phoenix and the mutas while the mutas kill everything else. Neither player has a particularly difficult time controlling the interaction, and there's no counter play potential from protoss, or additional options really. Zerg can add infestors, vipers to yank phoenix into the corrupter/muta, and work on a tech switch for when the mutas aren't useful. Protoss has to keep making phoenix until there's no amount of muta/corrupter that can win because nothing they have on the ground is useful vs. mutas once the count gets large.
You can keep incessantly trying to argue every single point I make, but the manner in which you're doing it is getting quite old. It's simply a difference in preference. I currently cannot think of a single type of unit interaction I despise more than HT vs Ghost, simple as that.
Ironically, you try to correct me on MMM vs. muta/ling/bane, as opposed to simply marine vs bane, and then you do the exact same thing with you Ghost vs HT scenario. It's like you're trying to be confrontational.
The difference exists because you actually sometimes do see pure marines splitting vs a lot of banes with no mutas or lings, wheras you will never see just ghosts vs. just templar.
And yeah, it is preference, but you haven't explained why ghost vs. templar is a bad interaction or dull, while I've at least attempted to defend my definition of a good and bad interaction. We can leave out the ad hominems too, attack the argument, not me for 'being confrontational'. You made statements and I disagreed. If your final argument is "I just don't like it" then fine, but that's not helpful to a discussion regarding unit design and interactions. You're allowed to not like it, but if it's just preference and you have no other reasons for it, then I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.
To bring it full circle: oracles as designed are currently bad because there isn't much terran can do about it in terms of actual control. Either he figured out it was coming or blindly prepared for it, or he didn't. There's no micro he can do to deal with it, there's no clever tactics. He can burrow a mine and insta-kill it (which is mostly on the protoss to not fuck it up), and he can leave marines in his mineral line. That's about it. It's bad because it's all on the protoss to control it well, terran can't out-skill him. PvP is similar, although the speed buff on the oracle actually made expanding outrageously difficult again, after a brief period of 1 gate expand being viable. PvZ the zerg either has defenses in place or doesn't, but it's not so bad because it's almost impossible for an oracle to do game ending damage if the zerg isn't asleep.
On December 28 2014 12:06 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
One's frustrating, but the other unit is more gimmicky all or nothing - have to specifically counter it or you lose.
Even if mutas catch you off guard in TvZ, rarely is it insanely impactful (still can put you behind). A little different ZvP but still not to the extent a single oracle early game completely wrecking you works. Stupid in the sense you are taking a gamble if you don't blindly prepare for it, especially if you like to play aggressive builds. The Oracle, if you want a "standard" way of playing as T, simply forces you to play passive by the mere threat of it existing. Even DT doesn't do that.
Actually, a muta switch in PvZ can outright win the game if the protoss doesn't have phoenix or stargate tech already. The mutas fly in and kill 20 probes. Yeah it takes 9 mutas, but mutas have way more of a map presence after the first 8 minutes of a game than oracles ever will.
The fact is that the oracle is so frustrating and poorly designed because it's a standalone expensive harasser that isn't durable and can come out early on, and isn't useful in large numbers so it has to be strong in small numbers or useless.
The oracle needs the following change:
Reduce the cost (say 100/100), drop it to 2 supply, reduce the speed back to pre-buff speeds, and reduce the damage output to require 3 ticks to kill a worker or a marine. Increase the shields on the unit so it doesn't die to a single widow mine hit. This makes using it and playing against it more forgiving since the damage is lower but it doesn't die nearly as quickly to a slight mistake, but the speed reduction makes using it properly harder. The reduced cost and supply reduction makes it more justifiable to make more of them. It means the opponent has more time to respond to it since it takes longer to get more than 1 out, but it can still do damage and take map control, and the reduced cost doesn't hamper protoss as much as the current cost does.
Overall, it's a net nerf to the current incarnation of the unit, but in a way that makes it still viable, just less viable as a cheese. The unit would do less damage at a time, but would live longer and have more versatile functions as the game went on. Maybe put the speed buff back onto it in the form of a late game upgrade to help get revelations off.
Concerning ZvP, I agree and perhaps could have used words other than "to a lessor extent." The bigger difference is that you can usually tell when they are coming, or at the very least can prepare for them "blindly" without much cost (1 photon cannon in the mineral line and a photon overcharge - you already have the forge). Also easier to tell when they come out - did they completely forego roaches? If you have sentries, you can scout with a hallu phoenix, etc.
Not sure I agree exactly with your balance suggestions, but otherwise share similar sentiments, simply didn't delve into ZvP as much as you just did, with my post.
Eh, one photon cannon plus photon overcharge doesn't do much against mutas, other than prevent immediate death and delay it for a minute. If you don't have phoenix out or 2-3 stargates and a large amount of stalkers, your only choice is to basetrade once mutas hit the field. It's not a fun thing to play against, since nothing protoss has on the ground can deal with mutas. Cannons are awful in comparison to turrets against mutalisks and can't be repaired, and we don't have stim or thors. Blink stalkers aren't good enough, and actually just straight up die to mutas once the muta ball gets reasonably large (say around 15-20 mutalisks). It's not fun to play: either you have phoenix or can get them quickly, in which case the mutas are pretty useless and it forces a dull muta/corrupter game, or else you don't and you basetrade immediately. And you often can't know it's coming until it hits: you can scout and see a spire, infestation pit and hydralisk den morphing, and all you see is roaches. What is your opponent going to make: mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or hydralisks?
The DRG play that was so successful was literally mass roach into mass muta, and it's still not unheard of to see that if the protoss doesn't open stargate. I'd actually say roachless plays are more likely to translate into double upgrade fast ultra games with vipers these days than mutas.
One photon cannon plus overcharge buys the minute time not to lose all your probes - something an oracle will cause on the enemy. You still have all your units, econ, etc. in tact.
Your muta threat is a little silly - there's a reason you don't see mutas in a large amount of games. Agreed that simply blink stalkers suck against the muta threat, but typically given the time mutas hit you can tell when they are coming and you can prepare. Yes, you can be caught "off guard" but it's at a point in the game that it's due to the Protoss's lack of scouting rather than "I didn't blindly prepare."
In the last scenario you mention above, I see no problem with scouting a spire and dropping double stargate - if you see a spire and a Hive morphing you want the stargates anyways simply to prevent a Zerg from going BL. Fast Ultra tech is also handled by stargates. They offer a ton of utility. I don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis of being caught off guard by mutas so easily. Sure, it happens, but I don't feel that we see it happen all that often in games, it's not that strong.
Right, you don't see mass muta much because players typically pre-empt it. They either have phoenix, or threaten with a large enough army so the zerg can't risk a base trade with a muta switch. Doesn't make it fun to play against or make it less game ending. Oracles, even cheesy oracles, often accomplish nothing because the terran had marines in his mineral lines. That doesn't change the fact that it's not fun to play against. I'm not arguing balance, I'm just saying that the idea that mutas are a fun unit to play against in PvZ is ridiculous. It's either frustrating or dull. It doesn't promote interesting or enjoyable interactions.
You can deal with a muta switch, just like you can deal with oracles. If oracles were as strong as people imply they are, you'd see oracle rushes in half of all games: but you don't see that. Instead, it's an occasional build to keep the opponent guessing and stop them from playing greedy. But my complaint isn't their strength, it's how downright annoying they are to play against. Unit design should not be fun for only one player. There are plenty of other unit interactions that are great, like ghost vs. high templar.
I think it's a matter of preference. The simple fact that you can prepare adequately for mutas preemptively makes it not a big deal to me. Oracles work in a different way - you don't prepare for them because you scout it in time and put up adequate defences and then proceed to outplay your opponent. You blindly prepare because of the threat at an insanely early stage of the game.
And I personally loathe HT vs Ghost and think it's probably one of the absolute worst unit interactions in the game. In fact, I'd say it could possible be my LEAST favorite unit interactions in the game against each other (specific unit matchup at least - I think SH is overall the absolute worst unit). When I think of fun unit interaction, I think of baneling vs marines, chargelot/archon vs MMM, ling/infestor vs MMM, etc. I actually don't even mind phoenix vs muta/corrupter...
I don't think I've built a Ghost in TvP in my last 200+ games in that matchup...
Chargelot/archon vs. MMM is lame. You don't actually do anything with the chareglots and archons except attack move, then pull back after you realize you're being kited too well. There's no real micro for the protoss there, that's a lame interaction. Same goes for banelings vs. marines: you run the banes at them and the micro is all in the hands of the terran. The reason that one is fine is because the zerg's micro is being used on zerglings to wrap around marines and on mutalisks to pick off key units while the banes keep the marines running. Thus, it's Muta/ling/bane vs. bio, not pure bane vs. bio, that is good.
Ghost vs. High Templar has micro on both sides: the High Templar have to nuke the terran army with storms, and the terran needs to neutralize your high templar. Thus you get into an intense micro war on both sides with templar trying to feedback ghosts to protect other templar while ghosts snipe and EMP templar to stop the storms (and feedbacks). To protect ghosts, terran will often send small balls of marines and marauders forwards to snipe them. The unit ball is small enough that protoss can't use a storm usefully. Then protoss tries to pull the templar back and blink in stalkers or use colossi to kill the unit ball, which backs off. Both players have to manage multiple groups of units in order to win the micro war, which makes it a good interaction that's skill intensive on both sides. That's a good interaction. It's even better when you realize that both players often introduce additional elements to this one micro war: protoss will use warp prisms to protect the templar, so then terran tries to zone out the prisms with vikings, or have ghosts in position to spam EMP when they try to unload. Protoss will use small groups of blink stalkers to poach forwards to snipe ghosts and prevent ghosts from leading the pack, and Terran uses marauders to force them back. Terran cloaks and can EMP flank, Protoss can storm flank, the interaction is great, for the same reason that muta/ling/bane vs. bio+mine is a good interaction: there are high micro requirements on both players to make that engagement work.
Phoenix vs. muta/corrupter by contrast is lame. Protoss can't use the phoenix aggressively because of threat of a counter (phoenix can't wipe out bases) and for fear of a single fungal ruining the game. Micro'ing phoenix is also easy: the only difficulty is in multi-tasking your macro with it. During the engagement, you mostly just spam move commands in different places, while all the zerg has to do is position the corrupters in between the phoenix and the mutas while the mutas kill everything else. Neither player has a particularly difficult time controlling the interaction, and there's no counter play potential from protoss, or additional options really. Zerg can add infestors, vipers to yank phoenix into the corrupter/muta, and work on a tech switch for when the mutas aren't useful. Protoss has to keep making phoenix until there's no amount of muta/corrupter that can win because nothing they have on the ground is useful vs. mutas once the count gets large.
You can keep incessantly trying to argue every single point I make, but the manner in which you're doing it is getting quite old. It's simply a difference in preference. I currently cannot think of a single type of unit interaction I despise more than HT vs Ghost, simple as that.
Ironically, you try to correct me on MMM vs. muta/ling/bane, as opposed to simply marine vs bane, and then you do the exact same thing with you Ghost vs HT scenario. It's like you're trying to be confrontational.
The difference exists because you actually sometimes do see pure marines splitting vs a lot of banes with no mutas or lings, wheras you will never see just ghosts vs. just templar.
And yeah, it is preference, but you haven't explained why ghost vs. templar is a bad interaction or dull, while I've at least attempted to defend my definition of a good and bad interaction. We can leave out the ad hominems too, attack the argument, not me for 'being confrontational'. You made statements and I disagreed. If your final argument is "I just don't like it" then fine, but that's not helpful to a discussion regarding unit design and interactions. You're allowed to not like it, but if it's just preference and you have no other reasons for it, then I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.
To bring it full circle: oracles as designed are currently bad because there isn't much terran can do about it in terms of actual control. Either he figured out it was coming or blindly prepared for it, or he didn't. There's no micro he can do to deal with it, there's no clever tactics. He can burrow a mine and insta-kill it (which is mostly on the protoss to not fuck it up), and he can leave marines in his mineral line. That's about it. It's bad because it's all on the protoss to control it well, terran can't out-skill him.
You definitely see pure HT vs Ghost in some scenarios, specifically where both sides are leading with the unit in order to attempt to pick off the other.
Ghost vs HT suck because the how the units counter each other - snipe/feedback is just a "click the other unit and kill it" spell. The dance you mention exists, but the dance itself is what makes the game so dumb. You dance back and forth endlessly without engaging, which is terribly boring to play and watch, in my opinion. Despite the unit interactions, it turns into a big deathball vs deathball outcome, something majority of the other unit compositions just mentioned do not actually cause.
Something like phoenix vs muta/corrupter is entirely different and highly micro dependent, nearly the opposite of what you're stating happens. The phoenix attempt to consistently dance around the corrupters in order to hit the mutas and keep the muta count down, so they can't accomplish anything. Zerg is consequently forced to keep spending gas on mutas instead of teching up like you mentioned. There is an insane amount of micro involved on both sides, as the Protoss has to prevent engaging the corrupters and keep constant tabs on the Phoenix to avoid losing them, while the Zerg has to manage two different unit speeds while doing damage or fall behind.
What is this even about? Phoenix vs muta/corruptor is probably as much micro intensive as MMMVG vs protoss late game death ball when u have to macro and multitask at the same time, although id give an edge to the second example because i think controlling 4 different types of unit is a lot harder than just moving phoenixes.
On December 31 2014 17:41 FanaticCZ wrote: What is this even about? Phoenix vs muta/corruptor is probably as much micro intensive as MMMVG vs protoss late game death ball when u have to macro and multitask at the same time, although id give an edge to the second example because i think controlling 4 different types of unit is a lot harder than just moving phoenixes.
And it is idiotic and stupid from Protoss side since there is nothing you can do except build more phoenixes. Where Zerg has vipers(pulling phoenixes into muta-corruptor) and fungal. It is not much, but there is at least something.
It is the opposite of oracle. There is nothing you can do to maximize damage of an oracle or defending against oracle. Compare Oracle to Banshee and you see the difference. With my control I am not able to fight against marines with banshee, because I cannot micro it(also I don't play Terran, so I don't know how to properly step the banshee ,-)). But it differs me(probably silver Terran) and better player. Now talk about oracle. I send it against 5 marines. Win. I send it against 6 marines... Now how about Parting, Zest, sOs, MC, HuK(top 3 control!!!!). They send it against 5 marines and win, they send it against 6 marines and lose. No difference but they are for sure better players than I
On December 31 2014 17:41 FanaticCZ wrote: What is this even about? Phoenix vs muta/corruptor is probably as much micro intensive as MMMVG vs protoss late game death ball when u have to macro and multitask at the same time, although id give an edge to the second example because i think controlling 4 different types of unit is a lot harder than just moving phoenixes.
And it is idiotic and stupid from Protoss side since there is nothing you can do except build more phoenixes. Where Zerg has vipers(pulling phoenixes into muta-corruptor) and fungal. It is not much, but there is at least something.
It is the opposite of oracle. There is nothing you can do to maximize damage of an oracle or defending against oracle. Compare Oracle to Banshee and you see the difference. With my control I am not able to fight against marines with banshee, because I cannot micro it(also I don't play Terran, so I don't know how to properly step the banshee ,-)). But it differs me(probably silver Terran) and better player. Now talk about oracle. I send it against 5 marines. Win. I send it against 6 marines... Now how about Parting, Zest, sOs, MC, HuK(top 3 control!!!!). They send it against 5 marines and win, they send it against 6 marines and lose. No difference but they are for sure better players than I
Well there is no denying that. The only difference that u can see with the Oracle is how many workers pros can kill thx to their control, target fire etc compared to normal players. But that 5/6 marines rule is bullshit.
On December 31 2014 17:41 FanaticCZ wrote: What is this even about? Phoenix vs muta/corruptor is probably as much micro intensive as MMMVG vs protoss late game death ball when u have to macro and multitask at the same time, although id give an edge to the second example because i think controlling 4 different types of unit is a lot harder than just moving phoenixes.
And it is idiotic and stupid from Protoss side since there is nothing you can do except build more phoenixes. Where Zerg has vipers(pulling phoenixes into muta-corruptor) and fungal. It is not much, but there is at least something.
It is the opposite of oracle. There is nothing you can do to maximize damage of an oracle or defending against oracle. Compare Oracle to Banshee and you see the difference. With my control I am not able to fight against marines with banshee, because I cannot micro it(also I don't play Terran, so I don't know how to properly step the banshee ,-)). But it differs me(probably silver Terran) and better player. Now talk about oracle. I send it against 5 marines. Win. I send it against 6 marines... Now how about Parting, Zest, sOs, MC, HuK(top 3 control!!!!). They send it against 5 marines and win, they send it against 6 marines and lose. No difference but they are for sure better players than I
Well there is no denying that. The only difference that u can see with the Oracle is how many workers pros can kill thx to their control, target fire etc compared to normal players. But that 5/6 marines rule is bullshit.
That is the problem. Some units are boring and, well, a-move. Oracle vs marines, chargelot-archon composition, phoenixes against muta-corruptor(and probably more, but since I play other races rarely and badly I will talk about P compositions). If we can eliminate these a-move situations(e.g. giving protoss more options to defend against mutalisks than "build more phoenixes", give terran some options to out micro oracle) the game will be more enjoyable to watch because... well, we all love insane micro from godly pro players, don't we?
I still blame muta regeneration for all of this. In WoL two good storms wrecked muta flocks so that they couldnt fight for another three minutes how red they were.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
Also known as using the minimap ;D
Don't be shittin on my good idea
In all seriousness, the idea itself isn't bad (I'm all for having a better idea of what your ally is looking at), but the intended use you mentioned typically correspond to the kind of infos that are given by good minimap usage :D
So ideally a good player must pay attention to the minimap and stop his macroing every couple of seconds to look at what his ally is scouting and fighting assuming that you are constantly gving him things to harass and scout with. So in other words, sort of guesstimating when to look.
What a good team would do is be on skype and communicate constantly, which is great.
So why not take it to the next level and just give you a camera. Both audio, visual, and overall minimap senses. More senses the better.
It's the same for classic 2v2. Why not give you a second screen there? I personally think it's interesting that you have to communicate with your ally to know when and how to react to things (or be really good with your minimap to compensate for a lack of communication, I know it's not always practical to type in the middle of a game if you don't have voice chat capabilities). It would be nice already though in 2v2 if you could jump super quickly (like, with a hotkey) to your ally screen to see what he's talking about and/or help him deal with difficult micro.
On January 01 2015 02:00 FanaticCZ wrote: I still blame muta regeneration for all of this. In WoL two good storms wrecked muta flocks so that they couldnt fight for another three minutes how red they were.
Yes Mutalisk speed buff and health regeneration were needed because of widow mines and widow mines were needed just because of tanks beeing unviable against many Mutalisks which can snipe them every time... then phoenix had to be buffed so they have more range (upgraded) and speed than any Zerg air which makes Z(Air)vP almost useless unless you can do it in a big big switch and surprise your opponent.
On January 01 2015 02:00 FanaticCZ wrote: I still blame muta regeneration for all of this. In WoL two good storms wrecked muta flocks so that they couldnt fight for another three minutes how red they were.
Yes Mutalisk speed buff and health regeneration were needed because of widow mines and widow mines were needed just because of tanks beeing unviable against many Mutalisks which can snipe them every time... then phoenix had to be buffed so they have more range (upgraded) and speed than any Zerg air which makes Z(Air)vP almost useless unless you can do it in a big big switch and surprise your opponent.
Idk...i still think that a speed buff wouldve been enough.
Whoever said that banes vs MMM are not a microed unit has never played ZvT at a decent level, you need to split the banes just like they split their marines otherwise a big blob of them go after 2 marines at a time wasting efficiency ect, you need to split them off in varying numbers to deal with the marine clumps.
On January 01 2015 04:50 Ovid wrote: Whoever said that banes vs MMM are not a microed unit has never played ZvT at a decent level, you need to split the banes just like they split their marines otherwise a big blob of them go after 2 marines at a time wasting efficiency ect, you need to split them off in varying numbers to deal with the marine clumps.
I don't believe that's correct, because there is no overkill only one bane will go off on a marine, others won't because they have already worked out that it's dead. What you are experiencing is probably just the split marines not dying and shooting banes.
On January 01 2015 04:50 Ovid wrote: Whoever said that banes vs MMM are not a microed unit has never played ZvT at a decent level, you need to split the banes just like they split their marines otherwise a big blob of them go after 2 marines at a time wasting efficiency ect, you need to split them off in varying numbers to deal with the marine clumps.
I don't believe that's correct, because there is no overkill only one bane will go off on a marine, others won't because they have already worked out that it's dead. What you are experiencing is probably just the split marines not dying and shooting banes.
No, high level ZvT you have a lot of micro to do as Z, you need to make sure Banelings are detonating on the largest clumps of marines and zerglings are getting behind the marines / mauraders to prevent the Terran from constantly splitting his units up. Otherwise every terran would just a move then control click his marines, pull them back and let the mauraders tank all baneling shots.
edit: also 2 banelings shots to kill a marine, and it's all about efficiency, why detonate 2 banelings for a single marine when you could detonate 2 banelings for a clump of 5-6 marines instead?
On January 01 2015 04:50 Ovid wrote: Whoever said that banes vs MMM are not a microed unit has never played ZvT at a decent level, you need to split the banes just like they split their marines otherwise a big blob of them go after 2 marines at a time wasting efficiency ect, you need to split them off in varying numbers to deal with the marine clumps.
I don't believe that's correct, because there is no overkill only one bane will go off on a marine, others won't because they have already worked out that it's dead. What you are experiencing is probably just the split marines not dying and shooting banes.
It takes two banes to kill a combat shield marine, I don't mean a big blob go "off" on 2 marines, I said they go after 2 marines and waste time they could be chasing other larger clumps and so they don't die to the shooting.
On January 01 2015 04:50 Ovid wrote: Whoever said that banes vs MMM are not a microed unit has never played ZvT at a decent level, you need to split the banes just like they split their marines otherwise a big blob of them go after 2 marines at a time wasting efficiency ect, you need to split them off in varying numbers to deal with the marine clumps.
I don't believe that's correct, because there is no overkill only one bane will go off on a marine, others won't because they have already worked out that it's dead. What you are experiencing is probably just the split marines not dying and shooting banes.
No, high level ZvT you have a lot of micro to do as Z, you need to make sure Banelings are detonating on the largest clumps of marines and zerglings are getting behind the marines / mauraders to prevent the Terran from constantly splitting his units up. Otherwise every terran would just a move then control click his marines, pull them back and let the mauraders tank all baneling shots.
edit: also 2 banelings shots to kill a marine, and it's all about efficiency, why detonate 2 banelings for a single marine when you could detonate 2 banelings for a clump of 5-6 marines instead?
Ahh apologies on the 1 bane to kill a marine, it could very well be two.
However you shouldn't assume I'm somehow arguing that Zs don't have to micro in ZvT just because I pointed out that banes won't overkill. I said exactly nothing about the amount of micro required.
It's emblematic of the tribal nature of all these discussions that you chose to start an argument where none existed.
In this thread few are reading what others have to say, few are trying to understand, compromise or build anything. It's exactly as vicious, futile, frustrating and pointless as these things always are. The effect is exactly the opposite of what any sincere participant wants - an improved game.
All in all, it's pretty depressing reading y'all knocking lumps out of each other for no other reason than to satisfy an ego-itch.
edit: Ah, looks like I got caught too. You're right and I should have read properly Ovid. You weren't talking about banes overkilling, just banes running off after small groups of marines if not properly split. I stand by my point though that this entire conversation is about epeen and nothing to do with building anything better.
For this season I decided to play protoss exclusively (zerg main) and I've gotten an education in just how poorly designed protoss is in Starcraft 2. The only viable strategy is to turtle and go robo tech into 3+ colossus before you can push out. High templar and zealot/archon are easily outmicro'd by the opponent and not worth the effort compared to A-moving colossus. Disruptors may end turtling but because it's yet another robo unit they may as well remove twilight council and every building it depends on from the game.
After this experience I've lost all desire to play the game and I'm hoping it's fixed in LOTV so I can love Starcraft again. Just to reiterate, I'd like to see these two things done with protoss. I really think this will address most of the problems with protoss and make the game more fun overall:
Dark archon added off of dark shrine with following abilities: maelstrom- AOE movement and attack speed slow. This will make it harder to kite zealot/archon comps and make it competitive with MMM dps. As in Brood War, this should only affect biological so as to encourage mech. 200 damage single target "kamehameha" spell- to take out colossus (450 total hp), medivacs, lurkers or other key units. Third, innate detection, another weakness of twilight comps due to the introduction of widow mines. This will make dark shrine relevant outside of cheese builds.
Double colossus damage and cut attack speed in half. The DPS stays the same, but the colossus gains the important ability to one-shot units like marines and workers. This will make it work more like a reaver, in that colossus drops / shuttle micro will be possible and a single colossus can actually kill some marines before being focused down and all the damage it dealt being healed off right before they moonwalk into the natural and kill off the nexus cannon with its pitiful dps.
For those who say protoss needs another core unit, I encourage you to try pure zealots vs. pure marines in a unit test map. Zealots can trade well with marines other things being equal. The problem is that terran has some very hard counters to zealots in addition to having an easy time microing against them. Protoss cannot counter MMM to the same extreme. Zealots are and should be the core protoss ground unit, I wouldn't have it any other way. They just need some better support, especially in the mid game.
On January 01 2015 08:11 BaronVonOwn wrote: For this season I decided to play protoss exclusively (zerg main) and I've gotten an education in just how poorly designed protoss is in Starcraft 2. The only viable strategy is to turtle and go robo tech into 3+ colossus before you can push out. High templar and zealot/archon are easily outmicro'd by the opponent and not worth the effort compared to A-moving colossus. Disruptors may end turtling but because it's yet another robo unit they may as well remove twilight council and every building it depends on from the game.
After this experience I've lost all desire to play the game and I'm hoping it's fixed in LOTV so I can love Starcraft again. Just to reiterate, I'd like to see these two things done with protoss. I really think this will address most of the problems with protoss and make the game more fun overall:
Dark archon added off of dark shrine with following abilities: maelstrom- AOE movement and attack speed slow. This will make it harder to kite zealot/archon comps and make it competitive with MMM dps. As in Brood War, this should only affect biological so as to encourage mech. 200 damage single target "kamehameha" spell- to take out colossus (450 total hp), medivacs, lurkers or other key units. Third, innate detection, another weakness of twilight comps due to the introduction of widow mines. This will make dark shrine relevant outside of cheese builds.
Double colossus damage and cut attack speed in half. The DPS stays the same, but the colossus gains the important ability to one-shot units like marines and workers. This will make it work more like a reaver, in that colossus drops / shuttle micro will be possible and a single colossus can actually kill some marines before being focused down and all the damage it dealt being healed off right before they moonwalk into the natural and kill off the nexus cannon with its pitiful dps.
For those who say protoss needs another core unit, I encourage you to try pure zealots vs. pure marines in a unit test map. Zealots can trade well with marines other things being equal. The problem is that terran has some very hard counters to zealots in addition to having an easy time microing against them. Protoss cannot counter MMM to the same extreme. Zealots are and should be the core protoss ground unit, I wouldn't have it any other way. They just need some better support, especially in the mid game.
Well, protoss was poorly designed in Broodwar too and they definitely didn't find a good answer for it in StarCraft 2 although they have come up with several solutions that helped to mixed acceptance from the community (zealot charge vs speed, warpgate, sentry +armor and forcefield, and MSC). Mix in the poorly designed units for the other races and it puts protoss in a not so fun position. Broodlords were tough, but swarmhosts are stupid... widow mines and hellbats were both too good at what they did at the beginning of HotS.
For me the best matchup there has been in starcraft 2 has been Terran vs Terran...different viable strats, all 3 openings are viable (tech, pressure, economy) and the different unit compositions are solid and interact well with each other...also a late game tech switch can be massive going into BCs vs someone who is unprepared. No other race matchup works that well and I wish they would work on making the game more interactive like that. Protoss has been too reliant on sharp timings that are all ins or are very close to all ins outside of Rain here and there. The colossus/high Templar vs Viking/ghost battles with terran just don't play out with as much tension and positioning as the tank/marine vs MMM or tank/marine vs mech battles. Part of the problem is that units across the board due too much damage but especially stimmed marines.
A game with options and map considerations would be great and they have a chance to make it there. The see invisible super widow mine of beta heart of the swarm didn't make it into release for instance. So they are watching...the question is how to get it there is a tough, tough question.
On December 26 2014 13:59 MarlieChurphy wrote: Archon mode should also have a camera in the corner of the screen somewhere where you can see your ally's screen.
This way you can be macroing and still know what kind of units are fighting, what is dieing, what needs to be built unitwise, what kind of tech you need, if you need defensive structure etc.
Also known as using the minimap ;D
Don't be shittin on my good idea
In all seriousness, the idea itself isn't bad (I'm all for having a better idea of what your ally is looking at), but the intended use you mentioned typically correspond to the kind of infos that are given by good minimap usage :D
So ideally a good player must pay attention to the minimap and stop his macroing every couple of seconds to look at what his ally is scouting and fighting assuming that you are constantly gving him things to harass and scout with. So in other words, sort of guesstimating when to look.
What a good team would do is be on skype and communicate constantly, which is great.
So why not take it to the next level and just give you a camera. Both audio, visual, and overall minimap senses. More senses the better.
It's the same for classic 2v2. Why not give you a second screen there? I personally think it's interesting that you have to communicate with your ally to know when and how to react to things (or be really good with your minimap to compensate for a lack of communication, I know it's not always practical to type in the middle of a game if you don't have voice chat capabilities). It would be nice already though in 2v2 if you could jump super quickly (like, with a hotkey) to your ally screen to see what he's talking about and/or help him deal with difficult micro.
While I see the comparison, it's quite different.
For starters, in archon mode you are more focused on 1 duty, micro/macro. 2ndly, you share the same base, units, etc
It's less like a partnership/alliance than a hemisphere of a brain, a combined hive mind, like an.. archon morphed together with 2 thoughts at once. Having to share a set of eyes, you would see what the other saw intrinsicially , etc.
I played a little bit on the lotv mod (only TvZ for now).
I think everything is way too fast. It's almost impossible to keep up with everything (it's especially true for Z, none of them seemed to be able to creep spread) because you have to be constantly expanding. It's pretty fun because it's new but I think it would become annoying.
The only 'long' game I played was 20 min long. I was on 6~7 bases at this moment of the game ffs. And I didn't even over expanded.
I feel that Zergs are struggling with drop harrass quite a lot, especially against T and with the mass air from Toss, which means Zerg AA is quite lackluster. The units in BW, Scrouge and Devourer effectively dealed with these threats.
I think that they aren't nailing it. The game doesn't need more speed, but a more rewarding type of econ (something more BW).
As a Protoss, I think that Protoss mechanics should be reworked and expanded instead of nerfed. Warpgate times changed instead of the nerf, and the MSC mechanic reworked. Nexus should have a defensive ability or even the same Photon Overcharge, but activated only via nexus, while Mothership Core regains some energy/shield related mechanic. So Protoss can expand safe, but the PO is nerfed because it drains the same energy that is needed to keep up production or tech. The sync with Warp gate rework is notable.
I like a lot of the changes to the game so far, but isn't there going to be a lot of overlap? When would I want to build colossus vs. disruptors? Why would I want to build swarm hosts? They've said the hellbat and herc fill similar roles already.
I'm so damn sick of the colossus though. It really is the worst unit in the game. Even worse than swarmhosts I feel. Although swarmhosts vs. colossus is the worst unit interaction.
Ideas to make lotv less deathbally. All deathball elements should be removed at once to ensure there won't be an inbalance.
Raven: a support unit that promotes deathballs, and furthermore, makes deathballs of itself:
-- AutoTurret: buffed stats (hp, damage) but each raven can only place 1 turret, placing a new one destroys the previous one. (Turrets can be placed to support troops or while retiring whiteout being able to flood the map with them, increasing raven support of smaller armies without escalating well in huge numbers)
-- PDD: replaced with Nano Matrix: 100 enegy. shields target mechanical for 200 dmg and slightly boosts its attack speed duration while it lasts. (As it's singke targeted, it promotes being used in smaller engagements, if it ends up beeing too good with cyclone, can be changed with the old Defense Matrix)
-- Seeker Missile: Option 1: replace with Fallout: 100 energy. Drains shields and energy of units in target area, then leaves the zone contaminated dealing peridic damage to biological units.(this effect wouldn't be stackablr like seeker missile damage) Option 2: Emp missile: functions like sm without initial delay, drains shields and energy in the area surounding the unit it hits and dealing aoe only to biological targets. Option 3: leave it as it is. (Options 1 and 2 would imply ghosts replacing its emp abilty for something else, allowing for a redesign of the unit, specially its cost.
The main idea was the raven one, but ill throw this one out.
Hellions : line splash is "random", lack of tracking turrets while moving takes away potential from it, and thus, the hellbat was added to make it viable in combat, which could be re proposed into something else if hellions are fixed, and made into a uniy that can be balanced withou the need of the hellbat, being fast and changing how it deals damage would be a start. -- speed increase, even if it requires upgrade.
Opt1: replace weapon for a single target one with small aoe. Opt2: and upgrade that allows it to freely swap between 2 kinds of weapons. Opt3: add spidermines. Opt4: a hp increase upgrade.
Colossus: Add new unit: Harbinger: every 2 seconds deals 20 damage in a radius of 2-3 around it, even while moving. If there is an energy source nearby (warp prism) can deploy into a "colossus" after 3 seconds, powers down or automatically undeploys if energy source is removed. (could be targeted as ground only to compensate) (What makes colossus such a deathbally unit is its power and range combined with mobily, this would also promote further uses of the prism)
On January 02 2015 12:14 SoleSteeler wrote: I like a lot of the changes to the game so far, but isn't there going to be a lot of overlap? When would I want to build colossus vs. disruptors? Why would I want to build swarm hosts? They've said the hellbat and herc fill similar roles already.
I'm so damn sick of the colossus though. It really is the worst unit in the game. Even worse than swarmhosts I feel. Although swarmhosts vs. colossus is the worst unit interaction.
People are so dramatic, the colossus is not a particulary good unit, but it isn't terrible. The swarmhost IS a terrible unit, not the colossus.
On January 02 2015 13:37 SoleSteeler wrote: I just hate the relationship of anti-air vs. colossus. Feels very all or nothing.
The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all.
On January 02 2015 12:14 SoleSteeler wrote: I like a lot of the changes to the game so far, but isn't there going to be a lot of overlap? When would I want to build colossus vs. disruptors? Why would I want to build swarm hosts? They've said the hellbat and herc fill similar roles already.
I'm so damn sick of the colossus though. It really is the worst unit in the game. Even worse than swarmhosts I feel. Although swarmhosts vs. colossus is the worst unit interaction.
People are so dramatic, the colossus is not a particulary good unit, but it isn't terrible. The swarmhost IS a terrible unit, not the colossus.
The Collossus is terrible. Extremely terrible. As long as it is around, Protoss can play the deathball turtle. Even if they introduce a thousand other units, playstyles and allins and gambles for the race, there will still be the get rewarded for doing nothing collossus turtle deathball. It's exactly the same as SHs. You don't have to go SH turtle from the start of the game. And most SH games don't ever became stale matches for map attrition and are usually fun. But all gameplay has to evolve around the possibility that people can go full retard boredom with those units.
On January 01 2015 08:11 BaronVonOwn wrote: For this season I decided to play protoss exclusively (zerg main) and I've gotten an education in just how poorly designed protoss is in Starcraft 2. The only viable strategy is to turtle and go robo tech into 3+ colossus before you can push out. High templar and zealot/archon are easily outmicro'd by the opponent and not worth the effort compared to A-moving colossus. Disruptors may end turtling but because it's yet another robo unit they may as well remove twilight council and every building it depends on from the game.
After this experience I've lost all desire to play the game and I'm hoping it's fixed in LOTV so I can love Starcraft again. Just to reiterate, I'd like to see these two things done with protoss. I really think this will address most of the problems with protoss and make the game more fun overall:
Dark archon added off of dark shrine with following abilities: maelstrom- AOE movement and attack speed slow. This will make it harder to kite zealot/archon comps and make it competitive with MMM dps. As in Brood War, this should only affect biological so as to encourage mech. 200 damage single target "kamehameha" spell- to take out colossus (450 total hp), medivacs, lurkers or other key units. Third, innate detection, another weakness of twilight comps due to the introduction of widow mines. This will make dark shrine relevant outside of cheese builds.
Double colossus damage and cut attack speed in half. The DPS stays the same, but the colossus gains the important ability to one-shot units like marines and workers. This will make it work more like a reaver, in that colossus drops / shuttle micro will be possible and a single colossus can actually kill some marines before being focused down and all the damage it dealt being healed off right before they moonwalk into the natural and kill off the nexus cannon with its pitiful dps.
For those who say protoss needs another core unit, I encourage you to try pure zealots vs. pure marines in a unit test map. Zealots can trade well with marines other things being equal. The problem is that terran has some very hard counters to zealots in addition to having an easy time microing against them. Protoss cannot counter MMM to the same extreme. Zealots are and should be the core protoss ground unit, I wouldn't have it any other way. They just need some better support, especially in the mid game.
"Make it harder to kite zealot/archon comps?" What? Please complete your general survey of SC2 by selecting the Eagle race and experimenting the other side of the equation. Then come back to tell us it needs to be made harder while proposing absolutely nothing to raise the derisory skill floor of 1a'ing powerful melee units. This kind of one-sided interaction is exactly what needs to disappear.
Your revamped Maëlstrom would essentially act as a glorified Time Warp, which is already a super bad spell to begin with: the effort/effect ratio is completely off (no pain no gain should be a golden rule with the presence of "smart" casting, as it's otherwise far too simple to trigger devastative effects with little user input) + disables are really frustrating for the other side (e. g. Forcefields, Fungals), so they should be treated with extreme care. No thanks.
Having mobile detection in all "tier2" tech paths would be stupid. There's simply nothing interesting in that. Different tech paths should have different strengths and weaknesses, particularly to balance the game of build orders. Designing complete, "perfect" systems is the surest way to end up with something bland. You want to leave certain gaps for players to work around.
Last but not least, lol @ your Dark Archon receiving a midgame Yamato. One-kill button in midgame = no no.
Encouraging mech by nerfing bio? No thanks, we've already seen the result. If you want to see mech in TvP, it first needs to be viable.
With your suggestion, the Colossus would gain the ability to one-shot not only Marines and workers, but also any line composed of units that have less than 120-160 hit points (depending on upgrades, and given that there are often 2+ Colossi in action). That's the vast majority of all ground units ever made in PvT and PvZ—did you think one second about that?
I'll pass on your nonsense about Terran having "some very hard counters" to Zealots (lol) or the current Colossi being apparently unable to hold hords of angry Marines, a lovely thesis that nonetheless fails to explain why Colossi are the staple unit of macro TvP since 4 years; probably because Protoss love nothing more than tickling Marines with sparkling lasers. At least have a credible diagnosis of the current situation if you want to modify something based on that...
Even when disregarding the terrible balance you want to introduce out of some petty, vengeful ladder frustration, your suggestions are literally the opposite of what the game needs.
As for the core unit discussion: Zealots and Dragoons should be the core Protoss ground units. SC2 developers thought it would be cool/clever to break up the Dragoon and dispatch the pieces in different directions, but they were wrong; awfully wrong. It is high time to repair that original sin.
On January 02 2015 12:14 SoleSteeler wrote: I like a lot of the changes to the game so far, but isn't there going to be a lot of overlap? When would I want to build colossus vs. disruptors? Why would I want to build swarm hosts? They've said the hellbat and herc fill similar roles already.
I'm so damn sick of the colossus though. It really is the worst unit in the game. Even worse than swarmhosts I feel. Although swarmhosts vs. colossus is the worst unit interaction.
People are so dramatic, the colossus is not a particulary good unit, but it isn't terrible. The swarmhost IS a terrible unit, not the colossus.
SH is hurting certain plays. Collosus is making whole race stupid.
Some possible abilities for a Dark Archon type of unit.
Temporal wave: Draw a line on the ground, all friendly units passing through it get a short and large boost to movement speed. Obvious potential to get units into position slightly before a fight, chase down retreating units or to retreat your own units.
Vortex blast: Lob a projectile, all units hit are pulled to the centre of the blast, units can move again immediately after being pulled in(also including a slow effect might make it too strong, but is also possible). One or all of the following potential secondary effects: un-burrows any unit hit, pulls siege tanks out of siege mode, briefly de-cloaks any unit hit. Clear out minefields, help zealots to get a surround on units, help aoe attacks deal more damage, etc Needs to think about how it fits with with other units such as the disrupter, perhaps too strong if it allows the disrupter to always hit its target. Although it is a late game combination of units/abilities and still requires good timing and micro.
Quantum shielding: Apply a shield to target unit, all attacks against that unit will 'miss' for a short duration. Potentially also protects against Emp if cast before hit by it. Cast on expensive units to protect them when they are being focused(Including the dark archon casting it on itself).
These can not be thought of in a vacuum and would likely have to be accompanied with other changes.
For example remove forcefields, reduce the gas cost of the sentry and make it stronger in a straight up fight, faster movement/more hitpoints and perhaps its beam 'chains' to nearby units? The exact numbers would need some thought. They can still cast guardian shield and hallucination.
Make it an early game unit that can help defend against lings without needing forcefields. Sentry drops might be worth it for harassing workers.
This could have further knock on effects, with no forcefields the stalker could perhaps use another upgrade on the twilight council that improves its damage. Providing a choice between higher damage or blink at first but allowing stalkers to be better later in the game.
Try and imagine a game where the protoss builds up a force of zealot/sentry/templar/archon/dark archon? Maybe add in warp prisms and disrupters at some point.
Raven: a support unit that promotes deathballs, and furthermore, makes deathballs of itself:
-- AutoTurret: buffed stats (hp, damage) but each raven can only place 1 turret, placing a new one destroys the previous one. (Turrets can be placed to support troops or while retiring whiteout being able to flood the map with them, increasing raven support of smaller armies without escalating well in huge numbers)
-- PDD: replaced with Nano Matrix: 100 enegy. shields target mechanical for 200 dmg and slightly boosts its attack speed duration while it lasts. (As it's singke targeted, it promotes being used in smaller engagements, if it ends up beeing too good with cyclone, can be changed with the old Defense Matrix)
-- Seeker Missile: Option 1: replace with Fallout: 100 energy. Drains shields and energy of units in target area, then leaves the zone contaminated dealing peridic damage to biological units.(this effect wouldn't be stackablr like seeker missile damage) Option 2: Emp missile: functions like sm without initial delay, drains shields and energy in the area surounding the unit it hits and dealing aoe only to biological targets. Option 3: leave it as it is. (Options 1 and 2 would imply ghosts replacing its emp abilty for something else, allowing for a redesign of the unit, specially its cost.
The main idea was the raven one, but ill throw this one out.
I don't think Autoturrets need any change since they're not the spell responsible for Raven accumulation—to a large extent because mass casting them is awkward/hard; the umpteenth lesson that mechanical barriers are a natural protection against nonsense (imagine how bad it would be if Autoturrets were an air unit, i.e. if it was possible to stack them at the same location…). Autoturrets are multi-purpose and don't cause any gameplay issue, unlike mass pdds/Missiles in lategame TvZ/TvT. For me they're in a good spot.
Can you precise your Nano Matrix idea? The formulation makes it difficult to understand.
Personally, without changing spells, I think I would go with something like:
Raven - Decrease cost to 75/150 (down from 100/200) - Decrease production time to 50 (down from 60) - Increase pdd energy cost to 125 OR implement a ~150 seconds cooldown - Decrease Missile casting range to ~6.5 (down from 10) - Decrease the Missile "casting point" [the time it spends locking on its target before being effectively fired] - Increase Missile energy cost to 100 (up from 75) - Missiles now have a 4 seconds cooldown - Movement speed increased to 2.75 (up from 2.25)
Reasonings:
Decreased costs: SC2 needs to turn away from the model of super expensive, slowly produced, clunky powerful units. With such parameters, the unit is immediately fit for the deathball system. Besides, it would be nice if Terrans could build more smoothly some Raven support instead of being pigeonholed into the current model of turtling for a full, dedicated long-term accumulation. It just has to be made a bit more flexible; no need to fall into the bad model of instant tech switches (the idea of transitions is far superior: takes time, gives time).
General spell management: a fleet of 200 energy Ravens should simply yield less return than currently so Terran isn't encouraged to build it passively. Each individual Raven with full energy should be less potent. This means a cooldown or 125 energy for one of the two main spells (Missile, pdd).
Seeker Missile: The concept of the WoL Missile was, I think, superior; the idea of a stackable, long distance AoE spell that deals massive damage is super dangerous in the SC2 environement (smart casting + natural stacking of units) and should thus be tightly kept in check by a severe mechanism of opposition: in this case, having to commit the Raven + being unable to instantly chain 2 Missiles. Lowering the casting range reintroduces risk in the casting procedure; 10 range is artillery domain, which makes it too difficult/impossible for the other side to prevent the spell without dedicated "counters". I also think there's epic potential in watching a concave of Ravens fly forward to unleash hell; the bad TvZ balance + dumb Fungal at the end of WoL robbed us of many good moments like that Since the casting maneuver would be riskier, the Missile would have to be less dodgeable than now, but of course it is of utmost importance that the possibility of counter-micro remains, especially with friendly fire (a critical part of what makes Terran AoE shine).
PDD: a 100 mana cost coupled with a super long cooldown (like ~75% of the duration of a pdd) has my preference, because the unit can thus be useful earlier. Various extra measures such as reducing the radius or decreasing the energy of the pdd can also be tried if tweaking the cost proves insufficient.
Increased movement speed: +0.5 compared with the current ms; slight boost to make it more maneuverable/operational, adds some raiding potential; combined with the decreased costs, this would turn away the unit from the "too frail/too precious to be split" model and promote more activity. Being able to squeeze in 1 or 2 Raven(s) in bio raids/drops could really add flavor to the ensuing small battles.
Naturally, this supposes the Swarm host is no longer a core anti-mech unit, but it seems they're drastically changing the unit anyway.
Feedback completely shutting down Ravens should also be addressed in some way. Ideally I think Feedback should be limited, like the EMP, to draining only up to 100 energy, rather than insta-gibbing full energy casters like it does now (following the philosophy of softening the counters and introducing finesse/nuance/difficulty in the game). I know this would cause problems with the Viper but it is more than time to lance the boil there; one of the main goals for LotV should be to turn lategame away from those dumb spellcasters wars (HTs vs Ghosts, Vipers/Infests vs HTs, Vipers vs Ravens, Ravens vs Ravens in TvT) that only promote coinflippy/shallow micro and are a typical byproduct of the deathball system anyway. TvP bio play needs such a huge breath of fresh air that the nerf to HTs Feedback'ing Medivacs would simply be integrated into the necessary rebalancing process.
It should be noted that a sensible change of the economic system might solve on its own the Raven accumulation, but various improvements can still be made to the unit nonetheless.
On January 02 2015 12:47 kakalxlax wrote: Hellions : line splash is "random", lack of tracking turrets while moving takes away potential from it, and thus, the hellbat was added to make it viable in combat, which could be re proposed into something else if hellions are fixed, and made into a uniy that can be balanced withou the need of the hellbat, being fast and changing how it deals damage would be a start. -- speed increase, even if it requires upgrade.
Opt1: replace weapon for a single target one with small aoe. Opt2: and upgrade that allows it to freely swap between 2 kinds of weapons. Opt3: add spidermines. Opt4: a hp increase upgrade.
I approve your stance on the Hellion. The Hellbat as a Factory Firebat should simply go, but the HotS idea of adding needed versatility to the WoL Hellion is definitely spot on and should stay. The Hellion should just transform into something else than an AoE Zealot which, again, synergizes with the Medivac (this theme is really obsessive in the Blizzard crew, but I don't blame them for clingling to one of the few SC2 innovations that did work). For this new Hellbat, I would go with:
New Hellbat - Range unchanged with the transformation (5) - Movement speed unchanged with the transformation (4.25) - Hit points increased to 125 (up from 90 in the Hellion form, but down from the current 135) - In the Hellbat mode, the unit remains Light, Mechanical, but not Biological (no Medivac heal) - Decrease the damage point and the turn rate (unlike the Hellion, the Hellbat would be more agile, without the semi-awkward "turret rotation" when it comes to hit & run; it would also be nice if the unit didn't need to fully decelerate before shooting) - Damage/attack cooldown changed to ~10 every 1.67 second; single target, no splash, no bonus
Basically this would turn the Hellion into a beefier, more versatile unit with a Vulture-like behaviour for its attack. The unit would retain raiding potential, but less so against workers; in particular its dps against structures would be roughly doubled compared with Hellions. Its efficiency would however be reduced against basic mineral units (there should be a tension between the 2 modes so actual choices are made).
Actually, they could probably name this transformation "Cyclone mode" instead of implementing that auto-shot horror.
Raven: a support unit that promotes deathballs, and furthermore, makes deathballs of itself:
-- AutoTurret: buffed stats (hp, damage) but each raven can only place 1 turret, placing a new one destroys the previous one. (Turrets can be placed to support troops or while retiring whiteout being able to flood the map with them, increasing raven support of smaller armies without escalating well in huge numbers)
-- PDD: replaced with Nano Matrix: 100 enegy. shields target mechanical for 200 dmg and slightly boosts its attack speed duration while it lasts. (As it's single targeted, it promotes being used in smaller engagements, if it ends up beeing too good with cyclone, can be changed with the old Defense Matrix)
-- Seeker Missile: Option 1: replace with Fallout: 100 energy. Drains shields and energy of units in target area, then leaves the zone contaminated dealing peridic damage to biological units.(this effect wouldn't be stackablr like seeker missile damage) Option 2: Emp missile: functions like sm without initial delay, drains shields and energy in the area surounding the unit it hits and dealing aoe only to biological targets. Option 3: leave it as it is. (Options 1 and 2 would imply ghosts replacing its emp abilty for something else, allowing for a redesign of the unit, specially its cost.
The main idea was the raven one, but ill throw this one out.
I don't think Autoturrets need any change since they're not the spell responsible for Raven accumulation—to a large extent because mass casting them is awkward/hard; the umpteenth lesson that mechanical barriers are a natural protection against nonsense (imagine how bad it would be if Autoturrets were an air unit, i.e. if it was possible to stack them at the same location…). Autoturrets are multi-purpose and don't cause any gameplay issue, unlike mass pdds/Missiles in lategame TvZ/TvT. For me they're in a good spot.
Can you precise your Nano Matrix idea? The formulation makes it difficult to understand.
Personally, without changing spells, I think I would go with something like:
Raven - Decrease cost to 75/150 (down from 100/200) - Decrease production time to 50 (down from 60) - Increase pdd energy cost to 125 OR implement a ~150 seconds cooldown - Decrease Missile casting range to ~6.5 (down from 10) - Decrease the Missile "casting point" [the time it spends locking on its target before being effectively fired] - Increase Missile energy cost to 100 (up from 75) - Missiles now have a 4 seconds cooldown - Movement speed increased to 2.75 (up from 2.25)
Reasonings:
Decreased costs: SC2 needs to turn away from the model of super expensive, slowly produced, clunky powerful units. With such parameters, the unit is immediately fit for the deathball system. Besides, it would be nice if Terrans could build more smoothly some Raven support instead of being pigeonholed into the current model of turtling for a full, dedicated long-term accumulation. It just has to be made a bit more flexible; no need to fall into the bad model of instant tech switches (the idea of transitions is far superior: takes time, gives time).
General spell management: a fleet of 200 energy Ravens should simply yield less return than currently so Terran isn't encouraged to build it passively. Each individual Raven with full energy should be less potent. This means a cooldown or 125 energy for one of the two main spells (Missile, pdd).
The idea was to make 200 raven army not a thing (like 200 army science vessels) Instead, reinforcing its support role in a way it would discourage deathballs from both sides.
Auto-turret most examples of mass-raven-only consist in a flock of them flooding the enemy base with turrets. Having beefier but lower in number turrets would make them better at supporting small groups, while making it less prone to escalating to deathball levels, and as a consequence, reduce turtling.
PDD: the abilty to replace it (nano matrix) would cost 100 energy, create a shield around a mechanical unit that absorbs 200 damage during 15-20 seconds. As long as tge shield lasts (either i its destroyed by damage or times out) the shielded unit gains 30-50% attack speed. This effect could be non-stackable with others alike (to avoid cyclones lock stack), so a locked cyclone would only receive the shield. This would give the spell double utility. The alternative is the old Defense Matrix which lasted 60 seconds and shielded 250 damage.
PDD nullifies all ranged attacks, this would only protect 1 unit, which could be ignored by the enemy to kill the others or focus fire on it to eliminate the attackspeed boost.
Seeker Missile: The concept of the WoL Missile was, I think, superior; the idea of a stackable, long distance AoE spell that deals massive damage is super dangerous in the SC2 environement (smart casting + natural stacking of units) and should thus be tightly kept in check by a severe mechanism of opposition: in this case, having to commit the Raven + being unable to instantly chain 2 Missiles. Lowering the casting range reintroduces risk in the casting procedure; 10 range is artillery domain, which makes it too difficult/impossible for the other side to prevent the spell without dedicated "counters". I also think there's epic potential in watching a concave of Ravens fly forward to unleash hell; the bad TvZ balance + dumb Fungal at the end of WoL robbed us of many good moments like that Since the casting maneuver would be riskier, the Missile would have to be less dodgeable than now, but of course it is of utmost importance that the possibility of counter-micro remains, especially with friendly fire (a critical part of what makes Terran AoE shine).
The thing is, that stackable AoE also promote deathballs, the option 1 would basically change the spell to a blend of emp and irradiate, which were better at disuading deathballs away while not promoting Science Vessel deathballs. the option 2 would keep the avoidable missile concept, whilr also blending in those spells.
Giving the raven an emp-like spell would also mean the Ghost could get emp replaced for other spell, and thus, allowing for a cost reduction.
Increased movement speed: +0.5 compared with the current ms; slight boost to make it more maneuverable/operational, adds some raiding potential; combined with the decreased costs, this would turn away the unit from the "too frail/too precious to be split" model and promote more activity. Being able to squeeze in 1 or 2 Raven(s) in bio raids/drops could really add flavor to the ensuing small battles.
Increasing movement speed would be acceptable with changes that ensure they dont promote deathballs, i agree.
Naturally, this supposes the Swarm host is no longer a core anti-mech unit, but it seems they're drastically changing the unit anyway.
Im concerned about flying locusta wrecking up tanks, as they can close up without them being able to shoot back/friendly fire. Besides that, the change to the sh seems positive.
Feedback completely shutting down Ravens should also be addressed in some way. Ideally I think Feedback should be limited, like the EMP, to draining only up to 100 energy, rather than insta-gibbing full energy casters like it does now
Giving ravens the Fallout spell or other emp variations, would give them the tool to fight back HT as long as the raven user acts fast enough to "emp" before feedback. the slight speed boost can also help.
TvP bio play needs such a huge breath of fresh air that the nerf to HTs Feedback'ing Medivacs would simply be integrated into the necessary rebalancing process.
Draining HT would also make ravens usable in bio, without having ghost high mineral cost toll.
On January 02 2015 12:47 kakalxlax wrote: Hellions : line splash is "random", lack of tracking turrets while moving takes away potential from it, and thus, the hellbat was added to make it viable in combat, which could be re proposed into something else if hellions are fixed, and made into a uniy that can be balanced withou the need of the hellbat, being fast and changing how it deals damage would be a start. -- speed increase, even if it requires upgrade.
Opt1: replace weapon for a single target one with small aoe. Opt2: and upgrade that allows it to freely swap between 2 kinds of weapons. Opt3: add spidermines. Opt4: a hp increase upgrade.
I approve your stance on the Hellion. The Hellbat as a Factory Firebat should simply go, but the HotS idea of adding needed versatility to the WoL Hellion is definitely spot on and should stay. The Hellion should just transform into something else than an AoE Zealot which, again, synergizes with the Medivac (this theme is really obsessive in the Blizzard crew, but I don't blame them for clingling to one of the few SC2 innovations that did work). For this new Hellbat, I would go with:
New Hellbat - Range unchanged with the transformation (5) - Movement speed unchanged with the transformation (4.25) - Hit points increased to 125 (up from 90 in the Hellion form, but down from the current 135) - In the Hellbat mode, the unit remains Light, Mechanical, but not Biological (no Medivac heal) - Decrease the damage point and the turn rate (unlike the Hellion, the Hellbat would be more agile, without the semi-awkward "turret rotation" when it comes to hit & run; it would also be nice if the unit didn't need to fully decelerate before shooting) - Damage/attack cooldown changed to ~10 every 1.67 second; single target, no splash, no bonus
Basically this would turn the Hellion into a beefier, more versatile unit with a Vulture-like behaviour for its attack. The unit would retain raiding potential, but less so against workers; in particular its dps against structures would be roughly doubled compared with Hellions. Its efficiency would however be reduced against basic mineral units (there should be a tension between the 2 modes so actual choices are made).
Ageed on damage point and deceleration, having a turret seems like an aestetic thing without real function.
The transformation (if it remains) should also change the weapon style: +1 range, change line splash for a small radial splash around target, increased damage.
But i think they could just implement those changes to the normal hellion so it can be balanced for harassment and combat (like the vulture was) and the let them redesign the Hellbat into something else, maybe a support unit.
2 more ideas: Adding back the G4-Charge to Reapers as an upgrade. (Charge thrown to a point that detonates after 2 seconds) Not only that would make them not useless beyond openings, but create small task forces with an ability that increases micro from the user (to cast) and enemy (to avoid)
Making sentry shields be casted to a point instead of following the sentry. Would make the ability more positional. If needed could have shield and duration tweaked to compensate.
Adding the dark archon seems so lazy, it's an existing model and the spells it has in BW already exist in SC2. Being able to merge archons from various combinations of high and dark templar in SC2 feels nicer than the BW version. I don't see what the unit would add to the game. There are other methods of improving twilight council tech: you can add a new unit unlocked by the twilight council, rework charge / blink, add a new spell for the high templar or add an upgrade for the dark templar.
On January 02 2015 19:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all.
What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped.
On January 02 2015 19:33 Big J wrote: The Collossus is terrible. Extremely terrible. As long as it is around, Protoss can play the deathball turtle. Even if they introduce a thousand other units, playstyles and allins and gambles for the race, there will still be the get rewarded for doing nothing collossus turtle deathball. It's exactly the same as SHs. You don't have to go SH turtle from the start of the game. And most SH games don't ever became stale matches for map attrition and are usually fun. But all gameplay has to evolve around the possibility that people can go full retard boredom with those units.
Yes, although thanks to the ravager and siege lurker it should be possible to punish turtles in LOTV (I hope). And honestly I think the problem is more due to the fact that colossus deathballs are the only viable option for a protoss player, and they need to have 3+ colossus to be assured of making a difference. If I could push out with 1-2 colossus much like I could load up a shuttle with 1-2 reavers to complement a dragoon ground army, I would do that. Fuck maybe I just need to go back to BW
On January 02 2015 20:41 TheDwf wrote: Your revamped Maëlstrom would essentially act as a glorified Time Warp, which is already a super bad spell to begin with: the effort/effect ratio is completely off (no pain no gain should be a golden rule with the presence of "smart" casting, as it's otherwise far too simple to trigger devastative effects with little user input) + disables are really frustrating for the other side (e. g. Forcefields, Fungals), so they should be treated with extreme care. No thanks.
There is no umlaut in maelstrom and the word is "devastating," not devastative lol. I'd respond to your point but I don't see that you have one. This type of spell is extremely common in RTS and MOBA games including Starcraft, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as a game mechanic.
Having mobile detection in all "tier2" tech paths would be stupid. There's simply nothing interesting in that. Different tech paths should have different strengths and weaknesses, particularly to balance the game of build orders. Designing complete, "perfect" systems is the surest way to end up with something bland. You want to leave certain gaps for players to work around.
Last but not least, lol @ your Dark Archon receiving a midgame Yamato. One-kill button in midgame = no no.
The whole twilight tech path is countered by ghosts/EMP and would remain so, which is why it's important that it be an archon-type spellcaster unit that is vulnerable to EMP. It's becoming stunningly obvious you have no idea how this game works, which is crazy because you spend so much time posting here. As for a "one-kill button in midgame" I encourage you to look at the tech tree. Look at the number of steps to get to a fusion reactor, and then look at the dark shrine. You will see that they are the same, except the dark shrine actually has a much longer build time. I don't see anyone mixing battlecruisers into their comps because one-button kills are so game-breaking and OP.
With your suggestion, the Colossus would gain the ability to one-shot not only Marines and workers, but also any line composed of units that have less than 120-160 hit points (depending on upgrades, and given that there are often 2+ Colossi in action). That's the vast majority of all ground units ever made in PvT and PvZ—did you think one second about that?
Marauders have 125 hp and roaches have 145, so it would take 3 colossus to one-shot 4-5 of them depending on how they line up. Guess how much damage an equivalent supply of siege tanks would deal in splash to the same armored units immediately surrounding the target? 150, with what would be a shorter cooldown. Widow mines, reavers, banelings etc. follow the same pattern. Have you never seen a group of siege tanks or reavers wipe out an entire army before? You may play this game and be good at copying builds, but you clearly have no idea how it actually works.
On January 02 2015 12:47 kakalxlax wrote: Ideas to make lotv less deathbally. All deathball elements should be removed at once to ensure there won't be an inbalance.
Raven: a support unit that promotes deathballs, and furthermore, makes deathballs of itself:
-- AutoTurret: buffed stats (hp, damage) but each raven can only place 1 turret, placing a new one destroys the previous one. (Turrets can be placed to support troops or while retiring whiteout being able to flood the map with them, increasing raven support of smaller armies without escalating well in huge numbers)
-- PDD: replaced with Nano Matrix: 100 enegy. shields target mechanical for 200 dmg and slightly boosts its attack speed duration while it lasts. (As it's singke targeted, it promotes being used in smaller engagements, if it ends up beeing too good with cyclone, can be changed with the old Defense Matrix)
-- Seeker Missile: Option 1: replace with Fallout: 100 energy. Drains shields and energy of units in target area, then leaves the zone contaminated dealing peridic damage to biological units.(this effect wouldn't be stackablr like seeker missile damage) Option 2: Emp missile: functions like sm without initial delay, drains shields and energy in the area surounding the unit it hits and dealing aoe only to biological targets. Option 3: leave it as it is. (Options 1 and 2 would imply ghosts replacing its emp abilty for something else, allowing for a redesign of the unit, specially its cost.
The main idea was the raven one, but ill throw this one out.
Hellions : line splash is "random", lack of tracking turrets while moving takes away potential from it, and thus, the hellbat was added to make it viable in combat, which could be re proposed into something else if hellions are fixed, and made into a uniy that can be balanced withou the need of the hellbat, being fast and changing how it deals damage would be a start. -- speed increase, even if it requires upgrade.
Opt1: replace weapon for a single target one with small aoe. Opt2: and upgrade that allows it to freely swap between 2 kinds of weapons. Opt3: add spidermines. Opt4: a hp increase upgrade.
Colossus: Add new unit: Harbinger: every 2 seconds deals 20 damage in a radius of 2-3 around it, even while moving. If there is an energy source nearby (warp prism) can deploy into a "colossus" after 3 seconds, powers down or automatically undeploys if energy source is removed. (could be targeted as ground only to compensate) (What makes colossus such a deathbally unit is its power and range combined with mobily, this would also promote further uses of the prism)
Anti-deathball additions:
Zerg general: i think making zerf units squishier, cheaper, take less supply and more easily replenishable would make it more swarmy while less deathbally. Reasons: having more units would promote assaults in multiple fronts, as the army would have more units (and not all of them would ve able to attack at once) sending many waves would be more plausible (more having in mind units would replenish faster)
- making the units cheaper and squishier is self explanatory.
- ways to make them replenish faster. Opt1: make lairs and hives spawn more larvae or do so faster (would justify getting more than 1 lair/hive.
Opt2: lategame queen upgrade that enhances injects.
Reapers: -- Adding back the G4-Charge to Reapers as an upgrade. (Charge thrown to a point that detonates after 2 seconds) Not only that would make them not useless beyond openings, but create small task forces with an ability that increases micro from the user (to cast) and enemy (to avoid)
Sentry: -- Making sentry shields be casted to a point instead of following the sentry. Would make the ability more positional. If needed could have shield and duration tweaked to compensate.
On January 02 2015 19:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all.
What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped.
On January 02 2015 19:33 Big J wrote: The Collossus is terrible. Extremely terrible. As long as it is around, Protoss can play the deathball turtle. Even if they introduce a thousand other units, playstyles and allins and gambles for the race, there will still be the get rewarded for doing nothing collossus turtle deathball. It's exactly the same as SHs. You don't have to go SH turtle from the start of the game. And most SH games don't ever became stale matches for map attrition and are usually fun. But all gameplay has to evolve around the possibility that people can go full retard boredom with those units.
Yes, although thanks to the ravager and siege lurker it should be possible to punish turtles in LOTV (I hope). And honestly I think the problem is more due to the fact that colossus deathballs are the only viable option for a protoss player, and they need to have 3+ colossus to be assured of making a difference. If I could push out with 1-2 colossus much like I could load up a shuttle with 1-2 reavers to complement a dragoon ground army, I would do that. Fuck maybe I just need to go back to BW
On January 02 2015 20:41 TheDwf wrote: Your revamped Maëlstrom would essentially act as a glorified Time Warp, which is already a super bad spell to begin with: the effort/effect ratio is completely off (no pain no gain should be a golden rule with the presence of "smart" casting, as it's otherwise far too simple to trigger devastative effects with little user input) + disables are really frustrating for the other side (e. g. Forcefields, Fungals), so they should be treated with extreme care. No thanks.
There is no umlaut in maelstrom and the word is "devastating," not devastative lol. I'd respond to your point but I don't see that you have one. This type of spell is extremely common in RTS and MOBA games including Starcraft, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as a game mechanic.
Having mobile detection in all "tier2" tech paths would be stupid. There's simply nothing interesting in that. Different tech paths should have different strengths and weaknesses, particularly to balance the game of build orders. Designing complete, "perfect" systems is the surest way to end up with something bland. You want to leave certain gaps for players to work around.
Last but not least, lol @ your Dark Archon receiving a midgame Yamato. One-kill button in midgame = no no.
The whole twilight tech path is countered by ghosts/EMP and would remain so, which is why it's important that it be an archon-type spellcaster unit that is vulnerable to EMP. It's becoming stunningly obvious you have no idea how this game works, which is crazy because you spend so much time posting here. As for a "one-kill button in midgame" I encourage you to look at the tech tree. Look at the number of steps to get to a fusion reactor, and then look at the dark shrine. You will see that they are the same, except the dark shrine actually has a much longer build time. I don't see anyone mixing battlecruisers into their comps because one-button kills are so game-breaking and OP.
With your suggestion, the Colossus would gain the ability to one-shot not only Marines and workers, but also any line composed of units that have less than 120-160 hit points (depending on upgrades, and given that there are often 2+ Colossi in action). That's the vast majority of all ground units ever made in PvT and PvZ—did you think one second about that?
Marauders have 125 hp and roaches have 145, so it would take 3 colossus to one-shot 4-5 of them depending on how they line up. Guess how much damage an equivalent supply of siege tanks would deal in splash to the same armored units immediately surrounding the target? 150, with what would be a shorter cooldown. Widow mines, reavers, banelings etc. follow the same pattern. Have you never seen a group of siege tanks or reavers wipe out an entire army before? You may play this game and be good at copying builds, but you clearly have no idea how it actually works.
None of what you listed should be considered extremely hard counters.
-----Protoss: Premise: Diferentiate Gateway from Warpgate, decrease dependency in colossus, have a better core army with less deathbally tendencies.
Gateway for core army, Warpgate for harass or "task forces". Gateway trains: zealot, immortal, sentry, high templar. Warpgate trains: dark templar, stalker, oracle (oracle requires stargate).
Hight Templar upgrade: Khaydarin Amulet upgrade added 150/150, 110 secs. Increase starting energy of high templars by 25.
Stalker: dmg10+5vs light, hp60+80. Spd 3.1, range 5. Blink research time decreased to 110secs
Immortal: moved to gateway. 150/50, 2 supply, 2.95spd, hp 100+80. Weapon: Can fire while slowing, tracking turret. 6 range, dmg10+10vsArm. Air Attack, range 4, 10+10vsArm. Researchable ability Barrier: puts a 50hp shield around the Immortal for 5 seconds (stands 1 tank shot)
Zealot: Charge is toggable: Passively increases zealot speed to 3.1. If charge is used, it reduces zealot's speed back to it's default 2.25 speed while on cooldown. Allows the zealots to travel faster and opens a lot of micro possibilities.
Colossus: Made smaller, can't be damaged by air. Weapon dmg10 (x2), range 6. Under a power source (warp prism) can deploy after 3 seconds (made immobile). If the power source is removed, it powers down (can still undeploy but not fire) or automatically undeploys. Deployed weapon: dmg 15 (x2), range 7.
Extended thermal lance removed.
It's air weakness will remain in form of the warp prism (unless a pylon is used which would be less efficient unless used for base sefense). Would address it's mobility while still making it usable for it's role.
-------------
--------Terran: Premise: Reduce deathball factors, increase viability of small task forces over big armies.
Reaper: G4-Charge for Reaper as an upgrade. G4-Charge: thrown at range 6, after 2 seconds (with viable timer for both teams) explodes dealing 40+40vsArmored damage (does friendly fire) doesn't damage buildings.
Upgrades Building Armor and Neosteel Merged.
-- Hellion: Fire while slowing, tracking turret. Single taget weapon, deals more damage the longer it fires at the same target, resets if interrupted. Weapon range 6, speed 0.5, dmg 3+3vsLight after 2 seconds : dmg 5+4vsLight after 4 seconds: dmg 7+4vsLight
Bored at work today I watched some protoss games with the disruptor. The unit looks pretty fun to be honest. I thought it really overlapped with the colossus, but with friendly splash damage and not constant DPS it does seem to have a good place outside the deathball with harassment. In a deathball, at least you have to keep it away from your army unless you wanna kill your own guys too.
Now I want to see the herc/hellbat not overlap and I wanna see the new swarm hosts used well. Or even lurkers... Can anyone recommend a VOD with decent swarm host or lurker usage?
Zerg general: i think making zerf units squishier, cheaper, take less supply and more easily replenishable would make it more swarmy while less deathbally. Reasons: having more units would promote assaults in multiple fronts, as the army would have more units (and not all of them would ve able to attack at once) sending many waves would be more plausible (more having in mind units would replenish faster)
I always thought it was weird that Zerg units are generally more beefy than even Terran mech aside from the Thor and BC. I personally think SC2's Zerg would've been more true to it's colors if the Roach was designed with a 1 supply role in mind.
On January 02 2015 19:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all.
What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped.
Units didn't automatically cluster in BW, so these things were less devastating. Psi Storm was balanced around not only that, but also the fact that "smart cast" didn't hold your hand for you and that wielding so much power was actually extremely difficult. SC2 may "feel" less extreme, but it embodies a simplistic hard counter design philosophy that didn't exist in BW.
On January 02 2015 19:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all.
What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped.
Units didn't automatically cluster in BW, so these things were less devastating. Psi Storm was balanced around not only that, but also the fact that "smart cast" didn't hold your hand for you and that wielding so much power was actually extremely difficult. SC2 may "feel" less extreme, but it embodies a simplistic hard counter design philosophy that didn't exist in BW.
I can see how vikings "hard counter" colossus or immortals counter siege tanks to a greater extent than reavers or psi storm counters m&m for example. I just don't see why it's a problem. Starcraft has frequently been called a complicated game of rock/paper/scissors and that's one of the main reasons I play this game. If you don't have to worry about being countered, getting cheesed, etc. then Starcraft is not a strategy game, it's just a brainless battle of raw mechanics and APM. There are better games for that. Or I may as well just go play a piano.
On January 02 2015 19:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all.
What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped.
Units didn't automatically cluster in BW, so these things were less devastating. Psi Storm was balanced around not only that, but also the fact that "smart cast" didn't hold your hand for you and that wielding so much power was actually extremely difficult. SC2 may "feel" less extreme, but it embodies a simplistic hard counter design philosophy that didn't exist in BW.
The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
All the stats for larva would have to change and inject larva would have to change as well. I tried to run some numbers, but it's too complex to make sense of it without testing and I don't know if it achieves the intended effect. I can at least tell that you would be extremely larva starved and that inject larva would be a lot more important. In rebalancing, probably larva limit before it stops producing would need to increase and inject would need to be replaced with a different mechanic.
Anyway, just a thought. The motivation is to make zerg mechanics more similar to terran/protoss by having high cost units be effectively more larva-expensive compared to now. Maybe it would be unintuitive and confusing though.
Concerning messing with larva mechanics: I thought the system was quite complex, I don't understand it myself, but there are some effects you create by having either excess resources or production time that you can burn off with cost effective units that are nevertheless limited. For instance, zerglings have a low mineral cost but extreme larva cost, therefore you can burn off excess larva. If you have high gas count you can create a ton of infestors/mutalisks. Because of reactors you can sometimes convert minerals into marines very easily. Maybe this is what creates some of the swarming effects that terran and zerg have which players tend to find engaging?
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
So, before even going into SC2's flaws (which are there) and beyond that into extremely specific solutions (like going more BW) one just needs to take a step back and look at the potential target audience. And that already tells us that Starcraft in what form ever probably just doesn't stand a chance to compete with the top esports titles.
That being said, I absolutly do not think going more Broodwar would solve anything. Look at how MobA rose: Warcraft Mod that got more popular than the original game. Look at how CS rose: Half-Life mod that got more popular than the original game.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
Here is a small compendium of what makes shooters/MobAs/Tug-o-War/no rush+money map RTS so much more popular than normal Starcraft: - your screen is always on the action, you control your one guy and you slap your opponent with it; you don't get slapped around while you put down a building 10screens away from your army or deselect your army to queue units - information gambles have been annihilated. Yes, you don't see the whole map in DotA/Desert Strike/Nexus Wars, but the gameplay has been built around your opponent automatically showing you his hand asap because is units automatically run to the front and his heroes have to follow to gain XP/gold. - map control is easy, you have spotters everywhere. You don't just lose a game because you lost track of your opponent for 15seconds and then he is appearing in your base and killing your stuff in 10seconds. - patches, patches, patches. When something isn't fun, those games don't keep it in. If Protoss was a Moba Hero it would have been redesigned in 2001. Basically the opposite philosophy of what Broodwar did and what SC2 is following since early 2012 besides the mediocre expension content which doesn't even match a seasonal DotA patch in size. - reasonable team play, you can play with friends. - everything that isn't player on player (or player on AI) action is easy to control, understand and acquire. You don't need 50clicks per minute to keep your standard income coming and your creep waves going in Mobas semi-decently. And all your items are on 1-2 menues, not spread across 10 seperate buildings. Because if you want to play that kind of stuff, there is a whole genre of economic simulation singleplayer-focused games that an interactive multiplayer game will never be able to challenge. There is no use in trying and challenge for the playerbase of Anno 1404, an RTS game just cannot win that fight.
Starcraft sadly just doesn't keep up with those standards. It's hard to learn, hard to master, unforgiving if you aren't very good at it and hasn't learned anything from the one-thousand-and-one RTS-like mods that BW/WC3/SC2 have spawned. It still tries to copy Dune2 and BW, games that were fun 15-25years ago but just cannot keep up with todays gameplay standards. And some of the LotV ideas (in particular bases running out faster) seem to go even more backwards.
also i think the fact is that sc2 IS a sequal to bw, and most people i feel wouldnt have bought SC2 if it didnt have the bw name.
like command and conquer or Red Alert series; they have a certain game style that people expect and hence buy the game. i feel its not credible to say 'sc2 is a different game' when they're meant to be of the same species and and technically everything is meant to be more 'advanced' than the first...
I agree with BigJ, but I would also like to add that Sc2 suffers from being difficult to learn by your self. I had a friend that tried Sc2, lost a couple of games online (beucase he had no idea what to do) and then never touched it again. I really dislike when you need to rely on external informations to just learn the basics of the game. In CS:GO (and too an extent LOL) you can just play the game and learn it in that proces. Sure ofc, if you want to get even better than that, you need to seek external informations, but everything about Sc2 is just super-unfriendly for new players.
1 fully upgraded swarm host's locusts can kill a hatchery by themselves. O_O. At least the cooldown is twice as long as their duration now. They will certainly be a much more interesting unit now, at least!
On January 08 2015 12:37 Big J wrote: - everything that isn't player on player (or player on AI) action is easy to control, understand and acquire. You don't need 50clicks per minute to keep your standard income coming and your creep waves going in Mobas semi-decently. And all your items are on 1-2 menues, not spread across 10 seperate buildings. Because if you want to play that kind of stuff, there is a whole genre of economic simulation singleplayer-focused games that an interactive multiplayer game will never be able to challenge. There is no use in trying and challenge for the playerbase of Anno 1404, an RTS game just cannot win that fight.
In the defense of Starcraft, I read the "complexity creep" article in this post the other day and I want to quote one section that might be applicable to the discussion here. It talks about a possible solution to the increasing complexity of new Magic cards.
Sometimes it helps to lay out a problem when you're trying to solve it. Here's what we knew: We had to bring down the level of barrier to entry. It had simply gotten too high. The game was filled with all sorts of complexity, which was pushing it up. On the flip side, though, we had the established players. Much of what was creating the complexity stemmed from things that were important to keep our existing players. Magic has to keep adding new elements. Expansions have to have new mechanics and new keywords and new themes and new strategies. How could we possibly make all the parties happy?
The solution ended up being a tool that trading card games had always had: rarity. How could we get things into the hands of the experienced players without overwhelming the less experienced players? We simply had to keep it out of common. We knew that beginning players buy fewer boosters. This means that the percentage of relevant cards they own that are common is simply much higher.
So applying this to Starcraft you get the following concept: you have various simple units such as the marine and marauder that are easily accessible by building a barracks, it's to be expected that most new players will experiment with these simple units first and won't be overwhelmed by the complexity a unit like the ghost offers. The ghost is safely hidden behind the tech requirement of the Ghost Academy, delaying access to the unit until the point that someone actively chooses to pursue this unit. You could argue that this removes some of the complexity creep, but I suppose that the tech tree also becomes subject to complexity creep, so it's double-edged.
This is something which bothered me about DotA: the game keeps adding new heroes and items and at some point the choice becomes rather overwhelming. Another problem is that (this is something I noticed in like 2008, so I don't know if it still relevant) many of the new heroes are more experimental, using mechanics that aren't quite obvious. I recall simply not understanding a multitude of abilities because they strayed so far from the simple Warcraft 3 prototypes. In conjunction these two gripes illustrate a clear example of complexity creep: an ever increasing array of heroes that are becoming more and more complex. I imagine that in DOTA2 they identified this as a problem and tried to craft some solutions, but I haven't played that game so I wouldn't know.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
It's an experimental idea to solve the following problem: for terran and protoss build time implies a strain on total production and therefore units have a production cost which increases with build time. A unit with higher cost or higher power can typically take longer to build, making units of different costs more equal with regards to their effect on production. Specifically, there is some ratio of resource cost : production cost which stays within a certain range for all terran and protoss units. For zerg build time does not imply a strain on production because it has no effect on larva generation which is the sole measure of the capability of zerg production. One larva equals one unit, no matter the cost. If terran was similar then a scv and a battlecruiser would both take equally long to build, and in fact this is the case with zerg: an ultralisk requires as much larva as a drone despite the cost difference, allowing you to create an overwhelming number of high tech units very easily.
I don't know if this is an actual problem, but it certainly stands in contrast with the other races. I mentioned in my earlier post that the larva system has some effects on swarming styles and such and that it's not necessarily broken despite the difference with terran and protoss. It's still possible to balance units like the ultralisk simply taking into account that you can build them in large numbers. I also don't know if my solution is 1. workable and 2. effective, so like I said it's an experimental idea.
To take a closer look at the suggestion, what I had in mind was the following scenario: you have three larva and decide to build a unit. If you build a drone then larva resumes regenerating not immediately (according to the current rules), but after 17 seconds. If you build an ultralisk then larva resumes after 55 seconds. Therefore there is a difference in effective larva costs. Which might be good, or it might be unnecessary.
I think there are a wealth of effects of the different production systems, one reason for making this post is that I hope for someone else to theorize about this. One thought I had was that larva encourages many zerg combat units to be at around 100 minerals, as then there is no discrepancy in production costs -- drones, zerglings and ultralisks being specific exceptions as you want drones to be limited by larva to prevent exponential economic growth, you want at least one combat unit (the zergling) that can burn off larva to discourage build-up and the ultralisk can be a simple exception that can be balanced. But of course lurkers and swarm hosts are a bit more expensive and break the pattern. Anyhow, just a thought.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
On January 08 2015 13:04 worosei wrote: goodness i miss a 'proper' game of BGH :p
Hahaha, funny you mention that, because I just installed BW and played my first game of BGH in 7+ years and it felt good :D
On January 08 2015 20:32 Grumbels wrote: For zerg build time does not imply a strain on production because it has no effect on larva generation which is the sole measure of the capability of zerg production. One larva equals one unit, no matter the cost. If terran was similar then a scv and a battlecruiser would both take equally long to build, and in fact this is the case with zerg: an ultralisk requires as much larva as a drone despite the cost difference, allowing you to create an overwhelming number of high tech units very easily.
I think this is just one of the defining traits of Zerg and it balances out. What you should consider is that Zerg also needs to build drones and overlords with that larva, and drones are lost whenever they make new buildings. This adds some overhead to their production. Moreover let's assume that a protoss and a zerg keep their production perfectly queued. The zerg player would end up waiting on larva, and the time it takes for them to spawn would be added to the production time of each of their units. So I think there are already some drawbacks to the zerg production model.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
On January 09 2015 01:38 Big J wrote: Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
No, I don't think dictating what maps people will use is the right approach at all. You see, I'm 'Murican, so let me tell you about something called freedom, brother Seriously though, I think this is a situation where it's better to let the market decide. Look what happened with Dreampool, it's not just about money maps. If I were to propose a change, I would make the MM section in SC2 work more like CSGO's MM, where you just check off the maps you want to play and press OK. It could list out available maps much like custom games do now (the difference being, the custom section does not provide MM).
As for MSC vs. arbiter yeah you're right, the closer comparison is the full mothership but it's hard for me to speak of that like it's an actual unit when it's so broken and useless. Anyway I do agree that a lot of the SC2 units are better; banelings, ghosts are improved, I do like phoenix, and even stalkers are more "interesting" although I'm not sure whether dragoons have more DPS. As for the hellion, I think this is another case where it was too much of a soft counter and they had to add in the hellbat to make up for its shortcomings.
On January 08 2015 20:32 Grumbels wrote: For zerg build time does not imply a strain on production because it has no effect on larva generation which is the sole measure of the capability of zerg production. One larva equals one unit, no matter the cost. If terran was similar then a scv and a battlecruiser would both take equally long to build, and in fact this is the case with zerg: an ultralisk requires as much larva as a drone despite the cost difference, allowing you to create an overwhelming number of high tech units very easily.
I think this is just one of the defining traits of Zerg and it balances out. What you should consider is that Zerg also needs to build drones and overlords with that larva, and drones are lost whenever they make new buildings. This adds some overhead to their production. Moreover let's assume that a protoss and a zerg keep their production perfectly queued. The zerg player would end up waiting on larva, and the time it takes for them to spawn would be added to the production time of each of their units. So I think there are already some drawbacks to the zerg production model.
Well, I find zerg macro a bit odd. On some level zerg has a simplified version of the general macro design, i.e. if you take the generic terran production model and remove some elements then you're left with the zerg one. There aren't really any drawbacks to it other than balance choices by Blizzard to make larva limited. But in practice larva is rarely limited without any special effort by the zerg player, you only really have to decide how to spend your resources, having enough larva is an afterthought.
Buildings requiring a drone to sacrifice themselves (costing larva) and overlords costing larva are just a general tax on larva production and don't affect the design in any major specific way (of course there are some minor effects like zerg production being relatively higher when they're replenishing units vs building up, but since you have so much larva these factors are insignificant).
And zerg players have several ways to trivialize their macro. Inject can be made easier with hotkey set-ups, eggs can be added to control groups to circumvent having to take care of rallied units, overlords can be made without looking at the screen (unlike supply depots), you have some of the advantages of queuing (larva build-up) without the downside of overqueuing etc. And mainly you just have one building and you just have to hold the D or R key or whatever, afaik pro zerg players don't bother anymore with building from each hatchery individually.
To me it feels like zerg macro is simpler and more powerful than that of the other races in design and it sort of removes a challenging aspect of zerg gameplay which hurts the race. (of course some people like the fact that it's simplified) There are also some things like the ability to make 70 drones before making any combat units and the ability to make 50 ultralisks or mutalisks at once that are imo a bit problematic although they can be balanced around. So personally I'm not very satisfied with the zerg macro design. Inject is also a very boring ability. At least creep is interesting.
Grumbels, it's almost like you're describing differences in behavior -- like having to select groups of eggs and add them to a hotkey, or "time" the injection of hatcheries, or decide based on your opponent's behavior whether to commit to building several of one unit or another -- that add both mechanical and strategic complexity to zerg macro. In that sense, I totally agree that zerg has to engage in different thought and behavior than the other two races. Well put.
On January 09 2015 01:38 Big J wrote: Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
No, I don't think dictating what maps people will use is the right approach at all. You see, I'm 'Murican, so let me tell you about something called freedom, brother Seriously though, I think this is a situation where it's better to let the market decide. Look what happened with Dreampool, it's not just about money maps. If I were to propose a change, I would make the MM section in SC2 work more like CSGO's MM, where you just check off the maps you want to play and press OK. It could list out available maps much like custom games do now (the difference being, the custom section does not provide MM).
As for MSC vs. arbiter yeah you're right, the closer comparison is the full mothership but it's hard for me to speak of that like it's an actual unit when it's so broken and useless. Anyway I do agree that a lot of the SC2 units are better; banelings, ghosts are improved, I do like phoenix, and even stalkers are more "interesting" although I'm not sure whether dragoons have more DPS. As for the hellion, I think this is another case where it was too much of a soft counter and they had to add in the hellbat to make up for its shortcomings.
Which units you can build and what stats they have are rules in RTS games. So are maps. Which of those you alter doesn't matter, if you alter them too much it is not the same game anymore. FMP and BGH are most definitely not "just maps for starcraft", they go deep into data editing (e.g. minerals per mineralfield, workers per mineralfield) and break many rules that the game has been designed around (e.g. the whole concept of base building/expansions). And yes, what I'm saying is: let the market decide. If they rather play BGH/FMP, then design and balance the units for these mods to improve the BGH/FMP experience. Stop catering to the minority that plays the original content and give the players a chance to develop a professional scene on the more fun/popular BGH/FMP maps.
On January 09 2015 05:46 Big J wrote: Which units you can build and what stats they have are rules in RTS games. So are maps. Which of those you alter doesn't matter, if you alter them too much it is not the same game anymore. FMP and BGH are most definitely not "just maps for starcraft", they go deep into data editing (e.g. minerals per mineralfield, workers per mineralfield) and break many rules that the game has been designed around (e.g. the whole concept of base building/expansions). And yes, what I'm saying is: let the market decide. If they rather play BGH/FMP, then design and balance the units for these mods to improve the BGH/FMP experience. Stop catering to the minority that plays the original content and give the players a chance to develop a professional scene on the more fun/popular BGH/FMP maps.
Agree, and I think it would be best if we all just gave the ladder/matchmaking section a rest and supported mods / community content, it seems like the best hope for Starcraft now. That is how MOBA and Counter-Strike got their start afterall.
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
To me it seems more non Koreans play SC2 at 4 years past release than played BW at 4 years after SC's release. You'd log onto BNET and it would be endless bots and empty channel ghost towns. I think there is the myth of Broodwar that doesn't represent the reality. Warcraft 3 coming out in 2002 also took away much of what was left of the Broodwar scene...sure Grrr and Pillars and Maynard and Dudey and whoever were living in Korea (okay so ilnp doesn't count) but there wasn't much of a Broodwar scene at that point outside of Korea.
StarCraft 2 did two things that hurt it early on and that is not having chat channels at release (killed community) and not supporting the modding community that had been huge in prior games. StarCraft 2 has an actual nonKorean professional scene going strong for 4 years which is taken for granted even though Broodwar had nothing close (coming from someone who finished r16 in PGL, won an i2e2, and set up weekly broodwar tournaments and did official work for the i2e2 circuit). StarCraft 2 has been an amazing success...even though there have been so tough periods with balance infestor/broodlord, early all in maps, blink maps, etc.
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
To me it seems more non Koreans play SC2 at 4 years past release than played BW at 4 years after SC's release. You'd log onto BNET and it would be endless bots and empty channel ghost towns. I think there is the myth of Broodwar that doesn't represent the reality. Warcraft 3 coming out in 2002 also took away much of what was left of the Broodwar scene...sure Grrr and Pillars and Maynard and Dudey and whoever were living in Korea (okay so ilnp doesn't count) but there wasn't much of a Broodwar scene at that point outside of Korea.
That was in a west that couldn't compete. The Korean BW scene was bigger than the SC2 Korean + west scene combined.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
You're focusing on tiny details which I could now oppose with many arguments, but which wasn't the point of that argument. The point of the argument is that even many of the BW units are far from "the most fun possible", which is why just going back from one bad unit to another bad unit just would hardly be any improvement. The game should be balanced/designed with high goals in mind and not return to stuff that wasn't very good to begin with.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
You're focusing on tiny details which I could now oppose with many arguments, but which wasn't the point of that argument. The point of the argument is that even many of the BW units are far from "the most fun possible", which is why just going back from one bad unit to another bad unit just would hardly be any improvement. The game should be balanced/designed with high goals in mind and not return to stuff that wasn't very good to begin with.
Well the point is very relevant - they're not bad units at all. They are some of the better units in RTS overall in how they interact with the game.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
You're focusing on tiny details which I could now oppose with many arguments, but which wasn't the point of that argument. The point of the argument is that even many of the BW units are far from "the most fun possible", which is why just going back from one bad unit to another bad unit just would hardly be any improvement. The game should be balanced/designed with high goals in mind and not return to stuff that wasn't very good to begin with.
Well the point is very relevant - they're not bad units at all. They are some of the better units in RTS overall in how they interact with the game.
I disagree, the named units are some of the worst units in Broodwar. They are levels below the better designed Broodwar units and there are quite some good other RTS games out there with great units that can compete with Starcraft's unit design. In particular air units are just very boring in Starcraft. CnC airdesign with returning fast strike fighters, very vulnerable helicopters and badass slow Kirovs has always been much more exciting than Starcraft's in that department, to give an example. Starcraft just always has the benefit of the game fundamentals being much better so that even crap units like the Corruptor or the BW Ultralisk have a place just from a strategic standpoint. While the units themselves are mainly just roles that need to be fullfilled.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
You're focusing on tiny details which I could now oppose with many arguments, but which wasn't the point of that argument. The point of the argument is that even many of the BW units are far from "the most fun possible", which is why just going back from one bad unit to another bad unit just would hardly be any improvement. The game should be balanced/designed with high goals in mind and not return to stuff that wasn't very good to begin with.
Well the point is very relevant - they're not bad units at all. They are some of the better units in RTS overall in how they interact with the game.
I disagree, the named units are some of the worst units in Broodwar. They are levels below the better designed Broodwar units and there are quite some good other RTS games out there with great units that can compete with Starcraft's unit design. In particular air units are just very boring in Starcraft. CnC airdesign with returning fast strike fighters, very vulnerable helicopters and badass slow Kirovs has always been much more exciting than Starcraft's in that department, to give an example. Starcraft just always has the benefit of the game fundamentals being much better so that even crap units like the Corruptor or the BW Ultralisk have a place just from a strategic standpoint. While the units themselves are mainly just roles that need to be fullfilled.
The corrupter is awful, I don't disagree.
The air mechanics in CnC were interesting but hardly exciting compared to the Carrier.
I don't understand where your hate from the Ultra comes from - just because it doesn't have a spell and plays the role of a tankier unit, which nearly every race needs to have, does not make it bad.
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
You're focusing on tiny details which I could now oppose with many arguments, but which wasn't the point of that argument. The point of the argument is that even many of the BW units are far from "the most fun possible", which is why just going back from one bad unit to another bad unit just would hardly be any improvement. The game should be balanced/designed with high goals in mind and not return to stuff that wasn't very good to begin with.
Well the point is very relevant - they're not bad units at all. They are some of the better units in RTS overall in how they interact with the game.
I disagree, the named units are some of the worst units in Broodwar. They are levels below the better designed Broodwar units and there are quite some good other RTS games out there with great units that can compete with Starcraft's unit design. In particular air units are just very boring in Starcraft. CnC airdesign with returning fast strike fighters, very vulnerable helicopters and badass slow Kirovs has always been much more exciting than Starcraft's in that department, to give an example. Starcraft just always has the benefit of the game fundamentals being much better so that even crap units like the Corruptor or the BW Ultralisk have a place just from a strategic standpoint. While the units themselves are mainly just roles that need to be fullfilled.
The corrupter is awful, I don't disagree.
The air mechanics in CnC were interesting but hardly exciting compared to the Carrier.
I don't understand where your hate from the Ultra comes from - just because it doesn't have a spell and plays the role of a tankier unit, which nearly every race needs to have, does not make it bad.
It's not really a hate, I like the Ultralisk form a lore standpoint. And I'm not a fetishist of active abilities either, they can stay in Warcraft. But the unit offers little to no real micro potential. And in my opinion it is not placed well in the techtree, I'd fancy such a basic design with little potential tricks and melee attack more towards T2 in Starcraft, because it often feels like one just builds them because... well, the game got long and one just has enough to build them now. (in both games, though my BW experience is quite limited)
The carrier is a great unit (if done right of course). To the air mechanics in general, let's just say I think of SC2's air mechanics as a form of invulnerability combined with complete Terrain neglection. The antiair options in Starcraft are neither so narrow that air play is strongly interesting as an "abusive trickery", nor strong enough to allow for air units being treated somewhat normally. They are in between so that air play can be a stable option that forces narrow reactions from the opponent (corsair/phoenix, lategame P/T airballs vs Zerg, Broodlords forcing Vikings/VRs/Tempests). Or just useless (most Terran air vs Protoss, most Protoss air vs Terran, most airplay from Terran vs Zerg coming very late after extreme precautions).
BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge.
If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead).
I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on.
It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3.
Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral.
I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another.
Devourer is a million times better and more interesting than Corrupter with the way it interacts (reduces armor via splash, reduces unit attack rate, very slow attack) that it ends up being almost a support unit in battle as opposed to the primary damage dealer, unlike the corrupter which has the purpose simply to focus fire capital ships. Devourer's vs Corsairs had a very unique relationship as well given how it made sair fire rate notably slower, helped scourge get in, etc. Scourge could own carriers without lots of sairs (until critical mass), so it was an interesting dynamic.
Guardian was far better than BL even if it wasn't as good, Guardian didn't have the free unit spawn --> fuck with pathing insane frustrating that came with the unit.
Ultralisk is also way more badass in BW, one of the best units! Became significantly worse in SC2 with it being much bigger, clunkier. BW had it right.
And while DA might not be best for competitive play, c'mon, it was everyone's favorite unit growing up (cept maybe the carrier).
You're focusing on tiny details which I could now oppose with many arguments, but which wasn't the point of that argument. The point of the argument is that even many of the BW units are far from "the most fun possible", which is why just going back from one bad unit to another bad unit just would hardly be any improvement. The game should be balanced/designed with high goals in mind and not return to stuff that wasn't very good to begin with.
Well the point is very relevant - they're not bad units at all. They are some of the better units in RTS overall in how they interact with the game.
I disagree, the named units are some of the worst units in Broodwar. They are levels below the better designed Broodwar units and there are quite some good other RTS games out there with great units that can compete with Starcraft's unit design. In particular air units are just very boring in Starcraft. CnC airdesign with returning fast strike fighters, very vulnerable helicopters and badass slow Kirovs has always been much more exciting than Starcraft's in that department, to give an example. Starcraft just always has the benefit of the game fundamentals being much better so that even crap units like the Corruptor or the BW Ultralisk have a place just from a strategic standpoint. While the units themselves are mainly just roles that need to be fullfilled.
The corrupter is awful, I don't disagree.
The air mechanics in CnC were interesting but hardly exciting compared to the Carrier.
I don't understand where your hate from the Ultra comes from - just because it doesn't have a spell and plays the role of a tankier unit, which nearly every race needs to have, does not make it bad.
It's not really a hate, I like the Ultralisk form a lore standpoint. And I'm not a fetishist of active abilities either, they can stay in Warcraft. But the unit offers little to no real micro potential. And in my opinion it is not placed well in the techtree, I'd fancy such a basic design with little potential tricks and melee attack more towards T2 in Starcraft, because it often feels like one just builds them because... well, the game got long and one just has enough to build them now. (in both games, though my BW experience is quite limited)
The carrier is a great unit (if done right of course). To the air mechanics in general, let's just say I think of SC2's air mechanics as a form of invulnerability combined with complete Terrain neglection. The antiair options in Starcraft are neither so narrow that air play is strongly interesting as an "abusive trickery", nor strong enough to allow for air units being treated somewhat normally. They are in between so that air play can be a stable option that forces narrow reactions from the opponent (corsair/phoenix, lategame P/T airballs vs Zerg, Broodlords forcing Vikings/VRs/Tempests). Or just useless (most Terran air vs Protoss, most Protoss air vs Terran, most airplay from Terran vs Zerg coming very late after extreme precautions).
It's just another unit that synergizes incredibly well with the Zergling. Ling/ultra is all about flanking your opponent, you can't really just A-move unless you know you have a very superior force. BW interacted very different with teh Ultra being a necessity due to Terran MM and Tank DPS output. Zergs absolutely desperately need a tank, and the Science Vessel pretty much nullifies all options except the Ultra when you get to very late game. Of course, you can get by as well with Defilers, Scourge, and Lurkers but it's very hard to be mobile with these units. For that reason, the Ultra fits in perfectly in that it has characteristics similar to a Zergling (speed/melee) but also fills a much needed gap.
Also synergizes incredibly well with defiler (although so does the infestor with the ultra).
In terms of gameplay, maybe instead of the ultralisk it could be better to have the aberrations from the campaign at around a T2 tech level? They could be a tankier melee unit that does not suffer from pathing issues with zerglings because of being able to walk over them. This helps melee keep up with ranged units, because one issue with the scaling is that only a limited number of melee units can attack a group of ranged units at once while all ranged units can keep attacking and this grows more pronounced with more units, so if you have higher tech zerg units that can walk over each other then melee can keep up with scaling better (as opposed to just giving zerg ranged units). On the other hand, this kind of overlaps with the roach -- but maybe ultralisks overlap with roaches anyway.
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
To me it seems more non Koreans play SC2 at 4 years past release than played BW at 4 years after SC's release. You'd log onto BNET and it would be endless bots and empty channel ghost towns. I think there is the myth of Broodwar that doesn't represent the reality. Warcraft 3 coming out in 2002 also took away much of what was left of the Broodwar scene...sure Grrr and Pillars and Maynard and Dudey and whoever were living in Korea (okay so ilnp doesn't count) but there wasn't much of a Broodwar scene at that point outside of Korea.
That was in a west that couldn't compete. The Korean BW scene was bigger than the SC2 Korean + west scene combined.
It wasn't in a west that couldn't compete. When the scene transitioned to Korea many of the best west players had moved on and Bnet had already lost much of its population. Players like Zileas, Sosowac, Gadianton, and TillerMan were no longer in the game when professional starcraft took off in Korea...you take those 4 and add Grrr... and Maynard and you have the 6 best players during Bnets hey day. Pillars, Kain, Jolly, and Honest (Korean) were behind those players until those players started dropping off.
I'm not buying the revised history that StarCraft was bigger in Korea than StarCraft 2 is in the entire world either. Sure in Korea there was a bigger impact on television and in the studio, but...there were 4 major individual tournaments in 2001; in 2011 there were way more premier tournaments in Korea (11), in Europe (8), and in the North America (12). There was a massive amount of prize money for the year, there were great crowds, and there were solid online streaming numbers.
Moneywise 2001 saw the largest tournament pay out less than $10k US...2011 saw the largest tournament pay out almost $190k US. The largest broodwar prize pool ever was about $110k US...there were 7 tournaments in 2011 alone that had larger prize pools than that, 3 in 2010, and 6 in 2012 (including the $250k US prize money world championship), 9 in 2014, and I forgot to count 2013 and don't feel like going back and looking it up.
So starcraft 2 has had MORE tournaments, bigger prize pools, and has had an actual global audience.
Its actually pretty crazy how successful the game has been.
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
To me it seems more non Koreans play SC2 at 4 years past release than played BW at 4 years after SC's release. You'd log onto BNET and it would be endless bots and empty channel ghost towns. I think there is the myth of Broodwar that doesn't represent the reality. Warcraft 3 coming out in 2002 also took away much of what was left of the Broodwar scene...sure Grrr and Pillars and Maynard and Dudey and whoever were living in Korea (okay so ilnp doesn't count) but there wasn't much of a Broodwar scene at that point outside of Korea.
That was in a west that couldn't compete. The Korean BW scene was bigger than the SC2 Korean + west scene combined.
It wasn't in a west that couldn't compete. When the scene transitioned to Korea many of the best west players had moved on and Bnet had already lost much of its population. Players like Zileas, Sosowac, Gadianton, and TillerMan were no longer in the game when professional starcraft took off in Korea...you take those 4 and add Grrr... and Maynard and you have the 6 best players during Bnets hey day. Pillars, Kain, Jolly, and Honest (Korean) were behind those players until those players started dropping off.
I'm not buying the revised history that StarCraft was bigger in Korea than StarCraft 2 is in the entire world either. Sure in Korea there was a bigger impact on television and in the studio, but...there were 4 major individual tournaments in 2001; in 2011 there were way more premier tournaments in Korea (11), in Europe (8), and in the North America (12). There was a massive amount of prize money for the year, there were great crowds, and there were solid online streaming numbers.
Moneywise 2001 saw the largest tournament pay out less than $10k US...2011 saw the largest tournament pay out almost $190k US. The largest broodwar prize pool ever was about $110k US...there were 7 tournaments in 2011 alone that had larger prize pools than that, 3 in 2010, and 6 in 2012 (including the $250k US prize money world championship), 9 in 2014, and I forgot to count 2013 and don't feel like going back and looking it up.
So starcraft 2 has had MORE tournaments, bigger prize pools, and has had an actual global audience.
Its actually pretty crazy how successful the game has been.
You do make a strong argument with your numbers and facts and stuff, but not sure wether to believe you or the multiple people saying SC2 is a daed game. They do seem quite convinced.
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
To me it seems more non Koreans play SC2 at 4 years past release than played BW at 4 years after SC's release. You'd log onto BNET and it would be endless bots and empty channel ghost towns. I think there is the myth of Broodwar that doesn't represent the reality. Warcraft 3 coming out in 2002 also took away much of what was left of the Broodwar scene...sure Grrr and Pillars and Maynard and Dudey and whoever were living in Korea (okay so ilnp doesn't count) but there wasn't much of a Broodwar scene at that point outside of Korea.
That was in a west that couldn't compete. The Korean BW scene was bigger than the SC2 Korean + west scene combined.
It wasn't in a west that couldn't compete. When the scene transitioned to Korea many of the best west players had moved on and Bnet had already lost much of its population. Players like Zileas, Sosowac, Gadianton, and TillerMan were no longer in the game when professional starcraft took off in Korea...you take those 4 and add Grrr... and Maynard and you have the 6 best players during Bnets hey day. Pillars, Kain, Jolly, and Honest (Korean) were behind those players until those players started dropping off.
I'm not buying the revised history that StarCraft was bigger in Korea than StarCraft 2 is in the entire world either. Sure in Korea there was a bigger impact on television and in the studio, but...there were 4 major individual tournaments in 2001; in 2011 there were way more premier tournaments in Korea (11), in Europe (8), and in the North America (12). There was a massive amount of prize money for the year, there were great crowds, and there were solid online streaming numbers.
Moneywise 2001 saw the largest tournament pay out less than $10k US...2011 saw the largest tournament pay out almost $190k US. The largest broodwar prize pool ever was about $110k US...there were 7 tournaments in 2011 alone that had larger prize pools than that, 3 in 2010, and 6 in 2012 (including the $250k US prize money world championship), 9 in 2014, and I forgot to count 2013 and don't feel like going back and looking it up.
So starcraft 2 has had MORE tournaments, bigger prize pools, and has had an actual global audience.
Its actually pretty crazy how successful the game has been.
honestly i think most people crying dead game either have nostalgia tinted glasses of wat broodwar is like, or simply call sc2 dead because its no longer the biggest e sport
honestly overall sc2 has been very succesfull, i think people just feel that because nowadays were arguably 4th(behind dota, lol and cs) and sort of declining that the games dead when its actually still got a rather large folowing 40-50k stream numbers for most larger tournaments isnt dead, heck smite got~30k for its world championship finals but compared to lol and dota numbers 30-40k doesnt seem that great anymore.
tho the ammount of sc content (especially last year) kinda crippled individual players streaming numbers, but thats also due to how hard it is to be competetive and stream in sc compared to other games
On January 13 2015 02:40 SuperFanBoy wrote: Does anyone know if LOTV multiplayer will be free to play?
So far they have hinted that it's not, emphasising that it is 'standalone' and you can buy it without having WoL or HotS. It's still possible the game could end up being F2P though.
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game.
SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies".
If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW".
I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time.
On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units.
I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun?
To me it seems more non Koreans play SC2 at 4 years past release than played BW at 4 years after SC's release. You'd log onto BNET and it would be endless bots and empty channel ghost towns. I think there is the myth of Broodwar that doesn't represent the reality. Warcraft 3 coming out in 2002 also took away much of what was left of the Broodwar scene...sure Grrr and Pillars and Maynard and Dudey and whoever were living in Korea (okay so ilnp doesn't count) but there wasn't much of a Broodwar scene at that point outside of Korea.
That was in a west that couldn't compete. The Korean BW scene was bigger than the SC2 Korean + west scene combined.
It wasn't in a west that couldn't compete. When the scene transitioned to Korea many of the best west players had moved on and Bnet had already lost much of its population. Players like Zileas, Sosowac, Gadianton, and TillerMan were no longer in the game when professional starcraft took off in Korea...you take those 4 and add Grrr... and Maynard and you have the 6 best players during Bnets hey day. Pillars, Kain, Jolly, and Honest (Korean) were behind those players until those players started dropping off.
I'm not buying the revised history that StarCraft was bigger in Korea than StarCraft 2 is in the entire world either. Sure in Korea there was a bigger impact on television and in the studio, but...there were 4 major individual tournaments in 2001; in 2011 there were way more premier tournaments in Korea (11), in Europe (8), and in the North America (12). There was a massive amount of prize money for the year, there were great crowds, and there were solid online streaming numbers.
Moneywise 2001 saw the largest tournament pay out less than $10k US...2011 saw the largest tournament pay out almost $190k US. The largest broodwar prize pool ever was about $110k US...there were 7 tournaments in 2011 alone that had larger prize pools than that, 3 in 2010, and 6 in 2012 (including the $250k US prize money world championship), 9 in 2014, and I forgot to count 2013 and don't feel like going back and looking it up.
So starcraft 2 has had MORE tournaments, bigger prize pools, and has had an actual global audience.
Its actually pretty crazy how successful the game has been.
You do make a strong argument with your numbers and facts and stuff, but not sure wether to believe you or the multiple people saying SC2 is a daed game. They do seem quite convinced.
i giggled :D
p.s. inb4 bw fanboys get here with their pitchforks