EPTLegacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
coolman123123
146 Posts
| ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On February 18 2015 07:54 coolman123123 wrote: I think if they added strong gateway non-warpgate unit, it would give a lot of breathing room for other changes and help the game. Hopefully blizz will test something like this with that shade.I like Warp Gate and I think Forcefield, in essence, is one of the best and most skill intensive spells in the game. I have heard it limits map design, but I think a compromise could be found (maybe the Ravager is a start). I think Protoss can have a new Gateway unit and WG/FF. | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
What I do think they can do is make gateways more useful, such that they are a valid alternative to warpgate. Maybe they produce units faster, or maybe you can't chrono warpgates anymore, or maybe even have gateways pull double-duty and have them act like SC1 shield batteries. There's been lots of good suggestions on this forum, I'd like to see Blizz do some experimenting during this expansion. | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
roach + burrow. that's all gateway only and robo aggression. plus, how do protoss hold a 3rd? ever? this new 'ground shooting unit' better be a freakin' mini immortal is all i can say. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Especially this bad guy: ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/3/39/Immortal.png/294px-Immortal.png) can't shoot air, completely overkills armored units, completely overkills burst damage type of enemies, only barely decent against many low-tier Z/T units; too slow to go alone or run away after a skirmish --> should be remade into a universal, quicker anti ground unit that doesn't kill enemy strategies upon just having a bunch of them People who want to have a gateway unit that just trades superwell without requiring a hightech building (High Templar) or an upgrade (Blink, Charge) while claiming that the other races have that stuff are hypocrits. When I read that stalkers aren't good without blink and then have trouble in the lategame on their own should try to fight with slowlings/slowroaches/unstimmed MM and without the support of units like Vipers/Medivacs against standard Protoss armies for once. I can understand why you guys hate to play with your own T2-T3 army units when it's turtlebullshit like Immortals, Colossi and Voidrays while Z and T got the mentioned above plus stuff like Ultras and Ghosts, but that doesn't privilege you that a 150/0 cybercore should be enough of tech to go 15mins into a game while the other races are working off their asses to balance all their tech and specific unit upgrades (as you have to do now as well). Again, the type of units you are looking for are there. They just are shit designed or situational. Now instead of whining that the stuff that is already strong and that already makes up for most of your army should get better, do what Zergs and Terrans have been doing and whine that there is too much stuff that doesn't work. Or don't because you don't want to lose Immortal and Colossus allins (in their current form) by making the units well-designed, but then don't expect anyone to stand up for your absurd and irrational cause of getting stalkers buffed or some sort of cybercore counterall being introduced. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 18 2015 08:39 ElMeanYo wrote: Removing warpgate is to change one of the fundamental aspects of the game. It would require a re-balancing the likes of which is outside the scope of an expansion. I doubt very much that is going to happen. You don't think their economy overhaul already necessitates a complete re-balancing? Lol. One thing people often don't take into account when discussing warping in is how risk-free it makes certain aspects of Protoss play. To harass a Terran's economy, a Protoss will send out a WP and warp in 12 Zealots. If the WP dies en route, he loses the WP's worth of resources. To harass a Protoss's economy, a Terran will send out two Medivacs full of bio. If the Medivacs get Feedbacked/Stalkered en route, the Terran loses the Medivacs (which hurts his army) and all of the bio. Combined with how good A-move Zealots are in general, vs. how ineffective unmicroed bio is in small numbers, this means Protoss is only slightly penalized for having shitty multitasking when harassing, and can only gain a slight advantage by having fantastic multitasking. It lowers the skill ceiling and raises the skill floor. That's exactly the opposite of what I look for in a competitive event. | ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On February 18 2015 07:54 coolman123123 wrote: I like Warp Gate and I think Forcefield, in essence, is one of the best and most skill intensive spells in the game. I have heard it limits map design, but I think a compromise could be found (maybe the Ravager is a start). I think Protoss can have a new Gateway unit and WG/FF. Any spell which limits the movement of the opposing forces is a terrible design concept because the losing side cannot "fall back" strategically. This is more than just a map design problem; it fundamentally interferes with what RTS game should be all about. | ||
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
On February 18 2015 04:07 ZeromuS wrote: No. Blizzard has said warpgates is part of the feel for protoss. It sets protoss apart as a macro mechanic. If it was so absolutely broken it would have been removed long before now. The increased damage change makes warp prism warp ins less powerful if the defending player see it coming. I do think they need to make it so that protoss doesnt take increased damage as a defender, but we will see. I fear for trying to defend as protoss with the extra damage on my units, will make it tough. What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker. Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics. | ||
|
Quineotio
Australia128 Posts
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively. I don't think the proposed changes to resources is the answer. All it will do is force a more frantic gathering of bases and smaller army sizes. It will send the game in a more macro oriented direction, which I think is the opposite of the proposed goal to increase player interaction. I think it would make more sense to make workers gather more resources, but decrease the amount needed for saturation. This would allow players to spend more time and money building army units instead of workers. Taking the races one at a time: ZERG: Zerg have lacked options for a core mid game army for the entire of sc2. Zerg relies on low tier units such as the roach, zergling and baneling, for too long, past the point where they are a good return on investment. The zerg player tends to struggle when the terran or protoss get to 140 supply, because the low tier zerg units don't fight well against larger enemy armies. This is the point when zerg really needs a better core army unit to help to transition into hive. The introduction of the ravager and lurker should help this a great deal. The only other major problem with zerg is that the hive units feel weak. The broodlord is too slow to be effective on the larger maps, but their slow speed is necessary to counter their powerful attack and difficult to fight broodlings. I think it would fit the larger maps better if broodlords moved much faster, but their broodlings didn't last as long - perhaps they only do one additional attack before dying. This would remove one of the more annoying aspects of the broodlord for both the zerg (their immobility) and their opponent (less broodlings to dead with). One way I think zerg melee units (especially ultralisks) could be made more fun in lategame is to increase their mobility. Introduce an upgrade at hive that allows zerglings and ultralisks to jump down cliffs. This would increase the swarminess of these units. They wouldn't be much more powerful in main an natural assaults (because those cliffs go up), but it would allow zerg melee units more mobility in the middle of the map, which is where most of the action would be happening. Would introduce options for the opponent to bait the zerg down a cliff into a losing battle they can't retreat from. One last thing is spore crawlers do too much damage to mutalisks. I think the damage buff that was made removed mutalisks as a viable option, which I see as a bad move because infestors already countered mutalisks, and I think zerg vs zerg was more fun when there were more options. PROTOSS: Protoss gateway has been problematic. It's either too weak or too strong, based on upgrades and the state of the game. It relies a lot on two extremely powerful upgrades (blink, warpgate) and one extremely powerful spell (forcefield). Especially noticeable against zerg is the situation where a protoss army can either completely dominate, or be decimated based on very few decisions or moments of luck (a gap in the forcefields, blinking well). I could never understand why warpgates were a direct upgrade from gateways. It seemed like there was an opportunity to have multiple different ways of building units, both with their pros and cons. I think one way to balance things would be to make warpgates warp in units slower than gateways build. This would make warpgate rushes more difficult, but still allow for remote building of units if you're prepared to suffer the cost of less units over time. With forcefield, I think two things need to happen. I think the sentry should be made a purely caster unit. I think guardian shield should change to give +2 to attack and shield regen in combat as well as it's usual armor buff. Now sentry is a powerful aura unit with forcefield, but it's buff doesn't stack (so having a lot of them with overlapping auras won't have much of an effect) and it doesn't itself do damage. Would mean that you can't rely only on a lot of sentry. I think protoss needs to have another normal, ranged gateway unit. Something like a dragoon basically. The stalker is a great harassment unit, but is not that great in end game battles (a weakness that is somewhat obscured by the overpowered colossus). The protoss needs a powerful, massable, more expensive gateway unit that can be a backbone in late game battles (but that needs support to prevent it from being overwhelmed). I also think the stalker needs a change. I think that it's life should be changed from 80 health 80 shields to 40 health 120 shields, and blink should cost 10 shields. That cost will offset the ability's power in a way that makes it still powerful, but makes blink micro keep stalkers alive slightly less long (because they're losing more shields). This would keep stalkers' role as harassment units, but would make them less useful en masse, and keep them from having an overlapping role with dragoons. I think the colossus should move slower. It's too powerful, but I think part of that is it's too quick. It pretty much keeps up with a gateway army. It should be more of a burden to escort around the battlefield. It is such a powerful tool when it's in the right place, it should be harder to get it there. I don't want to think about protoss air. TERRAN: I think the biggest mistake in the design of terran was the medivac. By coupling a critical component of the terran army (healing) with drop technology, blizzard essentially gave terran drops for free. And by not needing medics, the terran could fill the medivacs with all attacking units, further increasing the power of the drops. Then medivacs got speed boost, which made them even more mobile and harder to kill. So no wonder most of a terran's life is spent dropping - it's the most powerful ability they have by far. I think the external healing component should be removed from medivacs, and instead medivacs should heal units that are inside it. That would allow them to still be useful in drops, and in getting injured units to safety, but would not be a core part of the terran army. Medics should be put back into the game. They would serve as nice blockers against banelings and zealots, and are better to watch than medivacs (which get in the way of the battle). Thanks for you time  | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On February 18 2015 09:03 Big J wrote: Again, the type of units you are looking for are there. They just are shit designed or situational. Now instead of whining that the stuff that is already strong and that already makes up for most of your army should get better, do what Zergs and Terrans have been doing and whine that there is too much stuff that doesn't work. Or don't because you don't want to lose Immortal and Colossus allins (in their current form) by making the units well-designed, but then don't expect anyone to stand up for your absurd and irrational cause of getting stalkers buffed or some sort of cybercore counterall being introduced. Who the hell is saying that? If anything, protoss players would happily give up gimmicky all-ins in a heartbeat if it meant stronger core units and less reliance on a tiny handful of super-powerful units and spells like the forcefield, warpgate, and colossus. It's why I'm not very pleased with the disruptor as it's just another gimmick that either works and you win or it fails and you waste a ton of money and lose the game. | ||
|
Riner1212
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
Riner1212
United States337 Posts
On February 18 2015 10:24 Spawkuring wrote: Who the hell is saying that? If anything, protoss players would happily give up gimmicky all-ins in a heartbeat if it meant stronger core units and less reliance on a tiny handful of super-powerful units and spells like the forcefield, warpgate, and colossus. It's why I'm not very pleased with the disruptor as it's just another gimmick that either works and you win or it fails and you waste a ton of money and lose the game. lol protoss has mother ship cannon its a win win situation nothing to lose when you all in as a protoss player lol :D | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help. I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively. How do you explain TvZ being full of both harassment and army vs army action, without devolving into deathblobs? | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: That would just lead to more deathballs. +2 attack on sentry is very strong, that means units can't be strong by themselves. Guardian shield is made for deathballs and not small skirmishes even if it doesn't stack.With forcefield, I think two things need to happen. I think the sentry should be made a purely caster unit. I think guardian shield should change to give +2 to attack and shield regen in combat as well as it's usual armor buff. Now sentry is a powerful aura unit with forcefield, but it's buff doesn't stack (so having a lot of them with overlapping auras won't have much of an effect) and it doesn't itself do damage. Would mean that you can't rely only on a lot of sentry. On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: That's too big to change. I'm all for removing warpgate, collosi, tempest, swarmhosts etc, but this is just too big I think. I think the external healing component should be removed from medivacs, and instead medivacs should heal units that are inside it. That would allow them to still be useful in drops, and in getting injured units to safety, but would not be a core part of the terran army. Medics should be put back into the game. They would serve as nice blockers against banelings and zealots, and are better to watch than medivacs (which get in the way of the battle).Thanks for you time Good post though. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 18 2015 10:37 pure.Wasted wrote: How do you explain TvZ being full of both harassment and army vs army action, without devolving into deathblobs? Harassment has a lot to do with it, but I think it is mainly just that the unit interactions are much better in TvZ than in any other non-mirror matchup. You trade blow for blow, banelings for marines, mines for banelings, zerglings for mines, mutas for medivacs. Nothing ever comes without a real danger for the units involved. If you want to drop you know that your units are in severe risk of dying to mutalisks. Banelings don't kill units twice. Mines cooldown give zerg a lot of time to deal with the unit after it has activated. Marine speed and baneling speed have been intentionally designed in an extremely healthy relation to each other. Hellions wreck shit but also always take damage from queens and speedlings and roaches. And even when the dynamics aren't that good (like roach/hydra vs bio) there is still lots of unit trading involved. There are very little things that trade energy for resources or outrange the enemy in such a severe way that it can kill stuff for free. This isn't the case with forcefields, blink, Colossi, Photon Overcharge, Time Warp and Storms. Protoss always trades nothing vs something at the start of their battles until they run out of their initial defenisve abilities and range advantages. This creates dynamics in which Protoss oppoents build overwhelming force to survive the phase in which you get nothing done against them, to then evaporte them in very few seconds. And Protoss needs overwhelming force of trading prevention to not let that happen. The TvZ matchup becomes much worse if it gets to a phase in which there are also a lot of these sorts of units involved (Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Broodlords, Vikings Ravens, Siege Tanks). In PvZ and TvZ T/Z also utilize many more of those free trading mechanics against Protoss (Ghost, Viking, Swarm Host, Viper) and Protoss is much worse at defending mobile forces which can make proper medivac/mutalisk usage also such a free trading mechanic. That doesn't mean that those mechanics are bad in general - they are very much needed to overcome turtle play - but if they become your core way of playing both people have a hard time getting stuff done. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
I find PvT matchups to be more fun when they focus on templar over colossi because it allows both players to rely less on massing colossus/vikings and more on mobile units. Terrans will drop in multiple locations, which prompt toss players to respond with chargelots, which actually trade decently in small engagements. Meanwhile, storms are dodgeable by bio units, but can shred armies if the terran doesn't micro. Still not as exciting as TvZ, but it gets pretty fun. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 18 2015 11:40 Spawkuring wrote: It also helps in TvZ in that the armies are generally comprised of cheap, quick to build, units, so there's always plenty of action from start to finish. Just lost your army? No problem, a few mule/larva injects and your army is good to go again. PvX matchups are always slow because the protoss player has to keep his units alive at all costs as they're tough to replace. I find PvT matchups to be more fun when they focus on templar over colossi because it allows both players to rely less on massing colossus/vikings and more on mobile units. Terrans will drop in multiple locations, which prompt toss players to respond with chargelots, which actually trade decently in small engagements. Meanwhile, storms are dodgeable by bio units, but can shred armies if the terran doesn't micro. Still not as exciting as TvZ, but it gets pretty fun. yes that contributes too and I agree about the templar thing, Templars - in lower numbers at least - behave a lot like mines or banelings. You have a few of them and you gotta make them count, but it's not sure damage. Though I'm not 100% certain about the "cheap" factor being that dominant. Medivacs and mutas aren't that cheap, yet still being put at high risk. Same goes for those forgg-esque Mechstyles and units like Ultralisks. I think the reason is again that those units are "designed to die", while a unit with blink or an army relying on forcefield just isn't. Those units are made to survive, cheap or not so cheap. Protoss playstyles that get away with playing a lot of zealots for example are much more exciting during the combats, because zealots are also made to die. | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help. ZERG: Zerg have lacked options for a core mid game army for the entire of sc2. This is ignoring mutas and hydras, swarm hosts and infestors. Basically you're saying zerg have no mid tier tech by ignoring the mid tier tech. You're just flat out wrong. | ||
|
Obsidian
United States350 Posts
Moderately fast akin to charge-lots, but without the charge. | ||
| ||
