Bbyong vs Bomber game 1 on Whirlwind. This is a game that a lot of people seem to completely forget about. Not only was this mech vs mech, but it was back when early TvT was absurdly volatile.
I really wish that they'd just give Protoss a generalist DPS unit from the gateway. The "maps" issue, the "fast mutas" issue, the "can't defend speedling drops" issue, the "can't defend ravagers" issue, and the "can't defend spread out bases" issue could all be addressed by making one set of changes.
Make the adept a DPS unit akin to marines and hydras: no +tag bonus, rapid-fire, dependable, ranged DPS. Remove the shade. Give it a faster movement speed. Nerf the health if necessary.
Stalkers, at 9.7 DPS are the highest versus-everything (dependable) damage that gateway has. Hydras have 22.4 DPS and marines have 29.7 (per 2 supply). Protoss is screwed here. Not just slightly, but hugely.
- 9.7 - 22.4 - 29.7
This is the problem ^^.
If Protoss could make adepts and actually take early-game battles on the map versus mass-speedling ... then there would be pressure builds again and PvZ could even out quite a bit. Mass muta transitions wouldn't come so quickly. Forces in the middle of the map wouldn't necessarily be totally up-a-creek without splash. Bases would be more easily defended by units instead of PO. Bases could be more open and ramps wouldn't need to be so small. With a unit capable of actually killing blink stalkers early, mass-aggression wouldn't be the only way to open PvP.
Yeah, it's a design change. Yeah, it's a big deal. Right now Protoss is up a creek and anything short of a DPS gateway unit will just propel their continual balance issues into the future. Stability is what's always lacked in Protoss' play.
Colossus gave us the illusion of stability prior to LotV but with so few of them on the battle-field and their death-ball nature, it wasn't a stability anyone enjoyed.
Give Protoss real stability. Give them DPS at gateway.
On March 09 2016 11:55 Edowyth wrote: I really wish that they'd just give Protoss a generalist DPS unit from the gateway. The "maps" issue, the "fast mutas" issue, the "can't defend speedling drops" issue, the "can't defend ravagers" issue, and the "can't defend spread out bases" issue could all be addressed by making one set of changes.
Make the adept a DPS unit akin to marines and hydras: no +tag bonus, rapid-fire, dependable, ranged DPS. Remove the shade. Give it a faster movement speed. Nerf the health if necessary.
Stalkers, at 9.7 DPS are the highest versus-everything (dependable) damage that gateway has. Hydras have 22.4 DPS and marines have 29.7 (per 2 supply). Protoss is screwed here. Not just slightly, but hugely.
- 9.7 - 22.4 - 29.7
This is the problem ^^.
If Protoss could make adepts and actually take early-game battles on the map versus mass-speedling ... then there would be pressure builds again and PvZ could even out quite a bit. Mass muta transitions wouldn't come so quickly. Forces in the middle of the map wouldn't necessarily be totally up-a-creek without splash. Bases would be more easily defended by units instead of PO. Bases could be more open and ramps wouldn't need to be so small. With a unit capable of actually killing blink stalkers early, mass-aggression wouldn't be the only way to open PvP.
Yeah, it's a design change. Yeah, it's a big deal. Right now Protoss is up a creek and anything short of a DPS gateway unit will just propel their continual balance issues into the future. Stability is what's always lacked in Protoss' play.
Colossus gave us the illusion of stability prior to LotV but with so few of them on the battle-field and their death-ball nature, it wasn't a stability anyone enjoyed.
Give Protoss real stability. Give them DPS at gateway.
I agree with the general idea, but I gotta say you distort those units stats quite a bit. You generalize "gateway units" to ranged, cybercore tech gateway units. The zealot, archon and templar all have decent or high dps in one way or another. Furthermore the main reason for this lower dps is that all the ranged Protoss units have between 1.5 to 2 times the health per supply in comparison to marines and hydralisks with a very strong built in regeneration mechanic on top of it. So your "maybe nerf health of the adept with this change" should rather be a "cut the adept's health in halve with this change". Other factors like the range and speed advantage of stalkers or the blink ability obviously also cut into the dps of the unit. It's not like we haven't seen mass stalkers dominate in every matchup at some period of time, so saying the stats are not good enough or you need a high dps unit is not true. But yeah, Protoss could do well with a mobile anti-zergling unit to defend their bases, instead of the shading bullshit.
Edowyth it was a problem since WoL and everything added since then has not touched this issue of toss missing a solid reliable DPS unit that isnt the paper thin T3 and now garbage collosus.
Definitely the most dissapointing post ive heard in a while...tvt used to be my favorite matchup, now i hate it. Reaper all ins are way too strong. If you blind counter you are so far behind and if you dont you still just take to much damage. Whoever decided reapers needed their grenade ability should be fired. Also, i am sick to losing to worse terrans who just boost fly 10 medivacs with sieged tanks into my base. There is no counter accept boosting in after them but even then you will not get the first shot and lose the game. As a result turtling is more pravlent then ever with turret walls and 5 sensor towers. They have ruined the matchup....but "its more exciting to watch now, right?" I swear to god if i hear them say how important watching is one more time. THE GAME IS MEANT TO BE MORE ENJOYABLE TO THE PLAYERS OVER THE WATCHERS! Not vice versa! This should be common sense if you want to sell your game. I feel like mugatu im zoolander "am i the only one who notices this? i feel like om taking crazy pills"
On March 09 2016 12:09 Big J wrote: I agree with the general idea, but I gotta say you distort those units stats quite a bit. You generalize "gateway units" to ranged, cybercore tech gateway units. The zealot, archon and templar all have decent or high dps in one way or another.
"Gateway units" is typically used to refer to those units that would be produced at a gateway (ie those things unlocked by cybernetics core), as distinguished from a warp-gate.
Zealots aren't reliable damage. That's quite important. They tank damage and they die ... but they don't reliably do damage. Most importantly, the damage that they do actually do is largely determined by actions that the opponent takes rather than actions that the Protoss takes.
Archons don't have high DPS. They have good splash. If the opponent is necessarily all-balled-up and can't out-micro archons, then they take tons of damage. Again, mostly in the opponent's hands and late-game.
Templar have high burst. This is distinct from high DPS. Burst does lots of damage at once, then may not do damage for a while. High DPS consistently puts out killing blows.
On March 09 2016 12:09 Big J wrote: Furthermore the main reason for this lower dps is that all the ranged Protoss units have between 1.5 to 2 times the health per supply in comparison to marines and hydralisks with a very strong built in regeneration mechanic on top of it. So your "maybe nerf health of the adept with this change" should rather be a "cut the adept's health in halve with this change".
2 marines have 110 hp. 1 adept has 150 hp. The adept costs more. It is unlikely to have more or equal DPS to two marines, even after the change. Marines have in-battle healing from medivacs and adepts won't have that either.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect that the health might not need to be nerfed ... but it might, which is why I mentioned it. I honestly don't care if it does. We just need a DPS unit.
On March 09 2016 12:09 Big J wrote: Other factors like the range and speed advantage of stalkers or the blink ability obviously also cut into the dps of the unit. It's not like we haven't seen mass stalkers dominate in every matchup at some period of time, so saying the stats are not good enough or you need a high dps unit is not true. But yeah, Protoss could do well with a mobile anti-zergling unit to defend their bases, instead of the shading bullshit.
The capabilities of stalkers being good has absolutely nothing to do with Protoss needing a DPS unit.
Just because a unit without decent DPS is good doesn't mean that Protoss isn't lacking a good DPS unit.
Here's a small list of things that stalkers (in particular) can't do well that a good DPSing unit could:
- defend multiple very spread out bases - fight small groups of units all over the map - base-trade - threaten to kill buildings or workers or units by being present at multiple locations, inherently fighting for map-control - stand up to swarms of small units (marines, zerglings, etc)
On March 09 2016 12:09 Big J wrote: I agree with the general idea, but I gotta say you distort those units stats quite a bit. You generalize "gateway units" to ranged, cybercore tech gateway units. The zealot, archon and templar all have decent or high dps in one way or another.
"Gateway units" is typically used to refer to those units that would be produced at a gateway (ie those things unlocked by cybernetics core), as distinguished from a warp-gate.
Zealots aren't reliable damage. That's quite important. They tank damage and they die ... but they don't reliably do damage. Most importantly, the damage that they do actually do is largely determined by actions that the opponent takes rather than actions that the Protoss takes.
Archons don't have high DPS. They have good splash. If the opponent is necessarily all-balled-up and can't out-micro archons, then they take tons of damage. Again, mostly in the opponent's hands and late-game.
Templar have high burst. This is distinct from high DPS. Burst does lots of damage at once, then may not do damage for a while. High DPS consistently puts out killing blows.
On March 09 2016 12:09 Big J wrote: Furthermore the main reason for this lower dps is that all the ranged Protoss units have between 1.5 to 2 times the health per supply in comparison to marines and hydralisks with a very strong built in regeneration mechanic on top of it. So your "maybe nerf health of the adept with this change" should rather be a "cut the adept's health in halve with this change".
2 marines have 110 hp. 1 adept has 150 hp. The adept costs more. It is unlikely to have more or equal DPS to two marines, even after the change. Marines have in-battle healing from medivacs and adepts won't have that either.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect that the health might not need to be nerfed ... but it might, which is why I mentioned it. I honestly don't care if it does. We just need a DPS unit.
On March 09 2016 12:09 Big J wrote: Other factors like the range and speed advantage of stalkers or the blink ability obviously also cut into the dps of the unit. It's not like we haven't seen mass stalkers dominate in every matchup at some period of time, so saying the stats are not good enough or you need a high dps unit is not true. But yeah, Protoss could do well with a mobile anti-zergling unit to defend their bases, instead of the shading bullshit.
The capabilities of stalkers being good has absolutely nothing to do with Protoss needing a DPS unit.
Just because a unit without decent DPS is good doesn't mean that Protoss isn't lacking a good DPS unit.
Here's a small list of things that stalkers (in particular) can't do well that a good DPSing unit could:
- defend multiple very spread out bases - fight small groups of units all over the map - base-trade - threaten to kill buildings or workers or units by being present at multiple locations, inherently fighting for map-control - stand up to swarms of small units (marines, zerglings, etc)
And there are more.
Honestly, you are just throwing around phrases and definitions as you want. Dps means damage per second. Not more or less. Splash contributes to dps, though obviously in its own ways. Smaller splash like tanks and archons is mainly good against smaller-medium units. Which is exactly what you are looking for, dps against such units. Basically all of the jobs you are describing can be done by Protoss units, maybe except for the basetrading and even for that you have potent tools, but yes, it's always going to be hard to basetrade against flying Terran buildings or mutalisks. Medivacs are their own unit. I'm sorry, if you compare marines and adepts and then say that marines have a healing mechanic present through medivacs and adepts on their own should stand up against that, the only thing I can tell you is no.
In particular, adepts fulfill many of those jobs. In particular they stand up against swarms of small units like marines or zerglings. Like, you ask for flat damage, for higher dps. Well, adepts won't do more damage than they do now to marines or zerglings after such a change. What they are not good at is maneuvering defensively in the early game, mainly against zerglings. That's the one big thing you get right, everything else you are saying sounds more and more like you just want an overpowered early game unit that counters everything on the ground.
On March 09 2016 12:36 Big J wrote: Honestly, you are just throwing around phrases and definitions as you want. Dps means damage per second. Not more or less. Splash contributes to dps, though obviously in its own ways. Smaller splash like tanks and archons is mainly good against smaller-medium units. Which is exactly what you are looking for, dps against such units.
The DPS of archons is 20. It's not a gateway unit, as I described. It's not dependable, as I described. It's not useful to slow down zerg's progression in the early-game, as I described.
The DPS of storm, specifically, is hard to describe -- you can talk about DPS per storm or DPS over the time needed to get the energy for storm or DPS actually taken ... Nonetheless, HTs aren't gateway units, as I described. They're not available to slow down zerg's early-game progression.
What reliable DPS unit does Protoss have to combat early-to-mid-game problems? None. That's the problem I'm talking about.
On March 09 2016 12:36 Big J wrote: Basically all of the jobs you are describing can be done by Protoss units, maybe except for the basetrading and even for that you have potent tools, but yes, it's always going to be hard to basetrade against flying Terran buildings or mutalisks. Medivacs are their own unit. I'm sorry, if you compare marines and adepts and then say that marines have a healing mechanic present through medivacs and adepts on their own should stand up against that, the only thing I can tell you is no.
Who said they should stand up to marine / medivac on their own? You said they absolutely should have their health cut in half in exchange for better DPS. I merely pointed out that:
- Marines have their own advantages (battlefield healing being a huge one) - the DPS of adepts probably wouldn't be even as powerful as marines' DPS - the health of adepts isn't so ridiculously high that a 50% nerf would be in order
On March 09 2016 12:36 Big J wrote: In particular, adepts fulfill many of those jobs. In particular they stand up against swarms of small units like marines or zerglings. What they are not good at is maneuvering defensively in the early game, mainly against zerglings.
No, they don't.
They stand up remarkably well to light units in small numbers only. Once the numbers exceed a certain point, adepts fail hard. In particular, adepts are very, very bad versus zerglings almost all-game-long in equal supply / cost unless the supplies are very, very low.
Not surprisingly, this is why you see Protoss getting archons versus zerglings (splash damage) instead of adepts past the early-game: adepts don't cut it.
On March 09 2016 12:36 Big J wrote: That's the one big thing you get right, everything else you are saying sounds more and more like you just want an overpowered early game unit that counters everything on the ground.
Essentially, I'm asking for a less-powerful, less-versatile marine. So, I guess you might be right.
On March 09 2016 08:46 Cyro wrote: Drop hitting so early and in force (before warpgate and extra production is up) is a much bigger deal for PvZ balance than anything to do with Ravagers.
The negative effects from ravagers come largely from the effect they have on the matchup (nobody will even consider relying on photon cannons and forcefields past a certain point, which weakens play against ling, roach etc) but ling drop will just outright kill you or force you to play much safer every game.
It's super easy to change drop - what about gating it behind a research of arbitrary cost and research time on the evo chamber instead of just having an evo chamber requirement? I can't recall this tech ever being used in the super early game vs terran (and especially zerg) so they have created this upgrade timing that makes ZvP earlygame lopsided that's not neccesary. If it came 30 seconds later then it wouldn't be a huge problem and most of the other utilizations for overlord drop would still exist.
Like most things Protoss related...it either works or doesn't do anything at all...
You can gate overlord drop, but then Zerg goes back to having no early game aggressive options against a competent Protoss player who can use photon cannons + overcharge + a few adepts/sentries...It's the only aggressive mechanic Zerg can use in the early game that isn't completely all-in...
Maybe Blizzard should adjust the whole matter of Protoss being able to defend any and all Zerg timings with just a few units first? This stuff doesn't work in degrees...in ZvP aggression has always been all or nothing...
Drop might be a rather cheesy way of circumventing that dynamic, but if it forces just a few more units out of Protoss so that they can't just be greedy as all hell then I'm all for it.
It has a big effect on every game at its current timing. 2h drops are very all in but dangerous - it's scoutable and less common so not something to worry about as much.
3h drop is basically unscoutable so you have to play safer than usual every game, and yet still die fairly often to it. It's hard to walk the line between dieing to aggression and dieing to econ play when zerg has that switch at 22-30 drones where they can either make 15 more drones or 30 speedlings and you have to be prepared for both simultaneously.
Walking that line is something that zerg has had to deal with for a while in ZvP historically - but now it applies much more to protoss than to zerg
On March 09 2016 08:46 Cyro wrote: Drop hitting so early and in force (before warpgate and extra production is up) is a much bigger deal for PvZ balance than anything to do with Ravagers.
The negative effects from ravagers come largely from the effect they have on the matchup (nobody will even consider relying on photon cannons and forcefields past a certain point, which weakens play against ling, roach etc) but ling drop will just outright kill you or force you to play much safer every game.
It's super easy to change drop - what about gating it behind a research of arbitrary cost and research time on the evo chamber instead of just having an evo chamber requirement? I can't recall this tech ever being used in the super early game vs terran (and especially zerg) so they have created this upgrade timing that makes ZvP earlygame lopsided that's not neccesary. If it came 30 seconds later then it wouldn't be a huge problem and most of the other utilizations for overlord drop would still exist.
Like most things Protoss related...it either works or doesn't do anything at all...
You can gate overlord drop, but then Zerg goes back to having no early game aggressive options against a competent Protoss player who can use photon cannons + overcharge + a few adepts/sentries...It's the only aggressive mechanic Zerg can use in the early game that isn't completely all-in...
Maybe Blizzard should adjust the whole matter of Protoss being able to defend any and all Zerg timings with just a few units first? This stuff doesn't work in degrees...in ZvP aggression has always been all or nothing...
Drop might be a rather cheesy way of circumventing that dynamic, but if it forces just a few more units out of Protoss so that they can't just be greedy as all hell then I'm all for it.
It has a big effect on every game at its current timing. 2h drops are very all in but dangerous - it's scoutable and less common so not something to worry about as much.
3h drop is basically unscoutable so you have to play safer than usual every game, and yet still die fairly often to it. It's hard to walk the line between dieing to aggression and dieing to econ play when zerg has that switch at 22-30 drones where they can either make 15 more drones or 30 speedlings and you have to be prepared for both simultaneously.
Walking that line is something that zerg has had to deal with for a while in ZvP historically - but now it applies much more to protoss than to zerg
you can make an adept to scout
Poking into third and shading to nat is good but you don't have much warning, you're looking for what the larvae hatch into at that specific point of the game.
Gotta pre-emptively play more defensively than if drop wasn't a thing - even against those 3 hatch openings. There's no such thing as an economic Z opening because they can flip the switch onto hard all-inning and you won't know until the larvae hatches, that's why it's difficult at that timing
Okay so instead of removing the dumb tankivac we're gonna have the droped siege tank akwardly stay put while the cooldown activates... "Feels better" indeed. For mech, this is the kind of things that make me wonder if blizzard knows anything about their own game.
For example, fast Banshees with bio all utilizing an even heavier mobility-based strategy could be interesting, or Cyclones and Thors could also be looked at in having a clearer role in mixed armies."
=> that's just PR at its best. What do we see now? Bio/tank, bio/liberator. With mines sometimes. And that's it. The pro players led the way and found out the compositions, and now it's impossible to do anything but that. Do you really expect anyone going bio to go for speedbanshee too? "an even heavier mobility-based strategy" what the actual fuck??? Bio needs support from facto/SP to helps with its natural weakness against AoE and its own lack of AoE. Why do we build tanks with our marines? Because marines don't have AoE. Why do we build vikings against colossi? Because bio is weak against AoE. Blizzard saying "yeah instead of mech/bio, so cool we'll have bio + whatever !" => NO YOU WON'T. You'll have bio + AoE or bio + anti AoE, like it's always been. Which leads me to =>
Should we be pushing an even greater diversity of mixed armies, rather than going for a complete split again? Have we evolved into a better state?
This is just dishonnest. Pure bio has never been viable, excepted for Maru's TvP maybe. Pure mech has never been viable, it has always relied on heavy viking support. Making mech viable is about the CORE COMPOSITION. Instead of bio, if for instance cyclone/hellion was the core mech army, it would open new roles for other units as support units, since a mech core composition would have different strengths and weaknesses.
The easiest way to see this stance in StarCraft II is when we evaluate Legacy of the Void—the majority of us will agree that this game is much better to play and watch than before because it’s so action packed.
On March 09 2016 10:19 PressureSC2 wrote: I think you are too lazy to put in the work required to fix the units produced from the factory ... You are going to change the cyclone, then the Thor instead, then buff Siege Tank instead. Hard work isn't it to try to make the best RTS?
too lazy?
not enough cash on the table to warrant the extended effort to finely tune and craft the game post release.
when SC1 came out Blizz made 1 game at a time and every game was a 10/10 game. the top geniuses hand crafted every aspect of the game play experience. now we've got 6 teams working concurrently and the top geniuses are 1 management layer away from the ground level work. so we're getting a bunch of 9.5/10 games. other than Heroes they're all selling very, very, very well.
Pardo is a 10/10 game designer who can turn anything into a mega money maker. He is so good he makes it look easy. David Kim is a 9.5/10 game designer. ATVI can't afford Pardo. He only works on multi-billion dollar stuff... not this nickel and dime RTS trivia.
SC2 has been and will continue to be a really good game with lots of really cool and fun stuff to do in the BNet2 environment. But, the core game play experience won't be quite as good as Brood War or Warcraft 3.
Rob Pardo is a mega-genius, but many people on here think making an RTS game is easy. it ain't. and there is no way ATVI will ever consider putting their #1 guy on an RTS game.
On March 09 2016 13:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Rob Pardo is a mega-genius, but many people on here think making an RTS game is easy. it ain't. and there is no way ATVI will ever consider putting their #1 guy on an RTS game.
On March 09 2016 13:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Rob Pardo is a mega-genius, but many people on here think making an RTS game is easy. it ain't. and there is no way ATVI will ever consider putting their #1 guy on an RTS game.
[QUOTE]On March 09 2016 13:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [QUOTE]On March 09 2016 10:19 PressureSC2 wrote: I think you are too lazy to put in the work required to fix the units produced from the factory ... You are going to change the cyclone, then the Thor instead, then buff Siege Tank instead. Hard work isn't it to try to make the best RTS?[/QUOTE]
Pardo is a 10/10 game designer who can turn anything into a mega money maker. He is so good he makes it look easy. David Kim is a 9.5/10 game designer. ATVI can't afford Pardo. He only works on multi-billion dollar stuff... not this nickel and dime RTS trivia.
How the hell can ATVI not afford to get Rob Pardo, they is like only Sony, Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft that have a budget close to them, they can afford who they want, he is just one guy, if he realy was a cash cow they would just trow him a couple of million and that's it. If he don't work there anymore it is because he wanted to leave not because ATVI could not afford to keep.
On March 09 2016 07:55 -NegativeZero- wrote: damn, they were finally going in the right direction with fixing siege tanks and now it looks like they've blown it
Imagine siege tanks can fly. Tell me what the difference between these flying siege tanks and liberators is. I don't see a difference in role for these units. They overlap.
... which is precisely the reason people discuss those two units a lot.
Liberator is a flying siege tank. The only weakness it has compared to siege tank is that it isn't AoE, but due to high firing rate and damage it completly makes up for it.
Which is my biggest gripe with flying siege tanks: It's not there because it is a good mechanic, it is there because without it, siege tanks look kinda bad next to liberators. If there can ever be such a thing as power creep in StarCraft II, Terran has suffered from it the most.
I wish they'd give Liberators a different unique selling point besides a flying siege unit and just make siege tank >the< siege unit instead.
EDIT:
Also, when will people stop with this "make mech viable" thing. If it's not going to stop, I'm going to start a "make turtle swarm host viable" campaign. So much fun sitting in my base all day.
[QUOTE]On March 09 2016 13:31 Nakajin wrote: [QUOTE]On March 09 2016 13:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [QUOTE]On March 09 2016 10:19 PressureSC2 wrote: I think you are too lazy to put in the work required to fix the units produced from the factory ... You are going to change the cyclone, then the Thor instead, then buff Siege Tank instead. Hard work isn't it to try to make the best RTS?[/QUOTE]
Pardo is a 10/10 game designer who can turn anything into a mega money maker. He is so good he makes it look easy. David Kim is a 9.5/10 game designer. ATVI can't afford Pardo. He only works on multi-billion dollar stuff... not this nickel and dime RTS trivia.
How the hell can ATVI not afford to get Rob Pardo, they is like only Sony, Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft that have a budget close to them, they can afford who they want, he is just one guy, if he realy was a cash cow they would just trow him a couple of million and that's it. If he don't work there anymore it is because he wanted to leave not because ATVI could not afford to keep.
Jay Wilson was the lead designer at the start. the guy in charge of D3 now is really good.
the over all point is... working on 6 games concurrently won't give the same quality as making 1 game at a time. and the quality is still very good. its just not stupidly amazingly great any longer.
On March 09 2016 13:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Jay Wilson was the lead designer at the start. the guy in charge of D3 now is really good.
the over all point is... working on 6 games concurrently won't give the same quality as making 1 game at a time. and the quality is still very good. its just not stupidly amazingly great any longer.
Ya I know, I was just kidding. Pardo indeed have a very impressive resume, I wonder if he will ever comeback to making game, he seems to be some sort of advisor for unity right now.
EPT
