|
Not Testing Automating Spawn Larva
We agreed with the many strong arguments towards not needing to test this again. We were impressed with the quality of discussions around this topic, and overall we agree that with the Zerg changes already coming in, it is questionable to also make Zerg easier to play. Also, we thoroughly tested what this change means just last year, and there weren’t strong arguments to go against the conclusions that you guys brought up back then (neither from the community nor from the pro players). Therefore, we agree with the majority of you that going back and testing this again is unnecessary at this time.
Next Balance Test Update
The Cyclone, Baneling, and Auto Turret changes we discussed last week will go into testing this week because we haven’t see any alarming issues brought up.
We’ve tested the Stalker change, and feel that it does make Protoss compositions a bit more all-around and Stalker-based. While this might not necessarily be bad, but we’d like to hold off on this change unless it’s absolutely needed We don’t want to lose focus on the goal of seeing a strong diversity of gateway units being used, and we would like to get more feedback around the Zealot changes before pursuing other directions.
For the Tempest, we’d like to get some more feedback because it’s been a bit difficult to tell exactly how strong the fast-teching to Tempests route is. If it is a serious issue, we should definitely look into adding an upgrade or a cool-up time to the ability in order to nerf the time in which the ability hits the field.
We haven’t seen a lot of discussion on potential additional Protoss changes, but we still believe that slightly toning up the Disruptor (without buffing it much in PvP) could be a strong direction. In addition, we’ll keep looking at changes to the Stalker to help Protoss against early/mid game options that may arise due to the changes to other races. As always, we’re open to discussing and considering other ideas as well.
Thanks, and we look forward to seeing your discussions and feedback on these topics!
---Changes---
The following changes are being implemented today to the Testing section of Multiplayer, as well as the Balance Test Extension Mod.
Baneling
+10 Health buff moved to the Centrifugal Hooks upgrade.
Cyclone
Anti-ground weapon attack period changed from 0.07 to 0.1.
Removed random delays from the Anti-ground weapon.
Starport Tech Lab:
The "Explosive Shrapnel Shells" upgrade was replaced with the "Recalibrated Explosives" upgrade.
"Recalibrated Explosives" upgrade:
Increases the Seeker Missile unit's tracking range by 50% (13 to 19.5).
Increases the Seeker Missile's damage by 30%.
BUG FIXES
The Nexus no longer has a kill counter.
Updated multiple tooltip descriptions.
Fixed a display issue with the Infestor when using the Neural Parasite.
Cyclone now deals intended amount of damage over time.
--------------
OP's note: If you want changes to Protoss in the test map, now's the time to push for them.
|
Funny enough I did a post on Reddit about this same thing, the response I got was that they didnt wanted anything and would rather have no changes at all, I wonder what the answer will be now, protoss is I guess the strongest race in LotV (as in has the most usable stuff and variety of playstyles not about winrates)
|
I love how they state that there's "any alarming issues brought up" while tempest cheeses are horribly game breaking in TvP.
Also TvT is a campfest because there is no ground mech AA. Air domination is only based on raven/vikings, which means that liberators in turn give ground domination. So everyone camps into an air deathball the moment they have a third, and there is nothing the opponent can do about it but mass an air deathball himself.
Good AA on the cyclone (possible an upgrade) would solve that.
Also about protoss, why is the overcharge still in the game? If we're going for design changes, seems like PO is the very first fucking thing to look at.
|
|
|
Yes, auto-inject denied again.
Now on the adept side, please nerf (if you want, buff stalker and zelot a little)
|
Remove +vs Shields on Disruptor and give it 160 damage overall.
It's a bit too common in PvP's and such a change would help get Archons, Immortals and possibly Colossus back into the matchup and bring more diversity. 160 damage is the magic number, if it doesn't one shot Stalkers, it is useless, if it one shots Stalkers it's super strong in PvP.
Also this would make it one shot Siege Tanks, they are now so powerful that this does not actually kill the Siege Tank in the matchup, with all of the +vs armoured that Siege Tank have in the current iteration, it actually trades quite evenly with the Disruptor even with such a change.
|
I like these changes, especially the baneling changes, but I'll come right out and say that I'm tired of upgrades that are so damn strong, why do Seekers need a 50 % range increase with the upgrade? It's just so drastic when 25 % would be more then sufficient, preferably the Raven should be a strong utility support as this game already has a ton of damage so why we need yet another burst damage ability in the game is unknown to me right off the bat.
Zerg
- Bring back Ventral sacks to allow Overseers to be turned into drop ships as well, keep it the expensive 200/200 it was or whatever, bringing more ability for Zerg to attack should be key for this balance patch as now that Ravagers have been put back into their place Zerg will be more defensive then ever.
- Nerf Ultralisk armor at least 1 so Bio doesn't have to go Skyterran or mass Ghost to defeat them, they just need a mild durability nerf
- Reduce Lurker Den research time (my God in heaven it takes an eternity for this thing to get done) but nerf Lurker damage so they aren't so ridiculously oppressive and punishing to micro against. Even in ZvZ, you either kill the guy before Lurkers or you have Lurkers of your own or you need a smooth transition into heavy Brood Lord play, they are just so damn powerful, granted, they have to be because they take so long to get, but I think a better dynamic would be to make them slightly weaker but come out slightly quicker to help Zerg hold ground in the early mid game.
- Make Fungals faster but remove root and replace it with a slow. Fungal fucking sucks outside of lucky money shots because everything in LOTV is so quick, everyone knows the root is cancer, just redesign this ability a wee bit and be done with it sheesh
- Screw the idiotic easy mode automated inject, just make hatcheries spawn larvae slightly quicker (buff for early game production and enables easier comebacks after drone losses) but lower the cap on them to limit broken late game max outs (clear late game nerf will make macro hatcheries necessary)
Protoss
-Tempest - Reduce the duration of the stasis web thing
-Zealots - Are pretty awesome, wish they would just remove charge, buff movement speed right out of the Gateway and make Charge (so noob) just good old Zealot legs to make Zealots a fast moving micro beneficial melee unit (able to more easily move out early game, respond to drops better)
-Stalker - buff this unit, it's crap, Protoss gateway has always needed help, it just shoots tickle me rainbow bolts, nerf Blink if necessary but new Hydralisks eat these things for breakfast even with Blink lol
-Disruptor - Turn it into the Reaver, I rarely hear anything positive about it's attack mechanism controls, or just make it shoot the balls normally like the Reaver and leave the Disruptor unit model in I guess.
-Adept - Nerf shade actually for real and not some hilarious vision reduction which does little to nothing to reduce the power of being able to threaten a secondary area while being able to safely retreat while 2 shotting drones, this unit is ridiculous and everyone knows it, nerf it and stop playing games no pun intended. The unit is already beefy, hits hard, shreds workers and light units, nerf the Adept and buff the Stalker and redesign the Sentry because FF sucks.
-Oracle - Nerf this unit vs workers somehow, pretty absurd that both the Oracle and the Phoenix are premier worker killing units that contribute to cancer proxy nonsense, yes, even at the pro level lol
-Sentry - Redesign this unit from the ground up to be a reliable and sturdy Gateway support unit which will enable small groups of Gateway units to take skirmishes more effectively.
- Remove attack entirely and replace it with a poor mans Shield Battery
- Give +1 armor and extra HP for added beefiness
Terran
- Remove Thor, replace it with the Goliath, or reduce Thor size and turn it into the Goliath. Factory has no mobile AA and the balance team seems obsessed with turning the Cyclone into yet another strong vs ground units crap vs air units instead of making the unit itself good against fast moving air units...which is pretty much mechs crippling handicap
- Everything else with Terran seems fine, the Ghost still doesn't compete with High Templars in terms of caster utility but I've given up on the team making the Ghost good at all
|
On October 07 2016 05:29 ejozl wrote:
Remove +vs Shields on Disruptor and give it 160 damage overall.
It's a bit too common in PvP's and such a change would help get Archons, Immortals and possibly Colossus back into the matchup and bring more diversity. 160 damage is the magic number, if it doesn't one shot Stalkers, it is useless, if it one shots Stalkers it's super strong in PvP.
Also this would make it one shot Siege Tanks, they are now so powerful that this does not actually kill the Siege Tank in the matchup, with all of the +vs armoured that Siege Tank have in the current iteration, it actually trades quite evenly with the Disruptor even with such a change.
Disruptors can outrange siege tanks if the shot is straight, as of right now they can counter all of mech ground because they are faster than all mech units (including hellions) and can oneshot everything but siege tanks, new cyclones (wich are left with 15 and 35 health) and thors. (I'm talking about the sphere it shoots ofc).
|
i would love to see the stalker buff, then u dont have to play that much adepts and stalker with blink are more fun to play & watch compared to adept.
A adept nerf is not good, it will prevent harass vs zerg completly and can shot down by lings pretty well. Adept allins are out of fassion as well.
|
Increases the Seeker Missile unit's tracking range by 50% (13 to 19.5)
This is huge,i fear mass ravens will become viable in all matchup.
|
In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design
- Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example
Stalker
Minerals: 150
Gas: 75
Damage: 14
This makes Stalkers trade much better with massable units like Marines, Zerglings, Zealots, Mutaliks. Stalkers would also kill probes and drones (3 hits instead of 4) and SCVs faster (4 hits instead of 5). The idea is to make Stalkers the all-round, clear-cut but ressource intensive damage dealer of the Protoss Army so that Adepts and Zealots can fill more specialized roles (harass/high vs. light damage/scouting for Adepts, and tanking/ drops for Zealots).
The change previously suggested was to give Stalkers a damage modifier against light armor:
Some of the ideas here that we’re currently discussing are: Finding ways to potentially buff Disruptors vs. Terran and/or Zerg, or Stalker base damage increased vs. light while keeping the total damage vs. armored the same.
In my opinion, this is the right direction but—as I said—the change should be more drastic and clean.
|
On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example This makes Stalkers trade much better with massable units like Marines, Zerglings, Zealots, Mutaliks. Stalkers would also kill probes and drones (3 hits instead of 4) and SCVs faster (4 hits instead of 5). The idea is to make Stalkers the all-round, clear-cut but ressource intensive damage dealer of the Protoss Army so that Adepts and Zealots can fill more specialized roles (harass/high vs. light damage/scouting for Adepts, and tanking/ drops for Zealots). The change previously suggested was to give Stalkers a damage modifier against light armor: Show nested quote +Some of the ideas here that we’re currently discussing are: Finding ways to potentially buff Disruptors vs. Terran and/or Zerg, or Stalker base damage increased vs. light while keeping the total damage vs. armored the same. In my opinion, this is the right direction but—as I said—the change should be more drastic and clean.
Regarding the proposed staler change I feel it makes the stalker too powerful for being so readily available. Seems what you propose is stalkers become the protoss hydralisk which should mean that you would need to tech to get it, and with tech I don't mean just a ccore but for example a twilight. This would make protoss extremely weak to air pressure if they can't get anything but sentry and overcharge that shoots up until twilight is done. Seems hard to balance out.
|
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
|
no auto-inject? STOP THE PRESSES
|
On October 07 2016 08:04 Victory1 wrote:
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
Both creep spreading and injecting are macro mechanics, inject is more impactful thats a fact. Both have very limited strategic decision in them, so you're just suggesting to push whichever more fun to you? Well maybe its not the case for everyone.
|
Change the phoenix range to 6, and remove the upgrade. The unit is too weak or too strong versus mutas.
Replace the Thor with the goliath (please, you know it's time)
Make Lurker tech faster but make them with flat damage of 20, they are too strong.
Reduce a bit of adepts HP, exchange zealtos charge with legs.
Remove mothership core and give sentry a spell to full shields.
|
On October 07 2016 04:14 Lexender wrote:
Funny enough I did a post on Reddit about this same thing, the response I got was that they didnt wanted anything and would rather have no changes at all, I wonder what the answer will be now, protoss is I guess the strongest race in LotV (as in has the most usable stuff and variety of playstyles not about winrates)
That's a pretty poor metric for strongest race
|
Random Protoss Ideas
Buildings powered by 1 pylon are constructed slightly slower than they do currently. Buildings powered by more than 1 pylon are constructed at a faster rate depending on the number of pylons.
Mothership travels 33% slower if going up or down a cliff. Same speed over all other terrain/space (ramps and dead space included)
Rotate how Collosus deals splash damage. Collosus keeps the same range but it's attacks sweep up and down. Rather than side to side. Widen the splash radius and/or increase the damage and/or limit the number of lasers per attack to 1. (More micro required, but stronger in chokepoints)
Void Ray ideas.... Increase turn rate and/or acceleration. Make them micro-able/useable. Slight increase in base damage against non-armor. Or give void rays a cast-able ability. Possible ideas... Something like Kunka's KoKo-rum in which incoming damage is delayed or a portion of the damage the void ray does is recovered as shield health. Or give void rays initial attack on a target a knock-back so that the targeted unit gets knocked back to the void rays maximum attack range. Still possible to overrun/outnumber a void ray, but gives the void ray a tool to deal with small groups of units that would otherwise run it over.
Give carrier interceptors slightly less health and significantly more armor. (more effective vs. high attack speed units, less effective vs. high damage attacks)
Adepts - Reduce the damage an adept does on its first hit on a target. Increase the damage of the second consecutive attack to compensate. All consecutive attacks afterwards would be affected by the bonus damage. An adept would still do the same amount of damage as it does now if it hits the target twice. But if two adepts hit the same target. They do less combined damage because their first attack is weaker. A drone doesn't get 1 shot by 2 adepts, but it still gets 2 shot by 1 adept.
Reduce damage of overcharge. Units affected by overcharge are slowed. Possibly increase range of overcharge as well.
Feel free to cut/paste to reddit thread if you like any of them. I don't have a reddit account.
|
Adepts should have to be made from gateways....as in trained...they should not be able to be warped in...this will force the toss player to value them more and not spam them...
|
I was bored so I created a short table to see what the current test-map Cyclone might be good at outside of the early-game:
Unit Cost HP DPSvsL_0 DPSvL_1 DPSvA DPSvB DPSvB_+3
Marine 50/0/1 45 14.7 12.5 12.5 12.5 20
Marauder 100/25/2 105 14 11.2 25.2 25.2 33.6
Cyclone 150/100/3 180 30 20 50 50 80
DPSvsL_0 = DPS vs light with 0 base armor
DPSvsL_1 = DPS vs light with 1 base armor
DPSvsA = DPS vs armored
DPSvsB = DPS vs buildings
DPSvsB_+3 = DPS vs buildings with +3 upgrades
The upshot is that relative to other Terran units with similar mobility (aka bio) the Cyclone is:
* More supply efficient vs armored on both a health and DPS basis
* Less cost efficient
* Incredibly good at killing buildings once upgraded
* Surprisingly decent at killing light units without any base armor.
That last point deserves a little more examination. Below is a table of shots and time to kill (in parentheses) vs a few non-armored units:
Unit vsZergling* vsBaneling* vsDrone* vsProbe vsSCV
Marine 6(2.4) 7(3) 7(3) 7(3) 8(3.4)
Marauder 4(2.84) 5(3.55) 5(3.55) 4(2.84) 5(3.55)
Cyclone 12(1.2) 14(1.4) 14(1.4) 14(1.4) 15(1.5)
* Includes natural health regeneration
The marine obviously handily outperforms the Cyclone for cost and supply, but what's surprising is how badly the Cyclone beats the marauder when it comes to time to kill. This is because with such a high-ROF, low damage weapon, the Cyclone has almost no overkill on low-health targets.
So..a unit that's really really good at killing buildings (especially static-d), and pretty good at killing workers and small groups of low-health combat units, while packing that damage into fewer units. Hmm, what does that sound good for?
If you answered "drop play" you're a winner. The damage profile, and the fact that you only have to drop two cyclones (as opposed to eight marines or four marauders) to start doing full damage makes it a surprisingly potent raiding/harass option for mech, at least on paper.
So there you have it folks, test-map Cyclones are good at harassing with medivacs (loool).
|
What is the stalker change? I think I missed it.
Also, battlecruiser also attacks slower than it displayed. It shows 0.23 in game (hots speed), 0.2250 in editor, but based on my testing, its actual attack speed is only about 0.2875, a 27% difference.
|
Make an upgrade at the cybernetics core that has zealots that come out of normal gateways have an additional .5 movement speed.
Or make a shield capacity upgrade for zealots (maybe at the Twilight Council)
Or make an upgrade at the cybernetics core that changes zealots from light units into armored units.
Or make zealots slightly larger so that splash doesn't kill them as easily.
I really wish the gateway was somehow useful in the late-game.
|
On October 07 2016 08:04 Victory1 wrote:
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
I personally agree that removing the inject mechanic were the funnest time to play zerg. It is required that you build a queen every time. Don't think any other caster is forced like that. Also, if queens weren't required, we could probably see some cool early tech builds that could pressure outside of roach / bane busts. Increase larva spawn rate and remove inject GO!.
|
We’ve tested the Stalker change, and feel that it does make Protoss compositions a bit more all-around and Stalker-based. While this might not necessarily be bad, but we’d like to hold off on this change unless it’s absolutely needed We don’t want to lose focus on the goal of seeing a strong diversity of gateway units being used, and we would like to get more feedback around the Zealot changes before pursuing other directions.
what have i missed, please fill me in guys?
|
They considered increasing Stalker damage vs light while keeping their total damage vs armored the same.
|
if auto injects are coming and no queens are required for this, then they should revert back the aa range buff for the queens imo...
|
I love how they state that there's "any alarming issues brought up" while tempest cheeses are horribly game breaking in TvP.
Also TvT is a campfest because there is no ground mech AA. Air domination is only based on raven/vikings, which means that liberators in turn give ground domination. So everyone camps into an air deathball the moment they have a third, and there is nothing the opponent can do about it but mass an air deathball himself.
Good AA on the cyclone (possible an upgrade) would solve that.
Also about protoss, why is the overcharge still in the game? If we're going for design changes, seems like PO is the very first fucking thing to look at.
I 100% agree with this, TvT is going to be even MORE stalemate, while adepttoss still doesnt get redesigned where it should be. also you could easily fix the tempest, by making it 5 or 6 supply instead of just 4. i mean wtf????
|
On October 07 2016 07:59 Shuffleblade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example
Stalker
Minerals: 150
Gas: 75
Damage: 14
This makes Stalkers trade much better with massable units like Marines, Zerglings, Zealots, Mutaliks. Stalkers would also kill probes and drones (3 hits instead of 4) and SCVs faster (4 hits instead of 5). The idea is to make Stalkers the all-round, clear-cut but ressource intensive damage dealer of the Protoss Army so that Adepts and Zealots can fill more specialized roles (harass/high vs. light damage/scouting for Adepts, and tanking/ drops for Zealots). The change previously suggested was to give Stalkers a damage modifier against light armor: Some of the ideas here that we’re currently discussing are: Finding ways to potentially buff Disruptors vs. Terran and/or Zerg, or Stalker base damage increased vs. light while keeping the total damage vs. armored the same. In my opinion, this is the right direction but—as I said—the change should be more drastic and clean. Regarding the proposed staler change I feel it makes the stalker too powerful for being so readily available. Seems what you propose is stalkers become the protoss hydralisk which should mean that you would need to tech to get it, and with tech I don't mean just a ccore but for example a twilight. This would make protoss extremely weak to air pressure if they can't get anything but sentry and overcharge that shoots up until twilight is done. Seems hard to balance out.
Did you notice that I increased the Stalker's mineral and gas cost? Also, I don't really agree that flat 14 damage would make Stalkers too powerful: (1) this change would not alter the interaction with armored units and buildings (still 14 dmg before armor reduction); (2) the early game units it would be stronger against are massable—such as marines, lings and hellions — and will therefore be able to simply counter early pushes by outnumbering the low Stalker count (with this change the mineral cost of one Stalker equals 3 Marines and 6 Lings).
So, I don't think that Stalkers need to be put behind a Twilight Council pay-wall if they get buffed like that. The only thing required is a slight cost increase.
What I do think is that all Gateway units currently have a niche role and to have a good all-round choice—even if it has comparatively high cost—would really help a lot in balancing out the rest of the Protoss army. Dragoons essentially filled that spot in BW: every PvX matchup afaik—I'm no expert  —was build around Dragoons + Support (Dragoons + Zealot/Arbiter in PvT, Dragoons + Zealot/Reaver in PvZ and PvP). If Blizzard wants to ever end up with a good design for Protoss, I believe they will have to emulate this with the SC2 Protoss units: design a stable core army composition and then start fixing the rest.
On October 07 2016 16:40 StorM_Sweden wrote:
We’ve tested the Stalker change, and feel that it does make Protoss compositions a bit more all-around and Stalker-based. While this might not necessarily be bad, but we’d like to hold off on this change unless it’s absolutely needed We don’t want to lose focus on the goal of seeing a strong diversity of gateway units being used, and we would like to get more feedback around the Zealot changes before pursuing other directions.
what have i missed, please fill me in guys?
It's in the paragraph with title "Protoss in General" in the last Community Feedback Update (<- it's a link). Had me confused at first too. :p
|
we still believe that slightly toning up the Disruptor (without buffing it much in PvP) could be a strong direction.
Storm, tempest-storm, colossus, disruptor, so buff disruptor? The thing that already makes a quarter of my army disappear if I mis micro once?
Shit Blizzard you sure know how to make a strategy game. 
|
On October 07 2016 13:29 PEPE!! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 08:04 Victory1 wrote:
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
I personally agree that removing the inject mechanic were the funnest time to play zerg. It is required that you build a queen every time. Don't think any other caster is forced like that. Also, if queens weren't required, we could probably see some cool early tech builds that could pressure outside of roach / bane busts. Increase larva spawn rate and remove inject GO!.
You'll probably want queens anyway for early game defense, I mean : you only need 3 queens to inject, so if people makes 8 to 9 it must mean inject is not the only thing they do, doesn't it?
Back on the subject, yes auto inject might have been more fun for you but only because your mechanics are not good enough to inject creap spread and micro units at the same time, which is the case of 99% of the population, but it's fine because the whole point is to make the game mechanically demanding so separate normal players from true skilled players.
I don't think anybody wants random low tier players to be able to beat the top tier players, each time it happened, we used "patch zerg" or "patch protoss" or "patch terran" to describe these people, and most importantly when game got fixed these players disappeared while the true kings remained.
Autoinject would make average player closer in skill from the top players, and they'll like it at first, but I do not think it would be god for the game in the long run.
|
|
|
I wish they would try something else instead of SM. A AOE dmg spell on a flying caster just begs for massing it. It might not happen often, but mass casters should not be something to aim for as they make for bad gameplay IMO.
|
Finland931 Posts
The Nexus no longer has a kill counter.
No need to fix what ain't broken.
|
fix fucking immortal nydus already which with 8 armor ultra synergy makes late tvz an autolose
|
On October 08 2016 00:26 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote:
fix fucking immortal nydus already which with 8 armor ultra synergy makes late tvz an autolose
I would not expect talk like that from a name like that. 
|
On October 07 2016 20:27 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 13:29 PEPE!! wrote:On October 07 2016 08:04 Victory1 wrote:
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
I personally agree that removing the inject mechanic were the funnest time to play zerg. It is required that you build a queen every time. Don't think any other caster is forced like that. Also, if queens weren't required, we could probably see some cool early tech builds that could pressure outside of roach / bane busts. Increase larva spawn rate and remove inject GO!. You'll probably want queens anyway for early game defense, I mean : you only need 3 queens to inject, so if people makes 8 to 9 it must mean inject is not the only thing they do, doesn't it? Back on the subject, yes auto inject might have been more fun for you but only because your mechanics are not good enough to inject creap spread and micro units at the same time, which is the case of 99% of the population, but it's fine because the whole point is to make the game mechanically demanding so separate normal players from true skilled players. I don't think anybody wants random low tier players to be able to beat the top tier players, each time it happened, we used "patch zerg" or "patch protoss" or "patch terran" to describe these people, and most importantly when game got fixed these players disappeared while the true kings remained. Autoinject would make average player closer in skill from the top players, and they'll like it at first, but I do not think it would be god for the game in the long run.
So youre saying that we should keep a mechanic in the game that is broing and repetitive for 99% of the people just to keep the game hard enough for the "true kings", about 200 players max? That is just mindless TL-elitism in its purest form haha! If its boring, it needs to go, end of discussion.
I'm also in favor of adding autocast or removing the whole thing outright. Obviously there needs to be some form of compensation for it, like the proposed nerf to creep spread. Just keeping it in because people got used to it is stupid.
|
at no point was buffing protoss or zerg the idea, mech is FAR too weak to be played at even low masters level against zergs and protosses that know how to counter it
do not buff any z or p units, it will only obfuscate the issues!
first fix mech anti air by giving terran a proper anti air feature on any terran unit, then take that units anti ground attack away so we can go tanks + x with hellbats and win games.
then give it a healthy 2 month test period so you KNOW if there are any balance issues and by god, do NOT assume protoss and zerg players will be honest about their understanding of mech.
Someone told you "mech is op on the testmap" yet people like x5Pig will dominate every mech players as he is currently, i am not joking hes at 100% winrate vs mech and he can tell you why, its the viper!
and the protoss players will win 100% of the time using mass carrier tempest!
You cant make bcs because they get kited by tempest, vikings melt, liberator does no dmg, and now sentryturret gets nerfed from 32 to 24 dmg...
and still there is no mention of cyclones new anti air attack being horribly low dmg for insane amount of focus required, it should be automaticly locking on!
|
Buffing the disruptor will make zerg useless until late game tech, haven't you learned anything with lotv ZvT?
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:00 xTJx wrote:
Buffing the disruptor will make zerg useless until late game tech, haven't you learned anything with lotv ZvT?
there is no way to buff unit that dies to ling surround, with protoss lack of antimuta, to be that good
|
On October 08 2016 01:56 Anvil666 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 20:27 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 07 2016 13:29 PEPE!! wrote:On October 07 2016 08:04 Victory1 wrote:
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
I personally agree that removing the inject mechanic were the funnest time to play zerg. It is required that you build a queen every time. Don't think any other caster is forced like that. Also, if queens weren't required, we could probably see some cool early tech builds that could pressure outside of roach / bane busts. Increase larva spawn rate and remove inject GO!. You'll probably want queens anyway for early game defense, I mean : you only need 3 queens to inject, so if people makes 8 to 9 it must mean inject is not the only thing they do, doesn't it? Back on the subject, yes auto inject might have been more fun for you but only because your mechanics are not good enough to inject creap spread and micro units at the same time, which is the case of 99% of the population, but it's fine because the whole point is to make the game mechanically demanding so separate normal players from true skilled players. I don't think anybody wants random low tier players to be able to beat the top tier players, each time it happened, we used "patch zerg" or "patch protoss" or "patch terran" to describe these people, and most importantly when game got fixed these players disappeared while the true kings remained. Autoinject would make average player closer in skill from the top players, and they'll like it at first, but I do not think it would be god for the game in the long run. So youre saying that we should keep a mechanic in the game that is broing and repetitive for 99% of the people just to keep the game hard enough for the "true kings", about 200 players max? That is just mindless TL-elitism in its purest form haha! If its boring, it needs to go, end of discussion. I'm also in favor of adding autocast or removing the whole thing outright. Obviously there needs to be some form of compensation for it, like the proposed nerf to creep spread. Just keeping it in because people got used to it is stupid.
You're making alot of assumptions about my skill level. I played broodwar since 98 and played it at a reasonable level which is arguably the most mechanically demanding game ever. It has nothing to do with how good my mechanics for larva inject are (which are pretty good). I just find it mindless and limits early game zerg since it delays fun tech builds. One base lurker was a fun and aggressive build in broodwar but would never be possible if I had to build a queen.
|
Increases the Seeker Missile unit's tracking range by 50% (13 to 19.5).
Holy shit, are Seeker Missiles FINALLY going to be viable? Are we FINALLY going to see the SC2 equivalent of SK Terran become a reality?
|
why no autocast or remove mechanic, its more fun, the only reason why a few people against it is there ego... "uhh iam so good at mechanics, iam a good player and this is my life" .. no fun at all.
|
Starcraft 2 is unfair!
David Kim is in there!
Standing at the concession!
Plotting his oppression!
|
On October 07 2016 10:31 Athenau wrote:
So..a unit that's really really good at killing buildings (especially static-d), and pretty good at killing workers and small groups of low-health combat units, while packing that damage into fewer units. Hmm, what does that sound good for?
If you answered "drop play" you're a winner. The damage profile, and the fact that you only have to drop two cyclones (as opposed to eight marines or four marauders) to start doing full damage makes it a surprisingly potent raiding/harass option for mech, at least on paper.
So there you have it folks, test-map Cyclones are good at harassing with medivacs (loool).
Ime, opening with with a Cyclone drop proofs to be very effective in all mu. It might be that people need to get used to it.
Nevertheless, you cannot lose these drops!
|
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing.
|
On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing.
And you have no clue what you want so?
|
On October 08 2016 04:35 Krieg1 wrote:
why no autocast or remove mechanic, its more fun, the only reason why a few people against it is there ego... "uhh iam so good at mechanics, iam a good player and this is my life" .. no fun at all.
Zerg gameplay would became boring af....
|
On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing.
You are so far away from being correct. This type of transparency is exactly what is needed in this community. It is awesome to see that they are revealing their thoughts and opinions very often.
|
On October 07 2016 20:27 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 13:29 PEPE!! wrote:On October 07 2016 08:04 Victory1 wrote:
I don't know why so many people are against auto casting larva. As a zerg player, the most fun I have had playing sc2 was when larva was auto-injected. There is so much more time to focus on macro, micro and tasks that generally provide impact to the game, not a mundane click on a hatchery that is required or the race cannot be played.
Zerg already has the most difficult macro in the game due to having more bases than the other races, and constantly having to deal with harass on an expanded front. If really necessary, there are also many other ways to make zerg's macro feel a little more difficult.
1.increase base larva spawn on the hatchery, and give queen an ability with a large cooldown to further increase the spawn rate. Or just simply increase the time between each cycle so that zerg's have more time in between to focus on other tasks.
-this will keep the larva mechanic in play, but not force zerg to inject as many cycles per game.
2.Use the auto-cast larva mechanic, but change creep tumors so that they spread much less creep, and have a slightly shorter cooldown.
-this will require the zerg to focus much more attention to spreading creep, which will generally feel more impactful then spawning larva.
These are just two ideas that I came up with that will generally add more fun to the zerg race, and all of its matchups. I have played starcraft and visited this website for over 8 years and I have just now created this account in order to make this post, that is how strongly I feel about this issue. I don't think I am the only one who feels this way, but if the majority of zergs like spawning larva aimlessly every game, then the ability should obviously not be removed. However, I cannot take those arguing that they have spend years "mastering" this mechanic seriously because this mechanic is very simple, it can be mastered in a very short amount of time, and on top of all, we have had to adapt to much larger changes since SC2's inception.
Cheers.
I personally agree that removing the inject mechanic were the funnest time to play zerg. It is required that you build a queen every time. Don't think any other caster is forced like that. Also, if queens weren't required, we could probably see some cool early tech builds that could pressure outside of roach / bane busts. Increase larva spawn rate and remove inject GO!. You'll probably want queens anyway for early game defense, I mean : you only need 3 queens to inject, so if people makes 8 to 9 it must mean inject is not the only thing they do, doesn't it? Back on the subject, yes auto inject might have been more fun for you but only because your mechanics are not good enough to inject creap spread and micro units at the same time, which is the case of 99% of the population, but it's fine because the whole point is to make the game mechanically demanding so separate normal players from true skilled players. I don't think anybody wants random low tier players to be able to beat the top tier players, each time it happened, we used "patch zerg" or "patch protoss" or "patch terran" to describe these people, and most importantly when game got fixed these players disappeared while the true kings remained. Autoinject would make average player closer in skill from the top players, and they'll like it at first, but I do not think it would be god for the game in the long run.
Granted I am not a high masters or grandmaster player, but I was a consistent mid-low masters for a very long time during my most active years, and I can tell you that my mechanics where strong enough in order to spread creep and consistently hit my inject timings.
When I was referring to the lack of impact regarding inject larva, it was more of a personal opinion. Actions like developing map presence (creep spread), or atacking my oponent on multiple fronts with burrowed roaches, lings or even drops feel much more impactful to me because I can instantly see if I am putting myself in a more advantageous position to win the game... not to mention that there is a strategic element involved. You would be surprised how much more exciting a Zerg matchup is when the Zerg has more time to take advantage of an opponent's weaknesses, and focus more on microing units in multiple areas of the map.
I fail to see how inject larva is the same as spreading creep or even dropping mules for that matter, at least Terran must sacrifice extra supply or scouting abilities. Inject larva is different from the other macro mechanics because it involves no strategic element nor does it provide versatility like chronoboost. I also think that many zergs agree that they would rather allocate the time required to inject larva to different aspects of the zerg's macro. It would make the game more enjoyable for the player and the viewer.
I'm sure most players on team liquid enjoy a close game of starcraft that is difficult, but satisfying to win, which is why I am not proposing that blizzard should make zerg easier to play. Working hard for a win is satisfying, but clicking mindlessly on a hatchery due to a lack of strategic options seems robotic. I personally don't think inject larva belongs in a "strategy" game... and Starcraft is the best strategy game of all time?
|
wait inject is auto cast now?
|
On October 08 2016 16:01 arb wrote:
wait inject is auto cast now?
no
|
They should remove/automatic all macro boosters for all 3 races. So players can finally spend more time with the army activity.
|
On October 08 2016 17:19 Dingodile wrote:
They should remove/automatic all macro boosters for all 3 races. So players can finally spend more time with the army activity.
They tried both during beta and were not convinced by the results.
|
On October 08 2016 17:19 Dingodile wrote:
They should remove/automatic all macro boosters for all 3 races. So players can finally spend more time with the army activity.
Except that protoss and terran have choices with their macro boosters so there is no possibility to automate them.
|
On October 08 2016 18:00 Alluton wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 17:19 Dingodile wrote:
They should remove/automatic all macro boosters for all 3 races. So players can finally spend more time with the army activity. Except that protoss and terran have choices with their macro boosters so there is no possibility to automate them.
The current chrono boost came from their attempts to automate the mechanics (yeah didn't really work). In beta they also tried automated MULEs.
Oh and then they had those 3 weeks where chrono and MULEs were removed and lava inject was automatic but gave less larvae. Those were some bad weeks for non-Zergs.
|
I think the game would be a lot more fun if there were less options. Macro mechanics fall into the category of "not fun, but make the game harder"
Think of a hypothetical game where you can only build a gateway and a Nexus.
A lot of now unseen strategy in Sc2 would evolve and players would become exceptionally good at zealot control.
Micro, positioning, building placement, unit positioning, attack times, flanking, expansion timings, multi pronged attacks, proxies- all of them would play a huge role in winning.
So even with just one unit in the game that only melee attacks - there would be an elite, a "pro player" would still go to blizzcon and sweep the floor with everyone. Theres less to do so maybe he pulls off a 5 sided attack.
Of course, thats just an example - but the point is, remove shit that isnt fun, make the game easier to control and casuals and pros will love it.
In its current version - a lot of the strategy is hidden behind 200-400 apm of optimal base management. All the strategy gets lost in lower leagues (advice i often hear "you should just focus on making marines contantly and A move them to your opponent") - why should that be fun in any way?
|
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP.
|
On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP.
I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine".
|
On October 08 2016 13:17 Exquisite7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing. You are so far away from being correct. This type of transparency is exactly what is needed in this community. It is awesome to see that they are revealing their thoughts and opinions very often.
It's six years in, they've pissed away 90% of their players, the community of pro gamers has "downsized" which is "healthy", and they still don't know how to make units/mechanics introduced in WoL work.
I think it's very safe to say they don't know what they're doing.
|
On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine".
I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ?
|
On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ?
I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP.
I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall.
|
On October 08 2016 19:12 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ? I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP. I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall.
How can an unit that one shoots everything in such a radius ever be in a good and stable place ? The mere concept of dealing so much instant damage makes little sense. Hence why I think the more situational the disruptor is, the better.
|
On October 08 2016 19:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 19:12 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ? I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP. I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall. How can an unit that one shoots everything in such a radius ever be in a good and stable place ? The mere concept of dealing so much instant damage makes little sense. Hence why I think the more situational the disruptor is, the better.
Should be careful when trying to go for such general concepts, by being too general, they end meaning not much at all.
Imho disruptors are fine, it's not because Neeb won won KeSPA cup that they're suddenly op in PvP, they are counters and alternatives and, overall, their strength is kinda minor compared to the fact that Neeb simply outplayed Trap.
That's the kind of units I like : their strength is directly linked to the skill gap between players, they're like baneling in ZvT : you can rekt a whole marine army with 2 banelings if your opponent is bad, or do no damage at all if your opponent targets like ByuN.
|
I tend to have high opinion of the dev team, but I can't help to think that whoever thought nerfing the cyclone AA and buffing the raven was a good is an idiot.
|
On October 08 2016 20:29 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 19:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 19:12 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ? I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP. I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall. How can an unit that one shoots everything in such a radius ever be in a good and stable place ? The mere concept of dealing so much instant damage makes little sense. Hence why I think the more situational the disruptor is, the better. Should be careful when trying to go for such general concepts, by being too general, they end meaning not much at all. Imho disruptors are fine, it's not because Neeb won won KeSPA cup that they're suddenly op in PvP, they are counters and alternatives and, overall, their strength is kinda minor compared to the fact that Neeb simply outplayed Trap. That's the kind of units I like : their strength is directly linked to the skill gap between players, they're like baneling in ZvT : you can rekt a whole marine army with 2 banelings if your opponent is bad, or do no damage at all if your opponent targets like ByuN.
it's not really comparable to banelings because banelings provide way more predictable outcomes in battles.
if you have 50 banelings with zergling support vs 50 marines the banelings will always trade somewhat reasonably even if dream is splitting the marines.
With 10 banelings vs 50 marines the banelings will always die without doing any damage.
for disruptors however the outcome is way more binary.
1 disruptor could kill 30 supply of marine marauder while 5 disruptors could possibly not even kill a single unit.
|
On October 09 2016 05:42 Lexender wrote:
I tend to have high opinion of the dev team, but I can't help to think that whoever thought nerfing the cyclone AA and buffing the raven was a good is an idiot.
I haven't had a reason to have a high opinion of the development team for a long time, and buffing the Raven turrets and nerfing Cyclone AA does nothing to make me change my stance that David Kim is quite simply, incompetent.
|
On October 08 2016 18:59 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 13:17 Exquisite7 wrote:On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing. You are so far away from being correct. This type of transparency is exactly what is needed in this community. It is awesome to see that they are revealing their thoughts and opinions very often. It's six years in, they've pissed away 90% of their players, the community of pro gamers has "downsized" which is "healthy", and they still don't know how to make units/mechanics introduced in WoL work. I think it's very safe to say they don't know what they're doing.
Hopefully they will piss away you too 
|
The Nexus no longer has a kill counter.
 why would they remove this
|
On October 09 2016 13:03 Exquisite7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:59 Probe1 wrote:On October 08 2016 13:17 Exquisite7 wrote:On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing. You are so far away from being correct. This type of transparency is exactly what is needed in this community. It is awesome to see that they are revealing their thoughts and opinions very often. It's six years in, they've pissed away 90% of their players, the community of pro gamers has "downsized" which is "healthy", and they still don't know how to make units/mechanics introduced in WoL work. I think it's very safe to say they don't know what they're doing. Hopefully they will piss away you too
More dev team apologists I see?
This is the reason SC2 is in the state it's in, people being in denial and not holding the team accountable.
|
So, it will not be up to the players, with settings options, whether they want to always show worker/army supply, show when moused over or never show? How troublesome would that be to implement ?
On another topic: What if you had two spawn larvae abilities on the queen? One that is only auto-cast or not cast at all, while the other is manually cast. The auto-cast ability is less efficient, while the manually cast is more efficient. The player gets to choose if they want more larvae or if they want to divert their attention to something else. This would give the zerg players a choice for their macro mechanic.
|
On October 08 2016 18:26 weikor wrote:
I think the game would be a lot more fun if there were less options. Macro mechanics fall into the category of "not fun, but make the game harder"
Think of a hypothetical game where you can only build a gateway and a Nexus.
A lot of now unseen strategy in Sc2 would evolve and players would become exceptionally good at zealot control.
Micro, positioning, building placement, unit positioning, attack times, flanking, expansion timings, multi pronged attacks, proxies- all of them would play a huge role in winning.
So even with just one unit in the game that only melee attacks - there would be an elite, a "pro player" would still go to blizzcon and sweep the floor with everyone. Theres less to do so maybe he pulls off a 5 sided attack.
Of course, thats just an example - but the point is, remove shit that isnt fun, make the game easier to control and casuals and pros will love it.
In its current version - a lot of the strategy is hidden behind 200-400 apm of optimal base management. All the strategy gets lost in lower leagues (advice i often hear "you should just focus on making marines contantly and A move them to your opponent") - why should that be fun in any way?
You do realize it's like that for your opponents too right? Terran focuses on their in base production managementioned with making their production buildings while spending money in unit cycles, protoss does similar but in focused bursts with warpgate that forces them to take their eyes off to nearby pylon or prism while building productions and chronoboost,and zero is macro heavy race with map vision, creep, inject and optimal drone to army management
Auto inject would be getting rid of a huge macro cycle of zerg and also denying the works of players who tend to focus on such aspect of game in midst of battle and pressure. One whole aspect denied
|
I'm also super confused by why the Nexus doesn't need a kill counter.
It gets kills with its Nexus cannon thing, right? :/
|
On October 11 2016 02:08 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'm also super confused by why the Nexus doesn't need a kill counter.
It gets kills with its Nexus cannon thing, right? :/
Not sure if I am being trolled or not, but there is no Nexus cannon any more, only Pylon cannons.
So Pylons need a kill counter now instead of the Nexus.
|
Some people really need to get over themselves. So many baseless accusations.
|
On October 09 2016 14:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:
More dev team apologists I see?
This is the reason SC2 is in the state it's in, people being in denial and not holding the team accountable.
the genre is 25 years old and the state of technology is radically different. i'm happy with the job Blizzard is doing on the game. their good work on all their games, including SC2, is the reason Overwatch was an insta-purchase for me when i normally wait 1 year before buying any game.
the primary reason for my decline in SC2 playing time is Overwatch.
|
On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example
This was hard to me to read, because save the parts about units released in LOTV, all of that has been true in WOL and HOTS too.
With one exception: You could stop Mutalisks in WOL by whittling away at them with Blink Stalkers and Storm. The Regeneration bonus given in HOTS made that impractical, and the game became less strategically diverse as a result.
|
Concerning protoss, please nerf adepts, in one of the million ways possible. A zealot buff would be a possibility if you feel concerned about balance.
|
On October 11 2016 05:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example This was hard to me to read, because save the parts about units released in LOTV, all of that has been true in WOL and HOTS too. With one exception: You could stop Mutalisks in WOL by whittling away at them with Blink Stalkers and Storm. The Regeneration bonus given in HOTS made that impractical, and the game became less strategically diverse as a result.
Sorry, bro. But yeah, most of this has been true since WOL. They never fixed the Gateway dilemma: if Gateway units are being buffed Warpgate tech becomes too powerful; less powerful Gateway units implies reliance on gimmicks (Photon Overcharge), one-sidedly overpowered units (Oracle, Disruptor) and impossible to balance spells (Force Field).
The best suggestion to fix this imo is to
- buff gateway units a little (to make them more all-round)
- redesign warpgate tech (by flipping Warpgate and Gateway production rate)
I think this change alone would make it possible to remove the Mothership Core. The stalker change is a good starting point. Let's hope they'll actually go through with it and let us test it.
|
I wish they'd look at chrono and warp ins. Channeling chrono is a little clunky to use, and varying warp in speed based on pylons proximity to nexus/warpgate just feels so gross.
I mean, getting run over by a gateway all in frusterated me as much as the next person, but it wasn't broken. Now it's just super gross and clunky instead of being simple, without rules.
|
On October 11 2016 22:01 InfCereal wrote:
I wish they'd look at chrono and warp ins. Channeling chrono is a little clunky to use, and varying warp in speed based on pylons proximity to nexus/warpgate just feels so gross.
I mean, getting run over by a gateway all in frusterated me as much as the next person, but it wasn't broken. Now it's just super gross and clunky instead of being simple, without rules.
Agreed 100%, to the point where I think warpgate is what has hurt this game more than anything else. Because it goes against the core mechanics of the game, where there should be more cost/benefit and the mechanic allowing units to warp in anywhere just makes no sense in an RTS game like this. It has led to the reason gateway units have had to be soft, instead of strong as protoss units are suppose to be.
And as you mention, the current mechanic is confusing and makes little sense. New players struggle with it, and creates a layer of difficulty placing buildings that really doesn't add to the game. Is my pylon touching the nexus or not? Am I warping in at which color pylon? It just isn't seamless integration for what should be a simple part of the game.
I'd love to see a test map where the following is done:
1 - Remove warpgate. Make gateway units across the board stronger, and if needed slightly faster. Produce units just like they do now with a gateway.
2 - Add a new upgrade to Cyber Core - Warp Prism Unit Warp upgrade. This upgrades any warp prism to allow for a 4 second warp in of any gateway unit. The cost is 50 energy per warped in unit(plus the standard unit cost), as the warp prism will now have energy similar to any other energy based unit. You can warp in up to 4 units(assuming save up 200 energy) but then would need wait to get energy back. The drop aspect of the prism works the same, without the upgrade. You can only warp in gateway units that you have access too via proper tech structures.
- Reason for this: 1 you can still use to drop/harass/warp in as before. But now it limits it to 4 units instead of 12+ lategame or however many gates you have. It is ridiculous someone can just warp 20 units into your base. If you want to invest in 2 warp prisms and save up 200 energy and also put 4 units into each prism, go for it. But this should make it more in line with harassment instead of just flooding someone's base or expansion.
Second, you could choose to park a warp-prism at each of your expansions and use to defend drop play as needed. Buy time till you can get more units there. Now you could see issues with people rushing out 2-3 warp prisms and getting a push of units, but keep in mind they would have to wait for energy to build up plus the upgrade. So you'd still need plenty of gateways. This makes more sense for defending than shooting pylons. So for defense I could put in Warp Prism mode a prism at each base, costs me some supply but if I have a pylon or two I can then instantly get a few units there assuming I've saved the energy. This also means I'm not screwed if I just happened to do a big warp in across the map and then a drop comes. Makes the game make more sense to a casual. If you can imagine a situation where you keep your 1-2 warp-prism at home patrolling for drops and then warp in at the base needed. I think would be a cleaner solution all around.
3 - Get rid of shooting pylons. Instead for 25 energy you can power a pylon to release healing energy for 20 seconds. Any unit standing in this will have their shield healed at an increased rate(rate can be tested). This would allow for a defender advantage where you can either fight in that sphere(figure a bit bigger than sentry shield) or micro your units where you pull them back into the healing and then push forward.
I think these 3 changes would make protoss more playable, easier to understand, and then other races could better be balanced going forward. Right now the warpgate mechanic breaks the game, and causes weak gateway units, that in turn have to have micro mechanics to make them more viable to try and offset the weakness. It is just so complicated, I liked in BW it was like "make dragoons. They can kill things." Protoss felt strong, but expensive.
|
^
Warp Gate is one of the primary glaring holes in Protoss design that unless radically changed will always make Gateway units not be core units (or if they are core they are usually overpowered).
I mean how hard is it to understand for the team? In an RTS reinforcement times are a critical feature, it's what dictates where you attack, how much you commit, and how much damage you can do. It's what keep units balanced, would marines be balanced if they could be drop podded onto the battle field? Would Zerglings be if you could summon 10 larvae worth of them from any Overlord?
Of course not, that's why Gateway has always been imbalanced one way or another, because summoning 10 Zealots right outside your opponents base and completely negating reinforcement times is just...well...
Bad design :/
|
reinforcement hinges upon keeping a lone pylon or warp prism hovering in mid air. Neither of these things can defend themselves and when they are destroyed the attack is over. sure you can build pylons all over the place. that makes ur strategy more transparent.
Warp in is a unique aspect of Protoss and increases racial diversity. i don't like losing to it, but i sure like winning with it. funny how that works eh? Warp-in is the Brad Marchand of RTS mechanics.
|
On October 11 2016 16:16 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 05:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example This was hard to me to read, because save the parts about units released in LOTV, all of that has been true in WOL and HOTS too. With one exception: You could stop Mutalisks in WOL by whittling away at them with Blink Stalkers and Storm. The Regeneration bonus given in HOTS made that impractical, and the game became less strategically diverse as a result. Sorry, bro. But yeah, most of this has been true since WOL. They never fixed the Gateway dilemma: if Gateway units are being buffed Warpgate tech becomes too powerful; less powerful Gateway units implies reliance on gimmicks (Photon Overcharge), one-sidedly overpowered units (Oracle, Disruptor) and impossible to balance spells (Force Field). The best suggestion to fix this imo is to - buff gateway units a little (to make them more all-round)
- redesign warpgate tech (by flipping Warpgate and Gateway production rate)
I think this change alone would make it possible to remove the Mothership Core. The stalker change is a good starting point. Let's hope they'll actually go through with it and let us test it.
I'd have to agree its the only simple solution. And blizzard for some reason likes simple.
They've historically had some obsession with warpgate being how they want things to work that I wish they'd get over it as it's made protoss the bullshit race.
If gateways made stuff fast and warp gate could warp in but was super slow to recharge, things could be a lot more protossy again.
However buffing the units has a stack of issues. Stronger zealots makes proxy gate too strong, maybe they need an extra upgrade to man up those zealots. Stalkers have to be made of glass because blink happens to them, dragoons with blink would be too powerful..
This thing of giving powerful abilities to core units is a recurring theme and causes buckets full of issues. Adepts as tank, damage dealer, harassment and magical fairy warp scout seems like too many tricks for one unit. It lets protoss get out on the map sure but it produces a tonne of bullshit allins and 1 mistake auto-losses. Honestly I don't think you can buff what we have now without opening many cans of worms.
|
On October 12 2016 03:03 mostevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 16:16 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On October 11 2016 05:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example This was hard to me to read, because save the parts about units released in LOTV, all of that has been true in WOL and HOTS too. With one exception: You could stop Mutalisks in WOL by whittling away at them with Blink Stalkers and Storm. The Regeneration bonus given in HOTS made that impractical, and the game became less strategically diverse as a result. Sorry, bro. But yeah, most of this has been true since WOL. They never fixed the Gateway dilemma: if Gateway units are being buffed Warpgate tech becomes too powerful; less powerful Gateway units implies reliance on gimmicks (Photon Overcharge), one-sidedly overpowered units (Oracle, Disruptor) and impossible to balance spells (Force Field). The best suggestion to fix this imo is to - buff gateway units a little (to make them more all-round)
- redesign warpgate tech (by flipping Warpgate and Gateway production rate)
I think this change alone would make it possible to remove the Mothership Core. The stalker change is a good starting point. Let's hope they'll actually go through with it and let us test it. I'd have to agree its the only simple solution. And blizzard for some reason likes simple. They've historically had some obsession with warpgate being how they want things to work that I wish they'd get over it as it's made protoss the bullshit race. If gateways made stuff fast and warp gate could warp in but was super slow to recharge, things could be a lot more protossy again. However buffing the units has a stack of issues. Stronger zealots makes proxy gate too strong, maybe they need an extra upgrade to man up those zealots. Stalkers have to be made of glass because blink happens to them, dragoons with blink would be too powerful.. This thing of giving powerful abilities to core units is a recurring theme and causes buckets full of issues. Adepts as tank, damage dealer, harassment and magical fairy warp scout seems like too many tricks for one unit. It lets protoss get out on the map sure but it produces a tonne of bullshit allins and 1 mistake auto-losses. Honestly I don't think you can buff what we have now without opening many cans of worms.
A very simple solution would be to give Sentries a Shield Restoration ability—single target and channeled like in the LotV campaign—instead of Guardian Shield. This would buff Gateway units indirectly (i.e. by giving them more HP if they have Sentry suppport) and wouldn't make proxy Gate strategies stronger (unless you commit to a couple of Sentries which would however weaken the push).
I agree that a direct buff would be hard to balance out, though.
|
The idea that they want 3 different ways to make the races unique with units is silly.
Because you still produce a majority of units the traditional way(terran and protoss the same, a unit from a building). It is just this one niche thing that happens to be the core of the design and backbone of the army AND your early game units.
Why not make this a late game feature of a DT specifically, that it can warp in at a pylon, or that air units are warped in etc. I'm not saying that would be balanced, but my point is that it seems silly to not let warpgates go, which ruin the game, just to say "see its different!" What is even dumber is when you are warping in units, while your other units are trying to walk their way across the map. We should believe they have figured out how to warp in only have their army? The whole thing is just a disaster. And if you wanted this warp in feature, there are other ways it could have been done.
But I think my idea on the previous page would keep the unique aspects of warpgate in the game in some form, but allow for the game to correct itself otherwise. I really think the design and decision to go with Warpgate has hurt this game more than any other decision because of the domino effect it has had on the entire game. Even as far as map composition etc.
|
The whine is powerful in this thread...
I love the warp gate mechanic, it is fun and iconic and represents protoss for me... I would hate to see it gone (come in it is even in the lotv trailer..)
A lot of your arguments are "it's bad design"
Maybe it's designed exactly how it was intended, there isnt a single and unique way of designing stuff..
Lately it seems that with the argument of "bad design" people ask for nerfs to tone down what they don't like (the game is balanced so the balance argument doesn't hold.. and now the "design")
|
We're discussing about warp gate? really? Yawn.
|
On October 12 2016 02:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
reinforcement hinges upon keeping a lone pylon or warp prism hovering in mid air. Neither of these things can defend themselves and when they are destroyed the attack is over. sure you can build pylons all over the place. that makes ur strategy more transparent.
Warp in is a unique aspect of Protoss and increases racial diversity. i don't like losing to it, but i sure like winning with it. funny how that works eh? Warp-in is the Brad Marchand of RTS mechanics.
It is a give an take, would you like to lose wg but have many of the fundamental problems of protoss be fixed or keep wg and have the design of the race be of a gimmick.
And by gimmick I don't mean "is a gimmick because I don't like it" but "is a gimmick because results aren't consistent through out a game"
Many of the fundamental problem of protoss, as many many people has said, was this give and take, and this can be observed in the game with how vastly different a unit/composition/strat can performd only due to warpgate.
Stalkers-> Generally good units but they scale pretty baddly so they aren't specially strong.
Add some thing a little abusable (MsC giving vision and maps with a big main)-> Suddenly stalkers are super imba.
Adepts-> Really good units but they are pretty counterable with standard comps.
One single wp gets in the base undetected-> Suddenly 12 adepts are in your base and you have no workers left.
And thats only gateway units, this whole design issue goes to all protoss units (colossus-viking interaction being a "do I have enough vikings and win, or not have enough and lose", immortal/sentry vs bl/infestor dont let them get there with an all in) were support units become supper important but also super fragile because they HAVE to deal the damage the gateway units don't deal BECAUSE if they DID deal that damage gateway all ins would be too strong.
Same thing with everything (MsC, chrono boost to a degree, overcharge in all its forms, the nature of "deal game ending damage or no damage and lose the game" of units like DTs, disruptors and oracle, etc etc)
I think you get the geist of it now, you can't ate the cake and have it too.
|
i experience playing Protoss as fun and unique. i appreciate playing the race and playing against the race. Some people talk like Protoss has had 6 lost years due to warp gate tech. i disagree.
Warp Gate mechanics were explored during teh LotV beta. i liked the process, i liked the results of the experiments and i like the Warp Gate mechanics for LotV.
the majority of players pushing the "SC2 is fundamentally flawed" narrative are bored of RTS games in general. Its not like they're rushing to play some other RTS that is way better. When i tire of all the economic-in-base babysitting that is fundamental to both SC1 and SC2 i just play RA3. I know Blizzard will never strip down any SC game to have the bare bones kind of economy of the RA series.
|
On October 12 2016 09:16 Lexender wrote:
were support units become supper important but also super fragile because they HAVE to deal the damage the gateway units don't deal BECAUSE if they DID deal that damage gateway all ins would be too strong.
This is basically already shown to be false.
Adepts vastly out-damage any unit after +1 and glaives in the early game ... yet the only problem with them in the current iteration of the game is that the shade allows them to always choose favorable engagements.
Shadeless adepts would cause exactly 0 design problems (or balance problems) early-game, even with the massive damage they do versus light.
----
Given that, all that we need now is to remove the gimmick (the shade) from the adept and standardize it so that it can be useful in many situations (flatten the damage to have no +light component). When removing the shade, we'd probably like to give them some movement speed to allow them to be microed slightly better than currently.
Do that, and all of the sudden Protoss doesn't need PO any more. Protoss doesn't cause issues with warp-gate because the units have one entry point and are counter-able with sufficient forces (just like medivac drops). Protoss doesn't suffer versus early-attacks because they have a unit with sufficient damage to actually kill incoming forces ... which scales well enough into the mid-game to be the basis of a composition.
Protoss' gateway units present balance problems because they're designed to have problems, not because of warp-gate.
----
Stalkers are made to be retained. Early-game, with blink, they're the most mobile unit in the game and the tankiest. If nothing can deal sufficient damage to ward them off, then they're simply impossible to stop snow-balling.
Zealots are made to tank (but have very high DPS, as a threat). If they don't connect, they do practically nothing but force kiting ... if they do connect, they do massive damage.
Sentries are designed 100% around forcefields. If forcefields are good, they are worth their weight in gold ... if not, they're mostly useless (and slow to boot).
There's not much room for wiggling with balance numbers here ... it's an either-or situation: stalkers are retained or they're not, zealots connect with melee range or they don't, forcefields are excellent or they're not. This makes the units' balance extremely finely connected with their abilities and the counters available.
Protoss units simply don't work well in general situations. They're extreme specialists!
That's the problem. Marines, lings, marauders, roaches, and hydras are all generalists. They're good in most situations all game long ... and excellent in others. Protoss needs a "boring generalist" unit to stabilize their compositions and allow their extremes to be toned down.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:23 Edowyth wrote:
Protoss units simply don't work well in general situations. They're extreme specialists!
100% true.
Why not remove the shade, give adept glaves at start(maybe even not 10+12 damage but 12+10)(without shade they pose no threat) and give mid game move speed upgrade(in twilight) to make them microable.
there will be some problems with zerg all-ins but still its possible to balance.
|
On October 12 2016 02:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
reinforcement hinges upon keeping a lone pylon or warp prism hovering in mid air. Neither of these things can defend themselves and when they are destroyed the attack is over. sure you can build pylons all over the place. that makes ur strategy more transparent.
Warp in is a unique aspect of Protoss and increases racial diversity. i don't like losing to it, but i sure like winning with it. funny how that works eh? Warp-in is the Brad Marchand of RTS mechanics.
This is a really good point. Protoss is unique with its warpgate ability which makes it the best "timing attack" race. However, with proper scouting, it is easy to figure out if they want to go for a gateway timing and if you can destroy their reinforcement point, the timing attack ends and the defender gains the advantage. Just like how Zerg is really good at tech switching, there is a huge vulnerability when a tech building is destroyed and has to be rebuilt. We shouldn't be getting rid of warpgate because it brings a diverse way of playing the game, which is what makes the game great.
The only problem is however, that when they buffed prisms to have ranged pickup AND added a unit that can shade itself base to base, they didn't come up with an appropriate way of balancing the warp prism adept all in strategy. I would propose that a warp prism cost gas as well as minerals to make it more of an investment. On top of that, they nerfed warp ins from pylons in that a pylon had to be next to a nexus or supporting a warpgate to have a fast warp in. But warp prisms get to keep their fast warp in rate, making proxy pylons pointless to have, especially when you consider it costs only 100 additional minerals, it can fly around/reposition, and carry units. If they decreased the warp in time for warp prisms, it would drastically change the effectiveness of timing attacks. Gateway timing attacks would still be viable but it would be much more difficult and risky to warp directly into an opponents base for instant damage.
And on top of that we wouldn't have to go through another design change which makes the game extremely vulnerable to balance issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
