|
Hey guys, my id is Probe, and I am a Australian Protoss players currently on the team ROOT. Regarding my league I currently have two accounts in KR GM, although both aren't very well ranked.
This will be my second topic. You can find my first one about Oracles here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/514763-changing-the-oracle
With blizzard making changes to LOTV at the end of this year, now is as good a time as any to think about these aspects of Starcraft 2.
Even if you don't agree with them at all, let's have a discussion!
My second topic is on...
![[image loading]](http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/0/2658/2457532-2457531-mothershipcore_hots_rend2.jpg)
The Mothership Core
History:
At the start of heart of the swarm, as more harass were added to the game (Oracles, Widow mines, Medivacs boost), and with the strength of Protoss gateway units still lacking in the early game, the Mothership Core was added to fill a hole in Protoss gameplay. It revolutionised PvZ, with gateway expand coming back into prevelence, and the combination of recall and time warp allowed for stronger Protoss midgame pushes. It changed PvT, allowing for the Protoss to be greedier in the early game, to get ahead in tech and economy. In PvP it allowed heavy gateway pushes to be defended easier. Overall, the Mothership Core did it's job. It got Protoss safely into the midgame.
Problem:
However, the Mothership Core is probably the most hated unit ever to exist in Starcraft 2. Complaints range from the strength of nexus overcharge, the strength of pylon overcharge, the strength of recall, the limiting factor it has on gateway units, and even the fact that it is a hero unit. Both time warp and photon overcharge got a rework going into legacy of the void in response to these complaints, and overall I would say they were beneficial changes to the game. But still, complaints over "one click defense" and that the "Mothership Core can defend everything by itself" still remain.
Photon overcharge: While photon overcharging pylons has definitely been better than nexus overcharge (due to the ability to snipe the pylon/have less photon overcharge), it is still extremely strong. For the cost of a 100/100 flyer that you can build extremely early into the game, you can completely lock down definitely 1 base, and given enough notice, cover 2 or even 3 bases.
Time warp: In Heart of the Swarm, Time warp was one of the strongest spells in the game. It would activate at full size instantly when you cast the spell, unlike it does currently: which is to grow from the center and then activate. This nerf, combined with Protoss players keeping their Mothership Cores at home for the sole use of photon overcharge has resulted in this spell almost disappearing from the game. The only times I ever actually see this spell is when the Mothership Core is going to die and there are no pylons around to photon overcharge.
Recall: Recall is also under used in the current game because photon overcharge is so strong, and because you need the Mothership Core at home to defend counter attacks. Recall gave Protoss gateway units an escape route. If you think about the other races, Terran has Medivacs and Medivac boost, Zerg has -on the most part- the far more mobile army and can just run home. If you think back to Nony playing at the beginning of Heart of the Swarm, we had a style of PvZ where you would constantly move out with small unit forces and then recall home. Alas, recall still didn't split up the deathball. It's initial goal- at least for me- was that you would do small gateway pushes and then recall. The only times where we now see recall is when you have a big army already and need to escape from a bad situation.
Lastly, the Mothership core is a Hero unit. You can only have one at a time. Many people argue that this does not fit into the grand design of Starcraft 2, and is more suited in a game like WC3. While this definitely has some merit, I am arguing that because it is a Hero unit and is such a massive part of your defense, the entirety of whether you hold this push or not, relies on keeping your Mothership Core alive. I don't believe this is a healthy unit design.
In it's current state, the Mothership Core is balanced. I am not calling for these changes for balance reasons, but for design reasons. Don't get me wrong, without photon overcharge in the current game, Protoss would struggle massively. Let's work on increasing the usage of time warp and recall, while dis-empowering photon overcharge.
Suggestion:
Edit: I will just add that these changes don't necessarily all have to be added to the game. The hero unit change is definitely more out there.
1. Change Time warp to start slowing instantly, but grow from the center.
2. Change Photon overcharge to have no energy cost, but is on a 30 second cooldown.
3. Allow for multiple Mothership Cores to be built.
Nerf/buff recall/photon overcharge to balance the unit.
Reasoning:
1. My first suggestion about buffing the time warp is mainly to make it get used a bit more. In the current design, the opponent's army just move out of it before it finishes and you have essentially wasted 75 energy. While you could argue that you forced him to move out of an optimal position, in reality this is rarely the case. This change buff the spell just a tiny bit, so that you do get some reward for using it. I don't want to revert it back to it's previous iteration because that was strong in every single situation.
2. My change for photon overcharge does two things. Firstly photon overcharge will still be a strong spell that will be able to defend a push initially, but it won't have the effect of saving your base for what can feel like forever. You will still be able to ward off the first oracle, or adepts, but then will have to react with units to defend when the photon overcharge is finished.
Secondly by removing the energy requirement and putting it on a cooldown you are freeing up energy and usefulness for other spells. This will encourage the Mothership Core to travel with the army more and hopefully result in Timewarp and recall being used more freely.
3. The reasoning behind removing the hero unit attribute on the Mothership Core is firstly to relieve the pressure that having all of your base's defense being reliant on a single unit has. Combined with the other changes, if they still want the same level of protection as now, they will also need to commit more money and supply to defending their bases.
Secondly, if you are able to build more than one Mothership Core, I hope this promotes splitting up of the deathball. For example you would attack in two different locations and in each location you would have a Mothership Core to recall if you got in trouble.
A comment about gateway unit strength: This will be an article for a future date, but I will outline some things just quickly here. Gateway units are not bad units, but they definitely are not strong enough in the early game at the moment to handle these changes (probably). They are wanting to test a stalker change, and that is awesome! They are also nerfing shade and I think that is a step in the right direction. Blizzard can then buff adept early game a bit more. I also believe that if you want to buff gateway units even more so that they can hold their own in all matchups, you need to nerf warp prism's warp in mechanic. If you buffed gateway units currently then you would warp in 10 gateway units into their base and just win. This should be looked at.
Conclusion: As the warp in mechanic was nerfed at the start of LOTV, gateway units were able to be buffed, through the addition of the Adept. The Mothership Core should no longer be the sole protector of Protoss in the early game. It can still definitely have a strong role in the game, but by buffing gateway units, let's try and move it to a better place.
A unit that promotes the splitting up the deathball.
The only way to try these changes is to test them in game. Hopefully I will have a test extension mod up by tomorrow!
Do you agree with (any) of my changes? Do you have other changes? Do you disagree completely? Post below and let's all have a discussion.
|
Some nice suggestions I guess, but I don't think multiple Mothership Core's is even remotely a good idea, it would bring about a lot more issues I think. Nice write up, thanks for sharing!
|
So it's an arbiter on cybernetics. Why not bin the core have each nexus able to cast a plyon overcharge and add something like arbiters in for defensive recall.
The cores a complete bodge to try to fix a series of design failures stemming from a game originally designed and balanced around warp gate and steppes of war. Having a flying unit that early does yet more to make high ground pointless, reducing tactical depth and defenders advantage. Lack of defenders advantage generally is why you need the core. Fixing that might be better.
I think this is another example of a piece of game design only blizzard can love. Protoss is a horrible mess in SC2, any change that isn't ugly as hell means reworking the whole race. I don't think they've the manpower or the skills in the SC2 team for that.
|
On October 12 2016 16:02 mostevil wrote:
So it's an arbiter on cybernetics. Why not bin the core have each nexus able to cast a plyon overcharge and add something like arbiters in for defensive recall.
The cores a complete bodge to try to fix a series of design failures stemming from a game originally designed and balanced around warp gate and steppes of war. Having a flying unit that early does yet more to make high ground pointless, reducing tactical depth and defenders advantage. Lack of defenders advantage generally is why you need the core. Fixing that might be better.
I think this is another example of a piece of game design only blizzard can love. Protoss is a horrible mess in SC2, any change that isn't ugly as hell means reworking the whole race. I don't think they've the manpower or the skills in the SC2 team for that.
I like the idea of having the nexus initiate the pylon overcharge. If you make it so the pylon needs to be in range of the (or a) nexus it'll remove the offensive pylons from the game as well. Binning the MSC will free up spells for the Oracle which the OP suggested to change its role for in his other thread. Two birds with one stone.
Edit: But most importantly this would increase the chance of Has proxy nexusing which would be the best thing ever obviously
|
"Photon overcharge: While photon overcharging pylons has definitely been better than nexus overcharge (due to the ability to snipe the pylon/have less photon overcharge), it is still extremely strong. For the cost of a 100/100 flyer that you can build extremely early into the game, you can completely lock down definitely 1 base, and given enough notice, cover 2 or even 3 bases."
Not sure in what a world you live.
|
Having multiple MSC would result in recall abuse. Being able to recall is already insanely strong.
About gateway strength, the MSC isn't the reason it can't be buffed, the immortal is. Immortal + sentries with some amount of stalkers or adepts completely shreks bio or roaches. The immortal is such a reliable, high DPS and unkillable unit with good range that you can't have too strong gateway units or the combinaison of the two would roll over every early/mid game comps.
Also, because every twilight upgrade gives insane mobility to gateway units, you can't have them too strong. Adepts go the other way around (native mobility => strength). You can't have units that are very mobile AND very strong in a frontal fight, that's just not the way balance works. Because of the blink mechanic, stalkers would be hilariously broken if their damage was upped too much.
About the MSC, i don't mind the hero aspect of it because it's specific to the protoss race, and has been since WOL with the mamaship. I don't mind. However neither the time warp nor the recall pose a real problem in the game. The overcharge does, and especially the fact that it can be and is professionnally used OFFENSIVELY. Terran build orders are practially dictated by their ability to counter this.
The overcharge should be a spell that transforms a pylon into a shield battery. A spell that HELPS units or static D defend a location, but not a spell that demolishes stuff on its own (3shots a banshee FFS). The ability to summon a static thor is fucking insane.
Coupled with a nerf of the adept's mobility (making the shade's cooldown much longer and uncancellable), a native DPS buff (giving it native glaives) but making them twilight required, it may be possible for the unit to be a quick response defensive unit that would compensate for the overcharge. This way the adept would finally be what it's supposed to be : a core fighting gateway unit, that can use the shade to travel long distances faster and therefore answer attacks much quicker, but which is much less abusive at harassing.
|
Bad positioning, recall. Defending at home, recall. I hope you see whats wrong with having multiple MSC's with recall.
|
The biggest issue with multiple mothership cores is that you could potentially have a constant stream of time warps AND overcharges that would prevent balance. I love your ideas trying to split up the deathball, and protoss would greatly benefit from playing that style of retreating with the mothership core.
I wonder if removing the mothership core altogether (but keeping the mothership) and rebalancing gateway units would be a way to work around it?
|
So a protoss can now mass mothership cores at the start of the game for ~infinite base defense, while at the same time having risk-free harass potential.
Because protoss wasn't frustrating enough to play against.
|
Well the thing is, probably everybody would like to go get rid of MsC completely as it is really "ugly design-wise". However it is impossible to do it because current Protoss design depends too heavily on it.
If any changes are to be made to MsC then it would require a lot of rebalancing and if so then why not go a bit further and remove it all together and increase the rebalancing work only slightly but eventually offering good, clean design?
|
On October 12 2016 19:41 JackONeill wrote:
Having multiple MSC would result in recall abuse. Being able to recall is already insanely strong.
About gateway strength, the MSC isn't the reason it can't be buffed, the immortal is. Immortal + sentries with some amount of stalkers or adepts completely shreks bio or roaches. The immortal is such a reliable, high DPS and unkillable unit with good range that you can't have too strong gateway units or the combinaison of the two would roll over every early/mid game comps.
Also, because every twilight upgrade gives insane mobility to gateway units, you can't have them too strong. Adepts go the other way around (native mobility => strength). You can't have units that are very mobile AND very strong in a frontal fight, that's just not the way balance works. Because of the blink mechanic, stalkers would be hilariously broken if their damage was upped too much.
About the MSC, i don't mind the hero aspect of it because it's specific to the protoss race, and has been since WOL with the mamaship. I don't mind. However neither the time warp nor the recall pose a real problem in the game. The overcharge does, and especially the fact that it can be and is professionnally used OFFENSIVELY. Terran build orders are practially dictated by their ability to counter this.
The overcharge should be a spell that transforms a pylon into a shield battery. A spell that HELPS units or static D defend a location, but not a spell that demolishes stuff on its own (3shots a banshee FFS). The ability to summon a static thor is fucking insane.
Coupled with a nerf of the adept's mobility (making the shade's cooldown much longer and uncancellable), a native DPS buff (giving it native glaives) but making them twilight required, it may be possible for the unit to be a quick response defensive unit that would compensate for the overcharge. This way the adept would finally be what it's supposed to be : a core fighting gateway unit, that can use the shade to travel long distances faster and therefore answer attacks much quicker, but which is much less abusive at harassing.
That is not the reason, warpgate is, every time gateway units get stronger warpgates and warp prisms make it broken.
It doesnt matter how much of protoss design you want to change (stronger gateway units, less deathballing, more mid game presence, less reliance con MsC) you cant because of warpgate alone.
|
On October 12 2016 21:14 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 19:41 JackONeill wrote:
Having multiple MSC would result in recall abuse. Being able to recall is already insanely strong.
About gateway strength, the MSC isn't the reason it can't be buffed, the immortal is. Immortal + sentries with some amount of stalkers or adepts completely shreks bio or roaches. The immortal is such a reliable, high DPS and unkillable unit with good range that you can't have too strong gateway units or the combinaison of the two would roll over every early/mid game comps.
Also, because every twilight upgrade gives insane mobility to gateway units, you can't have them too strong. Adepts go the other way around (native mobility => strength). You can't have units that are very mobile AND very strong in a frontal fight, that's just not the way balance works. Because of the blink mechanic, stalkers would be hilariously broken if their damage was upped too much.
About the MSC, i don't mind the hero aspect of it because it's specific to the protoss race, and has been since WOL with the mamaship. I don't mind. However neither the time warp nor the recall pose a real problem in the game. The overcharge does, and especially the fact that it can be and is professionnally used OFFENSIVELY. Terran build orders are practially dictated by their ability to counter this.
The overcharge should be a spell that transforms a pylon into a shield battery. A spell that HELPS units or static D defend a location, but not a spell that demolishes stuff on its own (3shots a banshee FFS). The ability to summon a static thor is fucking insane.
Coupled with a nerf of the adept's mobility (making the shade's cooldown much longer and uncancellable), a native DPS buff (giving it native glaives) but making them twilight required, it may be possible for the unit to be a quick response defensive unit that would compensate for the overcharge. This way the adept would finally be what it's supposed to be : a core fighting gateway unit, that can use the shade to travel long distances faster and therefore answer attacks much quicker, but which is much less abusive at harassing. That is not the reason, warpgate is, every time gateway units get stronger warpgates and warp prisms make it broken. It doesnt matter how much of protoss design you want to change (stronger gateway units, less deathballing, more mid game presence, less reliance con MsC) you cant because of warpgate alone.
The warp mechanic in itself is in a decent position, but the warp prism is an issue. If the warp prism was nerfed too (way less HP/gaz cost/no range pickup), gateway units could be buffed. Or more precisely, the frontal strength of adepts could be buffed.
But overall in LOTV protosses rely much more on gateway armies, which help them secure more bases and have better defensive capabilites with warpins. Overcharge was allowed to be less overwhelming than the nexus version balance-wise because of this.
If protoss was able to warpin a strong fighting unit that's not very good at harassing, the overcharge could be transformed into something better designed. This role needs to be fitted by the adept, especially since adept harass is an issue in LOTV since the begining because it's so abusive.
|
NIce post, but isn't #2, just coming back to HotS, but in a worst state, because pylons have much less durabiltiy than a nexus and 30 sec is damn long.
I mean : PvT, you overcharge, I snipe the pylon, you cry. PvP, I one base rush you, you cast OC, I wait 11 sec, I attack, you cry. PvZ I runby glings ion your natural, you over charge, I go in the main, you cry.
Last, about the energy, I'm not sure it's the energy that prevents the Moma core to get out on the map, it's more the time it takes to actually teleport back and the speed of the MSC that is even slower than your average protoss army, and that means something 
Anyway, the ability to make multiple mothership cores you are suggesting is already giving you the ability to get one core on the map and one (2? 3? more?)in your base, so this point is kinda redundant.
I think that before looking at solutions, we need to think more about the "problem" here : people saying OC allows the mothership core to defend everything by itself.
1- is it really true? haven't we managed to learn how to avoid overcharged pylons when dropping or rushing the protoss?
Take PvT for instance, the most trendy build is 1-1-1 (see Maru against classic in KeSPA cup). It shows 2 things :
- first if 1-1-1 are working so well, it must mean MSC is not that strong.
- then, if you look at the answer from Protoss, it is actually by delaying the MSC that protosses manage to stay alive, because an extra stalker is way better than a overcharge in this scenario
I recommend PiG's daily about the matter.
So to me, saying MSC's defence is too powerful is 80% whine. I don't think anybody would say that it's stronger that the mass queens defence or a bunker being repaired behind a full wall.
2- now, let's get back to the need that MSC is the answer to.
The need :
- What is it for? inbase defence to allows protoss to tech more freely and to take extra bases safely.
- Who is it for ? for protoss that want to tech up more agressively or get a better economy
- When is it needed? early game, against heavy rush : cyclones/tanks, 1 base gateway push, big zerglings all ins. Late game, to defend against runbyes and doom drops.
- What does it impact : the builds and economy of the protoss
- Why is there this need ? because if you macro well, you won't have a warp in available when a drop hits your base and canons are expensive and are slowing you economy by a great deal.
- What are the constraints ?
-it must be cheap and obtainable quickly enough to survive early game
-it must be limited in its use to not break balance (for instance making it srong offensively may break balance)
-it must be strong enough in case of doom drops or nyduses
- What would end that need :
- Make more warp ins available so you can get enough units to defend a doom drop or an early push : this would make no sense for balance reasons
- allow the protoss to make more canons : getting more static D is not that good plus it would break the canon rush balance
- or just make every protoss play ultra agressive early game (you don't need MSC with proxy adepts or canon rushes) but is it the meta we want to have?
What I did here is to quickly list the basic functions and requirements (main function, constraints function, ...) a system must have to answer the need. The mothership core we know fulfils this functions.
Now if for whatever reason, it was sure that MSC had other impact on the game than just answering the need and if this impact was 100% bad, we would need something else, but this something else would still have to have this functions covered.
And it is not the case of what you're proposing : you forget main functions (cheap defence both early game and late game) and add another one (offensive use, which is cute but not needed)
You're a good player and you're smart, this is why your post are a good read, but you're missing your target because you forget the requirements and think about new solutions before analysing the problem deeply enough.
For your next article take the time to ask : what is it for? who is it for? When? what/who does it impact? what are the constraints? what would end the need? before proposing a solution you'll improve greatly the quality of your work (which is already good, but still)
|
Multiple cores with cooldown of 30 seconds and 14 second ability duration would allow 2 cores to keep up overcharge permanently on a single pylon and position. Having ~3-4 cores later on would be standard for protosses and they could tp everywhere and put 3-4 pylons on overcharge at the same time or in chain. This is no good and would make protoss pretty much unattackable at any position on the map where there are enough pylons (with a nexus) with harrassments, drops and even larger non full-commitment attacks.
Also the MSC isn't a purely defensive unit and pylons + overcharge can be used for sieges quite nicely. What you want is basically getting rid of the risk/reward thing of the MSC. You want it to support your offence and then be able to tp back at anytime and create overcharges for free in multiple numbers (and that is how it is gonna be used).
No offense man but I really wonder how something unbalanced and op like that can come out of the mouth of a pro/semi-pro gamer at all. Supports my thesis of bias and not that much sense for what is good for the game again.
Other than that (the multiple core thing) the suggestions are good and should be considered.
And I make that in fat letter to emphasize that I like the other suggestions and don't want to put as much weight as lines written on the criticism above. Though they as well would have to be put into balance as it just comes down to spamming timewarps and teleports then, which isn't enough to make MSC energy valueable. But...
But as everything is going to be changed this has to be rethought at the end of the process of the current redesign/balancing. Maybe SC2 can entirely get rid of this unit. SC2 redesign should and can defenitely not be wrapped around a MSC redesign but the other way round and then it will be seen which niche it has to fill and if it is still needed at all. So yeah, lets consider this again when the redesign is close to be finished.
In general I support solutions that make the MSC obsolete (which are nerfs of the stuff that brought up the requirement for a MSC and PO in the first place).
|
On October 12 2016 21:32 Gwavajuice wrote:NIce post, but isn't #2, just coming back to HotS, but in a worst state, because pylons have much less durabiltiy than a nexus and 30 sec is damn long. I mean : PvT, you overcharge, I snipe the pylon, you cry. PvP, I one base rush you, you cast OC, I wait 11 sec, I attack, you cry. PvZ I runby glings ion your natural, you over charge, I go in the main, you cry. Last, about the energy, I'm not sure it's the energy that prevents the Moma core to get out on the map, it's more the time it takes to actually teleport back and the speed of the MSC that is even slower than your average protoss army, and that means something Anyway, the ability to make multiple mothership cores you are suggesting is already giving you the ability to get one core on the map and one (2? 3? more?)in your base, so this point is kinda redundant. I think that before looking at solutions, we need to think more about the "problem" here : people saying OC allows the mothership core to defend everything by itself. 1- is it really true? haven't we managed to learn how to avoid overcharged pylons when dropping or rushing the protoss?Take PvT for instance, the most trendy build is 1-1-1 (see Maru against classic in KeSPA cup). It shows 2 things : - first if 1-1-1 are working so well, it must mean MSC is not that strong. - then, if you look at the answer from Protoss, it is actually by delaying the MSC that protosses manage to stay alive, because an extra stalker is way better than a overcharge in this scenario I recommend PiG's daily about the matter. So to me, saying MSC's defence is too powerful is 80% whine. I don't think anybody would say that it's stronger that the mass queens defence or a bunker being repaired behind a full wall. 2- now, let's get back to the need that MSC is the answer to.The need : - What is it for? inbase defence to allows protoss to tech more freely and to take extra bases safely.
- Who is it for ? for protoss that want to tech up more agressively or get a better economy
- When is it needed? early game, against heavy rush : cyclones/tanks, 1 base gateway push, big zerglings all ins. Late game, to defend against runbyes and doom drops.
- What does it impact : the builds and economy of the protoss
- Why is there this need ? because if you macro well, you won't have a warp in available when a drop hits your base and canons are expensive and are slowing you economy by a great deal.
- What are the constraints ?
-it must be cheap and obtainable quickly enough to survive early game
-it must be limited in its use to not break balance (for instance making it srong offensively may break balance)
-it must be strong enough in case of doom drops or nyduses
- What would end that need :
- Make more warp ins available so you can get enough units to defend a doom drop or an early push : this would make no sense for balance reasons
- allow the protoss to make more canons : getting more static D is not that good plus it would break the canon rush balance
- or just make every protoss play ultra agressive early game (you don't need MSC with proxy adepts or canon rushes) but is it the meta we want to have?
What I did here is to quickly list the basic functions and requirements (main function, constraints function, ...) a system must have to answer the need. The mothership core we know fulfils this functions. Now if for whatever reason, it was sure that MSC had other impact on the game than just answering the need and if this impact was 100% bad, we would need something else, but this something else would still have to have this functions covered. And it is not the case of what you're proposing : you forget main functions (cheap defence both early game and late game) and add another one (offensive use, which is cute but not needed) You're a good player and you're smart, this is why your post are a good read, but you're missing your target because you forget the requirements and think about new solutions before analysing the problem deeply enough. For your next article take the time to ask : what is it for? who is it for? When? what/who does it impact? what are the constraints? what would end the need? before proposing a solution you'll improve greatly the quality of your work (which is already good, but still)
wow pretty good post, long time no see a good post
|
On October 12 2016 14:11 mGGrinehart wrote:
But still, complaints over "one click defense" and that the "Mothership Core can defend everything by itself" still remain.
I think the only way to end these complaints is to get rid of PO entirely and just buff gateway units defensively sufficiently that they can be the answer to early aggression.
This would have the effect of limiting the number of expansions you can effectively defend based off of your composition and army strength instead of energy on MSC (or available POs, if your changes went through).
|
In WOL there was an interesting interaction with the sentry as the prime defensive unit.
If you saw a push coming, and opponent was trying to attack you on 1-2 base - you had to make sentries for forcefields.
The problem : each sentry cost you 100 gas, gas you wanted on tech. So protoss were trying to get away with as few sentries as possible.
The opponent on the other hand could "force" you into making sentries / delaying your tech. Faking an attack was also possible.
It was a very clever dynamic in the early game for protoss.
In HOTS it became, Make a mothership core and youre safe from anything.
So my suggestion :
Sentries gain Pylon overcharge, they must channel it and cant cast other spells. Attackers might try to snipe the sentries to deal damage. Or the probes.
Players with 8 sentries would be safe, but their tech would be delayed severely.
New support air / ground unit with recall and timewarp recalls units to current position, or recalls to the nexus.
maybe even give the colossus a new role, it can teleport units away from itself sacrificing itself if the enemy is close.
remove MSC
|
All I know is the mothership core ensures 1 or 2 base timings are easily deflected in ZvP. That sucks.
|
Just out of curiosity, am I the only one that thinks pylon overcharge is stronger than nexus overcharge in most situations? I feel like pylons are doing a better job at defending small early harass which I guess is the reason for overcharge beeing in the game. Even when armies get bigger what was a nexus cannon really doing against a (semi)doom drop or a full frontal attack? Sure the pylons arent doing much there either, but they have more potential if well placed and/or the enemy makes a mistake ie dropping 4-6 Medivacs right where multiple pylons are with core around.
The nexus cannon I assume was better to delay certain strong timings due to its length and health behind the cannon. Idk hard to say just feels like good Protosses are taking less early/midgame damage these days compared to hots.
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
I think the addition of the campaign shield battery combined with photon cannons would be a better option for defenders advantage. No one ever discusses photon cannons 
|
The way it seems, mamacore is necessary for base defense, and with a long range that can cover key structures / mineral lines, because Protoss simply doesn't have units waiting at base to add to the army after each production cycle.
With Zerg and Terran, units that have just been produced are only a few steps away from the harass and can be redirected without taking too long to address the threat. Box them as they come out of the facility or grab them as they are running out of your natural and they can at least buy enough time to get your probes pulled, move army back, etc. Protoss warping directly to the front lines means that those units are a long sprint away from home when an oracle or liberator shows up, and there's no way to bring the forces back home. Warp-in is so quick that there's no possibility to cancel it and redirect it, either.
Consider if we only allowed warp-in mechanic to work near a Nexus/Warpgate at full speed, or under a warp prism (at a significantly reduced warp-in speed, maybe like regular pylons do today), instead of just warping in anywhere. Speed of warp-in set aside, this would mean a significant change in how Protoss deploys their forces. Units would start out near the Protoss bases at the start of each production cycle, with the added mobility of being warpable to any base. Additionally, with correct balancing of how slow warp-ins from warp prisms are and possibly modifications to its survivability, we could easily buff Protoss gateway units without fear that an immensely strong all-in would demolish the other two races simply because Protoss can front-load two production cycles and keep reinforcing quickly directly at the front line with low risk.
This increases Protoss survivability in general, at the cost of some hyper-aggressive capabilities. Additionally, it opens up the option to improve gateway units considerably, especially if warp-in at warp prism becomes a research tech on robo bay instead of simply coming for free outright - that locks it to mid to late game tech instead of being just another all-in.
From here, mothership core could go on to become an army support role instead of needing to be a doting mother of nexus and pylon, or even radically repurposed or removed (if desired) - it's no longer a linchpin of early Protoss gameplay.
Thoughts? Am I off-base with my thinking? I didn't want to give any numbers but just some examples of how I think the mothership core's role could be given elsewhere without creating yet another base defense unit.
|
|
|
nobody cares what a probe has to say
they care what a carrier has to say
good job getting korean GM tho
|
On October 12 2016 23:10 BisuDagger wrote:I think the addition of the campaign shield battery combined with photon cannons would be a better option for defenders advantage. No one ever discusses photon cannons
The problem with Photon Cannons is that they require a Forge. Other races can utilize static defenses (Bunkers and Spine Crawlers) much easier to hold of timings because they don't require a Evolution Chamber or Engineering Bay.
Eliminating the Forge requirement is a Cannon Rushers dream.
However, a superb solution, as you said, is a Shield Battery that is available when the Cybercore finishes and begins with zero energy, but can be charged by a nearby Nexus. Remember the ability in the HOTS beta that allowed the Nexus to fully charge the energy on a unit? Bring that back with a cast range about as large as a normal base, so it can't be used for proxied pushes.
The shield battery is such a slick solution because it acts like the Bunker does. The Bunker is just a big repairable shield that both protects immobilizes 4 units. If you don't actually have units to go inside it and deal damage, it is useless and you still die. The Shield Battery is the same, useless if you don't have combat units nearby.
Voila, defenders advantage restored.
On October 12 2016 23:14 minnek wrote:
The way it seems, mamacore is necessary for base defense, and with a long range that can cover key structures / mineral lines, because Protoss simply doesn't have units waiting at base to add to the army after each production cycle. ...
Thoughts? Am I off-base with my thinking? I didn't want to give any numbers but just some examples of how I think the mothership core's role could be given elsewhere without creating yet another base defense unit.
You're thinking is off base because your justification for the what the MSC and Pylon Overcharge is incorrect.
Protoss does not need the MSC or Photon Overcharge due to production cycles. Protoss needs it to respond to certain early pushes and harassment units. Protoss players did just fine in WOL without it, and removing it would allow for some of the other destructive choices that necessitated its creation to be fixed too, specifically certain harass styles that Blizzard said they might consider changing...
|
On October 13 2016 00:46 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:10 BisuDagger wrote:I think the addition of the campaign shield battery combined with photon cannons would be a better option for defenders advantage. No one ever discusses photon cannons The problem with Photon Cannons is that they require a Forge. Other races can utilize static defenses (Bunkers and Spine Crawlers) much easier to hold of timings because they don't require a Evolution Chamber or Engineering Bay. Eliminating the Forge requirement is a Cannon Rushers dream. However, a superb solution, as you said, is a Shield Battery that is available when the Cybercore finishes and begins with zero energy, but can be charged by a nearby Nexus. Remember the ability in the HOTS beta that allowed the Nexus to fully charge the energy on a unit? Bring that back with a cast range about as large as a normal base, so it can't be used for proxied pushes. The shield battery is such a slick solution because it acts like the Bunker does. The Bunker is just a big repairable shield that both protects immobilizes 4 units. If you don't actually have units to go inside it and deal damage, it is useless and you still die. The Shield Battery is the same, useless if you don't have combat units nearby. Voila, defenders advantage restored. Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:14 minnek wrote:
The way it seems, mamacore is necessary for base defense, and with a long range that can cover key structures / mineral lines, because Protoss simply doesn't have units waiting at base to add to the army after each production cycle. ...
Thoughts? Am I off-base with my thinking? I didn't want to give any numbers but just some examples of how I think the mothership core's role could be given elsewhere without creating yet another base defense unit. You're thinking is off base because your justification for the what the MSC and Pylon Overcharge is incorrect. Protoss does not need the MSC or Photon Overcharge due to production cycles. Protoss needs it to respond to certain early pushes and harassment units. Protoss players did just fine in WOL without it, and removing would allow for some of the other destructive choices that necessitated its creation to be fixed too, specifically certain harass styles that Blizzard said they might consider changing...
I never understood why blizzard didn't look at the shield battery. The problem was that protoss was vulnerable on defense.
Why in the world was a building that already exists, whose sole purpose is to increase defenders advantage while not affecting offense not considered.
Blows my mind, man
|
On October 12 2016 21:32 Gwavajuice wrote:NIce post, but isn't #2, just coming back to HotS, but in a worst state, because pylons have much less durabiltiy than a nexus and 30 sec is damn long. I mean : PvT, you overcharge, I snipe the pylon, you cry. PvP, I one base rush you, you cast OC, I wait 11 sec, I attack, you cry. PvZ I runby glings ion your natural, you over charge, I go in the main, you cry. Last, about the energy, I'm not sure it's the energy that prevents the Moma core to get out on the map, it's more the time it takes to actually teleport back and the speed of the MSC that is even slower than your average protoss army, and that means something Anyway, the ability to make multiple mothership cores you are suggesting is already giving you the ability to get one core on the map and one (2? 3? more?)in your base, so this point is kinda redundant. I think that before looking at solutions, we need to think more about the "problem" here : people saying OC allows the mothership core to defend everything by itself. 1- is it really true? haven't we managed to learn how to avoid overcharged pylons when dropping or rushing the protoss?Take PvT for instance, the most trendy build is 1-1-1 (see Maru against classic in KeSPA cup). It shows 2 things : - first if 1-1-1 are working so well, it must mean MSC is not that strong. - then, if you look at the answer from Protoss, it is actually by delaying the MSC that protosses manage to stay alive, because an extra stalker is way better than a overcharge in this scenario I recommend PiG's daily about the matter. So to me, saying MSC's defence is too powerful is 80% whine. I don't think anybody would say that it's stronger that the mass queens defence or a bunker being repaired behind a full wall. 2- now, let's get back to the need that MSC is the answer to.The need : - What is it for? inbase defence to allows protoss to tech more freely and to take extra bases safely.
- Who is it for ? for protoss that want to tech up more agressively or get a better economy
- When is it needed? early game, against heavy rush : cyclones/tanks, 1 base gateway push, big zerglings all ins. Late game, to defend against runbyes and doom drops.
- What does it impact : the builds and economy of the protoss
- Why is there this need ? because if you macro well, you won't have a warp in available when a drop hits your base and canons are expensive and are slowing you economy by a great deal.
- What are the constraints ?
-it must be cheap and obtainable quickly enough to survive early game
-it must be limited in its use to not break balance (for instance making it srong offensively may break balance)
-it must be strong enough in case of doom drops or nyduses
- What would end that need :
- Make more warp ins available so you can get enough units to defend a doom drop or an early push : this would make no sense for balance reasons
- allow the protoss to make more canons : getting more static D is not that good plus it would break the canon rush balance
- or just make every protoss play ultra agressive early game (you don't need MSC with proxy adepts or canon rushes) but is it the meta we want to have?
What I did here is to quickly list the basic functions and requirements (main function, constraints function, ...) a system must have to answer the need. The mothership core we know fulfils this functions. Now if for whatever reason, it was sure that MSC had other impact on the game than just answering the need and if this impact was 100% bad, we would need something else, but this something else would still have to have this functions covered. And it is not the case of what you're proposing : you forget main functions (cheap defence both early game and late game) and add another one (offensive use, which is cute but not needed) You're a good player and you're smart, this is why your post are a good read, but you're missing your target because you forget the requirements and think about new solutions before analysing the problem deeply enough. For your next article take the time to ask : what is it for? who is it for? When? what/who does it impact? what are the constraints? what would end the need? before proposing a solution you'll improve greatly the quality of your work (which is already good, but still)
Real quality post. This should be done for all analytical articles, like ... all, ever, for ever ever!
|
On October 13 2016 01:49 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 00:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 12 2016 23:10 BisuDagger wrote:I think the addition of the campaign shield battery combined with photon cannons would be a better option for defenders advantage. No one ever discusses photon cannons The problem with Photon Cannons is that they require a Forge. Other races can utilize static defenses (Bunkers and Spine Crawlers) much easier to hold of timings because they don't require a Evolution Chamber or Engineering Bay. Eliminating the Forge requirement is a Cannon Rushers dream. However, a superb solution, as you said, is a Shield Battery that is available when the Cybercore finishes and begins with zero energy, but can be charged by a nearby Nexus. Remember the ability in the HOTS beta that allowed the Nexus to fully charge the energy on a unit? Bring that back with a cast range about as large as a normal base, so it can't be used for proxied pushes. The shield battery is such a slick solution because it acts like the Bunker does. The Bunker is just a big repairable shield that both protects immobilizes 4 units. If you don't actually have units to go inside it and deal damage, it is useless and you still die. The Shield Battery is the same, useless if you don't have combat units nearby. Voila, defenders advantage restored. On October 12 2016 23:14 minnek wrote:
The way it seems, mamacore is necessary for base defense, and with a long range that can cover key structures / mineral lines, because Protoss simply doesn't have units waiting at base to add to the army after each production cycle. ...
Thoughts? Am I off-base with my thinking? I didn't want to give any numbers but just some examples of how I think the mothership core's role could be given elsewhere without creating yet another base defense unit. You're thinking is off base because your justification for the what the MSC and Pylon Overcharge is incorrect. Protoss does not need the MSC or Photon Overcharge due to production cycles. Protoss needs it to respond to certain early pushes and harassment units. Protoss players did just fine in WOL without it, and removing would allow for some of the other destructive choices that necessitated its creation to be fixed too, specifically certain harass styles that Blizzard said they might consider changing... I never understood why blizzard didn't look at the shield battery. The problem was that protoss was vulnerable on defense. Why in the world was a building that already exists, whose sole purpose is to increase defenders advantage while not affecting offense not considered. Blows my mind, man
My guess is with Warpgates, Blizzard might have correctly foreseen that it could be used offensively. Actually, I strongly doubt they considered that because their lines of thinking are ridiculously simple.
Nonetheless, it requires a solution like I mentioned to be implemented properly.
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
On October 13 2016 00:46 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:10 BisuDagger wrote:I think the addition of the campaign shield battery combined with photon cannons would be a better option for defenders advantage. No one ever discusses photon cannons The problem with Photon Cannons is that they require a Forge. Other races can utilize static defenses (Bunkers and Spine Crawlers) much easier to hold of timings because they don't require a Evolution Chamber or Engineering Bay. Eliminating the Forge requirement is a Cannon Rushers dream. However, a superb solution, as you said, is a Shield Battery that is available when the Cybercore finishes and begins with zero energy, but can be charged by a nearby Nexus. Remember the ability in the HOTS beta that allowed the Nexus to fully charge the energy on a unit? Bring that back with a cast range about as large as a normal base, so it can't be used for proxied pushes. The shield battery is such a slick solution because it acts like the Bunker does. The Bunker is just a big repairable shield that both protects immobilizes 4 units. If you don't actually have units to go inside it and deal damage, it is useless and you still die. The Shield Battery is the same, useless if you don't have combat units nearby. Voila, defenders advantage restored. Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:14 minnek wrote:
The way it seems, mamacore is necessary for base defense, and with a long range that can cover key structures / mineral lines, because Protoss simply doesn't have units waiting at base to add to the army after each production cycle. ...
Thoughts? Am I off-base with my thinking? I didn't want to give any numbers but just some examples of how I think the mothership core's role could be given elsewhere without creating yet another base defense unit. You're thinking is off base because your justification for the what the MSC and Pylon Overcharge is incorrect. Protoss does not need the MSC or Photon Overcharge due to production cycles. Protoss needs it to respond to certain early pushes and harassment units. Protoss players did just fine in WOL without it, and removing it would allow for some of the other destructive choices that necessitated its creation to be fixed too, specifically certain harass styles that Blizzard said they might consider changing...
Forge-Expand has been a standard for PvZ in Brood War for the past decade. There is nothing wrong with opening forge and it led to really strong +1 atk timings. I would be completely okay if SC2 Protoss required a faster forge in matchups. The strength of the shieldbattery from the LoTV campaign and its auto shield recharge is quite strong. It's weakness comes from poking type damage (mutas) that would wear down its energy and then mutas can go after cannons. I think defenders advantage would be quite a sight if cannon/battery replaced MSC.
|
I don't really see a problem with the MSC. Photon overcharge is a very skillbased ability and relies on positioning (do I keep the MSC at the third? in the main? at the natural? do I only overcharge 2 pylons and save the rest of the energy or do I overcharge all 4 pylons?) pylon positioning is also very important now.
recall allows protoss to play aggressive because their units can't retreat as easily. timewarp is quite unnecessary but not a huge problem.
|
^ " Photon overcharge is a very skillbased ability and relies on positioning"
I heavily disagree with this...it's more like an instant, "Whoops got caught out need some defense on demand!".
To be fair though, the MSC is absolutely necessary for Protoss to remain strong, everyone knows how pathetic early game Protoss defense has always been since WoL pretty much (why FFE was the go to build for a long long time)
Changing this unit will necessitate several changes to the way early game Gateway mechanics/units themselves work and I don't know enough about Protoss to comment with an actual "suggestion" but I think removing it all together and buffing the Stalker/Sentry so that smaller groups of Gateway units can hold off aggression a bit better would be key.
|
On October 12 2016 18:04 NutriaKaiN wrote:
"Photon overcharge: While photon overcharging pylons has definitely been better than nexus overcharge (due to the ability to snipe the pylon/have less photon overcharge), it is still extremely strong. For the cost of a 100/100 flyer that you can build extremely early into the game, you can completely lock down definitely 1 base, and given enough notice, cover 2 or even 3 bases."
Not sure in what a world you live.
Haha he's not completely off tho to be honest
|
On October 13 2016 02:45 Charoisaur wrote:Photon overcharge is a very skillbased ability
Okay, that has to be the most hilarious thing i've ever read on a starcraft forum.
|
We've had some great discussion so far centered around either just removing the unit all together and multiple msc. I'll briefly just address my thoughts about the two.
Firstly, the general consensus is to just remove the entire unit! I could get behind that change as well. However, we have been calling for that for years and there has been no change, and not even much acknowledgement. I want to provide some suggestions that just tweak the existing spells. I believe they are easier to adjust.
I also did have an idea for removing photon overcharge and giving the Mothership Core a shield restoring ability (similiar to the sentry one in the campaign), but I just simplified to what I have here.
About multiple Mothership Cores, I do agree that it is a bit more out there, but without testing and suggesting things we get nowhere. I also think it wouldn't be as bad as people think. If you want the same amount of pylon overcharge as now you would need to commit a lot more resources. If you want to "abuse" recall, you NEED TO SPLIT UP YOUR UNITS! You could have 3 mothership Cores with your army but you can't actually use recall anymore than currently unless you split up the deathball. I think this is something to at least consider and test.
What are people's opinion about the Time warp change? I can't don't I read anything about what people thought of that. I think would be really good. Time warp is essentially never used anymore, but we don't want to change it back to the incredibly strong hots version.
How do you test these changes? I will hopefully have an extension mod finished in a few hours for people to test it out on.
Thanks to anyone who has given me feedback for the article as well. I am not the best writer, and struggle to write down exactly what I am thinking ^_^.
|
On October 13 2016 04:39 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:45 Charoisaur wrote:Photon overcharge is a very skillbased ability Okay, that has to be the most hilarious thing i've ever read on a starcraft forum.
Forgot repair
|
The problem with multiple MSC can be easily "limited" by introducing 1 MSC per Nexus mechanics.
On gateway army strength: why don't give us a choice: going warp gate? -> weaker GW army, doing production with warpgate research done, but classically via queuing -> stronger / cheaper / [any better ideas] GW army
|
Ever since the warpgate debate started, I've always wondered why Blizzard never tried increasing production time for units made out of a warpgate (let's say, 5 to 10 seconds longer recharge time than simply building them out of a gateway). Protoss would then have to transform their gates once they knew they were pushing/dropping with prism/need warpins at distant expansions, and so forth.
|
Interesting point of view.
I guess your idea would have to be completed by a huge recall nerf (eg 200 energy cost) in order to disable excessive use of it.
|
thanks for taking the time to do this write up.. its a nice job.
i don't like the multiple mothership cores suggestion.
On October 12 2016 21:25 JackONeill wrote:
The warp mechanic in itself is in a decent position, but the warp prism is an issue. If the warp prism was nerfed too (way less HP/gaz cost/no range pickup), gateway units could be buffed. Or more precisely, the frontal strength of adepts could be buffed.
But overall in LOTV protosses rely much more on gateway armies, which help them secure more bases and have better defensive capabilites with warpins. Overcharge was allowed to be less overwhelming than the nexus version balance-wise because of this.
If protoss was able to warpin a strong fighting unit that's not very good at harassing, the overcharge could be transformed into something better designed. This role needs to be fitted by the adept, especially since adept harass is an issue in LOTV since the begining because it's so abusive.
i agree.
On October 24 2016 04:01 MF_Icy wrote:
Ever since the warpgate debate started, I've always wondered why Blizzard never tried increasing production time for units made out of a warpgate (let's say, 5 to 10 seconds longer recharge time than simply building them out of a gateway). Protoss would then have to transform their gates once they knew they were pushing/dropping with prism/need warpins at distant expansions, and so forth.
i think it does take longer if you're warping in from a lone pylon versus warping in a unit in close proximity to the Warpgate.
On October 13 2016 00:39 Bill Murray wrote:
nobody cares what a probe has to say
they care what a carrier has to say
good job getting korean GM tho
when is Meatballs 3 coming out?
|
I think adding a little channel on PO would make it less frustrating to play against for things like oracles, reapers or liberators. I liked the idea of transfering the PO ability to sentries but the you could end up with walls of pylons with tons of sentries and I'm not sure it's good. The thing that really push me toward the MSC suppression is the fact that the entire defence is centered around MSC making its loss very punishing and really discourages any kind of recall shenanigans.
This is a though probleme to solve.
|
I think it's fine that Protoss has one hero-like unit. It is just another thing that makes the race unique compared to the others.
|
"Gateway units are bad" is as old as SC2, obviously.
What fixes have been proposed this whole time?
What if? Stalkers shot on-the-run, as in no pausing required
before firing?
|
The idea sounds like it's in the right direction, but here's my idea:
Make the number of MSCs you could have built on the field tied to the number of nexuses you have in total.
Keep the 30 second cool down with no energy cost like your proposing.
Change time warp to fit your new idea.
Remove recall from the MSC.
Possibly make MSCs cost 75/75 since you will need more of them now. 50/50 is too cheap and makes losing the MSC feel like nothing. 100/100 would become too much now that it's a much weaker unit.
Then, add the Arbiter to the protoss arsenal. A couple of changes to how the Arbiter would work:
The arbiter no longer passively gives off cloak. Instead, cloak is a spell that is cast onto units. This cloak would last ~30 seconds.
The Arbiter would continue to be a T3 unit.
The Arbiter would no longer have its stasis ability since it would overlap with the Oracle's new ability.
The Arbiter would still be able to recall units to its position. This allows for protoss to have that mobility they so desperately need at the end of the game while making it easier to punish protoss players in the early and mid game.
Arbiters are still unlocked at the Arbiter Tribunal and is built from the stargate.
Cost would be 4 supply and ~250/200
Mothership is removed from the game. No longer needed as it overlaps so much with the Arbiter. MSC's "hero unit" feeling is removed as it is less of a deciding factor and can have more than 1 on the field at a time.
|
On October 29 2016 08:07 StasisField wrote:
The idea sounds like it's in the right direction, but here's my idea:
Make the number of MSCs you could have built on the field tied to the number of nexuses you have in total.
Keep the 30 second cool down with no energy cost like your proposing.
Change time warp to fit your new idea.
Remove recall from the MSC.
Possibly make MSCs cost 75/75 since you will need more of them now. 50/50 is too cheap and makes losing the MSC feel like nothing. 100/100 would become too much now that it's a much weaker unit.
Then, add the Arbiter to the protoss arsenal. A couple of changes to how the Arbiter would work:
The arbiter no longer passively gives off cloak. Instead, cloak is a spell that is cast onto units. This cloak would last ~30 seconds.
The Arbiter would continue to be a T3 unit.
The Arbiter would no longer have its stasis ability since it would overlap with the Oracle's new ability.
The Arbiter would still be able to recall units to its position. This allows for protoss to have that mobility they so desperately need at the end of the game while making it easier to punish protoss players in the early and mid game.
Arbiters are still unlocked at the Arbiter Tribunal and is built from the stargate.
Cost would be 4 supply and ~250/200
Mothership is removed from the game. No longer needed as it overlaps so much with the Arbiter. MSC's "hero unit" feeling is removed as it is less of a deciding factor and can have more than 1 on the field at a time.
consider that in BW the arbiter cost 100/350 
And in that vein, I would love to have the Protoss be more gas intensive as an incentive/necessity to take more bases to finance your army and promote more spread out gameplay.
I am a stubborn player and I rarely build the MSC, but I can get behind it being completely redesigned, maybe requiring templar archives and being shifted to represent the role of what the arbiter used to do with recall and stasis (removing that from the oracle). Early game defense would be warranted by photon cannons and shield battery and by shortening by a second or two the production from a regular gateway
|
On October 29 2016 09:47 halomonian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 08:07 StasisField wrote:
The idea sounds like it's in the right direction, but here's my idea:
Make the number of MSCs you could have built on the field tied to the number of nexuses you have in total.
Keep the 30 second cool down with no energy cost like your proposing.
Change time warp to fit your new idea.
Remove recall from the MSC.
Possibly make MSCs cost 75/75 since you will need more of them now. 50/50 is too cheap and makes losing the MSC feel like nothing. 100/100 would become too much now that it's a much weaker unit.
Then, add the Arbiter to the protoss arsenal. A couple of changes to how the Arbiter would work:
The arbiter no longer passively gives off cloak. Instead, cloak is a spell that is cast onto units. This cloak would last ~30 seconds.
The Arbiter would continue to be a T3 unit.
The Arbiter would no longer have its stasis ability since it would overlap with the Oracle's new ability.
The Arbiter would still be able to recall units to its position. This allows for protoss to have that mobility they so desperately need at the end of the game while making it easier to punish protoss players in the early and mid game.
Arbiters are still unlocked at the Arbiter Tribunal and is built from the stargate.
Cost would be 4 supply and ~250/200
Mothership is removed from the game. No longer needed as it overlaps so much with the Arbiter. MSC's "hero unit" feeling is removed as it is less of a deciding factor and can have more than 1 on the field at a time. consider that in BW the arbiter cost 100/350 And in that vein, I would love to have the Protoss be more gas intensive as an incentive/necessity to take more bases to finance your army and promote more spread out gameplay. I am a stubborn player and I rarely build the MSC, but I can get behind it being completely redesigned, maybe requiring templar archives and being shifted to represent the role of what the arbiter used to do with recall and stasis (removing that from the oracle). Early game defense would be warranted by photon cannons and shield battery and by shortening by a second or two the production from a regular gateway
Ah, I got the minerals/gas values backwards then haha! I was modifying the 350 to 250 as if it was minerals, not the other way around Making the MSC the new Arbiter is an idea I've thought about. The only problem is protoss's early game defense and whether or not the shield battery would actually be enough to help fend off early pressure from your opponent. The MSC and photon overcharge was introduced because of how awful PvP early game was. If somebody had a custom map with the shield battery in it, that'd be great because then I could possibly disprove my fears, but I could see the shield battery being used for aggression in PvP, possibly making the match up a 1 base vs 1 base game again with the MSC being out of the picture. As awful as the MSC feels, it is necessary for defense and very crucial for PvP to make it past the early game regularly. That's why I suggest toning down the power of the MSC to where it can basically only be used as a light defensive and offensive support
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
