|
On April 12 2017 03:06 icesergio wrote:
+ outdamage an Immortal when stimmed
(2 Marauders 20dps vs 13.79dps - non-armored) or
(2 Marauders 40dps vs 34.48dps - armored)
+ can slow target's movement speed
Your DPS numbers aren't from LotV. And while 2 marauders have more DPS than 1 immortal, the pure baseline DPS isn't everything. 2 marauders aren't worth as much as an immortal against ultraslisks. 2 marauders couldn't kill an immortal.
|
On April 12 2017 02:58 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 02:24 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I am not saying that there aren't other things which can be frustrating. But with protoss it's all about that pretty much.
Your examples are also more about awareness, i am talking about actual typical unit interactions.
It doesn't matter if you watch it or not, when lots of adepts shade on your army or threaten one mineral line just to cancel it you simply have a problem which seems unfair.
Same with forcefields back in the day.
Also i have to stress this, it's a lot about aesthetics as well. A well microed mmm army simply looks good. It might be more unbalanced than anything ever but the big colossi deathball is still unpleasing to look at when it interacts with other units. It's a big part of enjoyment I agree that I would really love seing more blink stalkers + distruptors micro in all matchups. But this is the downside of a whole Starcraft 2 design compared to BW unit control restrictions. Goody was not enjoyable to watch with his turtle mech style. Slivko was not enjoyable to watch with his broodfestor deathball style. This whole aesthetic subject needs much deeper analysis than making only heavy micro skill demanding compositions viable. For example Hero phoenix map contol was unbelievably enjoyable to watch and it was heavy micro demanding. Not everything should be about direct fight micro interactions design in RT S.
Oh yeah the aesthetics part isn't talked about enough imo. It's not even about how much micro it actually takes tbh. Like protoss unit need oftentimes a fair bit of micro, adept harassment is multitasking focused at the highest lvl as well i think.
But if something simply looks/feels bad then the actual balance numbers don't mean anything. How the units interact with each other and if it looks/feels pleasing is really important
|
I don't play the game anymore I just watch as much as I can so I cannot speak to balance in anyway. What I will say is that for me, Adepts are horrible to watch. It takes virtually no skill to threaten two places at once and it looks so painful watching people attempt to defend both.
|
|
|
On April 12 2017 02:48 icesergio wrote:The hypocrisy of the people contributing to this thread, in primis the OP himself is absolutely mind baffling. I'm going to quote The Joker and say "Terran wins a major and nobody bats an eye, Protoss wins a major tournament and everybody loses their minds" Trying to win an arguement as a Protoss player, like MCanning said, is near impossible, trying to talk sense to you is also impossibile, because understanding that every race has their gimmicks and accepting that is just too much for your ant dimensioned brains, so here I propose another arguement: Win rates are MOSTLY balanced, and when I say MOSTLY I don't mean Protoss favoured, I mean Terran or Zerg favoured. http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&l=-2Feast upon your eyes! I love how you try to mask your whining with phrases like "It's boring to watch" or "It is a bad design gameplay wise" It's a good thing we have all you Real Time Strategy gurus, seriously, I wouldn't know what to do without you! /s Every race has a frustrating gimmicky unit that serves no purpose other than to keep win rates in the 50-50 zone, Terran has Stimmed Marauders that FYI deal more DPS than Immortals when stimmed vs Armored targets (which makes complete sense doesn't it?) Widow mine drops are probably the most frustrating thing to deal with as Protoss, the fact that Immortals completely melt against the new siege tank... Ravagers that can kite almost every Protoss ground unit even off creep and have no PROPER counter due to the lack of either a light or armored tag. (Archons, thanks to the +bio damage) are the ONLY unit that Protoss has that deals additional damage directly, but thanks to their 3 range they can be kited by Ravagers all day. Forget catching Ravagers without Disruptors and/or Chargelots. So just SUCK it up, accept that Protoss is part of the game and as such can also WIN tournaments and, just like any of you would say to one of us the moment we even tried to propose a nerf to one of your much loved units "Git Gud"
I agree with a lot of your points but the level of immature, myopic, self-righteous hypocrisy in this post is sickening. Not to mention ironic since you point out the OP's hypocrisy without realizimg you are guilty of the exact same.
Yes Protoss gets a lot of unreasonable hate but if all of us acted like you then that hate would be very well-deserved.
I agree with the others who have said that this thread has degenerated into a pointless balance whine and recommend it be closed, since there is already a thread for that.
|
Win rates are MOSTLY balanced, and when I say MOSTLY I don't mean Protoss favoured, I mean Terran or Zerg favoured.
That isn't a graph of winrates, it's a graph of player population by race.
|
I think that Adept is simply a badly designed unit. It is not fun to play as, against or watch. When it was introduced DK said that if it will not turn out to be fun, they will not hesitate to remove/replace it, and since they are not fun, they should do just that.
It replaced Zealot, which is supposed to be Protoss' iconic unit, too much; i.e I think there was not a single one made in the Super Tournament finals.
|
I really don't think it's that hard.
The adept originally couldn't cancel their shade. This was deemed too weak.
Right now, they're deemed too strong. The blindingly obvious solution would be to revert the change that made them too strong, yes?
|
On April 12 2017 09:51 InfCereal wrote:
I really don't think it's that hard.
The adept originally couldn't cancel their shade. This was deemed too weak.
Right now, they're deemed too strong. The blindingly obvious solution would be to revert the change that made them too strong, yes?
Right now they're deemed slightly too strong, but they have gotten multiple changes since the Shade cancel was added, and other units in the game have gotten changes as well, so you cannot conclude that there is a "blindingly obvious solution". And, if a past change is deemed to have been incorrect, then it would not necessarily mean that reverting the change is the correct solution either and that there is actually a better solution.
X was weak. Y was strong. However, there aren't just two letters in the alphabet.
|
For me, problems with the adept come down to:
- The unit is super easy to control, but offers no room for sick micro tricks
- Shade breaks fundemental rules in RTS, free vision, no risk, low skill floor, insanely hard to properly defend.
- The unit deals high damage, but also high on health
- The unit is so cheap and effective that it is also the default army unit
- Comes early in the game, and hardcounters most early units and 2 shots workers
There's tons of stuff that can be changed. The problem is that the gateway units of Protoss are so weak (thanks, Warpgate) and that Protoss needs to be compensated for Adept nerfs bigtime.
My prefered solution would be to put Warpgate at Fleet Beacon tech and rebalance the entire race, but that's probably not gonna happen.
I would probably look into making both Zealots and Stalkers become significantly stronger early on, and giving penalties to units produced with the Warpgate mechanic. For example, no shields, or 'warp sickness' which makes their attack speed 20% lower for 1 minute, or whatever.
The whole crux of why Protoss is impossibly hard to balance is that Warpgate is a non-decision, extremely powerful, rule breaking mechanic. The entire race suffers for it.
|
Warpgate is *not* a rule-breaking mechanic, because there are no rules set in stone about how to play a game.. warpgate is the main flavor of the protoss race in Starcraft 2.
I understand you may not like it, but it's the main characteristic of an entire race out of three, so maybe it's just a feature of SC2 that you don't like, not a "fundamental flaw of RTS rules" (whatever these are).
If I would dislike the way Zerg produce units from larvae and hatcheries, I don't call it breaking the RTS rules, I simply don't play Zerg. And if this ruins my SC2 experience, I don't play SC2.
Not all races are terran, and terran are *not* what "defines" the RTS rules...
|
It breaks defenders advantage, just like Shade, a fundamental assumption that this entire game relies upon. The fact that you try to devalue my post by saying dumb stuff like "not all races are terran", and not understanding that 'rules of RTS' is in fact a thing, is pretty dumb and kinda funny.
You can defend warpgate all you want, but honestly, most people here will agree that most issues with Protoss stem from the Warpgate mechanic being so one-dimensional, so powerful, and available at T1.
I play Random just FYI.
|
Maybe it's dumb (not sure why funny  ) but I still have not read a set of "RTS rules" to take as a reference for these discussions. Usually this argument is called when something is not liked by someone very vocal, in order to justify some changes / nerfs. I don't care at all about these "rules" (especially since nobody knows them apparently), if I like the game it can break all the invented rules you want, it will still be worth playing 
|
Haven't played since WoL, haven't watched consistently since HotS. I watched a few games of LotV from GSL and Blizzcon, and it's just ghastly.
Look, I really couldn't care less about win rates. If Protoss had a 90% win rate, but the games were super exciting, then by all means, I would still watch. But there's no point in watching because gimmicky crap like adepts and liberators is just lifeless.
There's some gimmicky crap in BW like nukes, infested terrans, and dark archons, but they're used so infrequently that it's actually remarkable whenever they are used. The same was basically true of WoL, I mean yeah there was nukes, motherships and neural parasite but just like BW, they were so infrequently used that it was actually remarkable. But adepts are used in almost every PvX game, it's really not interesting anymore.
|
adept made me sick ( im not even joking) i went to the doctor and i have hepatic damage because im so angry and mad every single day because of bullshit dealing with adepts and carriers. So yeah protoss literally make me sick. now im taking a treatment. Thanks.
|
The reason warpgate is disliked is because it essentially gives protoss gateway units a 1-time "teleport to a powered location" ability. RTS games I've played are essentially balanced around when things can show up (at a battle or at your doorstep to disrupt your base). Warpgate drastically affects that tension.
|
On April 12 2017 20:29 VHbb wrote:Maybe it's dumb (not sure why funny ) but I still have not read a set of "RTS rules" to take as a reference for these discussions. Usually this argument is called when something is not liked by someone very vocal, in order to justify some changes / nerfs. I don't care at all about these "rules" (especially since nobody knows them apparently), if I like the game it can break all the invented rules you want, it will still be worth playing
The basic thing imo is that a strategy game should value decisions. You only have to decide if there are options. You evaluate options by weighing advantages and disadvantages.
If you put it like that, one thing which certainly breaks a strategy game is if there is no place for decision making. For me, all the fun in this game comes from making decisions which pay off by giving an advantage. Everything else is just mechanical once the meta has settled.
In the case of Adepts, they are so badly balanced vis a vis the rest of the Protoss Gateway units that there is nearly no decision making. If you want to scout early, you want Adepts. If you want to hold aggression early, you want Adepts. If you want to harass, you want Adepts. If you want to engage a sieged position, you want Adepts.
I really hope everybody will agree that this pattern is just bad for the game. If SCII is to be an RTS game then units need to have clearly defined strengths and weaknesses which force decision making.
Adepts barely have any weaknesses. So you basically always build them. No wonder that the meta is getting stale and we only see Adepts + X.
+ Show Spoiler +To be fair, the same thing is true for MMMM when compared to Mech and Liberators in general. But that's another discussion.
|
It's sort of sad that after all these years we still have to have these conversations because Blizzard is too reluctant to admit their design failures
|
Are adepts really another "let's wait and see" balance issue?
It seems that adepts have been a problem since the very launch of the game. I remember LOTV had thousands of viewers upon launch, but then after 1-2 months of every single game being mass adepts a lot of people became disinterested.
Adepts have sprung back up because every Protoss realizes you can take 3 nexus vs Terran and do a huge gateway explosion and use this unit that is overtuned in every way.
The other thing is, it's not really even Protoss "figuring it out" so much as widow mines being nerfed literally opened the doorway for the mass adept non-sense to come back.
|
On April 12 2017 20:29 VHbb wrote:Maybe it's dumb (not sure why funny ) but I still have not read a set of "RTS rules" to take as a reference for these discussions. Usually this argument is called when something is not liked by someone very vocal, in order to justify some changes / nerfs. I don't care at all about these "rules" (especially since nobody knows them apparently), if I like the game it can break all the invented rules you want, it will still be worth playing
He gave you "one rule" : defenders advantage
Units appear where the production is built and thus (usually) have to move to the battle on the other side of the map which gives the opponent
1. defenders advantage since his production is closer to the battle than yours
2. defenders advantage because he can scout for reinforcements and maybe interfere
Warpgate is a problem in that regard, as is the current nydus worm as well
Also warpgates themselves allow for such strong timings because as soon as the production facility is built you can instantly get value out of it without waiting for one cycle.
I mean this was said over and over again in the past years but warpgates are a bad game mechanic, at least as a core production mechanic. It might work as a lategame upgrade of some sorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
