| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
But still I am almost done with everything in the patch. Only a few large issues left to fix. I do not want to put out dates left and right, since I just end up breaking them. But I think it is realistic to have the big patch released at the start of next week, maybe monday or tuesday. I will try and aim for that since I am very eager to play the patch! | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
Problem (?): Stalkers are too versatile. Discussed solution: Give Zealots +20 hp and Stalkers -20 hp. This may cause unintentional consequences for PvZ, making it even harder for zerg to defend. I know it has been suggested to make zerg production ramp up, but that might lead to other unintended consequences and so on. This may work, but I won't discuss it further here but rather propose a different solution. My solution (which is pretty much OG's solution...): Divide the current stalker into the immortal and a new stalker. Both units can be made from gateway. This immortal will be different from the SC2 one. It will be a though unit, but low range and no hardened shield. It will also probably have to be weaker than the SC2 immortal. It should feel like a "dragoon" with low range that cannot shoot air, maybe a bit tougher than a dragoon since it is not so versatile. The new stalker will have the long range, but be very weak compared to the current one (hp-wise) and be more of an harasser / support for immortal. This can now have 10 sec cooldown on blink since it is not so strong. They will then have their individual defined roles. Immortal: The all-around preferred unit, but short range and cannot shoot air. Stalker, the more specialized for blink harass and longer range. SO no one misunderstands: I am not suggesting to bring the current SC2 immortal to gateway. That would be way too strong. This one has no super bonus vs armored (maybe a little) and no hardened shields. It's rather a slightly stronger "dragoon" with shorter range that cannot shoot air. This will also bring more core units to protoss which only have the zealot and the stalker to "play" with atm. Thoughts? | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
In the coming patch, there will be a slight balance change with the Stalker and Zealot. Details will come in the patch notes. In the past, I have tried to have both the Stalker and Immortal in the game. I have tried to differentiate them from each other in various ways. But it has never felt quite perfect.. -The Stalker is a fun unit to control, due to the high mobility, blink, good range etc. -The Immortal has always felt kinda.. lame.. It is slow, tough, just A-move and it gets the job done.. Of course the same is true for the Archon to some degree, since it is also slow, tough etc, but it has some other exciting features: - It comes into play in a unique and fun way. - The Archons efficency depends to some degree on its position, for example keep it at the front, block the ramp with it etc. - Archon vs Mutalisks is a fun and interesting relationship. - Archons vs Hydralisks is also a fun unit relationship Immortals in a clump is always good. No matter how they are positioned, no matter how they are microed, no matter what players do with them.. (or against them!) Even if the Stalker and Immortal becomes different from each other in terms of stats, I still have never managed to cure the Immortal from boredom. In the coming patch I do not aim to include them. Unless someone drops a brilliant idea how they would fit into the game and create more interesting dynamics. Or maybe the OG has a great solution already? | ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
I don't think we should competly rework how mus are played. Stalker is nice unit to play and watch. All we need to do is just tune it down slightly. | ||
|
Izerman
Sweden99 Posts
Original Gangster as in "crips for life" ?? | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
| ||
|
Izerman
Sweden99 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:39 Kabel wrote: @Stalker In the coming patch, there will be a slight balance change with the Stalker and Zealot. Details will come in the patch notes. In the past, I have tried to have both the Stalker and Immortal in the game. I have tried to differentiate them from each other in various ways. But it has never felt quite perfect.. -The Stalker is a fun unit to control, due to the high mobility, blink, good range etc. -The Immortal has always felt kinda.. lame.. It is slow, tough, just A-move and it gets the job done.. Of course the same is true for the Archon to some degree, since it is also slow, tough etc, but it has some other exciting features: - It comes into play in a unique and fun way. - The Archons efficency depends to some degree on its position, for example keep it at the front, block the ramp with it etc. - Archon vs Mutalisks is a fun and interesting relationship. - Archons vs Hydralisks is also a fun unit relationship Immortals in a clump is always good. No matter how they are positioned, no matter how they are microed, no matter what players do with them.. (or against them!) Even if the Stalker and Immortal becomes different from each other in terms of stats, I still have never managed to cure the Immortal from boredom. In the coming patch I do not aim to include them. Unless someone drops a brilliant idea how they would fit into the game and create more interesting dynamics. Or maybe the OG has a great solution already? Easy (just kidding, it's just some random thought  ). But I think the Nullifier is a fun unit and to stay at this time, but probably could still use some more depth.So there could be an opening for a spell like this one: Power of the Khala (75-100energy, range 7-9) Channels the Khala's powers on a stalker multiplying its powers for 20seconds and turning it into an immortal. possible stats for the Immortal: Health: 160 Shields: 80 Damage: 25 (+10 vs armored) range: 4/6 (stalker upgrade) movement speed: 1.00 only attacks ground units hardened shields possible little micro dynamics (depending on what you want to balance it around):
Why this may work:
| ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
One: We gave it 7 range with an upgrade so you can do kite and harassment before blink. This I think is important, not 7 range so much as relative range. Starbow has done a lot to reduce the range inflation in the game (good job with that guys, it is a problem.) This means that they can pressure bunkers, force tanks, ect. Two: We reduced their HP by 20 in comparison to the HotS/WoL Stalker. This means a total reduction of 40 HP for Starbow (I think.) 80/60. This means for them to be cost effective, you HAVE to micro them. They are powerful pressure and harassment tools, but if you a-move them into lurker ling, you will lose everything. Three: We increased their damage to 14 from 10+4 vs Armored. This is something Starbow has basically done. Which is essential. Zealots need a unit that can provide the necessary damage to cover for their advances. Starbow gives them a blinking dragoon, OneGoal gives them a glass cannon Stalker and the Immortal. Here in my opinion (I am no Starbow expert, I have just seen Starbow vods and played a few games with some community members.), are the issues with your Stalker. -It isn't a Stalker, it's a Dragoon with Blink shoe-horned on to it. It has the same HP value and damage value of the Dragoon, it has the same color scheme and attack as the dragoon. This would be all well and good, if the Stalker were the same kind of generalist in flavor and mechanics. It isn't. Stalkers are Narazim dragoons. The Narazim have a totally different approach to combat, and frankly, that is one of the few neat things about SC2 protoss. -It doesn't reflect the difference between the two protoss civilizations which is something really special about the race. Khala units feel different from the Narazim units. Narazim units are usually about tricks and not fighting fair. Khala units are strong, direct, durable and expensive. Both units benefit from micro, directly or indirectly, especially in a low economy mod like Starbow. For Dark Templar to be effective, you have to be mindful of what targets are present and when to pull back, otherwise, you are wasting 125/125. For a Khala unit like the Immortal or Dragoon, or Archon, sure you can just amove and forget. The problem is that if you lose them, you just lost 250/100 or 125/50 or 100/300. Depending on the stage of the game, that is a lot. Protoss's high cost necessitates micro, because each loss is a bigger percentage of your army and your resources. The important thing here is to give the other races tools to make those loses happen which brings me to the Immortal vs Tank dynamic. Immortals actually require a fair bit of micro in HotS, especially against mixed compositions. They are very costly and losing them before they pay for themselves really hurts. Due to their stupid bonus vs armor, target fire micro is pretty much required. So the question is, how do you distill that into a worthy successor to the dragoon? Well for one, you need them to not be slow. Dragoons were tough and mobile and hit hard, Immortals can do that. If you can give them a meaningful projectile, you can also give them hold position micro. Just make them hit hard, take a beating, and cost a lot for a 1.5 unit. People who play with them WILL micro them to keep them alive because they paid so much for them. The OG Immortal has the following stats. They communicate the role and feel of the unit at the same time. It is built from a gateway/warpgate, not a Robotics Facility. It is the successor to the dragoon, it should act like it. Cost: 150/100/3 (This cost of a BW Siege Tank and the supply cost of an SC2 Siege Tank it is pricey as hell.) HP: 80/120 (Yup, this is 200 HP of don't give a fuck, I am a protoss veteran entombed in 10 tons of badass) Damage: 20+10 to armor. Per supply this guy does an ok amount of damage, versus armor he does a solid, but not overwhelming amount of damage. Range: 5 (You have to commit to fights with immortals, pulling them back becomes necessary. It may have to be 4 in Starbow if you were to implement the Immortal.) Movementspeed: currently it is at 2.37 instead of 2.25. If we can find a way to increase it to 2.5 without it looking silly, we will have a winner. The point is that you have something that costs two arms and three legs more than other 1.5 units and has a ton more HP and damage on a unit for unit basis, like the Dragoon before it. To maximize its utility, players will have to lead with Immortals, fire of their shots, and pull them back as their shields become exhausted. As for Tanks, well, you have lockdown, Spidermines, Vultures, Marines and Vessels to support them. To ensure Terran has plenty of time, you can make HS a resarch, or give it a cooldown to ensure that focus fire can kill Immortals quickly. We have found that either works. Anyway, hope that clears things up. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
I figured it was time to give my thoughts on how to improve the TvP mech matchup. While I already think it works pretty well, I believe there are areas where we can further improve it. My suggestions will be based on my previous design-posts and are intededed to improve two areas; 1) Mid/early lategame-harass 2) Make the clock switch around late game (so the terran isn't rewarded for only defending during the entire game). The static defense problem From a "match-updesign" perspective, I believe that we should make sure that a mech'ing terran player has harass-options which are just barely cost-effective against an equally skilled protoss player. Due to likely having a worse economy than the protoss player, we can't expect him to be willing to trade vultures for probes if he doesn't think he can do it cost effectively. So assuming that a vulture worth 60 minerals after it as laid down 2-3 mines, a terran player should be able to trade 5 vultuures for roughly 8 probes (or something like that). The problem I see with the current metagame is that the protoss player can prevent the cost-efficiency of this trade by getting cannons at his bases. IMO such a thing must never ever occur as it serves no purpose besides incentivizing stalemales. I think the game would become much more interesting if photo cannons were close to useless as harass-killers. Some kind of creative suggestion which made cannons better against deathballs and worse against harass would be optimal. Instead of relying on cannons, the protoss would then have to rely on defending bases with units and warptech. Will that make vultures too good? The potential problem with that approach is that it may make vulturue harass to efficient (so they can trade 5 vulturues for 12 probes on average). That would be a problem as the protoss would no longer have a better economy in the midgame which would reduce his incentivize to army-trade. However, there are a few ways we can decrease the severeity of this potential problem; 1) Increase costs of vultures 2) Make warp-ins instant as long as it is within a radius of x of a nexus. 3) Make Rift instant once again. The two latter approaches are my prefered. When a protoss player invests in static defenses, his offensive potential becomes comparable worse which makes it easier for the terran player to defend --> Game has less action. However, with the two latter approaches, the protoss won't have to invest in defenses before the vulturues harass's his bases. While some may argue that we should reward players for preparing preemptively, I think they vastly overrate the intellect it requires to put up static defenses. Fun and actionpacked gameplay should IMO be prioritizied above rewarding players for doing obvious things. The protoss economy A potential unintended cosequence of my suggestion may be that the relative economic advantage of the protoss player compared to the terran player will be reduced, as he will probably lose more probes due to vulture harass. Too some extent, this severeity of this issue is reduced due to the inefficiency of doublemining in Starbow (which will occur as the terran can't take bases as fast as the protoss can). When that is said, I think it could be a problem if his mining is only 5-10% better than the mining of the terran player. I would like to see roughly 20% higher income. To obtain that figure I think we can make these type of changes; 1) Further punish double-mining 2) Buff the efficiency of chrono-boost (and adjust the building time of some army units) I would like to see the latter as I think it is much simplier with fewer unintended consequences than the former. If these changes works as intended, then we would see the mech'ing terran playing defensively with mines and tanks in the midgame, while harassing with vultures and banshee's. The protoss player would be incentivized to army-trade due to his stronger economy and and not benefiting from scale as much as the terran does (tanks are good in large numbers). Desired late game dynamic As the game progresses, the clock must eventually turn around (in order for the game to be dynamic) due to the threat of the protoss player switching to carriers. My concern with the current game is that goliaths might be too easy/efficient against carriers, so the terran player can actually keep defending and defending. I want to see the following type of gameplay. If the protoss player has played well in the midgame, he should have an economy advantage of roughly 20%, and that advantage allows him to tech to carriers. If on the other hand his economy is similar to that of the terran player, he should almost always die to to a timing attack during the transition period. If the terran player lets a protoss player with a 20% better economy tech to carriers, he will be at severe disadvantage if he doesn't do damage during the transition period. Since he will need to do damage during the transition period, the clock has switched around, which rewards action. How to change the dynamic To obtain that type of gameplay I want to suggest two changes; - Increase the incentive to get an OC as your 3rd/4th by giving it another ablity with late game utility (besides scans). When the terran player has more OC's he will easier to able to detect a protoss player swithcing to carriers which will reward him for attacking the opponent. IMO the carrier-tech switch shouldn't be a gimmick and the protoss shouldn't be totally dependant on whether the terran scouts it or not (as long as the protoss played well in the midgame). - Decrease goliath range from 9 to 8 (so carriers can kite more efficiently). - Increase carrier build time from 120 to 150 The latter may seem controversial, however it is probably a neccesity given my suggested chrono boost buff, and it will also make it the transition to carriers more risky if the protoss player doesn't have an economic advantage. One could also consider to increase build time and cost of fleet bacon if this change isn't enough. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
it's much less likely to counter mech straight up, in either of the said incarnations. You may be able to blink on top of some tanks and transform some of your stalkers into immortals - but it's going to be very hard to kill a spread out tankline in only 20seconds, require much more skill (nullfier spellrange vs goliath/turret range, EMPs), and requires a Protoss to invest heavily into nullifiers/stalkers, which then creates a tension for the Protoss himself, as he maybe forced to use all the nullifier energy to combat a pushing Terran, leaving himself without such. This sounds quite interesting, but I don't think it will end up working very well in an actual game. The problem with it as a way to counter terran mech as that it forces the protoss to spend a lot of ressources on an immobile unit. This means that the terran mech army should always be in position to defend well against a stalker/immortal composition, and due to straight up battle efficiency of tanks, tanks must always come out ahead. You could argue that if the protoss micro's well, then he should be able to come out ahead, but IMO micro must never have a particularly large infleunce on the outcome when fighting against tanks as tanks can't counter-micro. If that isn't the case, then we will see tanks being OP at higher levels and UP at lower levels. I think from a design perspective it is much easier to do apply this approach; - Make mobile units the counter to tanks - Make tanks the counter to mobile units In general, I think the above approach is the most simple and will almost always create fun/awesome. Immortals actually require a fair bit of micro in HotS, especially against mixed compositions. They are very costly and losing them before they pay for themselves really hurts. Due to their stupid bonus vs armor, target fire micro is pretty much required. So the question is, how do you distill that into a worthy successor to the dragoon? Well for one, you need them to not be slow. Dragoons were tough and mobile and hit hard, Immortals can do that. If you can give them a meaningful projectile, you can also give them hold position micro. Just make them hit hard, take a beating, and cost a lot for a 1.5 unit. People who play with them WILL micro them to keep them alive because they paid so much for them. The issue I see with the Immortal-micro is that all of the micro is mostly early game-oriented. In the late you can't reliable target fire (you can do this with tanks as tanks won't waste timing moving to the target if it is out of range) and pulling low hp immortals back is not really practical in most situations as well. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 15 2013 02:26 Hider wrote: This sounds quite interesting, but I don't think it will end up working very well in an actual game. The problem with it as a way to counter terran mech as that it forces the protoss to spend a lot of ressources on an immobile unit. This means that the terran mech army should always be in position to defend well against a stalker/immortal composition, and due to straight up battle efficiency of tanks, tanks must always come out ahead. You could argue that if the protoss micro's well, then he should be able to come out ahead, but IMO micro must never have a particularly large infleunce on the outcome when fighting against tanks as tanks can't counter-micro. If that isn't the case, then we will see tanks being OP at higher levels and UP at lower levels. I think from a design perspective it is much easier to do apply this approach; - Make mobile units the counter to tanks - Make tanks the counter to mobile units In general, I think the above approach is the most simple and will almost always create fun/awesome. Obviously there are other ways to create the incentive to army-trade/harass (as I discussed in my post), but I don't see slow immobile unit as a counter to slow immobile unit being one of them. I think you misunderstand the idea that I posted. That immortal cannot be build! It's a Nullifier spell that temporarily turns a stalker into an immortal. So basically, you build two very mobile units (stalkers and nullifiers), and then you can turn some of your stalkers into immortals temporarily. The immobile part of the immortal only prevents that you can force engagements too easily (turn stalkers into immortals and then engage). Instead you have to force an engagment by using your mobility (like blink on top of your opponents units and get your nullifier in range) and then turn your stalkers into immortals for a short time. It's intended to be used with the mobile stalker, to give it that extra punch to stop a push, and to break underdefended locations with stalkers a little more easily. All of that of course in the context of slightly nerfing the stalkers HP, as Kabel's post said.  | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
On June 15 2013 02:43 Big J wrote: I think you misunderstand the idea that I posted. That immortal cannot be build! It's a Nullifier spell that temporarily turns a stalker into an immortal. So basically, you build two very mobile units (stalkers and nullifiers), and then you can turn some of your stalkers into immortals temporarily. The immobile part of the immortal only prevents that you can force engagements too easily (turn stalkers into immortals and then engage). Instead you have to force an engagment by using your mobility (like blink on top of your opponents units and get your nullifier in range) and then turn your stalkers into immortals for a short time. It's intended to be used with the mobile stalker, to give it that extra punch to stop a push, and to break underdefended locations with stalkers a little more easily. All of that of course in the context of slightly nerfing the stalkers HP, as Kabel's post said. Oh sorry about that. Seems very creative - could work I guess. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
I actually do like OG's solution to the problem where the stalker really comes into its own role making room (where SBOW current stalker is) for the dragoon archetype. You've got the stalker for fighting off harass, skirmishing, harassing, and generally being a tricky bastard. Meanwhile the immortal is your dragoon archetype, with one important difference, he can't shoot up or blink making him so much more limited as a generalist map control unit. I think you'd still see stalkers early on for map control, skirmishing in the middle of the map, and being built to counter any air tech you see coming. As soon as it hits mid game you would start building immortals as part of your position breaking army instead. As long as hardened shield is completely removed from the game I think it could work. Hardened shields simply doesn't work in Starbow PvT as we've seen countless times before. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Thank you for the description of the Stalker/Immortal. I have not played OG or watched VODS in quite a long time now. (In fact, I have not played anything in months, barely even Starbow. T_T) As you may notice, I pay little attention to the thematic flavour of Starcraft in Starbow. I do not know anything about the story or the lore since I have never played any Starcraft campaign. But I do try to make the stuff in the game "feel" like Starcraft in some kind of way, plus that it must make sense in a visual and auditory way. The golden Stalker, for example, might not make sense in a thematic way, according to the lore. I mostly added it because I find the grey Stalker kinda ugly, and as an old BW veteran my view of Protoss is gold and bling bling. :p But if we look at the pure gameplay-aspects of your Immortal, is it a "fun and exciting" unit in OG? Does it offer a deep player-unit interaction? Does it offer potential for micro, excitement in and out of combat, clever play, clever counter play etc? This is of course very wide and subjective questions, and many aspects to consider. The reason I ask is because I had a similar version of the Immortal in Starbow a long time ago: Quite slow, quite beefy, quite strong, compared to the fast and weak Stalker. The Immortal just felt very naked and lame in all it's simplicity. It did not really add that much to the gameplay, beside some extra unit compositions and some different unit relationships. I am just curious to hear if you have managed to get it to feel like a great addition in the game. Or does your Immortal suffer from boredom? Ps. If you want the Immortal to move at speed 2,5 without it looking silly, go to the Immortal actor and look for the field: Animation: Walk animation Movement. It should be at the standard value of 1.25. Increase it and hopefully it will make the animation look better. @Jay Creative idea you have. It could surely work, but it is just a bit too narrow for my taste. I generally like spells/units that can be used in broad ways and can interact with many different kinds of units and elements in the game. So I try to avoid spells that can only be used on certain units. But thats just me! @Hider Good thoughts. The reason I nerfed Chrono boost is due to the economy. Since the economy requires fewer workers, strong macro mechanics saturated bases very very fast. I know Barrin does not like the current economy system and maybe he is right - there might be better alternatives out there. But I still think the economy feels.. quite good. And it helps to achieve the gameplay we have aimed for.. But maybe it can be improved? @December The Zealot is not incredible effective. It becomes so when Charge is researched. Protoss can do fine in PvP and PvT with just Stalkers in the early parts of the game - they stop everything the enemy can bring. A Zealot is often just a waste of money. An early Zealot can barely even hurt an enemy Stalker, Reaper, Marine or Vulture. There will just be a small balance adjustement for this, to make the Zealot become a bit more useful early. I wish I could release the patch today ;'-( The Immortal is not out of the question. But none of my attempts so far have been good enough.. Not even when the Immortal had NO hardened shield or any ability. But IF I give it another try, it will be after this patch, | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 15 2013 04:32 Kabel wrote: @Jay Creative idea you have. It could surely work, but it is just a bit too narrow for my taste. I generally like spells/units that can be used in broad ways and can interact with many different kinds of units and elements in the game. So I try to avoid spells that can only be used on certain units. But thats just me! Yeah, that was my fear as well. Just turn any Protoss ground unit into an Immortal, though then it would probably be too strong on probes/zealots. But it doesn't make sense that a biological unit can turn into an immortal and the probe hoovers, so it's technically not a ground unit, right? (but then it's again very limited to Stalker, Reaver, Archon - the last one being kind of weird again) hm... looking through the unit tags, this would probably require quite some arbitrary rules to get it done. Light units turn into armored units, and armored units turn into immortals? And the archon just implodes... (or turns into a dark archon; or splits into a high templar and a dark templar again  )probably not really anything to do about this one. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9389 Posts
Good thoughts. The reason I nerfed Chrono boost is due to the economy. Since the economy requires fewer workers, strong macro mechanics saturated bases very very fast. I know Barrin does not like the current economy system and maybe he is right - there might be better alternatives out there. But I still think the economy feels.. quite good. And it helps to achieve the gameplay we have aimed for.. But maybe it can be improved? I don't think the economy matters in it self. The only thing that matters is the ratio of army supply to bases. In Sc2 (unlike Starbow) the army supply/bases-ratio is really high which makes deathballing somewhat easy. However, it is important to note that the army supply/base-ratio only matters for the "defensive-oriented" race. When a protoss player plays against a mech'ing player I actually don't think its ratio should be especially low as it could lead to vulture/drop-harass becomming too efficient which makes it neccesary for the protoss player to invest a lot into defense --> Makes his offense too weak --> Rewards passive play. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
It would probably fit more as a Zerg spell, since rapid evolution and other biological phenomena are a part of Zerg. Evolve any ground unit into a stationary fat lazy spitting beast... Or sprey some acid at target Zerg ground unit to make some kind of Wurm plop up from the ground at that location.. The wurm devours the unit and then starts to spew shit around itself.. But I already have all the spells for the new patch sorted out. ^^ | ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
On June 15 2013 01:46 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: To be fair, in OneGoal, we did several important things for the Stalker that gives it a distinct role and keeps it a Narazim (Dark Templar) unit. One: We gave it 7 range with an upgrade so you can do kite and harassment before blink. This I think is important, not 7 range so much as relative range. Starbow has done a lot to reduce the range inflation in the game (good job with that guys, it is a problem.) This means that they can pressure bunkers, force tanks, ect. Two: We reduced their HP by 20 in comparison to the HotS/WoL Stalker. This means a total reduction of 40 HP for Starbow (I think.) 80/60. This means for them to be cost effective, you HAVE to micro them. They are powerful pressure and harassment tools, but if you a-move them into lurker ling, you will lose everything. Three: We increased their damage to 14 from 10+4 vs Armored. This is something Starbow has basically done. Which is essential. Zealots need a unit that can provide the necessary damage to cover for their advances. Starbow gives them a blinking dragoon, OneGoal gives them a glass cannon Stalker and the Immortal. Here in my opinion (I am no Starbow expert, I have just seen Starbow vods and played a few games with some community members.), are the issues with your Stalker. -It isn't a Stalker, it's a Dragoon with Blink shoe-horned on to it. It has the same HP value and damage value of the Dragoon, it has the same color scheme and attack as the dragoon. This would be all well and good, if the Stalker were the same kind of generalist in flavor and mechanics. It isn't. Stalkers are Narazim dragoons. The Narazim have a totally different approach to combat, and frankly, that is one of the few neat things about SC2 protoss. -It doesn't reflect the difference between the two protoss civilizations which is something really special about the race. Khala units feel different from the Narazim units. Narazim units are usually about tricks and not fighting fair. Khala units are strong, direct, durable and expensive. Both units benefit from micro, directly or indirectly, especially in a low economy mod like Starbow. For Dark Templar to be effective, you have to be mindful of what targets are present and when to pull back, otherwise, you are wasting 125/125. For a Khala unit like the Immortal or Dragoon, or Archon, sure you can just amove and forget. The problem is that if you lose them, you just lost 250/100 or 125/50 or 100/300. Depending on the stage of the game, that is a lot. Protoss's high cost necessitates micro, because each loss is a bigger percentage of your army and your resources. The important thing here is to give the other races tools to make those loses happen which brings me to the Immortal vs Tank dynamic. Immortals actually require a fair bit of micro in HotS, especially against mixed compositions. They are very costly and losing them before they pay for themselves really hurts. Due to their stupid bonus vs armor, target fire micro is pretty much required. So the question is, how do you distill that into a worthy successor to the dragoon? Well for one, you need them to not be slow. Dragoons were tough and mobile and hit hard, Immortals can do that. If you can give them a meaningful projectile, you can also give them hold position micro. Just make them hit hard, take a beating, and cost a lot for a 1.5 unit. People who play with them WILL micro them to keep them alive because they paid so much for them. The OG Immortal has the following stats. They communicate the role and feel of the unit at the same time. It is built from a gateway/warpgate, not a Robotics Facility. It is the successor to the dragoon, it should act like it. Cost: 150/100/3 (This cost of a BW Siege Tank and the supply cost of an SC2 Siege Tank it is pricey as hell.) HP: 80/120 (Yup, this is 200 HP of don't give a fuck, I am a protoss veteran entombed in 10 tons of badass) Damage: 20+10 to armor. Per supply this guy does an ok amount of damage, versus armor he does a solid, but not overwhelming amount of damage. Range: 5 (You have to commit to fights with immortals, pulling them back becomes necessary. It may have to be 4 in Starbow if you were to implement the Immortal.) Movementspeed: currently it is at 2.37 instead of 2.25. If we can find a way to increase it to 2.5 without it looking silly, we will have a winner. The point is that you have something that costs two arms and three legs more than other 1.5 units and has a ton more HP and damage on a unit for unit basis, like the Dragoon before it. To maximize its utility, players will have to lead with Immortals, fire of their shots, and pull them back as their shields become exhausted. As for Tanks, well, you have lockdown, Spidermines, Vultures, Marines and Vessels to support them. To ensure Terran has plenty of time, you can make HS a resarch, or give it a cooldown to ensure that focus fire can kill Immortals quickly. We have found that either works. Anyway, hope that clears things up. You are probably right that starbow stalker may be too beefy (hp wise). But i just really dislike immortals. They are slow and expensive. You cant move out with them unless you really want to commit to it. You cant spread them. Stalkers are so much cooler to watch and play with. Also Immortal based armies just look so ugly, especially with sc2 pathing... | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
Rather than only being able to take 10 direct shield damage per shot, it would only be able to take direct shield damage once per second. It creates some intresting scenarios in how it scales with numbers... or rather how it totally doesn't. A single immortal would survive roughly as long vs 10 marines as vs 20 marines. But 2 would last roughly the same time. And you probably don't want to get too close to siege tanks with these, your normal A-moving won't work here. Something to think about. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Dota 2 17814Bisu 1052Jaedong  794Larva 488BeSt 321EffOrt 272Zeus 258Mini 242ggaemo 232Last  169[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games gofns8428 FrodaN2554 singsing1756 B2W.Neo284 DeMusliM257 crisheroes186 Pyrionflax158 Fuzer  147SortOf80 QueenE28 ZerO(Twitch)11 Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
