|
Canada13378 Posts
On September 06 2012 15:03 recklessfire wrote:
for entomb it would be cool if instead of just blocking the mineral patches, it lowers the rate at which the workers gather minerals. So the standard is 5 minerals per trip, and we can reduce it to lets say 3? So now, the player can either continue to gather or choose to use some of his workers to attack the entomb fields so they can gather minerals back at the normal rate. 3 per trip may be too low or too high, but its a different idea right?
edit: i say this because as i was watching some zerg streams today, despite the protoss players using entomb ( i know we havent figured out the best way to use them ) but it seemed like a small annoyance and they just got ride of the entomb fields in just a few seconds. It doesnt feel like it can do the effect that we want it to in the early-mid game, unless ofc the other player does a huge ass mistake.
So how does reducing mineral income instead of denying it help the issue of it being generally not very effective?
Entomb is stupid good vs low apm players, and terrible vs high apm players.
The other races have harass options that:
- force workers off the line (to avoid losing them)
- can base trade in the worst case scenario
- can kill workers for long term damage
- can kill supply depots/pylons
- can trade for army or economy
- can take out tech
Protoss can block mineral income for a small period of time at the obscenely high gas cost. Couple this with the fact it is useless in PvP (if an opponent opens twilight tech, the oracle does absolutely nothing to helping you defend) then I don't feel it is as good as people initially thought it was.
It seems like the design philosophy for protoss units was: Don't add to the deathball.
Realistically, protoss had a deathball in 2010 vs Zerg and after that its started to come down to unit control and composition. In PvT, PvZ, and PvP its less and less about just taking a bunch of stuff and attacking. In PvP its collossus wars but beneath this is economy management and positioning. No upgrades and bad position you lose, good ups terrible position, lose. Too late on the archons, or too early? Well theres a timing there or alternatively your economy floats 2k gas and no minerals for example.
Terran -- add to deathball.
Zerg - add positional units and support units.
In the interests of not giving protoss new attacking units (the only way to not add to deathball) we received:
- stupid high cost low damage harass unit
- high cost no damage "raid" unit
- defensive slow as hell caster with a well designed earlier recall spell.
My biggest problem with the tempest is the following: It looks like something that can force an engagement or a change in position. This is nice. But it seems like sinking that much cost, time and supply into the tempest makes its reach kind of like a long stick poking at a hornets nest. Even if you poke the nest and smash it to bits in one big swing (lots of tempests) you still need to deal with the hornets themselves and the stick is no good at that.
You know what would be crazy but fun to see even if only a few times? Entomb bubbles do a small amount of damage to any melee attacker that kills the bubble. Not a lot of damage, maybe 10 or 20 damage melee range AoE. This way using workers to kill the bubbles comes at a cost and forces the workers to pull as well as keeping some ranged units nearby to kill the bubbles. (its crazy i know but seems like it would be fun to play with  Its not entirely serious suggestion either btw don't freak out)
|
Yes Abduct works on air, but I think the range is too short, yesterday Stephano had to abduct lot of times a tempest in order to get it in range. I think abduct should gain at least +2 range to become REALLY useful. But hey it's gonna hard to balance, yeah.
|
Good stuff. From what I've been catching on streams I agree with most of your points.
Warhound was always a really lame unit and the new protoss additions appear to not add anything.
I hope Blizzard takes their time with the beta and goes back to the drawing board often.
|
On September 06 2012 13:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision.
it would have been a cool decision if protoss air units were better/cooler. like for example if going 2-base tempest was as good in any situation as going 2-base carrier can be in BW.
|
You say the tempest is bad, but you should maybe reserve judgement before watching White-Ra's stream. Perhaps they shouldn't be a 'capital ship', but the concept plays out pretty nicely due to the unique micro situations involved. Their practical range is usually only what they can see, and there are many opportunities to deny vision.
Agreed with you on most other points.
|
On September 06 2012 15:31 Ideas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:50 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:37 Ideas wrote:
btw the detection for oracle does overlap with observers but I think that's what blizzard wanted. they wanted it to be safer to go stargate before robo. Yeah I get that, but to be that seems like a bad design decision. it would have been a cool decision if protoss air units were better/cooler. like for example if going 2-base tempest was as good in any situation as going 2-base carrier can be in BW.
Good thing about the 2 -base carrier build in broodwar you can continue dragoon production and carrier at the same time .
|
Based on what I've seen about the widow mine it seems like it functions far better as a scourge-like unit than your standard positional-control spider mine. A few mines around your base in common paths for any harass that depends on a few units (dropship/banshee/oracle) and suddenly your opponent has to be very careful. In this regard they're kind of interesting, but it's hard to figure out a use for them otherwise.
|
On September 06 2012 13:18 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:02 shindigs wrote:
Excellent writeup, Plexa. I actually think there isn't much controversy over what's good/bad. Everyone is more or less negative on the warhound, so I can expect that to change. Tempest as well - I feel like they're just trying to bring back the namesakes from the SC2 alpha (Oracle was similar to an old protoss unit design, the dark carriers were originally known as Tempest).
I was, and still am, so bleh on the Oracle. Could you elaborate what you were excited about? Because the entombed ability is one of the most one dimensional and non-exciting "harass" spells in the game. It needs a huge rework IMO - I think there's huge potential for it to be a support caster. A mobile spell caster from the stargate sounds like it has potential. A unit designed to harass sounds like it has potential. Entomb is a spell which sounds like it should be good. All of these things make me excited for the oracle. But then you start playing with it and start examining the reality of each of the spells. And then you're disappointed. Entomb, in reality, is impossible to balance correctly (as I said). And the other abilities have significant overlap (something blizzard tries to avoid, I thought?). It feels like a unit that should be a lot better than it really is.
Could you comment on the Oracle losing its cloaking ability? I feel like thats the one thing that had me excited about Hots. It gave Protoss defensability and an amazing strategy which, I thought, was okay since other races got just as much toys and ways to deal with this kind of ability.
I know its pointless because Blizz has removed it for good, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. THAT would be an amazing addition to this lackluster unit.
|
I disagree completely with your opinion on the worker count display, and honestly it's kind of weird to hear it from a guy who has been around since deep in the BW days.
You say that the indicators don't hinder strategy, only makes make things more convenient for all levels. The thing is, SC2 isn't purely a strategy game; it's strategy mixed with mechanics, and worker management is a fundamental part of macromanagement. It might be something comparatively small to say, actually building workers all throughout the game, but just building workers without having the presence of mind and situational awareness to monitor your shit (without being told your exact numbers) is just one aspect of it all. Simply put, if you don't have the mental dexterity to keep up with your stuff, you are faltering in your macro and ought to pay the consequences. It's another thing that separates the good from the bad.
Also, your claim that boxing workers is inaccurate is blatantly false. Eyeballing worker saturation might be inaccurate, but boxing workers is pretty precise if you ask me.
From the HotS that I've watched, everything else you're saying seems to be right on point (though I have yet to see hydra speed actually used).
|
nice to see some insight from you!
regarding the mine vs immortal thingy: having one immortal kill 10 mines with its shields alone seems a bit much, but i do not know what a good change would be.
|
10387 Posts
a unit designed purely for harass is stupid .. Reaper was designed to be a harass unit, and look how it turned out -_- Oracle should have some sort of army/offensive utility instead of some dumb entomb spell
|
Good post, Plexa. Agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to the Oracle and Tempest. *shudder*
|
@zeromus
i was thinking that if the opponent is about to or is getting attacked by a player who is using the oracle, the opponent must now decide whether to keep his guys on minerals to continue gathering resources to defend, or take the time and stop resource gathering (assuming he is using his workers to attack the entomb, because he needs his army units ready to defend) and break the entomb. There should be some kind of threshold on whether which choice would be correct and should differ with the strength and timing of the attack so it doesnt have to be a singular choice in which you should ALWAYS break the entomb even if your getting attacked.
hopefully that made sense...kinda but i do agree on all your points. Entomb would still be pretty ineffective vs high apm players. I dont blame blizzard for giving us such units because our current deathball is pretty damn good. Colossus splash with storm splash is so amazing, I do see why they would have such a difficult time adding in another attacking unit.
The oracles's scouting abilities really do overlap with observers, and hell phoenixes are still pretty good scouts out of stargate tech. So really the only "new" ability is entomb, so just fucking phoenix with entomb, bam really good unit now. 
|
Canada11202 Posts
On September 06 2012 16:35 ArvickHero wrote:
a unit designed purely for harass is stupid .. Reaper was designed to be a harass unit, and look how it turned out -_- Oracle should have some sort of army/offensive utility instead of some dumb entomb spell
Yeah, I've always felt that it was way too niche. Truly good harass units are much more versatile, being able to defend or attack or support the main army (Shuttle-reaver). It really doesn't look like it adds much micro/ interesting play either. Sort an on/off deal. If the air is clear, you get the harass off in a couple clicks, if it isn't clear run away or die. I don't think it's something than can properly balanced- too good and it shuts down mining too much. Too bad and it's never made. Because it's so niche, that dividing line between useful and not is so very narrow. I could be missing something because Artosis seemed rather taken with the idea, but I'm not sure why.
|
hydra speed actually seems pretty good to be honest, it gives a much stronger remax than just pure roach, could hit before colossus number get high again or even can just abduct the colossus out to snipe them off
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Widow mines are undoubtably a bit weak right now, but are you putting them in the bad section because they're a bad unit, or because you don't like the design? Cause it seems like a pretty fun unit, and I like the fact that it ignores immortal armour and can hit air. It sort of fills some holes mech has, it just seems to need a buff to actually have utility.
|
I agree on mostly everything, except I would put the spider mine in neutral/good. It shows promise for the future, and it's probably one of the only units that will be used in new - unintended ways.
You could for example fake-push the enemies poking units into mines.
Does picking up with a dropship work? Could be fun..
Picking up units that drag mines and clearing fields. Imagine a stalker and a WP clearing mines all around, would look sick.
But only if spider mines would be something used a lot, which I can't see in it's current form. I would honestly give them to a reaper, it's fast it's a raiding unit..it resembles the vulture the most.
|
Excellent write-up I agree on almost every count, I really hope Blizzard is reading this.
|
I disagree with:
Window Mine - Best unit of HotS so far. It is exactly what terran needed, a positional unit to protect the siege tanks from getting raped by immortals and zealots.
Hydralisk - The speed attack is great, it makes it a fast fragile unit, so skill is required. If the hydras HP is increased it will become an a-move unit. The main problem here is the no skill colossus.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 06 2012 17:37 Andr3 wrote:
I agree on mostly everything, except I would put the spider mine in neutral/good. It shows promise for the future, and it's probably one of the only units that will be used in new - unintended ways.
You could for example fake-push the enemies poking units into mines.
Does picking up with a dropship work? Could be fun..
Picking up units that drag mines and clearing fields. Imagine a stalker and a WP clearing mines all around, would look sick.
But only if spider mines would be something used a lot, which I can't see in it's current form. I would honestly give them to a reaper, it's fast it's a raiding unit..it resembles the vulture the most. There's virtually no dragging mines around - they move really quickly and instantly blow up. Their splash damage is really poor - only 35 - whereas the unit that gets targetted gets dealt 160. If there were more drag potential or ways that it could be useful I'd be more enthusiastic about the unit. I've been watching thorzains stream while I've been doing other things (gotta work out how to beat warhound/marine timing attack t_t) and he doesn't like the mine either, in his words
"I don't see what it can do that a tank can't"
On September 06 2012 16:23 Bobo_XIII wrote:
I disagree completely with your opinion on the worker count display, and honestly it's kind of weird to hear it from a guy who has been around since deep in the BW days.
You say that the indicators don't hinder strategy, only makes make things more convenient for all levels. The thing is, SC2 isn't purely a strategy game; it's strategy mixed with mechanics, and worker management is a fundamental part of macromanagement. It might be something comparatively small to say, actually building workers all throughout the game, but just building workers without having the presence of mind and situational awareness to monitor your shit (without being told your exact numbers) is just one aspect of it all. Simply put, if you don't have the mental dexterity to keep up with your stuff, you are faltering in your macro and ought to pay the consequences. It's another thing that separates the good from the bad. I agree that worker management is a vital part of the game, but what this indicator brings to the table is a quick fact about the number of workers at each base. What you do with this fact is up to you. Are you trying to hit a precise 40 probe 6gate timing attack? How many workers should you be maynarding to you natural at any given time? This information allows you to make those decisions in a more accurate way. Does it lower the skill ceiling? A bit, but in the case the payoff is more accurate builds and better execution of whatever it is you are planning to do ay every level.
Also, your claim that boxing workers is inaccurate is blatantly false. Eyeballing worker saturation might be inaccurate, but boxing workers is pretty precise if you ask me. Boxing workers can be inaccurate because more often that not you pick up workers mining gas - which is kinda annoying (and position dependent). Moreover, boxing three bases quickly can lead to a variation of up to 10 workers (in my experience anyway).
On September 06 2012 15:44 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:18 Plexa wrote:On September 06 2012 13:02 shindigs wrote:
Excellent writeup, Plexa. I actually think there isn't much controversy over what's good/bad. Everyone is more or less negative on the warhound, so I can expect that to change. Tempest as well - I feel like they're just trying to bring back the namesakes from the SC2 alpha (Oracle was similar to an old protoss unit design, the dark carriers were originally known as Tempest).
I was, and still am, so bleh on the Oracle. Could you elaborate what you were excited about? Because the entombed ability is one of the most one dimensional and non-exciting "harass" spells in the game. It needs a huge rework IMO - I think there's huge potential for it to be a support caster. A mobile spell caster from the stargate sounds like it has potential. A unit designed to harass sounds like it has potential. Entomb is a spell which sounds like it should be good. All of these things make me excited for the oracle. But then you start playing with it and start examining the reality of each of the spells. And then you're disappointed. Entomb, in reality, is impossible to balance correctly (as I said). And the other abilities have significant overlap (something blizzard tries to avoid, I thought?). It feels like a unit that should be a lot better than it really is. Could you comment on the Oracle losing its cloaking ability? I feel like thats the one thing that had me excited about Hots. It gave Protoss defensability and an amazing strategy which, I thought, was okay since other races got just as much toys and ways to deal with this kind of ability. I know its pointless because Blizz has removed it for good, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. THAT would be an amazing addition to this lackluster unit.
Oracle cloaking could easily go the way of imbalanced, but hey, so is the warhound? But seriously, it would give the oracle a great deal of utility and probably would be balanced if it were implemented right now with say, 125 energy cost. Since the oracle is so fragile and expensive it would balance out really nicely. Point being, cloak brings something really interesting to game play and can be balanced given time. I'm sad that its gone, and I hope it comes back.
On September 06 2012 17:18 ETisME wrote:
hydra speed actually seems pretty good to be honest, it gives a much stronger remax than just pure roach, could hit before colossus number get high again or even can just abduct the colossus out to snipe them off
I'm not sure if its a stronger remax (I guess time will tell) but I doubt you will want to be remaxing on roaches or hydras by hive tech aren't broods more attractive? or infestors?
On September 06 2012 17:36 MCDayC wrote:
Widow mines are undoubtably a bit weak right now, but are you putting them in the bad section because they're a bad unit, or because you don't like the design? Cause it seems like a pretty fun unit, and I like the fact that it ignores immortal armour and can hit air. It sort of fills some holes mech has, it just seems to need a buff to actually have utility.
I like the concept behind the unit, I'm not a fan of the execution for reasons I've stated in this post and the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
