Community Feedback Update - February 12 - Page 6
Forum Index > SC2 General |
sircallsoutalot
2 Posts
| ||
Weltall
Italy83 Posts
On February 13 2016 23:01 PPN wrote: Unless there is something new very special with the defensive spells of MSC that can delay an incoming attack, this suggestion looks pretty stupid to me. Faster units production time on gateway won't solve anything because you already should have warpgate by the time ravagers are there, and it never was an issue of building units on time but to be able to afford them in the first place. That's why PO came into play: add DPS for defense because Protoss just cannot afford enough army with decent DPS at that point. The DPS add with PO is fake. Pylons get killed really fast from corrosive biles, while enemy units just run away and avoid the PO damage. PO is really stupid mechanics imho. Yea, when zergs timing hits you already have warpgate tech. But ask youself why Protoss prefer warpgates over standard gateways? There are 2 main reason: because they can produce units fasters and can warp them far away. However, if you have to play defensive there is no need to warp units far away: you will warp units near you base to defend them. This means you only take advantage of faster production time. If gateway production times are f.e. halved, you can pull out enught units to defend from timings, while sacrificing the offensive capabilities of warp ins. If you scout a roach ravager all in, you can do pretty nothing to counter it right now. If you scout it with gateway buff, you can just add few extra gates and pump out a dozen of units instead of 3-4 units and an useless MSC. About MSC, i think they did really good suggestions, i will paste here: change the MSC to be unique scout/defensive unit. -cost reduced to 50/25, production time 15 sec -remove ground attack -buff speed and acceleration. Speed to 6 (close to phoenix one). -instead of PO add a passive skill: personal cloack. This skill will cloack the MSC only when it stand still, 1sec delay to visibile status to cloacked one. -change to recall skill: it will summon units taken from the selected area to MSC current location -instead of time warp, give MSC Statis Field like Arbiters in sc1. The full link to topic is here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20419194428#1 | ||
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
PPN
France248 Posts
On February 14 2016 05:52 Weltall wrote: The DPS add with PO is fake. Pylons get killed really fast from corrosive biles, while enemy units just run away and avoid the PO damage. PO is really stupid mechanics imho. Yea, when zergs timing hits you already have warpgate tech. But ask youself why Protoss prefer warpgates over standard gateways? There are 2 main reason: because they can produce units fasters and can warp them far away. However, if you have to play defensive there is no need to warp units far away: you will warp units near you base to defend them. This means you only take advantage of faster production time. If gateway production times are f.e. halved, you can pull out enught units to defend from timings, while sacrificing the offensive capabilities of warp ins. If you scout a roach ravager all in, you can do pretty nothing to counter it right now. If you scout it with gateway buff, you can just add few extra gates and pump out a dozen of units instead of 3-4 units and an useless MSC. About MSC, i think they did really good suggestions, i will paste here: change the MSC to be unique scout/defensive unit. -cost reduced to 50/25, production time 15 sec -remove ground attack -buff speed and acceleration. Speed to 6 (close to phoenix one). -instead of PO add a passive skill: personal cloack. This skill will cloack the MSC only when it stand still, 1sec delay to visibile status to cloacked one. -change to recall skill: it will summon units taken from the selected area to MSC current location -instead of time warp, give MSC Statis Field like Arbiters in sc1. The full link to topic is here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20419194428#1 While I agree that PO is stupid and not really added DPS in actuality, it either still buy you a bit of time if the opponent runs away or it negates one volley of shots if the opponent focus fire. This is still better than accelerating gateway units build time. Again, if you are spending all your ressource currently to defend, then halving units production time won't do anything for early aggression or ravager timing as you are limited by your ressource, not by the build time. Saving 50/50 from not doing warpgate and 50/75 from MSC suggested cost change will allow you to afford 1 extra unit. Not exactly good. If anything, this may have the side effect of encouraging Protoss proxy gateway cheese. What you are basically asking for is a "T0" slightly shittier but cheap arbiter. Warp prism and oracle already share that job at T2. And I think that an instant stasis at T0 may have a lot of unwanted effect in SC2 (nice fungal is back). For me, the bottleneck of Protoss early game is the unability to afford enough units in early game because they cost an arm relative to your economy. Maybe cutting their cost when produced from gateways might do the trick instead. Something along the line of: gateway production cheaper but longer, warpgate more expensive (ie. today's normal price) but shorter production time. That way protoss has a way to produce defensive units and get gateways up earlier and may start mid-game just like now but with more units. If the numbers are tweaked right, we might even be able to erase PO abomination from existence and have Protoss defend purely with units. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20159 Posts
Yea, when zergs timing hits you already have warpgate tech Not always, depending on the attack. PO is a larger % of your power the earlier in the game it is. It's common for zergs to just build 12-30 lings as speed finishes, with or without drop depending on the map and it can kill you even with relatively safe openings. The response to that kind of opening before was to sit back and handle it with overcharges but now you overcharge once, zerg runs back (or away from that pylon) and then overcharge ends and you're back to square 1, no second overcharge until the game is already over. Previously you'd get 2-3 instead of 1 and stabilize off of that. that's just one of the ways to threaten toss zvp early-midgame that wasn't realistically going to be a great option with a ton of photon overcharges, but works great now. It's very common and you often have to play based on the possibility of it rather than any kind of scouting info because of how Z production works, you just know that they're getting speed It's good enough for pro zergs to open that way multiple games in a row in the same series | ||
Weltall
Italy83 Posts
On February 14 2016 07:51 PPN wrote: While I agree that PO is stupid and not really added DPS in actuality, it either still buy you a bit of time if the opponent runs away or it negates one volley of shots if the opponent focus fire. This is still better than accelerating gateway units build time. Again, if you are spending all your ressource currently to defend, then halving units production time won't do anything for early aggression or ravager timing as you are limited by your ressource, not by the build time. Saving 50/50 from not doing warpgate and 50/75 from MSC suggested cost change will allow you to afford 1 extra unit. Not exactly good. If anything, this may have the side effect of encouraging Protoss proxy gateway cheese. What you are basically asking for is a "T0" slightly shittier but cheap arbiter. Warp prism and oracle already share that job at T2. And I think that an instant stasis at T0 may have a lot of unwanted effect in SC2 (nice fungal is back). For me, the bottleneck of Protoss early game is the unability to afford enough units in early game because they cost an arm relative to your economy. Maybe cutting their cost when produced from gateways might do the trick instead. Something along the line of: gateway production cheaper but longer, warpgate more expensive (ie. today's normal price) but shorter production time. That way protoss has a way to produce defensive units and get gateways up earlier and may start mid-game just like now but with more units. If the numbers are tweaked right, we might even be able to erase PO abomination from existence and have Protoss defend purely with units. Honestly I don't think it's a resource problem. When you scout a 2 base zerg with gas and roach warren, you know what will come. 4:30 timing rR. Before 4:30 protoss usually gets 3 gates and a tech (robo or stargate) plus it spams 2-3 pylons or more to use for PO. It usually gets 4-5 gate units (almost useless since they will be adepts and sentry, easly killed)+msc+1 or 2 tech units. Tech+pylons are lots of resourcers. If you trade tech and not-needed pylons for units you can have a decent number of units to defend and to counter rush the zerg. This will make all-inning a lot more risky for zergs. On the other side, you mentioned it: proxy gates will enter again in the viable builds. Is this bad? Terran can do proxy rax, it's a cheese, why protoss can't do that? It's risky as other cheesy build, but terrans and zergs have both great scouting options and all the mean to kill it. Proxy gates were not a problem even in hots, opponent needs only to know the correct reaction. Overall, giving early units to protoss means you can defend and punish cheesy and all-in builds from terrans and zergs if you are atop of scouting. You have also a way to punish greedy openings from zergs and terrans on huge maps with scout+proxy strategies. If you reduce gate units costs as you suggested, you will be capped anyway by production times in early game, while you have a huge units boost in mid/late. This won't fix current protoss hard times in early game. Also it seems protoss are doing fine in late game vs zergs (if they manage to get there) | ||
PPN
France248 Posts
On February 14 2016 17:01 Weltall wrote: Honestly I don't think it's a resource problem. When you scout a 2 base zerg with gas and roach warren, you know what will come. 4:30 timing rR. Before 4:30 protoss usually gets 3 gates and a tech (robo or stargate) plus it spams 2-3 pylons or more to use for PO. It usually gets 4-5 gate units (almost useless since they will be adepts and sentry, easly killed)+msc+1 or 2 tech units. Tech+pylons are lots of resourcers. If you trade tech and not-needed pylons for units you can have a decent number of units to defend and to counter rush the zerg. This will make all-inning a lot more risky for zergs. On the other side, you mentioned it: proxy gates will enter again in the viable builds. Is this bad? Terran can do proxy rax, it's a cheese, why protoss can't do that? It's risky as other cheesy build, but terrans and zergs have both great scouting options and all the mean to kill it. Proxy gates were not a problem even in hots, opponent needs only to know the correct reaction. Overall, giving early units to protoss means you can defend and punish cheesy and all-in builds from terrans and zergs if you are atop of scouting. You have also a way to punish greedy openings from zergs and terrans on huge maps with scout+proxy strategies. If you reduce gate units costs as you suggested, you will be capped anyway by production times in early game, while you have a huge units boost in mid/late. This won't fix current protoss hard times in early game. Also it seems protoss are doing fine in late game vs zergs (if they manage to get there) Tech is needed for mid-game, I don't know at which level you are playing or what kind of fantasy you're dreaming, but suggesting that Protoss should skip tech altogether to produce emergency defense (200/100 or 150/150, so let's say 1 extra stalker or 2 other different gateway units compared to now) against a typical Zerg aggression which is not a huge commitment is pretty ridiculous. Skipping 2 pylons to get 2 extra zealots more won't do shit either against roach/ravagers. With your idea we'd have a MSC that does not contribute to defense (also let's face it, T0 instant stasis as you suggest it will never be approved), no tech and about 7-8 gateway units. Early lings aggression should be EZPZ but roach/ravagers would not be very different. Gateway army perform poorly without tech units in the mix or twilight upgrades. At best Zerg backs up, does not commit more units and still has a tech advantage. Yes allowing proxy gateway cheese galore again is bad IMO. Protoss pre-LOTV was too full of bullshit, I don't think that toning it down a bit was a bad idea. We still have cannon rush vZ and vP, double proxy pylon overcharge vT, and plenty of proxy-tech based attacks, on Ulrena it is still possible to proxy gateway at the corridor even. I don't think every race needs to have exactly the same kind of cheese, so let's not open Pandora's box ever again please. My suggestion of changing cost of units produced from gateway pre-warpgate indeed still caps production time, but the capping is per production building. The idea is to tweak the numbers to allow Protoss: - to totally get rid of MSC - to get 1 tech building and 2 gateways much earlier so that Protoss can produce at home in parallel the units needed for defense thanks to the cut in cost - to not allow non-map-dependant gateway cheese again (thanks to production time unchanged) - to have early scout rewarded, I don't like the premise of having production time halved on top of chronoboost because it would allow too much leeway "oh shit I did not see anything coming up yet it's ok I can pump out units last minute anyway" | ||
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On February 11 2016 01:36 Salteador Neo wrote: When they remove the siege tank pickup (and buff their damage a bit) it will become obvious that ravager needs a change IMO. It will come in handy because it can help fix PvZ too. I'm sure it will either become armored or have the bile cooldown increased, it's just a matter of time. PvZ Ravager Timing Strength We’re seeing a lot of feedback about the strength of early Ravagers, and we’ve noticed the strength of Ravager pushes in PvZ. While we aren’t sure that a change is definitely needed at this time, we agree that it would be good to be ready with a change by getting a Balance Test Map going. This way, if the strategy does indeed turn out to be problematic, we can patch right away. If we are to test a nerf to Ravagers, we believe it might be good to test nerfing their ability against immobile units and/or structures. For example, if each shot damage was reduced or if the cooldown of the ability was increased a lot, or something along those lines. This way, if we were to lean towards doing the Siege Tank Medivac pick up removal in the future, TvZ will definitely also be less affected as well, which would be a plus. Well maybe it will take less time than I thought lol :D Blizzard is really doing fine lately with their map changes/balance feedback. | ||
egrimm
Poland1196 Posts
- Ravagers and overlord drops come too early for protoss to prepare accordingly, that's why PO exists. Nerf to PO made it even more apparent. P could defend against Zerg rushes if they can defend only one place with wall + cannons (natural entrance). However overlord drops can bypass wall and circumvent all defenses (bare PO) and Ravagers can destroy all defensive buildings with ease especially when there are no units form P because he invested in cannons. - Ravagers counter tanks (and can deal with liberators too) that's why siege tank pick-up is needed in TvZ to allow terrans to defend Ravagers rushes. - Siege tank pick-ups ruin TvT and actually do not help tank-based plays in TvP too much IMHO main culprit is Ravager or to be more precise - Ravager's bile attack. Bile counters all immobile forms of defense which are main defenses early on. Both Terran and Protoss has to cut units when taking natural to build cannons, pylons (for PO), bunkers or siege tanks (which are units ofc but in siege mode function as immobile defenses). And also the main counter to Ravagers are units because they are mobile and can dodge biles, retreat to static defenses or charge forward to kill Ravagers. If we remove or postpone bile attack so P and T can build some units after taking their expansions then Protoss gonna be able to defend properly with cannons and siege tank pick-up could be removed to fix TvT. Ofc there are other issues: - how to defend against lib in mineral line as Zerg with postponed/removed bile - how to defend against overlord drop rushes as Protoss (It may be possible with nerfed Ravagers but have no idea) TL DR: Ravager's bile attack counters immobile defenses -> remove or postpone -> Protoss able to defend, terran able to defend without siege tank pick-ups. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
PPN
France248 Posts
On February 14 2016 21:26 egrimm wrote: For me it looks like that: - Ravagers and overlord drops come too early for protoss to prepare accordingly, that's why PO exists. Nerf to PO made it even more apparent. P could defend against Zerg rushes if they can defend only one place with wall + cannons (natural entrance). However overlord drops can bypass wall and circumvent all defenses (bare PO) and Ravagers can destroy all defensive buildings with ease especially when there are no units form P because he invested in cannons. - Ravagers counter tanks (and can deal with liberators too) that's why siege tank pick-up is needed in TvZ to allow terrans to defend Ravagers rushes. - Siege tank pick-ups ruin TvT and actually do not help tank-based plays in TvP too much IMHO main culprit is Ravager or to be more precise - Ravager's bile attack. Bile counters all immobile forms of defense which are main defenses early on. Both Terran and Protoss has to cut units when taking natural to build cannons, pylons (for PO), bunkers or siege tanks (which are units ofc but in siege mode function as immobile defenses). And also the main counter to Ravagers are units because they are mobile and can dodge biles, retreat to static defenses or charge forward to kill Ravagers. If we remove or postpone bile attack so P and T can build some units after taking their expansions then Protoss gonna be able to defend properly with cannons and siege tank pick-up could be removed to fix TvT. Ofc there are other issues: - how to defend against lib in mineral line as Zerg with postponed/removed bile - how to defend against overlord drop rushes as Protoss (It may be possible with nerfed Ravagers but have no idea) TL DR: Ravager's bile attack counters immobile defenses -> remove or postpone -> Protoss able to defend, terran able to defend without siege tank pick-ups. Maybe they should gate Liberator's defender mode and Ravagers' bile attack behind a cheap upgrade to delay it. Terran has Banshees for mineral lines harass/defense against roaches then transitions into Liberators and Zerg uses roaches and transforms some into Ravagers when their respective upgrade is ready. | ||
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
Medivac picking up tank are ok, when the map don't have abusive spot. Just work on good and balanced map. Same for reapers, the unit isn't OP if the map don't have cliff everywhere. Ravagers is a counter to the very strong warp prism and liberator, you can't nerf it without nerfing them too. And why we'll pay for this 100/100 3 unit if bile become bad ? Nobody will use it anymore, just like swarm host. You say it's too strong with all-in so you want it to be bad on all-in, on defense, as utility, as army ? Just increase morphing time or decrease dmg vs building if you want to nerf ravagers in all-in. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20159 Posts
Same for reapers, the unit isn't OP if the map don't have cliff everywhere. some of those great reaper maps/positions are also strong for zvp earlygame so you can hit both at the same time. Distance between players, natural ramp width and how open the main is to the rest of the map | ||
maximus_0
United States43 Posts
| ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On February 13 2016 07:49 Superbanana wrote: So... how about longer cooldown on bile, regeneration nerf on mutas, -1 armor for chitinous plating research (maybe reducing the cost), remove sieged tank drops (not affecting sieged tank pick up), remove liberator range tech (or nerf and reduce cost), buff siege tank damage slightly, and nerf immortal ability slightly. Fixed? On February 13 2016 08:52 geokilla wrote: How about increasing the Reaper bomb cool down by 5 seconds? On February 13 2016 21:57 CyanApple wrote: -nerf adepts (longer cooldown, or can only be canceled within first half of shade-time to make it more predictable - introduce 2 stages of shade?) But what happens if we increase all ability cooldowns? I recall that a while back there was this debate about micro in SC2 being defined too strongly by special ability usage. It seems interesting to me to find three posts independently suggesting increasing cooldowns, though in fairness others have voiced opposition to these ideas. What do other people think? Are abilities too spammy and/or important? | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:40 The_Templar wrote: On the surface, that post is a reasonable way of fitting maps into categories, but there are so many ways to describe a map that are completely different that this doesn't really help too much. It doesn't even come close to describing the strategies possible on the map (other than rush/standard/macro, but come on, that's as old as SC2). The categories are also subjective; I honestly think that, for example, KSS is a true neutral and Orbital Shipyard is a Roaming/Neutral Economy. The lines between the categories are really blurred. Also, one might note that basically no mapmaker better than Avex that I've talked to (~10) thinks it's very good. Is it useful to develop some sort of advanced methodology for categorizing maps though? I imagine most players can distinguish between the most obvious different map archetypes and will sense that there is a lack of diversity when all maps are either rush/standard/macro. And maintaining a map pool depends on factors such as map popularity, map age, balance and metagame, palette diversity as well as archetype diversity (to use Blizzard's terminology), where each season you have to switch out a handful of maps for available other ones. And there are some map features which, for balance reasons, are typically classed under map balance rather than map diversity. How easy it is to access your fourth base has equally profound balance implications as does simply enlarging the map, but only one of those is an acceptable target for change or elimination to address balance concerns. So there is an important map feature which creates radically different gameplay which would nevertheless be invisible in any map archetype model. Anyhow, it's not like you can computer-generate a map pool so that it fits certain objective standards for archetypes, rather it depends on the intuition of someone like David Kim. Can some model about map archetypes really allow DK to do a better job? (especially when he starts out by adjusting it so that it fits his preconceived thoughts on map diversity) If we discover that a map pool lacks a Constricting Neutral map or whatever, then who will mourn this loss and demand Blizzard to redress this in a future map pool? This seems one of those cases where if you have a really advanced model for map types the subtle distinctions it can discover between apparently similar maps will be so minor as to be not worth considering. It might be interesting for map makers eager to create something unique though, there is a similar case where people developed mathematical notation for juggling so that they could generate new tricks/patterns, though I'm not aware of any popular tricks derived from this process. | ||
crazedrat
272 Posts
I do not feel the ravager is imba vs protoss, I've seen toss get greedy and punished but I've also seen toss stop those attacks like a wall. So ... | ||
RavingRaver
Canada57 Posts
| ||
| ||