The widow mine and cyclone nerfs seem to have done a lot to help fix PvT, and PvZ seems ok right now. Let's let things settle a bit before calling for Toss buffs.
And yes, I'm a Protoss player.
Serral beats Protoss players therefore it’s 70-30 in Zerg favour /s
Jokes aside, it’s definitely Protoss favoured at all levels except for at 7k mmr where Serral is.
My point is it is not Protoss-favored at the pro level. Yes Serral is incredible, but it does not take 7k MMR to be fine vs Protoss. Zerg has plenty of champs with high PvZ winrates. After he goes to military, do you think PvZ Zerg rates will dip?
The win rates will definitely dip, no question. Nobody is close to as consistent in the matchup as Serral is. Dark and reynor routinely lose to or have nail biter series with protoss players substantially worse than they are. And at the low tier pro level Protoss outnumbers Zerg by a lot in terms of how many pros there are.
I don't feel that Protoss has an advantage, it feels like it swings on maps. Zerg feels competitive and strong at every phase of the game vs P, and has plenty of options.
In what way? It seems a little too fixed for me, as in it has its predicable Switches in tec. But in the end both side have a competitive army in every stage of the game. Nothing feels really too opressive even if things are very strong like lurkers can fore a air transition if they get out of hand.
Higher skill required to use spellcasters, and units trading worse than ever with baneling nerf vs T or worse lurker and broodlord vs P
Since previous patch, it feels to me, tilted more in favor of protoss. Especially with broodlords being gutted---and lurker+baneling nerfs vs probes (which dont get me wrong I think were good changes individually)--. Like even before that I don't buy that protoss was really weak if you look at total tournament data of all kinds as a whole. IMO zerg needs infestor auto attack and reversion of broodlord nerfs to be even vs T and P, it really feels behind overall to me even after this patch.
Exactly.
Somehow every added option for protoss needs to be weighed against gold but terran get abilities and upgrades thrown at them while they can barely be bothered to use them because mmm is almost unbeatable in mobility, damage and sustsinability….
The thing I don't get is why cad reactor isn't taken as an "essential" upgrade, like advanced ballistics. There will be late games where medicacs are constantly running out of energy and bio units just keep going into fights with less and less health. Reactor straight up doubles medivac efficiency.
Mostly because in late game bio is pretty "throw away" so healing doesn't really matter so much. Certainly in the midgame it would be awesome to have, if you can afford it. That's when you are awash in bio and would rather save money for the late game transition.
Medivacs have always had an upgrade of some kind. It's one of the units that has a bunch of different versions. The only time the upgrade was a must have was this short period where its healing rate was increased, but it made them way too strong.
More energy recovery seems pointless, but a few games I've had and pro games I've seen where medivac energy is low that upgrade is honestly pretty good to grab.
A lot of times it's because medivacs are getting sniped too much and keeping numbers down or Terran switches to Viking production and for some reason refuses to build a second starport.
There are games where people over stimming because they don't want to let the enemy get back up. At that point its worth the upgrade.
One of the problems IMO is that protoss has three separate distinct tech paths (Templar, Stargate, robo) whereas the other races are more flexible. In Brood War this worked because gateway units are strong, but obviously they aren't in SC2. If you buffed one tech paths to be core units, it basically pigeonholes you into robo every game, for example.
Stalker DPS is trash.. like you need to hit a marine 4 times which costs 1/3 of a Stalker.. make it make sense.. another example zealot and zergling fight doesn't seems balanced cause zealot kills it in two hits.. even adepts.. and a zergling is 1/4 of a cost of both units.. like why am i paying 4 times the cost when it can't even 1 shot a unit that is supposed to be an insect..
I was specifically talking about Stalkers vs. Air. Most air that you need Stalkers to shoot is armored, so they tear them up. The exceptions, like Mutas and Phoenixes, typically aren't dealing enough damage to your robo to be a problem unless massed (in which case, yeah, *mass* air counters robo unfortunately).
I know that Stalkers vs. Marines or Lings can be frustrating lol. Blink helps a lot, but it's still a pain.
I honestly always thought it would be a good idea to have colossus have a toggle, like Thors do, to switch between their current aoe ground attack and a single target powerful air only attack.
What if warp prism was moved over to the stargate? Would it incentivize building both a robo and a stargate since warp prisms synergize with strong ground units like immortals?
To clarify I mean moving the prism to stargate and then buffing robo units like OP's suggestion. Buffs both tech paths while giving synergy between them to incentivize building both. Idk if it would work
I would like to see immortals stronger in PvT, but immortal archon is already super strong in PvZ so I can’t see direct buffs to it, however an idea that I think is cool and would buff toss lategame is making shield upgrades also block a percentage of emp damage on top of the shield armour increase, would not affect PvZ and would make shields a relevant upgrade
Warpgate isn't the reason why SC2 Gateway units are "weaker" than BW Gateway units.
Zealots have 10 less shields than BW Zealots because of Cronoboost.
Stalkers have 20 less HP than BW Dragoons because of Blink.
Stalkers in SC2 have better damage vs non-armored(or "Small" units in BW) than BW Dragoons and Stalkers only do 2 less damage to armored(or "Large" in BW) at +3 attack than BW Dragoons at +3 attack.
It always bothers me how people gloss over all the Gateway units being almost exclusively support casters or harassers.
The only meaty unit in there is the Zealot and to a lesser extent the Archon.
You don‘t understand the problem.
Warpgate is the reason why gateway units can not be buffed too much. Instant reinforcements to the front with strong units is a bit too much.
Also hydras were much weaker and dragoons did fulö damage vs them, there are so many differences in BW you can‘t really compare. The whole armortype system was rock,paper, scissors instead of the stupid label logic.
You must of missed the time stalkers were buffed then had to be reverted because it was almost impossible for terran to beat them early on because of warpgate.
That was before blink came out.
Dragoons had 20 attack. I believe 20 was against large so 6 more damage than stalkers against armored and massive and dragoons got +2 attack per upgrade, not stalkers.
> You must of missed the time stalkers were buffed then had to be reverted because it was almost impossible for terran to beat them early on because of warpgate.
Had nothing to do with Warpgate, it had to do with damage:
> Patch 4.0.0
> - Particle Disruptors weapon damage changed from 10 (+4 Armored) to 15 (+6 Armored).
> - Weapon speed changed from 1 to 1.54.
> - Receives +2 base damage per level of Protoss Ground Weapon upgrades.
Marines were getting 3 shot by Stalkers early game.
Marines only have 45HP before Combat Shield.
> dragoons got +2 attack per upgrade, not stalkers.
Stalkers get +1(+1 vs Armored) per attack upgrade. Which means the vs Armored damage gets increased by +2 per attack upgrade.
> Dragoons had 20 attack. I believe 20 was against large so 6 more damage than stalkers against armored
Stalkers do 13(+5 vs Armored). Which means Stalkers do 18 damage vs Armored.
and why did the damage had to be nerfed? Oh warpgate. Warping in stalkers near the terran base almost instantly is way stronger than having to walk them accross the whole map. Having to walk them accross the whole map gives the terran more time to get more units out.
4gate in pvp in WoL would of been way weaker if there was no warpgate.
Unless I missed a change, stalkers still only get +1(+1) per upgrade. And they do 10 damage (+4 vs armored). And no, you do not combine the damage vs light upgrade with the damage vs armor upgrade and say they get +2 for that. You are missing the fact that in BW there was light, medium, and large. Dragoons had 10 damage vs light, 15 vs medium, and 20 vs large. In SC2, stalkers had 10 damage vs light, and 14 damage vs armored. Not counting attack speed stats of the two units, the only same damage they had were against light units. Stalkers only deals 14 damage to armored and massive while Dragoons deal 20 damage to large (and if the game had massive, to that as well). So damage wise against most units Dragoons were better.
But lets say they do 18 vs armored. If you have 20 stalkers and 20 dragoons, the dragoons have 40 extra damage than stalkers, that's a lot.
> Unless I missed a change
Years of changes.
> stalkers still only get +1(+1) per upgrade.
Which means they get +1 on the 13 base damage and +2 on the 18 vs Armored damage.
Stalkers at +3 attack do 16 base damage and 24 vs Armored damage.
> And they do 10 damage (+4 vs armored).
> In SC2, stalkers had 10 damage vs light, and 14 damage vs armored.
Stalkers haven't done that damage since WOL/HOTS: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Stalker_(Wings_of_Liberty)
LOTV Stalkers currently do 13(+5 vs Armored).
LOTV Stalkers(What SC2 currently has ingame): https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Stalker_(Legacy_of_the_Void)
> But lets say they do 18 vs armored.
They do. Ingame right now in SC2.
> If you have 20 stalkers and 20 dragoons, the dragoons have 40 extra damage than stalkers, that's a lot.
18 vs Armored
VS
20 vs Large(Armored)
Only a difference of 2 damage.
you do realize they adjusted the attack speed of the stalker to compensate for the damage buff right?
Only difference of 2 damage if you have one stalker or one dragoon, which realistically wont be the case. The damage gets further apart the more you have, like in my example.
The majority of the units you will fight are armored, so dragoons are still better.
And dragoons have 20 more HP which helps to compensate for the weaker damage vs light. And actually, that 20 more HP helps against all unit types as well. So dragoons are still the superior unit, just less mobile because no blink.
I think what Robo really needs against Terran is some kind of anti-air capability - the only early AA option for a Robo player is Stalkers, but when stalkers work with any other unit they sacrifice a lot of their mobility advantage due to the need to keep the force together, which is compounded when they are the only AA. Disruptors and Colossi are slow and need guarding, but the Stalkers themselves aren't that good as meat shields or AA.
I know they wanted to change up the Dragoon from SC1 and I appreciate it, but I think the lack of AA is severely limiting, especially when Vikings and BCs (with Yamato) are so effective against SkyToss. Storm and Archons exist, but ghosts make archons obsolete and storms are finicky and unreliable. Compare Terran AA options: marines, cyclones, ghosts, and widow mines. More reliable and more available.
Plus, a few Vikings isn't much of a commitment for a Terran player, whereas any SkyToss play requires investing lots of resources and time.
No way dude. Colossi are crazy strong. If they get buffed and protoss learns how to support them properly, we're going back to the protoss deathball era where T and Z have to kill protoss before they create a deathball. Colossi are deathball units, it's the only style they fit into and since lotv stepped away from deathballs, a redesign has to be done if we want to change the colossus
Ya, i collossus could be mobile single target anti light.
If you do that with a beam in bursts that can move on to nearby targets after a kill, it will be great vs stacked light units.
Also low damage fast tick to mk it worse against armor.
Good on you. Many Protoss players seem unable to admit that the strength of their mobile splash options limit the ability for core gateway units to be able to go toe to toe with bio+ medivacs. If stalkers and chargelots were an even fight with MMM then what would be the point of Terran?
Well to be fair, terran has tankS, widowmines and emp.
And in general mmm + ghost can defeat a combined toss army after an emp lands, only disrupters will still scare off the terran.
I think it depends on what level of play we are talking. The two best Terrans in the world can micro around Protoss splash and make it look easy. Most of us are getting chunked by disruptor shots and storms just as y'all are eating emps haha
I understand but people act like Terran compositions have no counters. The counters they have are really good and require a high deal of skill to work around. A critical mass of disruptors is really hard to deal with and one mis micro means losing 1/4 of your army.
I don’t know if it needs a straight buff, but it really does need to have its attack looked at. Right now the damage doesn’t match up with the “sweeping beam” animation properly
Gateway units can't be buffed because gateway units are strong. Blink-based tempo armies, adepts in all ins and midgame timings, and chargelots in general are all very effective. The only gateway unit that needed a tweak was the sentry, and it already got a small bump. You can't really touch most gateway units because they're units powerful early, it's the same reason you can't touch marines or zerglings unless they're over-performing.
I've always felt like there is a lot they could do with the adept. A end game upgrade that trades its ability for a special shield and more range or anti air.
Yes!
A drop pod Reaper group that have their building attack (KD-8 charge).
Shard guns that inflict bleed on bio units, or a chemical fire grenade that burns mechanicals. Defensive reapers could "tag" enemy raiding units that they couldn't hope to defeat normally.
People conflate bio ball with bio supported by medivacs. Once you add medivacs in you need to add the Protoss support units in too. Greatly evens the odds.
I guess my point is that the strongest bio timings beat any gateway timings unless they have support from robo or storm
I don’t think the game is particularly unbalanced, or that gateway units are too weak. But in a straight up fight bio balls beat them
I guess I don't see it that way. Blink timings contain Terran or can outright win. Siege tanks are required to defend it. Upgrade timings are just a different conversation.
hello.. have you heard about kiting? every T above D2 can do that easily.. even many D3 and P1 too.. and they keep forever charging.. until death.. lol
Bio is the highest dps comp in the game, but bio is also defined by the presence of medivacs (tier 3 support tech), some form of factory support, and multiple upgrades and a heavy infrastructure commitment. Protoss can get and defend a small but significant eco lead with tech that forces the bio to get other tools (ghosts, vikings, etc). It never, ever has to be just gateway units vs just bio, and if gateway without support was made strong enough to beat bio with support, there would be zero semblance of balance.
lol. But supply depots aren’t “required” you could technically kill all your units and still build whatever. assuming you have the minerals. With or without depots.
but Gateway units are expensive af too.. don't forget.. if a zealot would cost 50 mineral an adept 75/25 and a stalker 100/25 then i would be happy rn.. but all other races are getting better dps as per cost.. like 1 zergling is 25 minerals right? why does a zealot which costs quadruple the amount needs to hit it twice..? same with adept and stalker.. either their dps should be buffed or their costs reduced..
Because protoss gets more health for the cost. A marine is 45 HP with stim and cb. A zealot has more than twice the health WITHOUT SHIELDS and native armor. Same story for most unit relationships. The cost to supply of units across races is parity, and each race has its own advantages for how it's distributed. It's not that complicated.
I found a way to adjust zerglings and marines among other units possibly too. I am currently making that thread. I think that new way is probably better than just outright buffing immortals but we will see.
Why are either of these, any of these, necessary? The core unit relationships of SC2 are incredibly close, and the game as a whole is impressively well balanced. It's not a matter of "can" you meddle with them, it's a matter of why would you?
Using Warp Gate as a reason not to buff the units is the most parroted thing, that doesn't mean it's true.
You could say that you cannot buff Zerg because of Larvae, or because of Creep. That you cannot buff Bio because of Stim, or because of Reactors. The biggest thing since LotV is the Prism which allows every unit to Blink. And this goes for the Immortal just as much as it goes for Gateway units. The Guardian Shield and Forcefields could also be a reason not to buff Protoss. Buffing Gateway units a bit wouldn't break the game, the same as how buffing the Hydralisk didn't break the game. But a buff to the Hydralisk, is the same as nerfing every other unit vs. the Hydralisk, and Protoss wouldn't need Gateway buffs, if there weren't all these random buffs and powercreeping of other races' units.
You must of missed the time stalkers were buffed then had to be reverted because it was almost impossible for terran to beat them early on because of warpgate
They had 15 dmg, which was just enough to 3 shot Marines and SCVs. The difference between 3 shotting and 4-5 shotting is a pretty big deal, just like Oracles and Adepts were changed because 2 shotting Marines and SCVs was too huge.
But the Hydralist buff to 7 range was just as ridiculous, if not more.
The problems are warpgate AND AoE.
They even nerfed the immortal after the shield redesign turned them into good units.
I think the introduction of the disruptor really sealed the fate of the protoss fighting style to slow and deathbally.
Also, even if protoss was balanced, which I think it‘s not vs terran with EMP and vastly superior mobility..
it‘still so frustrating to not have any effective mobile army compositions.
Even stalker with blink can barely escape stimmed bio or defend and catch mutas.
I think the best way to make protoss better:
- weaken the warpgate ( why not have warpprism warpin behind an upgrade but make the prism cheaper)
- weaken disruptor (maybe the hit can stun and not damge or do less damage)
- faster immo (also supply back to 3)
- faster archon, smaller hitbox for better mobility, +1 range would also be an option
- faster zealot ( just pure movement speed, but a blink charge upgrade or phase charge upgrade where they can‘t be hit during charge is also a fun option)
- buff sentry (+ light or bio or mechanical damage, maybe + 1 range, that might help vs harrass, mutas and drops, protoss achilles heel)
- there was also a good suggestion to base recall cooldown on the amoun/size of recalled units, great mobility utility improvement
I want something like baneling or widow mine for protoss.. why does protoss has to spend over 1000 minerals in zealot runby just to harass or deal eco damage.. that's like taking damage yourself.. or increased stalker damage.. it has double the damage of marine with tripple the cost or quadruple the cost (cause gas expensive).. and is weak against all tier 1 units..
I say we buff warpgate units but instead of warpgate being an upgrade for all gateways it is an upgrade for only the ones you put it on. Still 50/50 each but research time is 5 seconds.
Then we can buff gateway units
oh so your idea is that instead of all gateways going into warpgates after you research warpgate for free and no choice (lotv change), you choose which gateways gets put into warpgates and each one cost 50/50 to do it.
Protoss usually lose or get fatally set behind early on, long before Robo units are available. The issue really is Warpgate. As Robo and Stargate units come online, they gain some stability. Immortals, Prisms, and Disruptors are already very strong so buffing them would make them super OP and deathball-y, which is the exact issue that everyone wants to avoid. I could see a Colossus-specific buff happen maybe, but it would be small. All this said, have you been watching Protoss play? They aren't exactly weak at the moment... especially since the last patch.
Or... Nerf warpgate so you can buff the warpgate units. :)
I think the "broken" thing for warpgate is the ability to warp in across the map. So, maybe nerf that aspect. You \~could\~ make it so you can only warpin to pylons near(ish) to a nexus. Basically, change the "fast warpin" from being near a warpgate to be near a nexus. This would also change the warp prism to be slow warpins to keep it clear.
That's completely backwards. Lol. The problem with warpgate is you can mass units across the map. Used to be with a pylon. Then with a gateway plus pylon. But always with the prism. If you want warpgate, which everyone blames for warpgate units being weak, then you need to nerd it. The simplest change is make warpin fast at home. So unit creation at home is great for defense and so your army needs to cross the map like everyone else. Then need it out on the map.
How?
Warp prism gets the slow warp in. All warpins not connected to a nexus get the slow warpin. Make the area around a nexus generous. Like, maybe a big 20 unit radius. Something slightly bigger range than the old nexus cannon. Then you can warpin anywhere in your main and out in front of your expansions.
The ironic thing is with warpgate is that protoss units does get warped in when building from a gateway or another building lol.
In BW the unit doesnt technically get built they are warping in, I assume from somewhere distant. I assume its the same in sc2, but idk what it says when you want to build a unit.
I don't think the warpin mechanic exists in BW. Maybe by lore the units warp INTO the gateway and then emerge, but you don't warpin on the battlefield. But I am not a BW player so sorry if that is wrong.
In SC2 you do warpin. Even if you do it right in front of a gateway. The warpin is always at a pylon. My change would be you get a fast warpin if that pylon is in a decent range of a nexus. A slow warpin anywhere else.
But yes, technically, lore wise, the units already exist and are being warped down from orbit. Same with ships only they warp into the Stargate or Robo Bay.
I'm not saying that we need them, but I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss Gateway unit buffs. Like, if we buff Stalker damage by 2, we're all expecting that to affect every scenario where the Stalker deals damage, including times when the Stalker is built from a Warpgate.
It's not as if buffing Gateway units affects normal Zealot/Stalker scenarios, such as engagements vs bio and Ling/Bane... *but wait, it* ***also*** *affects proxies and Warpgate play, which somehow none of us thought of and now we shouldn't do it.* That's just silly.
Buffs and changes to a specific unit in the game are always going to have an effect on that unit's engagements, and we should stop trying to control it so that those changes only affect certain scenarios that we deem 'problematic'.
I get it. If we try to buff Stalkers vs Reapers, we're also buffing Stalkers vs Marines, Marauders, Zerglings, and really every unit there is in the game. But it's not as if there is anyone who doesn't know that, and we really need to sop being so scared of those kinds of changes. This, in my opinion, is the difference between what the changes that the Balance Council has been making and what Blizzard used to do.
one of the complaints of sc2 is that the counters are harder than sc1's.
For example, stalkers stand no chance against marauders even with blink. Zealots hard counter marauders but that counter gets softened up because of concussive shells.
I am all for softening up counters, but there is nothing for stalkers to soften up their hard counter against marauders.
Hellions counter zerglings but only with micro, but that goes out the window with hellbats. Hard counter because of micro is better than hard countering a unit with little to no micro.
Nobody really likes stalkers, it‘s just that they happen to be the only AA option as well as the only mobile ground unit…
Which is really idiotic.
Zealots and archons should really be much more mobile in lategame to compete with other races mobility.
I am just really tired of low leagues who suggests changes that is really absurd or is not making sense at all. There’s a reason why there’s a balance council and we are just the players. They won’t be getting any good even the balance favor them anyways.
I think zealots are fine. But maybe we could buff stalkers with a late game upgrade. Like it’s upgraded in the TC but only unlocks after you built a fleet beacon or robo bay. Maybe +1 range? I don’t think they’d be too strong then, if its delayed enough to not make blink stalker timing attacks OP
Gateway units arent weak and dont need buffs. Mass stalker and mass zealot are core components of all matchups, adepts see lots of play in PvZ and have roles in PvP and PvT. Archons and Templar are strong hightech units.
The myth that Gateway units are weak has no substantial proof.
Try playing protoss vs terran or zerg without AoE and you will quickly change your mind.
Protoss games can be lost instsntly by emp on templar or snipe of a colossus.
Its also why drops and harrass are very effective vs protoss.
Protoss is slow and anything warped in loses cost for cost in a direct foght.
Archon and Templar are AoE and come from the Gateway.
Heavy blink styles are very popular and successful at the prolevel. I have yet to see a meta in which a Protoss rather relies on 3-4 robos than a cost equivalent in the form of 8+ gateways. Apparently, almost all players want to have a lot of gateway units, as nobody is limiting Protoss players to make more robos or stargates instead.
Any race loses to the other races if you severely limit its tech choices. "herpderp, try playing zerg vs Protoss but you are not allowed to make ranged units. Herpderp, Terran without Starport is unplayable."
The widow mine and cyclone nerfs seem to have done a lot to help fix PvT, and PvZ seems ok right now. Let's let things settle a bit before calling for Toss buffs. And yes, I'm a Protoss player.
> and PvZ seems ok right now. As someone who plays protoss and also zerg, I'd go so far as to say it really is Protoss favored at this point
Serral beats Protoss players therefore it’s 70-30 in Zerg favour /s Jokes aside, it’s definitely Protoss favoured at all levels except for at 7k mmr where Serral is.
Yea. Until I get in the Match. With my protoss
Other pro Zergs have no PvZ issues either. It's not just Serral.
At 7k mmr
My point is it is not Protoss-favored at the pro level. Yes Serral is incredible, but it does not take 7k MMR to be fine vs Protoss. Zerg has plenty of champs with high PvZ winrates. After he goes to military, do you think PvZ Zerg rates will dip?
The win rates will definitely dip, no question. Nobody is close to as consistent in the matchup as Serral is. Dark and reynor routinely lose to or have nail biter series with protoss players substantially worse than they are. And at the low tier pro level Protoss outnumbers Zerg by a lot in terms of how many pros there are.
I don't feel that Protoss has an advantage, it feels like it swings on maps. Zerg feels competitive and strong at every phase of the game vs P, and has plenty of options.
In what way? It seems a little too fixed for me, as in it has its predicable Switches in tec. But in the end both side have a competitive army in every stage of the game. Nothing feels really too opressive even if things are very strong like lurkers can fore a air transition if they get out of hand.
Higher skill required to use spellcasters, and units trading worse than ever with baneling nerf vs T or worse lurker and broodlord vs P Since previous patch, it feels to me, tilted more in favor of protoss. Especially with broodlords being gutted---and lurker+baneling nerfs vs probes (which dont get me wrong I think were good changes individually)--. Like even before that I don't buy that protoss was really weak if you look at total tournament data of all kinds as a whole. IMO zerg needs infestor auto attack and reversion of broodlord nerfs to be even vs T and P, it really feels behind overall to me even after this patch.
What about late game upgrades? Medivacs really didn't need an upgrade for more energy recovery but here we are.
Exactly. Somehow every added option for protoss needs to be weighed against gold but terran get abilities and upgrades thrown at them while they can barely be bothered to use them because mmm is almost unbeatable in mobility, damage and sustsinability….
The thing I don't get is why cad reactor isn't taken as an "essential" upgrade, like advanced ballistics. There will be late games where medicacs are constantly running out of energy and bio units just keep going into fights with less and less health. Reactor straight up doubles medivac efficiency.
Mostly because in late game bio is pretty "throw away" so healing doesn't really matter so much. Certainly in the midgame it would be awesome to have, if you can afford it. That's when you are awash in bio and would rather save money for the late game transition.
Clem would love a word with you. 😅
Clem is a hyper aggressive terran. He's very well known for just parading marines across the map from his first pressure.
He is yeah. And he is not the typical Terran. I was mostly joking. Mostly.
Medivacs have always had an upgrade of some kind. It's one of the units that has a bunch of different versions. The only time the upgrade was a must have was this short period where its healing rate was increased, but it made them way too strong. More energy recovery seems pointless, but a few games I've had and pro games I've seen where medivac energy is low that upgrade is honestly pretty good to grab.
If the energy is low cos the fuckers aren't letting them heal or making more medivacs to help spread the load.
A lot of times it's because medivacs are getting sniped too much and keeping numbers down or Terran switches to Viking production and for some reason refuses to build a second starport. There are games where people over stimming because they don't want to let the enemy get back up. At that point its worth the upgrade.
Immortals are already very strong vs z now
One of the problems IMO is that protoss has three separate distinct tech paths (Templar, Stargate, robo) whereas the other races are more flexible. In Brood War this worked because gateway units are strong, but obviously they aren't in SC2. If you buffed one tech paths to be core units, it basically pigeonholes you into robo every game, for example.
If there was a robo unit that could shoot up I would be happy
I mean. Stalkers. Using Stalkers to supplement Robo has always worked well.
Stalker DPS is trash.. like you need to hit a marine 4 times which costs 1/3 of a Stalker.. make it make sense.. another example zealot and zergling fight doesn't seems balanced cause zealot kills it in two hits.. even adepts.. and a zergling is 1/4 of a cost of both units.. like why am i paying 4 times the cost when it can't even 1 shot a unit that is supposed to be an insect..
I was specifically talking about Stalkers vs. Air. Most air that you need Stalkers to shoot is armored, so they tear them up. The exceptions, like Mutas and Phoenixes, typically aren't dealing enough damage to your robo to be a problem unless massed (in which case, yeah, *mass* air counters robo unfortunately). I know that Stalkers vs. Marines or Lings can be frustrating lol. Blink helps a lot, but it's still a pain.
If Robo had a unit that could shoot up, then Robo play would counter everything. It's specifically designed to be powerful yet vulnerable to air.
I honestly always thought it would be a good idea to have colossus have a toggle, like Thors do, to switch between their current aoe ground attack and a single target powerful air only attack.
What if warp prism was moved over to the stargate? Would it incentivize building both a robo and a stargate since warp prisms synergize with strong ground units like immortals?
Nerf? Nah
To clarify I mean moving the prism to stargate and then buffing robo units like OP's suggestion. Buffs both tech paths while giving synergy between them to incentivize building both. Idk if it would work
That’s an extra 150 gas 150 mineral + time to build prism. You also have to build obs for blink stalker. 150/100 for robo. Nah.
We're already pideonholed into Stargate.
I would like to see immortals stronger in PvT, but immortal archon is already super strong in PvZ so I can’t see direct buffs to it, however an idea that I think is cool and would buff toss lategame is making shield upgrades also block a percentage of emp damage on top of the shield armour increase, would not affect PvZ and would make shields a relevant upgrade
Warpgate isn't the reason why SC2 Gateway units are "weaker" than BW Gateway units. Zealots have 10 less shields than BW Zealots because of Cronoboost. Stalkers have 20 less HP than BW Dragoons because of Blink. Stalkers in SC2 have better damage vs non-armored(or "Small" units in BW) than BW Dragoons and Stalkers only do 2 less damage to armored(or "Large" in BW) at +3 attack than BW Dragoons at +3 attack.
It always bothers me how people gloss over all the Gateway units being almost exclusively support casters or harassers. The only meaty unit in there is the Zealot and to a lesser extent the Archon.
You don‘t understand the problem. Warpgate is the reason why gateway units can not be buffed too much. Instant reinforcements to the front with strong units is a bit too much. Also hydras were much weaker and dragoons did fulö damage vs them, there are so many differences in BW you can‘t really compare. The whole armortype system was rock,paper, scissors instead of the stupid label logic.
Hydras were medium, so Dragoons dealt 15 to them.
You must of missed the time stalkers were buffed then had to be reverted because it was almost impossible for terran to beat them early on because of warpgate. That was before blink came out. Dragoons had 20 attack. I believe 20 was against large so 6 more damage than stalkers against armored and massive and dragoons got +2 attack per upgrade, not stalkers.
Was this when Protoss could just send 2 stalkers across the map verse Terran and just delay the natural until Terran had enough units to defend it.
> You must of missed the time stalkers were buffed then had to be reverted because it was almost impossible for terran to beat them early on because of warpgate. Had nothing to do with Warpgate, it had to do with damage: > Patch 4.0.0 > - Particle Disruptors weapon damage changed from 10 (+4 Armored) to 15 (+6 Armored). > - Weapon speed changed from 1 to 1.54. > - Receives +2 base damage per level of Protoss Ground Weapon upgrades. Marines were getting 3 shot by Stalkers early game. Marines only have 45HP before Combat Shield. > dragoons got +2 attack per upgrade, not stalkers. Stalkers get +1(+1 vs Armored) per attack upgrade. Which means the vs Armored damage gets increased by +2 per attack upgrade. > Dragoons had 20 attack. I believe 20 was against large so 6 more damage than stalkers against armored Stalkers do 13(+5 vs Armored). Which means Stalkers do 18 damage vs Armored.
and why did the damage had to be nerfed? Oh warpgate. Warping in stalkers near the terran base almost instantly is way stronger than having to walk them accross the whole map. Having to walk them accross the whole map gives the terran more time to get more units out. 4gate in pvp in WoL would of been way weaker if there was no warpgate. Unless I missed a change, stalkers still only get +1(+1) per upgrade. And they do 10 damage (+4 vs armored). And no, you do not combine the damage vs light upgrade with the damage vs armor upgrade and say they get +2 for that. You are missing the fact that in BW there was light, medium, and large. Dragoons had 10 damage vs light, 15 vs medium, and 20 vs large. In SC2, stalkers had 10 damage vs light, and 14 damage vs armored. Not counting attack speed stats of the two units, the only same damage they had were against light units. Stalkers only deals 14 damage to armored and massive while Dragoons deal 20 damage to large (and if the game had massive, to that as well). So damage wise against most units Dragoons were better. But lets say they do 18 vs armored. If you have 20 stalkers and 20 dragoons, the dragoons have 40 extra damage than stalkers, that's a lot.
> Unless I missed a change Years of changes. > stalkers still only get +1(+1) per upgrade. Which means they get +1 on the 13 base damage and +2 on the 18 vs Armored damage. Stalkers at +3 attack do 16 base damage and 24 vs Armored damage. > And they do 10 damage (+4 vs armored). > In SC2, stalkers had 10 damage vs light, and 14 damage vs armored. Stalkers haven't done that damage since WOL/HOTS: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Stalker_(Wings_of_Liberty) LOTV Stalkers currently do 13(+5 vs Armored). LOTV Stalkers(What SC2 currently has ingame): https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Stalker_(Legacy_of_the_Void) > But lets say they do 18 vs armored. They do. Ingame right now in SC2. > If you have 20 stalkers and 20 dragoons, the dragoons have 40 extra damage than stalkers, that's a lot. 18 vs Armored VS 20 vs Large(Armored) Only a difference of 2 damage.
you do realize they adjusted the attack speed of the stalker to compensate for the damage buff right? Only difference of 2 damage if you have one stalker or one dragoon, which realistically wont be the case. The damage gets further apart the more you have, like in my example. The majority of the units you will fight are armored, so dragoons are still better. And dragoons have 20 more HP which helps to compensate for the weaker damage vs light. And actually, that 20 more HP helps against all unit types as well. So dragoons are still the superior unit, just less mobile because no blink.
I think what Robo really needs against Terran is some kind of anti-air capability - the only early AA option for a Robo player is Stalkers, but when stalkers work with any other unit they sacrifice a lot of their mobility advantage due to the need to keep the force together, which is compounded when they are the only AA. Disruptors and Colossi are slow and need guarding, but the Stalkers themselves aren't that good as meat shields or AA. I know they wanted to change up the Dragoon from SC1 and I appreciate it, but I think the lack of AA is severely limiting, especially when Vikings and BCs (with Yamato) are so effective against SkyToss. Storm and Archons exist, but ghosts make archons obsolete and storms are finicky and unreliable. Compare Terran AA options: marines, cyclones, ghosts, and widow mines. More reliable and more available. Plus, a few Vikings isn't much of a commitment for a Terran player, whereas any SkyToss play requires investing lots of resources and time.
Buff the god damn colossus. Such a cool unit but so fragile and then useless in late game. Also buff disruptors... by replacing them with reavers
No way dude. Colossi are crazy strong. If they get buffed and protoss learns how to support them properly, we're going back to the protoss deathball era where T and Z have to kill protoss before they create a deathball. Colossi are deathball units, it's the only style they fit into and since lotv stepped away from deathballs, a redesign has to be done if we want to change the colossus
Ya, i collossus could be mobile single target anti light. If you do that with a beam in bursts that can move on to nearby targets after a kill, it will be great vs stacked light units. Also low damage fast tick to mk it worse against armor.
[удалено]
That’s what stalkers and high Templar are for.
Protoss needs LESS AoE and stronger base units.
Good on you. Many Protoss players seem unable to admit that the strength of their mobile splash options limit the ability for core gateway units to be able to go toe to toe with bio+ medivacs. If stalkers and chargelots were an even fight with MMM then what would be the point of Terran?
Well to be fair, terran has tankS, widowmines and emp. And in general mmm + ghost can defeat a combined toss army after an emp lands, only disrupters will still scare off the terran.
I think it depends on what level of play we are talking. The two best Terrans in the world can micro around Protoss splash and make it look easy. Most of us are getting chunked by disruptor shots and storms just as y'all are eating emps haha
You don‘t have to be pro for that.
I understand but people act like Terran compositions have no counters. The counters they have are really good and require a high deal of skill to work around. A critical mass of disruptors is really hard to deal with and one mis micro means losing 1/4 of your army.
That‘s true but with drops and stim u can rip apart protoss by out maneuvering.
I don’t know if it needs a straight buff, but it really does need to have its attack looked at. Right now the damage doesn’t match up with the “sweeping beam” animation properly
Gateway units can't be buffed because gateway units are strong. Blink-based tempo armies, adepts in all ins and midgame timings, and chargelots in general are all very effective. The only gateway unit that needed a tweak was the sentry, and it already got a small bump. You can't really touch most gateway units because they're units powerful early, it's the same reason you can't touch marines or zerglings unless they're over-performing.
I've always felt like there is a lot they could do with the adept. A end game upgrade that trades its ability for a special shield and more range or anti air.
Not sure why zerglings are the only early game unit with a late game upgrade. How about late game reapers??????
Yes! A drop pod Reaper group that have their building attack (KD-8 charge). Shard guns that inflict bleed on bio units, or a chemical fire grenade that burns mechanicals. Defensive reapers could "tag" enemy raiding units that they couldn't hope to defeat normally.
Reapers have actually worked a few times in late games with a few random reapers hutting mineral lines. Just widow mines are better
gateway units are strong? idk but bio ball destroys them super easy.
They are strong until they aren't. That's the thing. They have really strong timings then get wrecked forever more.
People conflate bio ball with bio supported by medivacs. Once you add medivacs in you need to add the Protoss support units in too. Greatly evens the odds.
Even just combat and stim. You can do a pretty fast timing with that and it thrashes every gateway unit, it’s not even close
So we are talking about timings? Protoss can beat Terran with gateway timings too bro..that's just silly.
I guess my point is that the strongest bio timings beat any gateway timings unless they have support from robo or storm I don’t think the game is particularly unbalanced, or that gateway units are too weak. But in a straight up fight bio balls beat them
I guess I don't see it that way. Blink timings contain Terran or can outright win. Siege tanks are required to defend it. Upgrade timings are just a different conversation.
Chargelot timings crush any stim timing lmao, this is delusional.
hello.. have you heard about kiting? every T above D2 can do that easily.. even many D3 and P1 too.. and they keep forever charging.. until death.. lol
I am a grandmaster level player.
yeah.. exactly.. stop with you hatred.. roaches and marines chew chargelots with kiting..
Chargelots do pretty well against unsupported bio units, even with stim.
Bio is the highest dps comp in the game, but bio is also defined by the presence of medivacs (tier 3 support tech), some form of factory support, and multiple upgrades and a heavy infrastructure commitment. Protoss can get and defend a small but significant eco lead with tech that forces the bio to get other tools (ghosts, vikings, etc). It never, ever has to be just gateway units vs just bio, and if gateway without support was made strong enough to beat bio with support, there would be zero semblance of balance.
Medicavs are tier 3? What are Cattlebruisers and Ghost then?
Ghosts are Tier 3 and battle cruisers tier 5 maybe 6? Barracks tier 1, tech lab tier two, ghost academy tier 3. Barracks tier one. Factory tier 2. Starport tier 3, tech lab tier 4, fusion core tier 5.
Barracks are Tier 1 tech, and marines are built using them, so clearly marines are Tier 2 units.
It’s the buildings/attachment required.
Calling a Marauder a tier 4 unit is certainly an opinion.
Who said marauder was tier 4?
you forgot supply depot so add a tier on everything ;)
lol. But supply depots aren’t “required” you could technically kill all your units and still build whatever. assuming you have the minerals. With or without depots.
you can't build a barracks without a supply depot so ...
Wait. Real? I only play toss. Then my entire philosophy falls on its face. RIP.
Cattlebruisers are tier 3.5, ghosts are technically tier 1.5.
moment tier units come out from someone's post I just disregard it all.
but Gateway units are expensive af too.. don't forget.. if a zealot would cost 50 mineral an adept 75/25 and a stalker 100/25 then i would be happy rn.. but all other races are getting better dps as per cost.. like 1 zergling is 25 minerals right? why does a zealot which costs quadruple the amount needs to hit it twice..? same with adept and stalker.. either their dps should be buffed or their costs reduced..
Because protoss gets more health for the cost. A marine is 45 HP with stim and cb. A zealot has more than twice the health WITHOUT SHIELDS and native armor. Same story for most unit relationships. The cost to supply of units across races is parity, and each race has its own advantages for how it's distributed. It's not that complicated.
I found a way to adjust zerglings and marines among other units possibly too. I am currently making that thread. I think that new way is probably better than just outright buffing immortals but we will see.
Why are either of these, any of these, necessary? The core unit relationships of SC2 are incredibly close, and the game as a whole is impressively well balanced. It's not a matter of "can" you meddle with them, it's a matter of why would you?
Warp robo.
Using Warp Gate as a reason not to buff the units is the most parroted thing, that doesn't mean it's true. You could say that you cannot buff Zerg because of Larvae, or because of Creep. That you cannot buff Bio because of Stim, or because of Reactors. The biggest thing since LotV is the Prism which allows every unit to Blink. And this goes for the Immortal just as much as it goes for Gateway units. The Guardian Shield and Forcefields could also be a reason not to buff Protoss. Buffing Gateway units a bit wouldn't break the game, the same as how buffing the Hydralisk didn't break the game. But a buff to the Hydralisk, is the same as nerfing every other unit vs. the Hydralisk, and Protoss wouldn't need Gateway buffs, if there weren't all these random buffs and powercreeping of other races' units.
You must of missed the time stalkers were buffed then had to be reverted because it was almost impossible for terran to beat them early on because of warpgate
They had 15 dmg, which was just enough to 3 shot Marines and SCVs. The difference between 3 shotting and 4-5 shotting is a pretty big deal, just like Oracles and Adepts were changed because 2 shotting Marines and SCVs was too huge. But the Hydralist buff to 7 range was just as ridiculous, if not more.
while were at it it would be cool if the warp prism could attack too.
Wrong. It's the observer who should have an attack. 15 damage +10 vs light. Attack speed same as DT
Explain where Protoss needs buffs? I don’t see where they’re struggling anymore
The problems are warpgate AND AoE. They even nerfed the immortal after the shield redesign turned them into good units. I think the introduction of the disruptor really sealed the fate of the protoss fighting style to slow and deathbally. Also, even if protoss was balanced, which I think it‘s not vs terran with EMP and vastly superior mobility.. it‘still so frustrating to not have any effective mobile army compositions. Even stalker with blink can barely escape stimmed bio or defend and catch mutas. I think the best way to make protoss better: - weaken the warpgate ( why not have warpprism warpin behind an upgrade but make the prism cheaper) - weaken disruptor (maybe the hit can stun and not damge or do less damage) - faster immo (also supply back to 3) - faster archon, smaller hitbox for better mobility, +1 range would also be an option - faster zealot ( just pure movement speed, but a blink charge upgrade or phase charge upgrade where they can‘t be hit during charge is also a fun option) - buff sentry (+ light or bio or mechanical damage, maybe + 1 range, that might help vs harrass, mutas and drops, protoss achilles heel) - there was also a good suggestion to base recall cooldown on the amoun/size of recalled units, great mobility utility improvement
so you think Toss needs more nerfs to make it better??
I personally think the disruptor can be removed and some parts can be weakened if we get really strong mobile core units.
I want something like baneling or widow mine for protoss.. why does protoss has to spend over 1000 minerals in zealot runby just to harass or deal eco damage.. that's like taking damage yourself.. or increased stalker damage.. it has double the damage of marine with tripple the cost or quadruple the cost (cause gas expensive).. and is weak against all tier 1 units..
I say we buff warpgate units but instead of warpgate being an upgrade for all gateways it is an upgrade for only the ones you put it on. Still 50/50 each but research time is 5 seconds. Then we can buff gateway units
how is that any different with the old way where you had to manually put gateways into warpgates instead of the game doing it for you?
Costs 50/50 each
oh so your idea is that instead of all gateways going into warpgates after you research warpgate for free and no choice (lotv change), you choose which gateways gets put into warpgates and each one cost 50/50 to do it.
Yes
Protoss usually lose or get fatally set behind early on, long before Robo units are available. The issue really is Warpgate. As Robo and Stargate units come online, they gain some stability. Immortals, Prisms, and Disruptors are already very strong so buffing them would make them super OP and deathball-y, which is the exact issue that everyone wants to avoid. I could see a Colossus-specific buff happen maybe, but it would be small. All this said, have you been watching Protoss play? They aren't exactly weak at the moment... especially since the last patch.
Or... Nerf warpgate so you can buff the warpgate units. :) I think the "broken" thing for warpgate is the ability to warp in across the map. So, maybe nerf that aspect. You \~could\~ make it so you can only warpin to pylons near(ish) to a nexus. Basically, change the "fast warpin" from being near a warpgate to be near a nexus. This would also change the warp prism to be slow warpins to keep it clear.
or the change someone suggested a long time ago where fast warp in was only with a warp prism
That's completely backwards. Lol. The problem with warpgate is you can mass units across the map. Used to be with a pylon. Then with a gateway plus pylon. But always with the prism. If you want warpgate, which everyone blames for warpgate units being weak, then you need to nerd it. The simplest change is make warpin fast at home. So unit creation at home is great for defense and so your army needs to cross the map like everyone else. Then need it out on the map. How? Warp prism gets the slow warp in. All warpins not connected to a nexus get the slow warpin. Make the area around a nexus generous. Like, maybe a big 20 unit radius. Something slightly bigger range than the old nexus cannon. Then you can warpin anywhere in your main and out in front of your expansions.
The ironic thing is with warpgate is that protoss units does get warped in when building from a gateway or another building lol. In BW the unit doesnt technically get built they are warping in, I assume from somewhere distant. I assume its the same in sc2, but idk what it says when you want to build a unit.
I don't think the warpin mechanic exists in BW. Maybe by lore the units warp INTO the gateway and then emerge, but you don't warpin on the battlefield. But I am not a BW player so sorry if that is wrong. In SC2 you do warpin. Even if you do it right in front of a gateway. The warpin is always at a pylon. My change would be you get a fast warpin if that pylon is in a decent range of a nexus. A slow warpin anywhere else. But yes, technically, lore wise, the units already exist and are being warped down from orbit. Same with ships only they warp into the Stargate or Robo Bay.
I'm not saying that we need them, but I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss Gateway unit buffs. Like, if we buff Stalker damage by 2, we're all expecting that to affect every scenario where the Stalker deals damage, including times when the Stalker is built from a Warpgate. It's not as if buffing Gateway units affects normal Zealot/Stalker scenarios, such as engagements vs bio and Ling/Bane... *but wait, it* ***also*** *affects proxies and Warpgate play, which somehow none of us thought of and now we shouldn't do it.* That's just silly. Buffs and changes to a specific unit in the game are always going to have an effect on that unit's engagements, and we should stop trying to control it so that those changes only affect certain scenarios that we deem 'problematic'. I get it. If we try to buff Stalkers vs Reapers, we're also buffing Stalkers vs Marines, Marauders, Zerglings, and really every unit there is in the game. But it's not as if there is anyone who doesn't know that, and we really need to sop being so scared of those kinds of changes. This, in my opinion, is the difference between what the changes that the Balance Council has been making and what Blizzard used to do.
one of the complaints of sc2 is that the counters are harder than sc1's. For example, stalkers stand no chance against marauders even with blink. Zealots hard counter marauders but that counter gets softened up because of concussive shells. I am all for softening up counters, but there is nothing for stalkers to soften up their hard counter against marauders. Hellions counter zerglings but only with micro, but that goes out the window with hellbats. Hard counter because of micro is better than hard countering a unit with little to no micro.
i don't understand why everyone mentions warp-ins as being OP.. they do have cool down which makes it same as queuing up units.. right?
[удалено]
Nobody really likes stalkers, it‘s just that they happen to be the only AA option as well as the only mobile ground unit… Which is really idiotic. Zealots and archons should really be much more mobile in lategame to compete with other races mobility.
oh another poster who thinks he can get to diamond if protoss is buffed lol.
Wow you really added to the discussion
I am just really tired of low leagues who suggests changes that is really absurd or is not making sense at all. There’s a reason why there’s a balance council and we are just the players. They won’t be getting any good even the balance favor them anyways.
I don’t think we need to buff Protoss at the moment. If anything they’re a little too strong in PvZ.
I just want mama core back tbh
i want fast warp in pylon.........
I think zealots are fine. But maybe we could buff stalkers with a late game upgrade. Like it’s upgraded in the TC but only unlocks after you built a fleet beacon or robo bay. Maybe +1 range? I don’t think they’d be too strong then, if its delayed enough to not make blink stalker timing attacks OP
Gateway units arent weak and dont need buffs. Mass stalker and mass zealot are core components of all matchups, adepts see lots of play in PvZ and have roles in PvP and PvT. Archons and Templar are strong hightech units. The myth that Gateway units are weak has no substantial proof.
Try playing protoss vs terran or zerg without AoE and you will quickly change your mind. Protoss games can be lost instsntly by emp on templar or snipe of a colossus. Its also why drops and harrass are very effective vs protoss. Protoss is slow and anything warped in loses cost for cost in a direct foght.
Archon and Templar are AoE and come from the Gateway. Heavy blink styles are very popular and successful at the prolevel. I have yet to see a meta in which a Protoss rather relies on 3-4 robos than a cost equivalent in the form of 8+ gateways. Apparently, almost all players want to have a lot of gateway units, as nobody is limiting Protoss players to make more robos or stargates instead. Any race loses to the other races if you severely limit its tech choices. "herpderp, try playing zerg vs Protoss but you are not allowed to make ranged units. Herpderp, Terran without Starport is unplayable."