Buff toss but make harder to use?

[churmom-1140]

See the problem here is these suggestions only dull the tools p already has without opening other aspects of play. If you nerf the carrier only and buff adepts it further adds to the problem that x/y are the only viable builds. Why not make the interaction of current builds be more dynamic/ open avenues of new builds, rather than just say no more Skytoss, no more warp. No keep them in, make them stronger but make misusing them more deadly both on the macro and micro side.

[Shadow-244788]

Complain about carrier these days doesnt make sence carrier was shade of own power

[churmom-1140]

Dude I’m not even trying to be a dick but I can’t understand wtf ur saying. All of your posts read like the Garfield oven comic edit.

[DeadlyMouse-1160784]

@Shadow-244788

Lol nerfed a unit who was shade own glory power man l2p please zerg have all tool to win sky toss such as fungal kill voids plus parasit bomb for sure end vr so only what left are carrier you have de shroud and about of ht drop fungal right on ht then shroud

I play Protoss at a higher level than you and I make 4 units in PvZ during the course of a 20 minute game. Also please don’t respond to me, your next post is likely not going to be intelligible.

@churmom-1140

See the problem here is these suggestions only dull the tools p already has without opening other aspects of play. If you nerf the carrier only and buff adepts it further adds to the problem that x/y are the only viable builds. Why not make the interaction of current builds be more dynamic/ open avenues of new builds, rather than just say no more Skytoss, no more warp. No keep them in, make them stronger but make misusing them more deadly both on the macro and micro side.

I don’t think you’re looking at this in regards to each match up. You should be thinking, how does this affect ZvP first. Very important to note is that adepts are already very strong in ZvP to start with, regardless of whether you open stargate or twilight first. A significant buff to the unit could tip early and midgame ZvP heavily in the Protoss’ favour. Opening TC first becomes more risky now because battery overcharge isn’t available if you’re cutting the MSC, but you still have base shield batteries to work with in holding all ins. Gutting the core lategame Protoss unit becomes a lot more reasonable when you think about the MU from the position where Protoss has a significant tempo advantage in the MU now. Moreover, you’ll see even in pro games that Protoss players will go “skytoss” with only void rays and storm, so the style isn’t even completely dead. It’s more of a timing, but it exists.

In TvP the carrier only really matters for the extreme late game, and you can probably make do with tempests anyway.

[Shadow-244788]

You play better still complain about how carrier must be nerfed to the ground

[ShadowStorm-229563]

@churmom-1140

Yes the carrier and zealot would have greater weakness with a power trade off that would fundamentally change the way you engage with and the total comp of the army, opening the possibilities of more gateway+stargate/ robo+stargate type builds.

Your change make carrier useless because any range unit with XtA attack would kill interceptors/carrier before interceptors do any damage.

Stop with “charge should be manually triggered” unless you have the balls to prove it via replay that you are able to control standard protoss camp with charge set to manual.

Charge even now can be set to manual.

@churmom-1140

Yes the vr would most likely be abused which it could be argued moved pr to an upgrade ability or weakened ability on structures, but the idea of allowing units like the vr to take on power roles that suppliment against things like viper, Thor, bc, rather than just melt armored would allow for a larger scope of play

You clearly didn’t review your ideas.

Viper:
VR is the second best unit to be abducted.
-Abduct range 9
-VR range 6 cost 200/150

Thor and BC:
VR is decent at killing armored units, but VR is not the best at it.
vs Thor, you better go, mass zealot,
Vs BC better option is Archon, Stalker, sentry.

@churmom-1140

The scv que is meaningless if it takes the resources before the buildings start because of the downtime of locked capital. Albeit small adding a speed bump that discourages building dumps would make expo planning take a bit more forethought and cannon rushing more of a commitment
The queen auto cast could be like wc3 where it auto injects nearest hatchery until energy is gone so there would be decidated inject queens. But that would be absurdly lazy. The creep tumor could be qued up as a predicted path

Scv:
Unnecessary completion of simply mechanic.

Queen and tumor
This is not QoL change but automation.
Are you rely so lazy?

[churmom-1140]

i dont post often and just figured out how to quote lol

@DeadlyMouse-1160784

I don’t think you’re looking at this in regards to each match up. You should be thinking, how does this affect ZvP first. Very important to note is that adepts are already very strong in ZvP to start with, regardless of whether you open stargate or twilight first.

I would say you’re suggesting changes that are only Band-Aids that sift metas while ignoring the root cause of top protoss struggling in tourneys with the ladder being skewed toward protoss (underpowered at top / over at masters and below). you can change the tempo and the timings but once the same tools are obtained the same mid and late game problems will occur. what i mean by that? say adapt is buffed. it will change the tempo for pros and just allow for easy allins to occur for lower leagues. the tempo may change but once optimization occurs you will still have the same issues that hurt both the pros and lower leagues. say you heavily nerf the carrier in tandem. late game for pros will favor z and t to a point where early optimized all ins will become the meta again (look at 2018 with infested terran and chargelot dmg boost). buffing the overall race that allows new builds while locking the power behind exteme skill would solve both issues while allowing more build diversity. but to do so would require ripping current compositions apart or forcing players to specialize in a few use units (like how gosts +mech or viper +infestor is hard to manage even for pros so they specialize)

@ShadowStorm-229563

Your change make carrier useless because any range unit with XtA attack would kill interceptors/carrier before interceptors do any damage.

Stop with “charge should be manually triggered” unless you have the balls to prove it via replay that you are able to control standard protoss camp with charge set to manual.

Charge even now can be set to manual.

that’s the whole trade off. the carrier would demolish everything if forethought and setup were in place leading up an engagement or constant scouting were a needed factor but they would be useless if just sent in on assumptions of where the enemy is

that’s also the whole point of the chargelot. no i wouldn’t be able to control them with a standard comp. most wouldn’t. so the comp would change or be optimized for zealots with the tradeoff being a ledge power spike when used correctly. what’s funny is how adamant you are against even the idea of the difficulty spike regardless of extreme buff trade offs.

@churmom-1140

Yes the vr would most likely be abused which it could be argued moved pr to an upgrade ability or weakened ability on structures, but the idea of allowing units like the vr to take on power roles that suppliment against things like viper, Thor, bc, rather than just melt armored would allow for a larger scope of play

all ideas should be reviewed multiple times and thought over with multiple factors. hence why i said it COULD be argued. just as it COULD be argued that vr or carrier range could have a base increase in lieu of or in addition to, negating the vipers and opening a wider variety of counters/builds to thor/bc.

@ShadowStorm-229563

Scv:
Unnecessary completion of simply mechanic.

Queen and tumor
This is not QoL change but automation.
Are you rely so lazy?

are you so lazy you cant manage a probe longer than a 3 second shift click que? or turn on/ off a shield battery? seems atomized to me and narrows the overall skill gap of protoss

[Shadow-244788]

You zerg claim apm numbers matter while most apm spread tumor order and inject

[DeadlyMouse-1160784]

@churmom-1140

it will change the tempo for pros and just allow for easy allins to occur for lower leagues. the tempo may change but once optimization occurs you will still have the same issues that hurt both the pros and lower leagues. say you heavily nerf the carrier in tandem. late game for pros will favor z and t to a point where early optimized all ins will become the meta again (look at 2018 with infested terran and chargelot dmg boost).

I think you’re just guessing when you talk about how the game will play out. Disruptor mass blink DT is a perfectly viable late game unit composition against Terran. Add in some tempests if you really need to break a siege position. Protoss won’t be weak in late game TvP at all. And if you see how Trap plays in ZvP, ground Toss isn’t impossible to play either, disruptor HT seems completely viable at the highest level of play.

[TheFalcon-11772]

Just nerf shield battery so it’s less effective on air units . Ground toss / mixed army toss is fine at top level. The issue is stuff like proxy void ray builds, and even mass Skytoss a-move is kind of oppressive at ladder play .

[Shadow-244788]

Sky toss pvz just because half army ground begin usless if mass lurker comes like 6 enough to shred

[ShadowStorm-229563]

@churmom-1140

that’s the whole trade off. the carrier would demolish everything if forethought and setup were in place leading up an engagement or constant scouting were a needed factor but they would be useless if just sent in on assumptions of where the enemy is

you don’t listen.

Assuming your carrier changes will be implemented, you will be unable to setup Carrier before engagement (Like Liberator) because the interceptor is a unit and can be killed. So forethought goes to drain.

Setting it up after the engagement would require a meat shield that can withstand Terran and Zerg attacks (unit that can be produced in dozens and is cheap enough to be produced with Carrier) and protoss don’t have this type of unit.

Even Zealot/Adept who is protoss Meat shield right now can’t be produced with Carrier due to Carrier being a mineral dump (and yet you are changing it).

@churmom-1140

that’s also the whole point of the chargelot. no i wouldn’t be able to control them with a standard comp. most wouldn’t. so the comp would change or be optimized for zealots with the tradeoff being a ledge power spike when used correctly. what’s funny is how adamant you are against even the idea of the difficulty spike regardless of extreme buff trade offs.

Assuming your changes are implemented build a composition containing Zealot that will be able to engage MMM + Tanks in TvP and Roach, Ravager, Hydra in ZvP.

@churmom-1140

are you so lazy you cant manage a probe longer than a 3 second shift click que? or turn on/ off a shield battery? seems atomized to me and narrows the overall skill gap of protoss

Probe:
1.) You Artificially increase protoss build timings.
2.) You make it so build Queuing will be impossible unless Blizzard implements a 3 second wait before the next build is started.
3.) Your change will not have any effect be it at the top or at the bottom, because top is very efficient with their builds and the bottom will simply order Mass build using all probes.
4.) Only thing that will be affected is the Cannon rush but there are 101 better ways to resolve the Cannon rush problem.

So you do not address any problem.

SB:
you do know that Shield battery is used only on defense (and some cheeses). So most SB’s are placed between nexus and mineral lines or at the entrance to the base (but only if you expecting an attack).

If your mineral line is attacked you don’t have time to play with SB because you need to move your probes to a safe place, so your so-called “Skill” will not be utilized.

entrance to the base it would increase skill ceiling but very little. At the same time, developers need to implement SB off/on state and it can’t be the same as an unpowered state.

Do you think that this small of skill celing increase is worth it. I dont

[churmom-1140]

of course i’m guessing on how this would all play out. its speculation. at the eod that’s both what were doing when considering any balance change. Disruptor dt and ground toss are viable options to play but i would argue a plain nerf to the carriers or sky toss at all shifts the incentive to heavier ground based armies and shorter games, narrowing build pools.

@ShadowStorm-229563

you don’t listen.

Assuming your carrier changes will be implemented, you will be unable to setup Carrier before engagement (Like Liberator) because the interceptor is a unit and can be killed. So forethought goes to drain.

it not a matter of understanding your opinion, I’ve just been saying you’re wrong and cant extrapolate on the idea of having to plan engagements out further than current styles of play. just because the unit can be killed doesn’t mean the increased damage/time won’t be significant nor would it be in the best interest to rely solely on carrier usage. either engage more thoughtfully or use the carrier as a dps supplement for a ground army in lower numbers

@ShadowStorm-229563

Assuming your changes are implemented build a composition containing Zealot that will be able to engage MMM + Tanks in TvP and Roach, Ravager, Hydra in ZvP.

storm + cargelot + oracle would, to me, sound like a dynamic mid game comp against mmm + tanks. chargelots would be able to completely wipe a tank line w charge as long as they are not in a ball due to the buffed initial damage. the bio would be able to wipe the chargelots if positioned in front of the tanks, but a slightly buffed storm would better zone the bio. oracles ability use would be more useful for flank scouting and trapping groups. but for both players, there would be a higher probability of punishment from just charging forward. storm and collosi already trade well against r,r,h in zvp. adding in zealots that are used to setup a demarcation zone to allow enough time/ space for the range units to maximize splash dmg would benefit a comp of say collosi stalker zealot but if the spacing is off or the charge is spammed on a small clump of units the overall comp fails.

@ShadowStorm-229563

Probe:
1.) You Artificially increase protoss build timings.
2.) You make it so build Queuing will be impossible unless Blizzard implements a 3 second wait before the next build is started.
3.) Your change will not have any effect be it at the top or at the bottom, because top is very efficient with their builds and the bottom will simply order Mass build using all probes.
4.) Only thing that will be affected is the Cannon rush but there are 101 better ways to resolve the Cannon rush problem.

like you said in 3. the change wont have any effect on the top or bottom. yea that’s the point. pro players see no change because they have the skill but league distribution below becomes more varied because of this factor. at very low it wont matter either. i’m implying your only problem is disliking the idea of having more of a skill celling that parallels the other 2 races more closely. you know that if you have to move your probes that quickly a sb most likely wont do much anyway right? like widow mines or a flock of mutas. the sb change would have more impact on 3rd-5th expansions. runbys and stim marine harass would be more effective if the p is not paying attention just like a planetary not being repaired. so that little bit of map awareness wont affect pros but would have a large impact on lower leagues.

[DeadlyMouse-1160784]

@churmom-1140

of course i’m guessing on how this would all play out. its speculation. at the eod that’s both what were doing when considering any balance change.

I’m trying to say I can give you very solid estimations of how the immediate metagame would play out if these changes were implemented. It’s not really guessing from my end, like proxy voidray being a build was blindingly obvious pre voidray buff.

[ShadowStorm-229563]

@churmom-1140

I’ve just been saying you’re wrong and cant extrapolate on the idea of having to plan engagements out further than current styles of play.

You can extrapolate the Role of a unit, composition in with the unit will be used and how the unit will be used in the composition. You can’t extrapolate if the composition will be variable and the outcome of a fight.

All your changes are implemented.
Carrier role: Damage dealer
Usage: Similar to Liberator.
Composition: none
due to your changes any composition I can think of would consist only of gas heavy units (Archon, Sentry, immortal, Disruptor, HT, Colo ), and those they are not variable, because gas is the resource that protoss do not have in abundance.

@churmom-1140

storm + cargelot + oracle would, to me, sound like a dynamic mid game comp against mmm + tanks. chargelots would be able to completely wipe a tank line w charge as long as they are not in a ball due to the buffed initial damage. the bio would be able to wipe the chargelots if positioned in front of the tanks, but a slightly buffed storm would better zone the bio.

Tank(Sidge mode): Range 13 (weapon), damage 40 (weapon), cooldown 2.14 (weapon), HP 175, Sight 11
MMM Range 5
Terran has Scan so Tank almost always has max range.

Storm range 9, radius 2,25, windup 1s, cooldown 4s, HP 80
Charglot: Range 4 (Charge), Damage 32 (Charge), cooldown 7 (Charge), HP 150

Remember you don’t have 10+ Chargelots you at most would have 10 due to manual charge. So you most likely would charge at 1/2 Tanks.

if tanks are upfront, MMM is behind them. so you charge into the tank line and at best kill 1 tank and then MMM clean your Chargelots.

HT would get decimated by stimed MMM due to 1 second windup time of storm.

@churmom-1140

like you said in 3. the change wont have any effect on the top or bottom. yea that’s the point. pro players see no change because they have the skill but league distribution below becomes more varied because of this factor. at very low it wont matter either. i’m implying your only problem is disliking the idea of having more of a skill celling that parallels the other 2 races more closely.

Skill is something that you need to learn to get better. so if your change doesn’t affect low-level players then it’s not a skill but an unnecessary feature.

@churmom-1140

you know that if you have to move your probes that quickly a sb most likely wont do much anyway right? like widow mines or a flock of mutas. the sb change would have more impact on 3rd-5th expansions. runbys and stim marine harass would be more effective if the p is not paying attention just like a planetary not being repaired. so that little bit of map awareness wont affect pros but would have a large impact on lower leagues.

You are correct regarding WM

Flack of mutas: you need 7 mutas to kill the probe and muta bunce up to 3 times
with damage 9/3/1 so 63/31/7 (6 mutas). 2 probes will be able to survive the muta initial attack and be tipped up before the next attack.

Zerg runbyes:
most runbyes are done using 10+ zergling those it’s more nan enough to punish protoss lack of awareness.

Terran don’t do runbyes. Terran do Drop:
Drops: SB is there to make sure that 1 medivac + 6 marines is not game-ending. Similar to zerg Queen or Terran Planetary fortress.

Only Terran RunByes are Hellion run by but 2-3 helions are enough to overpower SB

[Velitey19-1665]

Buffing Protoss is a big NO right now. It doesn’t matter how hard or easy Protoss is, you simply can’t buff Protoss until Protoss players start consistently beating Dark/Reynor/Serral/Maru, when they are for certain not as skilled at SC2.