Dispelling the myth of "gateway units have to be weak"

General Discussion
1

When a Protoss asks for “Strong core units” they aren’t asking for their core units to dominate the other races core units, a reliance on tech units should be necessary.
Protoss players are just asking for units that can compete at a fair level.

They balance team have really hit the nail on the head with the balance at multiple points. The prime example at the current state of the game is the Stalker.
It’s a strong core unit. It can be very powerful with blink and it’s role is very well defined but just by itself in late engagements it’s not something that is going to succeed.
This is compared to it’s past wet noodle self.

Zealots used to be good in this role too before they had their damage removed from charge.
They were pretty competent throughout the game but there was a lot of ways opponents could take care of them, in large groups their effectiveness was diminished but they were threatening to anything they could surround and heavily outnumber.

That change was primarily for the Zergling/Zealot dynamic but Protoss was never that strong in PvZ and changing this has clearly had a hugely negative impact in both pvz and pvt which is now why we have the terrible band-aid shield overcharge currently in the game.

Protoss has once again become reliant on tech units and all in’s and that is not enjoyable to either side.
Having to have stupid band-aid fixes because of the weakness of their core units before they can get out their high tech units and forced into playstyles because your core army can’t stand up to the opponents is not fun.

We have a stong balanced stalker.
We had a strong balanced Zealot.
Adepts were too strong and are currently too weak. They need a redesign. Something to breathe more life into them. They never really hit that strong, balanced level.
Sentries are utility units but they themselves feel weak. It was okay when the other Protoss units could carry their own slack but maybe a tweak to bring up their power level should be considered.
Templar are strong and balanced.
Dark templar are unique. I would say they are weak overall but they fit their role well.

11 Likes
2

Er, sorry to burst your bubble but, not every unit is intended to be balanced. The comparison of “stalker is balanced but not adepts” doesn’t really stand because they have different purposes. SC2 is intended to be a game of chess where you rotate between different compositions and specialised units in order to counter something of your opponents’. It isn’t supposed to be a 200-supply 1 unit army composition or even your go to response to hard counter everything else in the game. It just doesn’t work that way - hasn’t ever, and will never ever be in the future.

If you feel that they are too weak, you haven’t exactly experienced a properly timed adept glaives attack burning through your mineral line before. Or if you feel that sentries are weak, then you obviously haven’t played with someone who actually knows how to cut your army into bite size portions. It all comes down to who you are actually playing against.

1 Like
3

My takeaway from reading your post is that you believe that gateway units must be weak, yes? Or you’re simply disagreeing witht he reasons that the OP is using to say that gateway units don’t need to be weak?

4

Context is key.

Depending on what the situation is gateway T1 units can be weak or strong. OP is, or at least based on my interpretation, trying to say that gateway should be scalable and there shouldn’t be a need for more additions of various units in order for a death ball to be sustainable (which in turn leads to the concept of having a ‘fix-all’ unit). If that is the case, then I’d disagree because I don’t think SC2 was intended to be that way.

5

Its a yes or no question. You can provide whatever context you want in rationalization of your answer.

6

I provided examples and explanations.
You’re wrong on the basis “This isn’t a game designed to be a 200 supply 1 army composition”
That’s a classic straw man. Point out where I ever said that.

I pointed to the Stalker as being a strong core unit as it currently stands after it’s changes.
It’s still a unit that requires support and losses most one on one engagements.
In spite of the fact that I begin the thread with stating that Protoss should still have a reliance on tech units.

You state that I haven’t encountered sentry or adept all ins which is very intellectually bankrupt since obviously those functions are taken into account.
My assertion is that there has been times where Protoss’s core units were strong but not broken and fair even with gateway.

I don’t believe that the adept can ever be buffed to be a core unit if it stays at it’s current design, in which case I call for a redesign to give it a better purpose. Strictly scouting/harassment unit which would mean making it higher attack rate, more capable of non-committed harassment but less explosive damage overall or they could make it a more central option for protoss. Make it require a zealot buffer, have them be fragile but more fragile but less costly. Those are options open for it.
Sentry losses it’s place fast in the game, it’s role is pretty good and I would say it’s mostly fine if not slightly weak due to the counters that have been brought into the game and it quickly losses it’s place past the early game or early timing pushes.

TL:DR you made up a imaginary position and attacked that because you really have no reading comprehension.
You compare a linear game like chess to describe the non-linear interactions between units and the complexity of real time management as an excuse to say everything is fine as it is which is just a weak position to stand on because it’s blind to the landscape of how the game plays.
The game has roles but currently the Zealot, adept and to a lesser extent the sentry do feel like they require tweaks to better fulfill those roles because terrible designed choices are being made to make up for their current weakness. If band-aids are being thrown on instead of proper treatment it’s not helping the state of the game at all.

4 Likes
7

Banelings say hi! KEKW

8

The main problem I see with toss right now is that the other races over time got additional tools/buffs to work around with (especially terran) which is completely breaking toss apart, while toss throughout the years pretty much stood the same.

Not only is the old comp worse than it is now (storm/colossus/sentry/zealot nerfs) than it was back then, it also has to deal with alot more threats while everything around them got pretty much stronger over time (medivac boosts, mines/lib that work against anything, blueflame/mines making engagements on tanks that counter all ground units to a nightmare,BC and thor buffs, emp splash increase).
Not even speaking of interference matrix/viper yoink here.

While toss got more opening potentials like adepts/oracle, they haven’t really gotten anything for their core army layout or play around with.
Mines,libs,hellbats,cyclones and ravagers,vipers,swarmhosts,lurkers are so good active tools , compared to oracle/tempest/adept, that it makes me hurt every game I see them.

On that node, swarmhosts shouldn’t be in the game…
It’s just a stupid mechanic of throwing waves and waves of free units that are stronger than regular units, even over walls, into bases to just snipe stuff out without any risk but only reward.
At least pay X amount of mineral per locust to be mechanically more even with the carrier, but the spot that it has right now is the only unit that I personally can point to and say: it shouldn’t be in the game.

Disruptor is in an okay spot, it is really rewarding but only works against roach/ravager offcreep and toss right now.
Can be really punishing tho if you rely on its’ hits.

Battery overcharge should be removed, no fan of it.
They try to fix the symptom of toss beeing too fragile in early-midgame and lategame with it, which is treating the symptom and not the issue.
Bad supply efficiency, fragility which leads to incredibly easy KO moves on toss compared to other races, and the lack of lategame warpin/defence mechanic against multiprog harass on max supply because of all of this.

Toss units, especially gateway, are not really rewarding and have bad supply efficiency and rely on the same old mechanics that they still used in WoL.
Dealing with mines/hellbats/BCs/lurkers/vipers is such a nightmare for the toss comp, and all they can do is just sit back and take it most of the time, which results in toss playing only for timing attacks and all-ins right now.

5 Likes
9

The zealot charge nerf is the biggest nerf made to something in the last 2 years. It’s more impactful than the queen nerf for example and it was totally unnecessary just like the observer nerf.

5 Likes
10

Brought Protoss back to a time where they required band-aid fixes because fundamentally their current design doesn’t work.

1 Like
11

I’d propose:

  • Zealots get a +10 shield buff

  • Sentry’s Guardian Shield absorbs 4 damage from 2

  • Archon’s shield get buffed to 400 shield from 350

12

Archon’s an already powerful unit, I don’t see the value in buffing their shields.
A four damage absorption might be too high, especially during the early game. Might be worth considering if it was changed to an upgrade instead.
+10 shields, would rather my change I hightlighted here.

13

A 4 damage absorption is flat out ridiculous considering that many ranged units have only 5 damage to begin with.

14

I’m just throwing down ideas for a start not to say these are the best solutions. I just feel like Archons needs to go back to being the top notch unit that it was back in BW.
As for Guardian Shield, if 4 is too much, make it to 3. Sentries need to be a support unit that can actually support an army, not just force field paths, hallucinate to scout.
For Zealots, it’s just need a simple buff, not a whole rework of its charge upgrade. Plus, it can be similar to how it was in BW.

15

Which units have only 5 damage at best? Lol

16

Carriers, Phoenixes, Reapers, Battlecruisers against air, Queens against air, and Liberators against air. Against all of those units your proposed Guardian Shield would be an 80% reduction to damage taken, which is outright broken.

Similarly, 6-damage units like Marines, Sentries, and Void Rays would also be rendered useless (66.6667% to 80% reduction depending on base armor) by a 4 damage shield.

In any case, Guardian Shell would be outright broken if you buffed it even to 3 damage.

Archons were not a “top-notch” unit in Brood War:

  • Their shields took full damage from all specialized sources (Tanks, Firebats, Vultures, Hydralisks, Dragoons, etc), which is equivalent to having both a light and armored tag in StarCraft II. This meant Brood War Archons were about half as tough as their SC2 counterpart.
  • Their shields were completely drained by a single EMP.
  • Their range was lower, giving other ranged units a slight advantage.
  • Archons dealt no bonus damage to biological units, so although the Brood War Archon attacked faster than its StarCraft II counterpart, the StaCraft II version has similar DPS in most cases.

To some extent, Archons were dependent on smaller battles or a lack of ranged damage from the enemy to be effective in Brood War.

The current SC2 Zealot is outright better than its Brood War counterpart.
The unit has the same speed (before and after upgrade) with charge on top of it. While the Zealot has 10 less shields than in Brood War, the ability to warp in and to charge both more than make up for it.

17

Well who knows if all of my suggestions are going to be broken. It may look broken at practice but I care about its execution. Is it going to significantly affect how each game goes or is it going to be ineffective. There’s a reason why we have a testing phase to see how it actually goes.

18

I prefer my Zealot suggestion, what were your thoughts on it?

Archon’s change wouldn’t break them, often I feel like they can be a bit squishy but is it really necessary?
I just think there needs to be more fundamental dramatic changes instead of just a attack buff here or an hp buff there because those would just be a band-aid on Protoss’s pigeonholed design.
Also it’s not really fun to fit against units that don’t die.

Guardian shield change probably would be broken I have to concur. I did tasting and for one hit with guardian shield and full upgrades that Protoss units can have a 9 damage reduction against ranged units as a fun fact.
Because it has to pass through the shield armour, then it has to pass through the unit armour to deal damage.

On another note I did do a test and found out a bug that they patched out where protoss units effected by Raven’s aa missile were taking increased damage because they were stacking the reduction to shield armour and base armour to do way more than intended on the shot that would break the shields.

19

I like your Zealot suggestion as it does make things interesting, but I just want to do a simple buff first before we start doing that dramatic change. I wouldn’t think its a band-aid because its a general +10 shield buff to the zealot, and plus it can be like it BW state.

Yeah my Guardian Shield suggestion wasn’t necessary, (for Sentries are just fine as it is) but I just thought it needed “something”.

The reason why I wanted to buff the Archons is because at this state, they are being used more of meat shields than damage dealers or both (and get killed easily). And by stat wise, I look at something like Ultralisk that had their HP buffed from 400 (in BW) to 500 in which I look at comparison to Archons, they got nothing, no buffs anywhere even to the slightest. Well I was suggesting only 1 idea for the Archon although my others are just more stat buffs.