Your thoughts if "previous Karax" had discounts for towers?

Recall that prior to the more (relatively) recent updates, Karax’ power set 1 was between combat unit discounts vs. more structure shield and health. For the latter, would it have “made sense” if they swapped that with 1% to 30% off in cost for his buildings that warp in instantly (so pylons, batt, cannons, and monoliths)?

For someone who preferred that mastery anyways, I DEFINTELY would’ve preferred to have cheaper pylons and towers (105/0 cannons, and 210/70 monoliths, yes please!).

It just felt odd that one mastery was a discount, while the other was higher health. Now, they’re both higher health which seems to make more sense (even better now that the combat unit higher health is ON TOP of a +50% hp).

Sometimes it’s just not enough space to build more cannons/other even if you have the money. In these situations quality > quantity.
But for cannon rushing Amon cost decrease would definitely make a lot of sense.

1 Like

I’d still rather have the cost reduction for units over cost reduction on towers. If it was cost on structures in general, then you may have an actual thing going on there. Cheaper Nexi and tech structures would be a huge deal.

I’m not sure it makes sense, considering even a less than optimal macro would support defensive cannon play.

And his cannons are not “more expensive than anyone else’s by default”. This is like Swann, Stukov, Zeratul, etc. asking for a mastery discount on their defensive structures.

Then asking will it help? I mean sure, any discount price would help macro, but what really helps macro is good macro. And where even an average macro would support a style, I feel the mastery is entirely wasted to just promote a single style.

It’s more so covering more ground. Granted, knowing the key areas to set down cannons counts for more.

Oh… none of my post deals with macro. It’s strictly a cost thing. Especially since his combat units cost 30% more.

So because his combat unit cost more, his cannons should cost less.

And so every Karax will go for cannons cuz it’s cheaper and easier. How does that make sense?

That’s basically a prestige with advantage/disadvantage but extra steps. And instead of a mastery benefit, you’re taking one set away by doing this. I’d still prefer P1’s philosophy over this.

I’m not sure about this. The key is density: even the better static defence in Co-op doesn’t have as much power in one area as most armies. Damage output is the most important factor in power, but HP is at least something. For Karax, high HP static defences alongside Shield Batteries and Repair Beam makes it feasible to defend losslessly with static defences at least some of the time, which is much more valuable than being able to replace more cheaply.

The change I think would be most useful is Tangor’s one:

Level 11 talent (Instant Pylon/Cannons/Batteries warp)
Add 5 range to probe build ability. This will strengthen cannon push strategy for Karax early game.

which also definitely prefers higher HP structures so they don’t get overwhelmed as you warp them in.

Yeah, cause we need more cheesy gameplay in coop… why is it ok to be able to win making just 1 unit, or by building just cannons and batteries? Do we really want to dumb down coop even more.

Screw it man… it’s already past the point for me. Go ahead and make karax be able to salvage cannons and batteries for 100% cost return. Just build cannons every game, against every comp and every mutator. I guess noobs will appreciate that…

Ironically enough, to fit OP’s wish, the salvage ability would be far more simpler and give far more return for the average player than this “mastery reduce 30% cost on cannons” idea lol.

Think this is a bit of an overreaction. I understand the underlying issue you’re bothered by, but:

  1. It’s okay and completely normal for a part of a commander’s kit to be usable against everything, e.g. mass Hydralisk or mass Void Ray. It’s only a problem if it’s a) optimal against everything and especially if b) it’s really simple to use.
  2. Karax’s design already pushes the idea that static defence should be an option that’s usable against everything. i.e. you pick between structures and army in mastery as if that’s an okay decision to make before knowing the map you’re on, and you can pick a prestige that’s specifically about his static defence.
  3. Even using Karax’s static defence defensively has subtleties. How do you position them? What ratio of each three static defence structure? Energiser support, Colossus support, Spear of Adun usage, manually casting barriers, etc.
  4. Using static defence aggressively, e.g. with Tangor’s extremely important (and fun) change that allows warping in at range, takes skill and has even more subtleties.
  5. 100% salvage is a perfectly fine mechanic, and Swann having it doesn’t make his static play degenerate in the slightest. I think it probably doesn’t belong on Karax but… eh, I get it. Investing resources permanently in an area you then abandon doesn’t feel that good.

Honestly, i don’t think you do.

No. I think that is a terrible way to design commanders.

One unit that can counter everything - like ravagers, are bad. Ravagers did not have those crazy OP biles back in the day, yet Abathur was still considered one of the strongest, if not the strongest commander.

The same goes for hero commanders that can solo pretty much everything - like FoM Kerrigan or Best Buddy. I think that is bad too.

They disproportionately reward you for playing 1 hero unit well. If that alone gets you excellent results, how can you then reward someone fairly who performs the same with 5 units at the same time? How about someone with 5 unit groups at the same time? The former one doesn’t need control groups, or any multitasking. Nor does he risk to loose any resources.

That seems to be inherently unfair to me.

Swanns buildings are not instantly build. Do i really have to emphasize the difference?

How does it feel to control a probe for 80% of the game, making 5 cannons and batteries a minute while your ally is microing ravens, libs and tanks as well as nova and the rest of their army, that requires as much actions in 5s as you do in 60?

Eh, I get it… the game doesn’t feel as good, if you can’t go afk mid game without noticeable losses or any significant difference in your contribution to the game.

But jokes aside - should cannons be a viable option? Sure. However they should not outperform someone making less cannons and more units that are microed well. Cause the latter one needs more effort and skill - and that should be rewarded more than building cannons.

No disagreement from here. Best Buddy is absolutely degenerate, Folly of Man is barely less so. Hero design in general is actually pretty degenerate in Co-op, but until it went to extremes in successive patches it wasn’t too much of a problem.

I don’t think you understand my meaning in what you quoted. “Usable against everything” doesn’t mean “optimal against everything” – I said this very specifically but you cut the quote before that.

In fact, ugh, you ignored pretty much all the substance of my post, looking at it…

What are you doing? Again you’ve cut off the quote. This particular sentence is talking about the mechanic by itself, and about Swann. A later sentence (the very next one) then goes on to say it doesn’t belong on Karax.

I feel like this is a very forced disagreement. At present, static with Karax is technically ‘usable against everything’ (because it can defend and technically attack, and can hit ground and air), but it’s extremely sub-optimal offensively and even defensively Karax’s ‘passive’ defences aren’t unbreakable/afk-able in many situations (top bar support’s often called for).

What are we discussing changing that you’re afraid will make Karax’s static pushing so optimal, so meta, and so trivially easy to use? A 30% cost decrease. Really? That won’t do it. Even Tangor’s much more dramatic changes to static pushing (warp-ins at range) don’t make static pushing some braindead all-purpose afk-able strategy. They don’t make his army redundant whatsoever.

1 Like

I think you two are discussing this without the context/baseline. What I mean is that coop since its conception was never ‘balanced’ in many ways. Specifically, each of the original COs and honestly thereafter COs’ repertoire of strategies were never on equal footing.

Perhaps that was by design that not all strategy will perform equally. Frankly, it is pretty difficult and unnecessary to make them all ‘equal’, so to speak. So what am I talking about it? I think that’s the baseline any discussion going forward should be built on.

For example, Abathur’s Ravagers were only made this strong because UE was already a thing. Most of the changes throughout each patch/buff/nerf of COs were done to promote 1 strat over an already used or possible overly dominating one.

Oh my bad… read the following sentence more like belonging to the one that comes after it.

Can’t believe there are people that agree…

Why would even consider that? It doesn’t make sense. Can one transport vikings inside medivacs? Sure. It just doesn’t make sense.

Unless of course the location will be important longer than just for one time (like the center enemy base on rifts to corhal).

I just don’t think his cannons are too expensive. You can get a ton of them if you go pure cannon. Cannons are already pretty darn good… they cost minerals, but no supply. So they scale basically indefinitely.

Now if you on the other hand want cheaper cannons not to get more cannons, but to have more units in your army, that i would - if not agree - at least understand. I would rather see his pylon cost reduced by 50 than cannons really. And btw. 30% cost reduction is a lot. It basically means this:

Here for all mass cannon fans: you get ~50% more cannons now… for free!

Like the cost 40% cost reduction from templar apparent… that is a lot.

Yeah… that’s one of the problems in coop.

Ok i get the idea… but they feel more OP than UEs now. Cause UEs have no AoE against air. And they were limited to 3. Ravagers have none of that. You can literally go pure ravager now. Not even queens are needed.

So make 1 unit, use 1 spell, win every game? That just seems wrong.

I don’t think his cannons are too expensive either. I think the OP’s suggestion, making them cheaper but have less HP, would probably be weaker in practice though, and we might disagree on this bit but I don’t think Karax’s static defence pushing is close to being ‘Co-op good’.

A cool, interesting playstyle that could have been possible with Karax, would involve having a small core army whose job it was to distract while your probe warps in some cannons and batteries. It’s technically doable but doesn’t seem to be worth it as far as I can tell.

Tangor’s change to warp-in at distance makes that viable, and it’s fun and dynamic. It doesn’t feel anything like, say, P2 Stetmann hero solo sleepytime.

I bring this up whenever there’s a conversation about the balance of Vorazun’s Void Rays. It’s totally legitimate to have a ‘do everything’ unit (a ranged unit that can hit ground and air as a minimum), but they’re balanced on a knife’s edge. They need to mediocre, because the moment they’re better than mediocre they’re OP.

Buffed Void Rays would be even worse than Ravagers though, as they’re attack-movers and ignore terrain. Of course, one of the biggest pressures on Co-op designers throughout the years was from players who wanted to just mass BCs or Carriers and have the most degenerate playstyle imaginable…

I agree, although I don’t think Ravagers are as strong as your portrayal here xD. Granted, they are definitely the better go to for most people.

I also agree with this. The HP mastery actually prevent Yamato from one shotting static. Then allow time for the repair beam to work, so it has actual value. Without it, a 105min cannon will still just fodder versus 150min. And frankly, 45min per cannon while sounds like a lot but that’s not Karax’s barrier at all.

So I think all of us agree that this makes no sense at all. When Karax can afford 130min sentinels and en masse, 150min cannon really isn’t an issue at all.

Making it cheaper won’t really push it to the “one cannon to rule them all” category and would do little to help it address any real issues.

1 Like

It’s actually a good idea.
It helped differentiate Karax a little from Swann. Swann can pack up his static and build somewhere else while Karax can just swarm the map with static. It’s actually how i used to play Karax mobile cannon. Build a small hub of static near (not in firing range) the enemy base then build the next several cannon in the range to lure enemy into the kill zone.

The Health mastery is barely anything with the intensity of firepower from brutal difficulty 100% or 130% health make barely any difference. They still overrun the defense and u still need to orbital strike them.

You know you can do almost the same strategy with templar apparent… you just skip any cannons, build a pylon and 3 batteries in front of enemy base and draw enemies into your army. This way you don’t leave any useless cannons behind… 3 batteries cost only 300 minerals - the pylon you need anyway.

Care to guess why almost nobody does that…

Its 60%, and its quite significant actually. However the reason why you should not pick it, is not because its a bad mastery, it is because the other one is better. And even more so for architect of war.

Yes i know, all you cannon fans playing architect of war are gonna cry out now… “why wouldn’t architect of war pick structure HP mastery… he has so many bonuses for cannons after all”. And the answer is: EXACTLY. He does.

Regular karax P0 can keep his cannons alive in pretty much all situations. Between barrier and shield regen from batteries, SoA auto repair and your top bar you should have no issues (even against immortal/reaver or ling/bane, you just need good top bar use). If you loose a cannon, its usually because you were to slow with your top bar, forgot some upgrades, etc. On top of all that, architect of war gets unity barrier for cannons, double repair speed and faster firing cannons… of all prestiges he has the least need for structure HP mastery (aside from templar apparent obviously).

Based on this, I feel like you don’t know how it works nearly as well as you think you do.

As zh pointed out, it’s 60% and not 30%, which means:

  • Photon Cannon 150/150 ==> 240/240
  • Khaydarin Monolith 100/200 ==> 160/320

Now I don’t recall the exact damage of Yamato, but I do recall this prevent them from being 1 shot.

And whether an ‘outpost’ of static defense gets overrun or not is the literal skill of offensive/defensive cannon strategy. If you planned for it to be a “leave-it outpost”, then you need to invest the correct amount of cannon/monolith/battery with energizer. That’s called experience and skill. On the other hand, if you planned for it to be a “pit-stop for SoA”, then that varies quite a bit.

However, in no situation is it ever the “they get overrun anyway and need orbital strike”. That’s just player being bad at using static defense and forced to compensate with static.

This isn't about just losing the 60% HP/SP Mastery, this is about losing that and then getting 30% cost reduction. And OP begs the question, is it worth it, does it make sense? The answer remains: NO. As the key to off/def cannon is in resource management and positioning, which operates within reasonable economy (ie. 2 base).

The downfall of off/def cannon isn't 'omg, I ran out of resources'. It is actually 99% of the time, 'f me lost my probe'. So the action to take away clear and helpful mastery for new players (and mutational use)... only to justify poor planning... is a terrible idea.