AusProbe Profile Joined July 2012 Australia 220 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 23:00:23 #1



The strength of zerg is really hard to capture as well. Funnily enough every zerg unit in lotv got a buff, but while we can still deal with them, it just is not as straight forward as in hots. Because of this - and the fact that the diversity of strategies for zerg is really cool - I don't think we should nerf zerg that much, or buff protoss that much. What we need is a subtle change, like the adept nerf. Because the adept nerf targeted one small aspect of PvT, didn't nerf adepts into the ground, and allowed Terran more freedom, in my opinion, the change was perfect.



So here are some small changes (some are bigger than others) that I thought up, and also read on reddit made by other players. I hope these would mainly help protoss in PvZ (because the balance in PvT is very close as well). A lot of them focus on the early game because that is where protoss struggles.



I am not suggesting all be implemented, just these are some things blizzard could test individually



Increase mothership starting energy to 75.

Currently starting at 50 energy, the mothership core only has one photon overcharge for a long time. This would bring down the amount of time until the second overcharge, which is crucial in holding early ling/drop aggression. The effect on PvT is minimal in my opinion, but maybe it would make the pylon rush strong again(although still weaker than previously I think). The effect on PvP might allow fast expanders to hold 1 base all ins slightly easier, but won't impact anything else.



+ Show Spoiler + I am not a massive fan of this change by the way. It would probably help a lot, but less dependance on the mothership core is what I think the community and game needs.





Currently starting at 50 energy, the mothership core only has one photon overcharge for a long time. This would bring down the amount of time until the second overcharge, which is crucial in holding early ling/drop aggression. The effect on PvT is minimal in my opinion, but maybe it would make the pylon rush strong again(although still weaker than previously I think). The effect on PvP might allow fast expanders to hold 1 base all ins slightly easier, but won't impact anything else. Spoiler Increase sentry starting energy to 75

Currently starts at 50 energy. The sentry got indirectly nerfed in lotv. The combination of the quicker game giving less time for sentries to build energy plus them being weak against corrosive bile hurt them a bit. I think this buff would let protoss hold their third easier, and also early game aggression. Minimal impact on PvT, and a slight buff to holding 1 base all ins in PvP.





Currently starts at 50 energy. The sentry got indirectly nerfed in lotv. The combination of the quicker game giving less time for sentries to build energy plus them being weak against corrosive bile hurt them a bit. I think this buff would let protoss hold their third easier, and also early game aggression. Minimal impact on PvT, and a slight buff to holding 1 base all ins in PvP. Increase the cost of a droplord to 50/50

Currently costs 25/25. This change would keep the cool plays that zerg can do early game with drops, but just makes it a bit more of a commitment. I believe this is better than changing the tech requirements to Lair.





Currently costs 25/25. This change would keep the cool plays that zerg can do early game with drops, but just makes it a bit more of a commitment. I believe this is better than changing the tech requirements to Lair. Increase the delay on a stasis ward activating

In my opinion stasis wards currently don't do enough. It is extremely hit and miss in the numbers of units you get, and usually you will just capture a few zerglings. If you nerf the time it takes to activate the units will get closer to the centre - allowing more units to be captured- but also allows bigger counterplay to kill it + move out of it.





In my opinion stasis wards currently don't do enough. It is extremely hit and miss in the numbers of units you get, and usually you will just capture a few zerglings. If you nerf the time it takes to activate the units will get closer to the centre - allowing more units to be captured- but also allows bigger counterplay to kill it + move out of it. Increase the range of stasis ward

This also buffs how many units the stasis ward will capture on a regular basis, but allows for counterplay. It remains easy to trigger so that players that send in units to set them off get rewarded for their play. This could effect Stalker/disruptor vs Stalker/disruptor a bit. PvT we currently don't see stasis wards often enough because they get scanned/ 1 marine triggers them so I can't fully comment.





This also buffs how many units the stasis ward will capture on a regular basis, but allows for counterplay. It remains easy to trigger so that players that send in units to set them off get rewarded for their play. This could effect Stalker/disruptor vs Stalker/disruptor a bit. PvT we currently don't see stasis wards often enough because they get scanned/ 1 marine triggers them so I can't fully comment. Increase the upgraded range of colossus to 10 + Nerf damage(if needed)

Having the colo changed to be a complete seige unit that can slowly pick away at lurkers/spines/spores will help protoss slowly break hard lurker contains. This would actually give a reason to building the colossus in PvZ without it being the overpowering unit it used to be. I don't think the impact in PvT and PvP would be very big, especially if it was found that the damage should be nerfed.





Having the colo changed to be a complete seige unit that can slowly pick away at lurkers/spines/spores will help protoss slowly break hard lurker contains. This would actually give a reason to building the colossus in PvZ without it being the overpowering unit it used to be. I don't think the impact in PvT and PvP would be very big, especially if it was found that the damage should be nerfed. Decrease cast time of time warp from 4 to 3 seconds.

I am not sure if 3 seconds is the right amount of time, but still, time warp isn't used a lot anymore because it takes so long to activate and you would rather spend that energy on photon overcharge. A slight buff to this would help defending big lair timings from zerg. It's effect on PvP is tiny, the effect on PvT might be a bit bigger, but 3 seconds is probably enough time for stimmed bio to move around it.





I am not sure if 3 seconds is the right amount of time, but still, time warp isn't used a lot anymore because it takes so long to activate and you would rather spend that energy on photon overcharge. A slight buff to this would help defending big lair timings from zerg. It's effect on PvP is tiny, the effect on PvT might be a bit bigger, but 3 seconds is probably enough time for stimmed bio to move around it. Change stalkers anti-air attack from 10+4(to armoured) to 14 flat. Smaller suggestion:Change from 10+4 to 12+2



Stalkers suck against mutalisk. This change in PvZ would only buff stalkers against mutalisk(13 shots -> 8 shots), because every other zerg air unit is armoured. Why do I think this change could be good for PvZ? Because we might not have to open phoenix every game in order to not die to mutalisk switches. This gives more freedom to protoss play styles.

This is a bigger change that effects other matchups a bit.



In PvT, the interaction of stalkers with medivac/liberator/viking remains the same because they are armoured. Ravens(16 shots -> 11 shots) and Banshees(14 shots -> 10 shots). These niche units are nerfed, but maybe it is still a worthwhile change.



In PvP, a few things take less shots. Observers (6 -> 5), Phoenix (18 -> 13), Oracle(16 -> 12), interceptor (8 -> 6). Out of these I think the damage change effects phoenix the most, while the others aren't as important.



Maybe this will effect the other matchups a bit too much, but it would really help PvZ, without changing the main interactions in PvT.





Stalkers suck against mutalisk. This change in PvZ would only buff stalkers against mutalisk(13 shots -> 8 shots), because every other zerg air unit is armoured. Why do I think this change could be good for PvZ? Because we might not have to open phoenix every game in order to not die to mutalisk switches. This gives more freedom to protoss play styles. This is a bigger change that effects other matchups a bit. In PvT, the interaction of stalkers with medivac/liberator/viking remains the same because they are armoured. Ravens(16 shots -> 11 shots) and Banshees(14 shots -> 10 shots). These niche units are nerfed, but maybe it is still a worthwhile change. In PvP, a few things take less shots. Observers (6 -> 5), Phoenix (18 -> 13), Oracle(16 -> 12), interceptor (8 -> 6). Out of these I think the damage change effects phoenix the most, while the others aren't as important. Maybe this will effect the other matchups a bit too much, but it would really help PvZ, without changing the main interactions in PvT. Add an upgrade at cybernetics core that increases stalker anti-air vs bio by 2

Not entirely sure about what the number should be, but +2 might work. With this stalkers do 16 dmg to all of vipers/broodlords/corruptors and 12 dmg against mutalisk. With 0/0 that means Mutalisk (13 -> 11), Corruptor (15 -> 13), Viper (11 -> 10), Broodlord ( 17 -> 15). With a +1 attack upgrade advantage all of these drop down one more shot (i.e Mutalisk 13 ->10).



This upgrade does not effect PvT or PvP. It still helps a lot against mutalisk, and presents a viable lategame option against broodlord compositions other than skytoss.







Not entirely sure about what the number should be, but +2 might work. With this stalkers do 16 dmg to all of vipers/broodlords/corruptors and 12 dmg against mutalisk. With 0/0 that means Mutalisk (13 -> 11), Corruptor (15 -> 13), Viper (11 -> 10), Broodlord ( 17 -> 15). With a +1 attack upgrade advantage all of these drop down one more shot (i.e Mutalisk 13 ->10). It still helps a lot against mutalisk, and presents a viable lategame option against broodlord compositions other than skytoss. Change the maps

If the ravager change goes through, maybe it will be enough, and once maps change PvZ will start to be solved more. I know a lot of people really want this already just for freshness.





Obviously these are just my own opinion. I am not suggesting they should all be implemented.



I would love for there to be a discussion so that blizzard can see any more thoughts as well. Hi guys, Australian GM eCKo'Probe here. I know a lot of Protoss are really mad at PvZ at the moment, and maybe they should be. It is really hard to make suggestions to help it because, in my opinion, the balance is really close. Phoenix Chargelot Immortal Archon is really hard for zerg to deal with. However, we are essentially always forced down that path because of the strength of zerg tech switches and early game.The strength of zerg is really hard to capture as well. Funnily enough every zerg unit in lotv got a buff, but while we can still deal with them, it just is not as straight forward as in hots. Because of this - and the fact that the diversity of strategies for zerg is really cool - I don't think we should nerf zerg that much, or buff protoss that much. What we need is a subtle change, like the adept nerf. Because the adept nerf targeted one small aspect of PvT, didn't nerf adepts into the ground, and allowed Terran more freedom, in my opinion, the change was perfect.So here are some small changes (some are bigger than others) that I thought up, and also read on reddit made by other players. I hope these would mainly help protoss in PvZ (because the balance in PvT is very close as well). A lot of them focus on the early game because that is where protoss struggles.Obviously these are just my own opinion.I would love for there to be a discussion so that blizzard can see any more thoughts as well.

g2s Profile Joined November 2010 22 Posts #2 Isn't everyone GM on Sea? <200 players?

Also I don't agree with the changes suggested because... most of them don't deal with the current problems.

blade55555 Profile Blog Joined March 2009 United States 17373 Posts #3 I don't want to be offensive, but all the suggestions you put down are kind of bad.



Like Colossi should just be removed from the game, Sentries don't need a buff, overlord drop to 50/50 just makes them way too much of an investment until later in the game.



Stalkers do need a buff versus air, but not 14 damage overall (no thank you blink stalker all ins). Their AA just needs a buff that's it and adjust as needed. It is silly that Protoss has to go stargate or they will die to a muta switch.



Also the main problem in PvZ is maps. Only reason I think stalkers need an AA buff is right now if Protoss doesn't go stargate they are fucking themselves to a muta switch later and that is a problem as it limits what Protoss can do. Only time a Protoss goes stargateless is when doing a gateway/robo all in. Any good protoss will go stargate every single game as it's a must. When I think of something else, something will go here

AusProbe Profile Joined July 2012 Australia 220 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 02:22:14 #4 On March 12 2016 10:08 g2s wrote:

Isn't everyone GM on Sea? <200 players?

Also I don't agree with the changes suggested because... most of them don't deal with the current problems.



Haha yea Australian players are pretty good so we are all gm on other servers as well . I was kr gm last season and lucked my way to top 16 finish at dreamhack if it makes you feel better.

What are the current problems then?

In my opinion zerg's aggression in the early game is too strong so it limits us a lot. So the first 3 suggestions help the early early game. The stasis ward and time warp ideas might help protoss to take a quick enough third safely and secure it so that zerg doesn't get super far ahead.

The stalker change is about protoss not having to open phoenix every game.



We saw before po was nerfed protoss being in a good economic position so they could deal with zerg compositions. PO was rightfully changed, but there needs to be a small compensation,



Haha yea Australian players are pretty good so we are all gm on other servers as well. I was kr gm last season and lucked my way to top 16 finish at dreamhack if it makes you feel better.What are the current problems then?In my opinion zerg's aggression in the early game is too strong so it limits us a lot. So the first 3 suggestions help the early early game. The stasis ward and time warp ideas might help protoss to take a quick enough third safely and secure it so that zerg doesn't get super far ahead.The stalker change is about protoss not having to open phoenix every game.We saw before po was nerfed protoss being in a good economic position so they could deal with zerg compositions. PO was rightfully changed, but there needs to be a small compensation, On March 12 2016 10:49 blade55555 wrote:

I don't want to be offensive, but all the suggestions you put down are kind of bad.



Like Colossi should just be removed from the game, Sentries don't need a buff, overlord drop to 50/50 just makes them way too much of an investment until later in the game.



Stalkers do need a buff versus air, but not 14 damage overall (no thank you blink stalker all ins). Their AA just needs a buff that's it and adjust as needed. It is silly that Protoss has to go stargate or they will die to a muta switch.



Also the main problem in PvZ is maps. Only reason I think stalkers need an AA buff is right now if Protoss doesn't go stargate they are fucking themselves to a muta switch later and that is a problem as it limits what Protoss can do. Only time a Protoss goes stargateless is when doing a gateway/robo all in. Any good protoss will go stargate every single game as it's a must.



No offense taken. These are just ideas that we should discuss. I am sure you would agree that Protoss needs some help in the early game. The energy changes don't change how the spells work, just allow us to have 1 more spell quicker (not even straight away). The 50/50 cost on drops I believe is better than moving to lair like blizzard is thinking. It will push it back in the game, but enough that protoss should be able to deal with it slightly better.



Maybe you misread the stalker buff. It is only anti air, not ground attack that I am suggesting. And as a zerg, that means only mutalisk take more damage. Doesn't effect blink stalker all in?



No offense taken. These are just ideas that we should discuss. I am sure you would agree that Protoss needs some help in the early game. The energy changes don't change how the spells work, just allow us to have 1 more spell quicker (not even straight away). The 50/50 cost on drops I believe is better than moving to lair like blizzard is thinking. It will push it back in the game, but enough that protoss should be able to deal with it slightly better.Maybe you misread the stalker buff. It is only anti air, not ground attack that I am suggesting. And as a zerg, that means only mutalisk take more damage. Doesn't effect blink stalker all in?

FabledIntegral Profile Blog Joined November 2008 United States 9203 Posts #5 I think the Sentry and MSC ideas are fairly good.



I also think you discount the number of protoss that open mass phoenix or even mass oracle.



Stasis having a delay would only be a buff if it was immune after the initial set off, which would be far too powerful, even without a range upgrade. The spell is gamechanging already if one does hit - no need to buff in my eyes.



Personally, I think overlord drop at 50/50 would be such a hard nerf that it could kill dropplay, unless you'd be willing to bring back the overlord drop upgrade for all ovies and have 50/50 just early game option

Lexender Profile Joined September 2013 Mexico 2541 Posts #6 On March 12 2016 11:21 mGGrinehart wrote:



The 50/50 cost on drops I believe is better than moving to lair like blizzard is thinking. It will push it back in the game, but enough that protoss should be able to deal with it slightly better.







50/50 on drops actually makes it so drops are actually really bad, it becomes a bad investment past 4 overlords. The cost I think is fine, its cheap but then againt the only strenght overlord drop really have is how early they come.



Also simple adjustments would help, like changing the cargo space of queens from 2 to 4, or increasing the morph time could help protoss greatly.



Also I'd give a big no to buffing the MsC, that just limits gameplay (and I hate the MsC).



I wonder, how about reducing the build time of units from normal gateway? that would help protoss defend with units instead of depending on things like PO and FF. Proxy gateways may be buffed this way, but I don't think they are really a think with new LotV pace, but I'm not sure. 50/50 on drops actually makes it so drops are actually really bad, it becomes a bad investment past 4 overlords. The cost I think is fine, its cheap but then againt the only strenght overlord drop really have is how early they come.Also simple adjustments would help, like changing the cargo space of queens from 2 to 4, or increasing the morph time could help protoss greatly.Also I'd give a big no to buffing the MsC, that just limits gameplay (and I hate the MsC).I wonder, how about reducing the build time of units from normal gateway? that would help protoss defend with units instead of depending on things like PO and FF. Proxy gateways may be buffed this way, but I don't think they are really a think with new LotV pace, but I'm not sure.

Destructicon Profile Blog Joined September 2011 4637 Posts #7 I made a suggestion in the LotV beta to give ground anti-air units of all races a buff of sorts to make them better against air units and force more hit and run tactics from air units rather than straight up engagements (given that air units just straight up ignore terrain).



My suggestion was to split the archon's attacks in two, ground to ground (GtG) and ground to air, (GtA) and have the GtA range be way longer, like 9 range or so, maybe increase ground to air aoe too. In hindsight while that would make archons a great unit to fend off late game airballs and kill phoenix vs phoenix, it might come online too late for protoss to defend vs early game mutas. However if gotten to work it would open some interesting doors in PvZ tech paths. Writer Never give up, never surrender! https://www.youtube.com/user/DestructiconSC

Lexender Profile Joined September 2013 Mexico 2541 Posts #8 On March 12 2016 12:22 Destructicon wrote:

I made a suggestion in the LotV beta to give ground anti-air units of all races a buff of sorts to make them better against air units and force more hit and run tactics from air units rather than straight up engagements (given that air units just straight up ignore terrain).



My suggestion was to split the archon's attacks in two, ground to ground (GtG) and ground to air, (GtA) and have the GtA range be way longer, like 9 range or so, maybe increase ground to air aoe too. In hindsight while that would make archons a great unit to fend off late game airballs and kill phoenix vs phoenix, it might come online too late for protoss to defend vs early game mutas. However if gotten to work it would open some interesting doors in PvZ tech paths.



Wouldn't stalkers be better? archons are kinda good against everything zerg already, meanwhile stalkers aren't as strong as they where in HotS Wouldn't stalkers be better? archons are kinda good against everything zerg already, meanwhile stalkers aren't as strong as they where in HotS

FabledIntegral Profile Blog Joined November 2008 United States 9203 Posts #9 On March 12 2016 12:22 Destructicon wrote:

I made a suggestion in the LotV beta to give ground anti-air units of all races a buff of sorts to make them better against air units and force more hit and run tactics from air units rather than straight up engagements (given that air units just straight up ignore terrain).



My suggestion was to split the archon's attacks in two, ground to ground (GtG) and ground to air, (GtA) and have the GtA range be way longer, like 9 range or so, maybe increase ground to air aoe too. In hindsight while that would make archons a great unit to fend off late game airballs and kill phoenix vs phoenix, it might come online too late for protoss to defend vs early game mutas. However if gotten to work it would open some interesting doors in PvZ tech paths.



Haha this sounds like the worst possible suggestion... Haha this sounds like the worst possible suggestion...

Skyro Profile Joined May 2010 United States 1512 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 04:49:58 #10 Colossus can actually already pick away at Lurkers and move back to dodge Lurker's spikes. In practice however it just takes way too long or way too many colossus to break any fortified position for it be practical. I think Colossus range should be standard though given the damage nerf they received in LotV to promote more use in matchups outside of PvT.



Protoss definitely needs better AtG I agree. They already have the weakest AtG defensive structure and due to Stalker's low DPS and high costs it is simply not feasible to use them to defend multiple locations. However giving them straight 14 damage AtG attack I think is too much. I think it'd be better to attach something to their Blink upgrade, such as some damage buff on their first attack after they Blink. As Mutas are also T2 tech it lines up nicely. Make it have some cool special effect and it'll be nice from a viewer standpoint as well seeing well-timed Blink snipes.



I also think they should retool Void Rays into something with a defined role. I've love to see them be somewhat of a soft counter to the new stationary siege type units like Lurker and Liberators.



Time Warp could certainly use a buff as well I agree.

AusProbe Profile Joined July 2012 Australia 220 Posts #11 On March 12 2016 12:13 Lexender wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 12 2016 11:21 mGGrinehart wrote:



The 50/50 cost on drops I believe is better than moving to lair like blizzard is thinking. It will push it back in the game, but enough that protoss should be able to deal with it slightly better.







50/50 on drops actually makes it so drops are actually really bad, it becomes a bad investment past 4 overlords. The cost I think is fine, its cheap but then againt the only strenght overlord drop really have is how early they come.



Also simple adjustments would help, like changing the cargo space of queens from 2 to 4, or increasing the morph time could help protoss greatly.



Also I'd give a big no to buffing the MsC, that just limits gameplay (and I hate the MsC).



I wonder, how about reducing the build time of units from normal gateway? that would help protoss defend with units instead of depending on things like PO and FF. Proxy gateways may be buffed this way, but I don't think they are really a think with new LotV pace, but I'm not sure. 50/50 on drops actually makes it so drops are actually really bad, it becomes a bad investment past 4 overlords. The cost I think is fine, its cheap but then againt the only strenght overlord drop really have is how early they come.Also simple adjustments would help, like changing the cargo space of queens from 2 to 4, or increasing the morph time could help protoss greatly.Also I'd give a big no to buffing the MsC, that just limits gameplay (and I hate the MsC).I wonder, how about reducing the build time of units from normal gateway? that would help protoss defend with units instead of depending on things like PO and FF. Proxy gateways may be buffed this way, but I don't think they are really a think with new LotV pace, but I'm not sure.



I agree about the mcore being buffed, I did include it however because the energy change is a nice little neat buff that would probably solve a lot of protoss problems.



Maybe 50/50 is too much, maybe not. I don't think so, but even making 40/40 is a good change as well. I know all the protoss players out there know how it feels to hold a ling drop perfectly and still be behind the Zerg. Zerg I believe should have to commit just a tiny bit more. Increasing the morph time is ok for early game, but in midgame it might hurt it. Who knows without testing it fully

The thing with changing build times on gateways is that you have to rebalance a lot of things. I think PvZ is almost good, just needs a tiny subtle change. I agree about the mcore being buffed, I did include it however because the energy change is a nice little neat buff that would probably solve a lot of protoss problems.Maybe 50/50 is too much, maybe not. I don't think so, but even making 40/40 is a good change as well. I know all the protoss players out there know how it feels to hold a ling drop perfectly and still be behind the Zerg. Zerg I believe should have to commit just a tiny bit more. Increasing the morph time is ok for early game, but in midgame it might hurt it. Who knows without testing it fullyThe thing with changing build times on gateways is that you have to rebalance a lot of things. I think PvZ is almost good, just needs a tiny subtle change.

nick00bot Profile Joined November 2010 326 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 04:22:56 #12 On March 12 2016 12:54 mGGrinehart wrote:

+ Show Spoiler + On March 12 2016 12:13 Lexender wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 12 2016 11:21 mGGrinehart wrote:



The 50/50 cost on drops I believe is better than moving to lair like blizzard is thinking. It will push it back in the game, but enough that protoss should be able to deal with it slightly better.







50/50 on drops actually makes it so drops are actually really bad, it becomes a bad investment past 4 overlords. The cost I think is fine, its cheap but then againt the only strenght overlord drop really have is how early they come.



Also simple adjustments would help, like changing the cargo space of queens from 2 to 4, or increasing the morph time could help protoss greatly.



Also I'd give a big no to buffing the MsC, that just limits gameplay (and I hate the MsC).



I wonder, how about reducing the build time of units from normal gateway? that would help protoss defend with units instead of depending on things like PO and FF. Proxy gateways may be buffed this way, but I don't think they are really a think with new LotV pace, but I'm not sure. 50/50 on drops actually makes it so drops are actually really bad, it becomes a bad investment past 4 overlords. The cost I think is fine, its cheap but then againt the only strenght overlord drop really have is how early they come.Also simple adjustments would help, like changing the cargo space of queens from 2 to 4, or increasing the morph time could help protoss greatly.Also I'd give a big no to buffing the MsC, that just limits gameplay (and I hate the MsC).I wonder, how about reducing the build time of units from normal gateway? that would help protoss defend with units instead of depending on things like PO and FF. Proxy gateways may be buffed this way, but I don't think they are really a think with new LotV pace, but I'm not sure.



I agree about the mcore being buffed, I did include it however because the energy change is a nice little neat buff that would probably solve a lot of protoss problems.



Maybe 50/50 is too much, maybe not. I don't think so, but even making 40/40 is a good change as well. I know all the protoss players out there know how it feels to hold a ling drop perfectly and still be behind the Zerg. Zerg I believe should have to commit just a tiny bit more. Increasing the morph time is ok for early game, but in midgame it might hurt it. Who knows without testing it fully

The thing with changing build times on gateways is that you have to rebalance a lot of things. I think PvZ is almost good, just needs a tiny subtle change. I agree about the mcore being buffed, I did include it however because the energy change is a nice little neat buff that would probably solve a lot of protoss problems.Maybe 50/50 is too much, maybe not. I don't think so, but even making 40/40 is a good change as well. I know all the protoss players out there know how it feels to hold a ling drop perfectly and still be behind the Zerg. Zerg I believe should have to commit just a tiny bit more. Increasing the morph time is ok for early game, but in midgame it might hurt it. Who knows without testing it fullyThe thing with changing build times on gateways is that you have to rebalance a lot of things. I think PvZ is almost good, just needs a tiny subtle change.





I think in general, mothership core buffs should be avoided because they result in a "1-unit-fits-all" defensive solution that IMO is really boring. mothership core starting energy buffs should be ESPECIALLY avoided for one simple reason: It can make killing a MSC a good thing for protoss!. If you're getting all-ined, the best choice may be (and in very special situations already is) to just plop down a bunch of POs, kill your own motherhship, and then rebuild to get more energy. Idk that just doesn't sound like good design.



As for the overlord drop, I agree it may be a bit too powerful, but you have to keep in mind that overlords, unlike warpprisms and medivacs, rarely get out alive, since they are slower than both. Because of this, an increase in price may just make them unusable in the mid-game, which is where they bring tho most variety. IMO they should either be kept as is, have morph time increased, or moved up to lair tech. Do you think they are unbalanced midgame? I've only seen them be problematic early game.





Colossus buff, on the other hand, I am in agreement with. A range buff, however, may make them too strong in pvt, since they would be able to be incorporated much earlier and negatively affect terran's mid-game pushing & dropping power. Instead, perhaps a mild damage increase , like from 12(+1) x2 to 14 (1) x2 [Hots was 15(+2) x2], would fix it up more. this way the role of the colossus would be more to kill the lings and hydras that support lurkers more than the lurkers themselves, up until range is acquired. The big factor here than would prevent it from reaching HotS power is the upgrade scaling. This would allow colossi to be introduced earlier in the game without affective their status as more of a "siege poke" unit in late game compositions (which we see against bio mostly).





I think in general, mothership core buffs should be avoided because they result in a "1-unit-fits-all" defensive solution that IMO is really boring. mothership core starting energy buffs should be ESPECIALLY avoided for one simple reason:. If you're getting all-ined, the best choice may be (and in very special situations already is) to just plop down a bunch of POs, kill your own motherhship, and then rebuild to get more energy. Idk that just doesn't sound like good design.As for the overlord drop, I agree it may be a bit too powerful, but you have to keep in mind that overlords, unlike warpprisms and medivacs, rarely get out alive, since they are slower than both. Because of this, an increase in price may just make them unusable in the mid-game, which is where they bring tho most variety. IMO they should either be kept as is, have morph time increased, or moved up to lair tech. Do you think they are unbalanced midgame? I've only seen them be problematic early game.Colossus buff, on the other hand, I am in agreement with. A range buff, however, may make them too strong in pvt, since they would be able to be incorporated much earlier and negatively affect terran's mid-game pushing & dropping power. Instead, perhaps a mild damage increase , like from 12(+1) x2 to 14 (1) x2 [Hots was 15(+2) x2], would fix it up more. this way the role of the colossus would be more to kill the lings and hydras that support lurkers more than the lurkers themselves, up until range is acquired. The big factor here than would prevent it from reaching HotS power is the upgrade scaling. This would allow colossi to be introduced earlier in the game without affective their status as more of a "siege poke" unit in late game compositions (which we see against bio mostly). SoO~Speed~Serral~$o$~Dark~Myungsik~TY~Byun~Classic

bela.mervado Profile Joined December 2008 Hungary 170 Posts #13 there probably should be an additional requirement for drop: a research in evo chamber, 50/50 and ~50s, i don't know.

PuraDinn Profile Joined October 2015 Canada 15 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 05:53:12 #14 I was thinking about increasing the stalker's range by 1 or 2.



It would make stalkers less-useless vs mutalisks and hydralisks. The stalker has no place in PvZ at the moment, aside from early defense vs overlords and mid-game timings.



It would also be great vs early liberators. It would eliminate instances where liberators park in a spot with no pylon, and then require Protoss to warp in 4 stalkers to kill it.



Just a shower thought. Set a course, take it slow, make it happen :)

Edowyth Profile Joined October 2010 United States 183 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 06:00:06 #15 Change the adept to be a micro-able DPS unit.



- Flatten its damage to 15 (no +light, gets the implied +2 per ups).

- Increase speed of adept (4.13)

- Remove shade

- Increase research time of Glaives (150)



Judge balance from there. If the adept needs to be adjusted again, then its health should be lowered (something like 65 / 70 or 70 / 70)



Why this helps: it gives protoss something early-game to build which can scale versus speedlings, roaches, ravagers, lurkers ... or anything (after the upgrade). With micro, they can pressure early zerg, preventing such a large (and fast) muta switch. They can be dropped to do damage versus buildings, units, or workers. They can spread out and do well versus forces on multiple fronts (due to both of the previous, they'll help out versus lurkers quite a bit).



All-ins won't be terribly stronger versus Terran because they've lost the ability to shade away from forces so they can be caught when dropping or walled out of the base pretty easily. They'll also take a couple more shots to kill Marines in the mid-game but be much better versus general units. They'll also get the upgrade quite a bit later, so that the early-game won't be nearly as scary in just flat-out drops unless you didn't make any units at all.





Honestly, if something doesn't change to allow Protoss to be aggressive without being all-in, due to muta switches versus Zerg, then they'll continue to struggle (or the match-up will grow increasingly stale as Protoss only defends into Stargate versus Zerg). "Q. How do I check a valid [e-]mail address? A. You can't, at least, not in real time. Bummer, eh?" /r/programming

Of course, you could just send them a validation email.

Cyro Profile Blog Joined June 2011 United Kingdom 19832 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 06:51:18 #16



I like most of the changes Increase the upgraded range of colossus to 10 + Nerf damage(if needed)



I doubt a damage nerf would be neccesary. Maybe you don't realize the extent of the LOTV colosuss damage nerf!



At +3 attack (and +3 enemy armor), they used to deal 18 or 17 damage depending on if the target had 1 base armor or not



Now they deal 12 and 11 instead - that's 1.5x and 1.55x less damage than WOL and HOTS.



At base upgrades the nerf is 1.25x - 1.27x less damage than WOL+HOTS, but gaining 1 damage instead of 2 per upgrade makes that snowball as you get +1, +2 and +3 attack. You now go armor first in Colossus games (if you see fit to use them) rather than the weapons first which was a solid option for 5 years.



I'm not sure if more range is the way to go here, but the colossus could definately be made more accessible and/or more powerful without breaking stuff. Perhaps a small reduction in cost for the unit, cost+research time for thermal lance and maybe 4 or 5 supply instead of 6 as it no longer has the kick to justify paying 6 supply for - there's a lot of areas that you could improve it in, pick one or several and tune as appropriate.



--------

+ Show Spoiler +

Increase mothership starting energy to 75.

I'm mostly fine with current MSC but having 1 overcharge in a situation where you would have 3x25 overcharges previously really sucks. Starting energy goes a long way towards fixing that, but i worry that with a high starting energy people might choose to spend all of the energy and then kill their MSC and build another one to get more overcharges faster. A reduction in cost from 50 to 40 would help and also avoid that. You're weak until you reach 80 energy, not 100.





Increase sentry starting energy to 75.

sentries are underutilized and often risky to rely on, maybe 25 gas reduction would be good instead. High starting energy allows for easier abuse when warpgates are in play as you'll reach 2 forcefields per sentry quite quickly.



Increase the cost of a droplord to 50/50

It's a too cheap+fast for Z to come in with 2-3 droplords IMO. Maybe some people prefer this to putting it on lair tech. Paying 100/100 instead of 50/50 may only delay the attack for a few seconds and not help much if not paired with any other changes; this change would also make drops in the midgame worse, which would be unfortunate.



Increase the upgraded range of colossus to 10

i wrote comments above



Change stalkers anti-air attack from 10+4(to armoured) to 14 flat. Smaller suggestion:Change from 10+4 to 12+2

Protoss has terrible ground-to-air, especially against light units. Stalkers are alright but can't deal with the scaling of air armies as they get bigger. Flatter damage (less weakness to non-armored) would increase options and hugely improve the phoenix-or-die style of PvZ IMO.



+1 range as mentioned above would also improve their scaling against air units as there is often a situation where not all of your stalkers can reach the air units. The DPS is still embarassingly low though, 100% single target and not smartfire so stalkers are better in small numbers than they are in large numbers.





^highlighted my favs and wrote some comments below them. Stasis mine could be cool, but it's less important than changes to core units, upgrades and key timings like the second photon overcharge IMO. I doubt a damage nerf would be neccesary. Maybe you don't realize the extent of the LOTV colosuss damage nerf!At +3 attack (and +3 enemy armor), they used to deal 18 or 17 damage depending on if the target had 1 base armor or notNow they deal 12 and 11 instead - that's 1.5x and 1.55x less damage than WOL and HOTS.At base upgrades the nerf is 1.25x - 1.27x less damage than WOL+HOTS, but gaining 1 damage instead of 2 per upgrade makes that snowball as you get +1, +2 and +3 attack. You now go armor first in Colossus games (if you see fit to use them) rather than the weapons first which was a solid option for 5 years.I'm not sure if more range is the way to go here, but the colossus could definately be made more accessible and/or more powerful without breaking stuff. Perhaps a small reduction in cost for the unit, cost+research time for thermal lance and maybe 4 or 5 supply instead of 6 as it no longer has the kick to justify paying 6 supply for - there's a lot of areas that you could improve it in, pick one or several and tune as appropriate.--------^highlighted my favs and wrote some comments below them. Stasis mine could be cool, but it's less important than changes to core units, upgrades and key timings like the second photon overcharge IMO. "oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88

nick00bot Profile Joined November 2010 326 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-12 07:48:36 #17

+1 range as mentioned above would also improve their scaling against air units as there is often a situation where not all of your stalkers can reach the air units. The DPS is still embarassingly low though, 100% single target and not smartfire so stalkers are better in small numbers than they are in large numbers.



The repercussions on pre-stim pvt and roach kiting would be huge with extra stalker range. the thing about stalkers is that they always seem to suck on paper, their micro-ability has made them great in every matchup since WoL. OPs suggestion of 10(+4) to 12(+2) is smaller and has less unforseen consequences. stalkers shouldn't have to be the answer to mass air in the first place. The repercussions on pre-stim pvt and roach kiting would be huge with extra stalker range. the thing about stalkers is that they always seem to suck on paper, their micro-ability has made them great in every matchup since WoL. OPs suggestion of 10(+4) to 12(+2) is smaller and has less unforseen consequences. stalkers shouldn't have to be the answer to mass air in the first place. SoO~Speed~Serral~$o$~Dark~Myungsik~TY~Byun~Classic

-HuShang- Profile Joined December 2012 Canada 364 Posts #18 Yeah, I like the stalker buff. Another thing they could do is just delay how fast you are able to get lurkers. That would allow protoss to get more stalkers which would eleviate how powerful mutas are and also allow protoss to get away from phoenix openings. The immortal would be too strong in this case though, it would need a nerf too. I like the idea of roach ravager vs stalk sentry Professional Starcraft 2 Coach & Caster | Message me for more info or business proposals

Cyro Profile Blog Joined June 2011 United Kingdom 19832 Posts Last Edited: 2016-03-13 06:29:54 #19 + Show Spoiler + You see immortals a lot because they're one of the better options against the zerg armies that are seen today - if you can build 5 immortals or 10 stalkers, you want that supply to be taken by the 5 immortals every time. Immortals naturally scale quite well because they have an instant attack that never overkills or wastes damage, which most protoss units suffer greatly from. They're one of the few good options when a zerg builds 10-20 lurkers as well - if you're not building a ton of immortals, it's probably a ton of disruptors or a hard air switch.



I don't think they've shown themselves to be unreasonably strong yet compared to Z options like lurkers



PvZ doesn't seem to be a "survive the early game and enjoy your midgame advantage because you can build immortals" matchup right now. If it becomes that and winrates spike it can be tuned quite quickly because we have months of data for immortal usage in the matchup

^Immortals



I'm in favor of:



More care taken with maps to avoid Z favoritism seen in the current pool. I've gone into this before. On the 3 most imbalanced ladder maps by TLPD stats, zerg won ~1.5x more than protoss on average. No map favors protoss by those stats, but there are many roughly 50/50 maps which suggests those 3 maps being particularly bad.



tweak to ling drop timing / early defense



stalker AA damage flattening (more dmg vs non-armored air) or some other change for the same goals. Just to throw this out there, changing the stalker attack from a projectile to an instant-hit weapon (like the immortal which i went into above) would make them function quite similarly in low numbers but dramatically improve their performance in high numbers and vs air units. Pulling numbers out of ass, it doesn't matter so much if it takes 10 or 13 hits to kill a mutalisk when you attack-move and a mutalisk 2 hits away from death absorbs 10 stalker shots which happens all of the time.

If you want to increase the final damage actually reaching appropriate targets, you can either reduce the % of damage wasted or just buff the damage accepting that a large % of it will be wasted in some situations. ^ImmortalsI'm in favor of:More care taken with maps to avoid Z favoritism seen in the current pool. I've gone into this before. On the 3 most imbalanced ladder maps by TLPD stats, zerg won ~1.5x more than protoss on average. No map favors protoss by those stats, but there are many roughly 50/50 maps which suggests those 3 maps being particularly bad.tweak to ling drop timing / early defensestalker AA damage flattening (more dmg vs non-armored air) or some other change for the same goals. Just to throw this out there, changing the stalker attack from a projectile to an instant-hit weapon (like the immortal which i went into above) would make them function quite similarly in low numbers but dramatically improve their performance in high numbers and vs air units. Pulling numbers out of ass, it doesn't matter so much if it takes 10 or 13 hits to kill a mutalisk when you attack-move and a mutalisk 2 hits away from death absorbs 10 stalker shots which happens all of the time.If you want to increase the final damage actually reaching appropriate targets, you can either reduce the % of damage wasted or just buff the damage accepting that a large % of it will be wasted in some situations. "oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88

AusProbe Profile Joined July 2012 Australia 220 Posts #20 On March 12 2016 14:44 wandroid wrote:

I was thinking about increasing the stalker's range by 1 or 2.





That would effect PvP's stalker vs immortal interaction greatly and make PvZ blink stalker allins to unholdable, Pre stim bio would get wreck as well. It is a nice idea, and maybe if it was an upgrade at the cybernetics core that took a good amount of time to research, but I don't think it is that change that is needed. Stalkers with blink are already op units That would effect PvP's stalker vs immortal interaction greatly and make PvZ blink stalker allins to unholdable, Pre stim bio would get wreck as well. It is a nice idea, and maybe if it was an upgrade at the cybernetics core that took a good amount of time to research, but I don't think it is that change that is needed. Stalkers with blink are already op units

1 2 3 4 Next All