Unit removals possible for HOTS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viperjo

You contradict yourself. You want to remove or fix units that you deem gimmicky yet you want to tweak existing units, or replace them outright, with units that do a slightly different trick or transfer the gimmicky trick to a different unit. If you try to add too much then you'll end up with a schlew of abilities that are rarely used and people will clamor for their removal and if you trim too much out people clamor for diversity.

---

There's a difference between a gimmick (or trait) to sell a useless unit as useful, and giving an otherwise useless unit a gimmick to make it useful. The Reaper has cliff-walk as its gimmick, but the unit is still bland and rarely used, and if it lost its cliff-walk it'd still be bland and rarely used. The Colossus, on the other hand, also has cliff-walk but it actually plays as an integral part of the units usefulness, and if the Colossus lost its cliff-walk it would become extremely crippled as a unit. The exact same ability on two different units, one as a failed gimmick, and one as a vital feature.

Some units are also lacking a gimmick, and that's making them used less. The Archon was SHIT before it was given the Massive tag. Now its a powerhouse in PvP. Simply by giving it a new gimmick/trait it became much more useful.

Does the Observer NEED to be removed, or to be given a more interactive ability? I don't know. I'm just saying from personal experience that yeah, the unit feels bland, and could be spiced up, or removed and replaced with something more interactive. I'm saying if I worked at Blizzard, I'd bring it up as an issue. Everyone could disagree with me, but that doesn't make my opinion less valid. Opinions are only invalid when the information or logic behind them is flawed. For example, if you said Sarah Palin should run for president, then your opinion would be invalid because no one with a shred of logic and a knowledge of the woman would think that was a good idea - unless you were actively trying to fuck over the USA and siphon millions of dollars into your own bank account by lying to the ill educated evangelicals of the deep south. In which case your opinion would be valid, but you'd be a fucking douche.

What I'm advocating is that some units need to be tweaked to become more useful, and some units can afford to be scrapped to make the game better because they're not pulling their weight. There are also some units that are simply too good at their jobs - for example, the Marauder - that they sometimes (or always) seem to remove the need for other units - for example, the Marine and the Siege Tank - and that this is clearly a problem. Removing a unit that's not working well in WoL from HotS is NO different than giving the Archon the massive tag in a patch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

Fungal growth still needs to be changed. IMO anything that shuts down gameplay is just bad, just not fun to watch. Like the Moon / Slush game just now in MLG, it was a great back and forth until the great shut down spells came into play. If fungal didn't exist in the game, it would be a completely different back and forth, but a few fungals, and his entire army is gone. That is just dumb. You can't dodge fungals, you can't really counter fungals (you don't have emp or feedback)

---

Then create a counter? Perhaps some kind of "restore" ability? No need to remove something good if you can add an adequate counter. This is why Blizzard wants to see if they can't add things first before beginning to remove them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex06

Then create a counter? Perhaps some kind of "restore" ability? No need to remove something good if you can add an adequate counter. This is why Blizzard wants to see if they can't add things first before beginning to remove them.

---

Restore is basically an ability added to specifically counter an existing ability. Definitely not the right direction imo. It implies "We need an ability that stops this in only this scenario because it's fundamentally flawed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabber Wookie

Restore is basically an ability added to specifically counter an existing ability. Definitely not the right direction imo. It implies "We need an ability that stops this in only this scenario because it's fundamentally flawed."

---

There are counters to marine crowds, yet marines aren't fundamentally flawed...How can something NOT need a counter? Then it'd just end up being a snorefest like C&C4 where there are no real hard counters and everything does the same damage to everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex06

There are counters to marine crowds, yet marines aren't fundamentally flawed...How can something NOT need a counter? Then it'd just end up being a snorefest like C&C4 where there are no real hard counters and everything does the same damage to everything.

---

The counter to a group of Marines is AoE damage, which works pretty well on groups of other things too. Splash wasn't included to solely kill Marines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The counter to a group of Marines is AoE damage, which works pretty well on groups of other things too. Splash wasn't included to solely kill Marines.

---

And restore doesn't simply work against one ability, does it? It's useful against many abilities...

The difference is that in SC2, what else can Restore work on? SC1 you had Maelstrom, Plague, Ensnare, Lockdown, Irradiate, etc. Sc2, there aren't as many spells that inflict status effect-type effects.

However! Let's say there's a spell that makes a unit temporarily immune to statuses, instead of removing them. Things like Ghost's EMP, fungal growth, Marauder slow perhaps, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

The difference is that in SC2, what else can Restore work on? SC1 you had Maelstrom, Plague, Ensnare, Lockdown, Irradiate, etc. Sc2, there aren't as many spells that inflict status effect-type effects.

However! Let's say there's a spell that makes a unit temporarily immune to statuses, instead of removing them. Things like Ghost's EMP, fungal growth, Marauder slow perhaps, etc.

---

Something like Frenzy? :P

Genius!

what's wrong with certain units being bland? why does every unit need to be clever or totally different?

the reaper may fail but no 1 is giving good reason why other units are failing. people are just saying "because i don't like them."

the banshee is a air bomber and that is something the terrans didn't have in sc1. you think just because the viking can transform from air to ground it's on the same level as the banshee and the sc1 guardian vs ground?

if anything the viking is closer to overlapping the reaper than the banshee. terrain transforming is more fun and better than cliff jumping, it's just the reaper is faster. the viking's role as the ata fighter probably secures it from being removed. and i really doubt the banshee is going anywhere.

something to consider is that they could possibly remove goliath mode from the viking and replace it with a new transformation, or, add a 3rd transformation that would be adding a new unit without increasing the unit number.

edit: apparently the siege thing is making people derail from the point of the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mythology

what's wrong with certain units being bland? why does every unit need to be clever or totally different?

---

Because that makes them interesting and fun to use, obviously.

Quote:

---

something to consider is that they could possibly remove goliath mode from the viking and replace it with a new transformation, or, add a 3rd transformation that would be adding a new unit without increasing the unit number. maybe it would have been better if they had merge the siege tank with the viking so it transforms from fighter to tank to siege mode.

---

Please tell me you're trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Please tell me you're trolling.

---

i rather not see anything removed. posting solutions and thoughts to avoid such things is constructive.

if the golaith mode was removed and replaced with something new that still attacks ground, would you really be sad to see the old transformation go? the viking would still be the viking.

Depends on the new ground mode? But merge the Viking and Siege Tank? Troll post.

Viking fighter transforming into a sieged tank speaks volumes to me of your lack of understanding how Starcraft 2 works.

That was a joke. But STARCRAFT 2 IS SERIOUS BUSINESS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Depends on the new ground mode? But merge the Viking and Siege Tank? Troll post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

Viking fighter transforming into a sieged tank speaks volumes to me of your lack of understanding how Starcraft 2 works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

That was a joke. But STARCRAFT 2 IS SERIOUS BUSINESS

---

my mistake, i didn't think people would take it to heart and be so easily distracted. spam was not the responses i was hoping for.

i can't see the phoenix being removed unless the corsair came back.

everyone knows somethings going to happen to the mothership. we don't know what but since it's the arbiters retarded cousin, blizzard might try to change that. i don't know if that's enough for it to be removed since blizz likes it so much.

i don't want carrier gone, but i wouldn't mind if the interceptors were removed. yeah no 1 thought of that did they. if they replaced those with something else, the carrier would still be the carrier, it would just be different that's all. that might make all the carrier haters settle down. edit: i know someone is going to bring up the blades from the tempest, i'm not referring or even thinking about that. it's to lame if they did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mythology

what's wrong with certain units being bland? why does every unit need to be clever or totally different?

the reaper may fail but no 1 is giving good reason why other units are failing. people are just saying "because i don't like them."

the banshee is a air bomber and that is something the terrans didn't have in sc1. you think just because the viking can transform from air to ground it's on the same level as the banshee and the sc1 guardian vs ground?

if anything the viking is closer to overlapping the reaper than the banshee. terrain transforming is more fun and better than cliff jumping, it's just the reaper is faster. the viking's role as the ata fighter probably secures it from being removed. and i really doubt the banshee is going anywhere.

something to consider is that they could possibly remove goliath mode from the viking and replace it with a new transformation, or, add a 3rd transformation that would be adding a new unit without increasing the unit number.

edit: apparently the siege thing is making people derail from the point of the topic.

---

From the original topic, I didn't realize all responses needed to be fully vetted, peer reviewed, and tested before posting. I can of course do that. I'm just excited that blizzard is willing to remove units. I have my own ideas and opinions about what those should be... which I can backup.... really just expressing my enthusiasm that blizzard isn't feeling that they have to stick with bad decisions in WoL just because.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mythology

i don't want carrier gone, but i wouldn't mind if the interceptors were removed. yeah no 1 thought of that did they. if they replaced those with something else, the carrier would still be the carrier, it would just be different that's all. that might make all the carrier haters settle down. edit: i know someone is going to bring up the blades from the tempest, i'm not referring or even thinking about that. it's to lame if they did that.

---

Actually, that is just what I thought.
I win?
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2151588294#7

Myth, I deem you clinically insane. If you remove the Interceptors from the Carrier, its no longer a Carrier, because its no longer carrying anything.

This isn't Gundam, man. Giving the Viking a siege mode completely ignores the point I tried to make about unit role overlap. Frankly, you seem to totally be missing the point.

For example, yes the Banshee is a good air bomber, but the Terran have OTHER units that can fill that role. Maybe not as well, but that's not the point. The point is role overlap. You only need 2 or 3 units to fill any given role - raiding, AtG, splash, etc. - to varying degrees of specialization. When you give the player 7 units that all do the same thing, 4-5 will never be used at all because 2-3 are the best at it with the best versatility, so there's no point in the other 4-5 even existing. As I already explained, the Terran already have the Viking GtG mode, M&M Dropshiping, the Raven Turrets, and the Battle Cruiser all capable of creating some form of AtG or pseudo-AtG damage. The Banshee is the least versatile and the least needed of all the fillers of that role. The Banshee's other role, raiding, is also widely filled. By Reapers, by Hellions, by M&M Dropshipping, by Vikings, by Ravens. Notice how the Viking, the Dropship, the Raven, and the Banshee all seem to do the same 2 jobs? That's unit role overlap. Some of it is needed, 2 or 3 ways to achieve the same goal so the game has variety in play. Does the game work fine with 4 units who can all do the same thing? Yes it does. But is there really a need for it? Especially when the Viking, Dropship, and Raven are more versatile than the Banshee and thus are seen far more often for a good reason?

We're not saying the Banshee should be removed. Its a fine and fun unit. We're saying that if Blizzard was forced to remove a Terran unit, for any reason, that the Banshee and Reaper are the most acceptable to be sacrificed because losing them would affect the game in the least negative way. This is due to them having unneeded role overlap, and being rarely seen.

If no units get removed from multiplayer in the switch from WoL to HotS, that's fine with us, as long as there is a sane, logical reason behind it. What this is thread is for, is suggesting sane, logical reasons why certain units could be removed if their removal was deemed necessary by Blizzard.

Lol, true it's not longer a carrier x)
But really something needs to be done about those interceptors. They are ruining the whole use of the carrier as a unit. Or carrier as a unit needs to be redone.

What if the Carrier could build different kinds of attack drones?

Interceptors - basic drone
Shuriken - damages units on contact, less base damage than Interceptor but bonus against small units. Glows when it is "active", that is when it is in damage-dealing mode Does splash damage in a line like Banshee or Colossus. To prevent overlap with HT and Phoenix, could be atg only perhaps.
Psi Drone - damages units, less base damage than Interceptor, but drains energy from units it hits. Possibly have other effects (maybe like Feedback, units with energy take extra damage?)
Missile Drone - less base damage than Interceptor, bonus damage against armored units and structures

Each Carrier could only hold one type of drone at a time, but when all it's out of drones you can stock a new kind. This would come with the option to recycle drones, so if you send out an Interceptor-stocked carrier and see the opponent massing Mutalisks, you can click Recycle Drones to convert the Interceptors into minerals, and then the Carrier is empty so you can queue up Shurikens, letting you quickly adapt the Carrier's arsenal to the opponent's army.

Brainstorming more ideas for D-squid's list of units we could afford to lose/have improved.

Reaper and Banshee. - The Reaper is meant to be a base raider, something the Banshee does. D-squid notes the Reaper's main advantage over the Hellion is the cliff-jumping and anti-building attack, but with the Medivac the cliff-jumping isn't as useful. D-squid notes the Raven, Viking, Hellion and Medivac have its harassment roles filled. Wacky idea, but what if the Banshee got the Reaper's anti-structure attack, which has increased range compared to its normal attack? This lets it function as a siege engine somewhat, destroying stationary defenses that would hassle those other units. The Reaper meanwhile, perhaps could be cut?

Zealot - D-squid seems to indicate it isn't as versatile as Marines or Zerglings. Marines provide effective GTA with stims and Medivacs, and Zerglings can morph into Banelings. To increase the Zealot's versatility, another wacky idea - what if, with the Dark Shrine as a requirement, the Zealot could upgrade into a Dark Templar? You could go a step further and allow it to upgrade into a High Templar as well. However, DTs and HTs would still be constructable from the Gateway. As Blizzard lets DTs become Archons once the opponent gets detectors, so could the Zealot become a DT or HT once it's no longer as useful.

Observer - IMO, observer is meant to be a scout and a spy. What if it let you see what the opponent is building/researching in buildings in its sight range? Or got some sort of ability that lets it temporarily evade detection so it can more easily slip into an opponent's base unseen? I really like the former idea more though. Could also let you see inside of Bunkers and transports so if you catch an opponent setting up a drop, you not only see the ships, you see what's going to spring from inside.

Phoenix - As I said, adjust Graviton Beam into an area-of-effect spell that immobilizes units in the area of effect and doesn't let them attack air units, while redirecting the Phoenix's blasts downwards. Kinda like Graviton Beam plus Distruption Web I think.

Archon - Agreed we need to get the Twilight Archon back, though I'm not sure on Maelstrom for it. IMO the Archon is meant to be a siege unit and meatshield. Maybe some sort of buffing spell for nearby units, like Guardian Shield but different. Say something like "Psi Surge" - when the Archon attacks an enemy, it releases a blast of energy that gives a small increase to the shields of friendly units in a small radius. Get several Archons fighting alongside your army and that's a lot of extra damage soaking going around.

Mothership - I won a unit design with it, there's my Redeemer support aerial caster. I could dig up a link if you'd like :).

Overseer, Infester, Corrupter- I'd like more elaboration on the problems with these ones before I come up with ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Reaper and Banshee. - The Reaper is meant to be a base raider, something the Banshee does. D-squid notes the Reaper's main advantage over the Hellion is the cliff-jumping and anti-building attack, but with the Medivac the cliff-jumping isn't as useful. D-squid notes the Raven, Viking, Hellion and Medivac have its harassment roles filled. Wacky idea, but what if the Banshee got the Reaper's anti-structure attack, which has increased range compared to its normal attack? This lets it function as a siege engine somewhat, destroying stationary defenses that would hassle those other units. The Reaper meanwhile, perhaps could be cut?

---

If any race could handle two siege units, its the Terran. But the Banshee is a HORRIBLE choice for it, for two reasons: cost/tech level, and cloak. The Banshee is far cheaper and faster to acquire than a Brood Lord or Carrier is, and its already a bane on mineral lines. Give it 9 range so it can avoid turrets and Marines and Queens and Stalkers even better? Ridiculous. Then there's the addition of cloak. Its already called "the flying DT," do we really want a "flying Lurker?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Zealot - D-squid seems to indicate it isn't as versatile as Marines or Zerglings. Marines provide effective GTA with stims and Medivacs, and Zerglings can morph into Banelings. To increase the Zealot's versatility, another wacky idea - what if, with the Dark Shrine as a requirement, the Zealot could upgrade into a Dark Templar? You could go a step further and allow it to upgrade into a High Templar as well. However, DTs and HTs would still be constructable from the Gateway. As Blizzard lets DTs become Archons once the opponent gets detectors, so could the Zealot become a DT or HT once it's no longer as useful.

---

I could see the use of converting all your unneeded Zealots into Templar late game, but the lore works strongly against it. It takes a long long time for Protoss warriors to master the khala and void energies required for their skills. A Zealot suddenly becoming a Templar on the field is not the same as two Templar (who already have far power psionic power than a Zealot) merging into an Archon. There's also the matter of how OP it could become to simply destroy all your enemies detection then swarm them with a horde of new DT's at a level you couldn't normally reach with warp gates, or to overwhelm with just as many new HT's. Their cost would have to be balanced against the cost of warping in a new Templar from scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Observer - IMO, observer is meant to be a scout and a spy. What if it let you see what the opponent is building/researching in buildings in its sight range? Or got some sort of ability that lets it temporarily evade detection so it can more easily slip into an opponent's base unseen? I really like the former idea more though. Could also let you see inside of Bunkers and transports so if you catch an opponent setting up a drop, you not only see the ships, you see what's going to spring from inside.

---

I suggested an ability for the Observer long ago to do exactly as you said: stop another unit or buildings detection for a short period. Even 5 seconds would be enough time to let the Observer slip by a turret, or let a few DT finish off a base. It would be very useful in combat paired with DT's, Hallucination, and the Mothership, increasing the usefulness of all 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Phoenix - As I said, adjust Graviton Beam into an area-of-effect spell that immobilizes units in the area of effect and doesn't let them attack air units, while redirecting the Phoenix's blasts downwards. Kinda like Graviton Beam plus Distruption Web I think.

---

I'm not a huge fan of this. I wouldn't mind an ability, call it "Gravity Well" to push all units and attacks downwards, but it doesn't fit on a unit called a "Phoenix," known for rising up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Archon - Agreed we need to get the Twilight Archon back, though I'm not sure on Maelstrom for it. IMO the Archon is meant to be a siege unit and meatshield. Maybe some sort of buffing spell for nearby units, like Guardian Shield but different. Say something like "Psi Surge" - when the Archon attacks an enemy, it releases a blast of energy that gives a small increase to the shields of friendly units in a small radius. Get several Archons fighting alongside your army and that's a lot of extra damage soaking going around.

---

Maelstrom was just an example of the power the Dark Archon had through spell. Honestly I'm not sure what ability I'd give the Archon right now, I just feel like its missing "something." Its not epic enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Mothership - I won a unit design with it, there's my Redeemer support aerial caster. I could dig up a link if you'd like :).

---

My preferred plan is to actually remove the Carrier and make the Mothership slightly weaker and slightly cheaper with another ability. So instead of rarely seeing the Carrier or Mothership, we'd see more the Mothership as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Overseer, Infester, Corrupter- I'd like more elaboration on the problems with these ones before I come up with ideas.

---

Its a complex subject, I'll have to get back to you on these 3 units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

If any race could handle two siege units, its the Terran. But the Banshee is a HORRIBLE choice for it, for two reasons: cost/tech level, and cloak. The Banshee is far cheaper and faster to acquire than a Brood Lord or Carrier is, and its already a bane on mineral lines. Give it 9 range so it can avoid turrets and Marines and Queens and Stalkers even better? Ridiculous. Then there's the addition of cloak. Its already called "the flying DT," do we really want a "flying Lurker?"

---

Well in my idea the increased range is only for the anti-building attack. So you'll avoid turrets but not units. Could also just plain remove Cloak, perhaps. Or, introduce an altogether new unit for the sieging.

Quote:

---

I could see the use of converting all your unneeded Zealots into Templar late game, but the lore works strongly against it.

---

That's never stopped Blizzard before has it? According to the lore, an HT and DT merging into an Archon should turn every Zerg in a four-mile radius should into a blackened husk.

Quote:

---

There's also the matter of how OP it could become to simply destroy all your enemies detection then swarm them with a horde of new DT's at a level you couldn't normally reach with warp gates, or to overwhelm with just as many new HT's. Their cost would have to be balanced against the cost of warping in a new Templar from scratch.

---

Agreed for sure, the Zealot's cost plus the cost of the change would be greater than the base Templar.

Quote:

---

I suggested an ability for the Observer long ago to do exactly as you said: stop another unit or buildings detection for a short period. Even 5 seconds would be enough time to let the Observer slip by a turret, or let a few DT finish off a base. It would be very useful in combat paired with DT's, Hallucination, and the Mothership, increasing the usefulness of all 3.

---

What about the other suggestion, viewing an opponent's production?

Quote:

---

I'm not a huge fan of this. I wouldn't mind an ability, call it "Gravity Well" to push all units and attacks downwards, but it doesn't fit on a unit called a "Phoenix," known for rising up.

---

Fair enough. As you said though, the Phoenix can't win you the game because it can't attack buildings. Overload wouldn't solve that, though it would definitely be good micro..

Quote:

---

Maelstrom was just an example of the power the Dark Archon had through spell. Honestly I'm not sure what ability I'd give the Archon right now, I just feel like its missing "something." Its not epic enough.

---

What about the Psi Surge idea? Or, perhaps inverse it - Archon releases a shockwave when it attacks that affects nearby enemies in a negative way, perhaps in a manner similar to the Marauder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Well in my idea the increased range is only for the anti-building attack. So you'll avoid turrets but not units. Could also just plain remove Cloak, perhaps. Or, introduce an altogether new unit for the sieging.

---

So the plan is remove Banshee, introduce Siege Banshee? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

That's never stopped Blizzard before has it? According to the lore, an HT and DT merging into an Archon should turn every Zerg in a four-mile radius should into a blackened husk.

---

The solution here is that Blizzard needs better limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

What about the other suggestion, viewing an opponent's production?

---

If it was a passive ability, it wouldn't help with the lack of interaction, and if it was an active ability, it'd be a stepping stone ability because good players (pros) can usually guess whats being made just by seeing the tech structures and common strategies, for all races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Fair enough. As you said though, the Phoenix can't win you the game because it can't attack buildings. Overload wouldn't solve that, though it would definitely be good micro..

---

I just hate the Phoenix. It has no reason to exist because the Corsair already existed. The "can't hit buildings" thing bothers me because it actually goes against Blizzard's design goals, I swear I remember them saying they made the Brood Lord morph from the Corruptor instead of the Mutalisk because they didn't want the Corruptor to be useless once all the enemy air was dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

What about the Psi Surge idea? Or, perhaps inverse it - Archon releases a shockwave when it attacks that affects nearby enemies in a negative way, perhaps in a manner similar to the Marauder?

---

Perhaps a short AoE stun, a blend of maelstrom and concussive shot. I'm not sold on the idea though.

Only problem there is that the ability would have to have a cooldown, or else a small group of Archons could keep the opponent stunned indefinitely. But yeah, could work.

My suggestion, tweak how fungals infestation works, make it so it doesn't immobilize flying units, or maybe only slows them down.

Also change how concussive shell works, and force field should take a look at.

Concussive shell should only work against mechanical units or armored units.
Force field should only stop armored units.

Wasn't there already an entire thread explaining to you the Protoss need Force Field to fend off early rushes? Making them only effect armored units would render them instantly half as effective since the base units of all three races would go right through. If Force Fields are bugging you so much bring some massive units and plow through them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Wasn't there already an entire thread explaining to you the Protoss need Force Field to fend off early rushes? Making them only effect armored units would render them instantly half as effective since the base units of all three races would go right through. If Force Fields are bugging you so much bring some massive units and plow through them.

---

If you need force fields to defend early rush then that's a fundamental design issue not a spell issue. It means your early game units are too weak and most players are relying on a spell to stop gameplay until you are strong enough to play.

More like a NR force field than anything.

"that's a fundamental design issue not a spell issue." - And part of the design is the reliance on the spell, in the same way Psionic Storm is a big part of protoss play. That's like saying that the Terran need to wall off their base means that supply depos shouldn't be able to lower anymore. I'll say it again, if you're having too many problems with force fields then bring massive units. Or, control your opponent better so you can pick the scene of the fights and thus can get into a position where force field is less effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

"that's a fundamental design issue not a spell issue." - And part of the design is the reliance on the spell, in the same way Psionic Storm is a big part of protoss play. That's like saying that the Terran need to wall off their base means that supply depos shouldn't be able to lower anymore. I'll say it again, if you're having too many problems with force fields then bring massive units. Or, control your opponent better so you can pick the scene of the fights and thus can get into a position where force field is less effective.

---

That's such a crappy solution. Oh crap he used force fields. If you're having problems, stop gameplay, and tech up. There was no such problem in Starcraft 1. Gameplay never stopped because a spell caused it to stop. There was always a back and forth, back and forth.

SC2 seems to be always building for large ball battles, and then whoever wins that usually wins.

Furthermore, back and forth matches often happen in SC2 and they are exciting to watch until you immobilizing spells come into play and a massive army is incinerated with 2 clicks of fungal or force field. It's just not fun to watch or play.

It's frustrating gameplay at best, and it closes down options. For instance, you can easily cut a zerg army in half and destroy half of it at will without losing a single unit with force field. That's completely dictating the gameplay, I can do absolutely nothing about it except tech to MASSIVE units and considering for Zerg massive units take such a long time to get to.

How did SC1 users deal with early rushes? They didn't have force field.

Zealot - nothing wrong with this unit at all. It's one of the most efficient offensive units in the game.

Observer - whatever ability is added, it better not hike up the price. I like the observer for what it is and wouldn't wish to see it go.

Phoenix - who cares that it can't directly attack ground? This is kind of an arbitrary complaint.

Force Fields - i agree with wankey. even though it's one of the most fun mechanics in the game, cowering in my base with FFs until i get to deathball is getting annoying. protoss have such crappy harass options and I wouldn't mind being able to step out onto the map before 175 food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Force Fields - i agree with wankey. even though it's one of the most fun mechanics in the game, cowering in my base with FFs until i get to deathball is getting annoying. protoss have such crappy harass options and I wouldn't mind being able to step out onto the map before 175 food.

---

Then the problem isn't the FF itself, it's making protoss more mobile so they don't feel they need to cower in their base, or don't want to. FF is only as annoying as how it's used, analyze how it's used and why and figure out what you can do with the protoss so that playstyle isn't as favored.

Quote:

---

That's such a crappy solution. Oh crap he used force fields. If you're having problems, stop gameplay, and tech up. There was no such problem in Starcraft 1. Gameplay never stopped because a spell caused it to stop. There was always a back and forth, back and forth.

---

Dramatize much? You're right, that wasn't a problem in SC1 - welcome to SC2, a totally different game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

That's such a crappy solution. Oh crap he used force fields. If you're having problems, stop gameplay, and tech up. There was no such problem in Starcraft 1. Gameplay never stopped because a spell caused it to stop. There was always a back and forth, back and forth.

SC2 seems to be always building for large ball battles, and then whoever wins that usually wins.

Furthermore, back and forth matches often happen in SC2 and they are exciting to watch until you immobilizing spells come into play and a massive army is incinerated with 2 clicks of fungal or force field. It's just not fun to watch or play.

It's frustrating gameplay at best, and it closes down options. For instance, you can easily cut a zerg army in half and destroy half of it at will without losing a single unit with force field. That's completely dictating the gameplay, I can do absolutely nothing about it except tech to MASSIVE units and considering for Zerg massive units take such a long time to get to.

How did SC1 users deal with early rushes? They didn't have force field.

---

More about forcefields....seriously if they remove forcefield completely i wouldn't mind cos it means 4gate, 6 gate and any form of heavy gateway play will be massively buffed to account for the early game weakness of protoss units.

And zerg hates blink stalkers with upgrades in late game already. Imagine a buffed stalker given more HP and damage to account for no forcefields. And buffed sentries as well since their only use would be hallucination and guardian shield. Then zergs would be complaining protoss turns from a turtling style relying on FFs into a huge scary offensive deathball that can withstand their attacks easier and crush them easier.

SC2 only develops into "get a big ball of death and kill the other person" style gameplay because of player passivity. Look at MC vs Idra in MLG Columbus on Xel'Naga Caverns. Low tech, low economy, high aggression from both players.

Forcefields like fungals or any other spell in the game can hurt or help depending on what enemy units are affected. It's not as simple as you make it of "herp derp spam spam spells". Missing all sentries and HTs with the fungals and EMPs is not optimal. Forcefielding in front of the enemy army and having a high zealot count is bad. Forcefielding an army in half but wandering colossi forward to get sniped is bad.

Zerg players who after getting like 10 units forcefielded off still try to engage and have their army constantly compartmentalised and slowly picked off are basically bad. And obviously counter attacks, drops, burrow move roaches, nyduses and general terrain usage (flanking) are not options available to a zerg. They only have map control in ZvP most of the time.

TLDR: More zerg whining. A more sensible thing to ask is not to remove forcefields but instead...make drop tech cheaper and faster to get to, make hydras move faster, make roaches move faster when burrowed, buff the ultralisk.

One thing that doesn't really have anything to do with specific units but more units in general is this ball thing. I hate it. I hate that most battles are determined by whoever has the better ball. It probably has to do with the way units will actually move out of the way of another unit. I don't want the balls of death anymore. I want frontlines. I definately think blizzard need to fix this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Then the problem isn't the FF itself, it's making protoss more mobile so they don't feel they need to cower in their base, or don't want to. FF is only as annoying as how it's used, analyze how it's used and why and figure out what you can do with the protoss so that playstyle isn't as favored.

---

What I can do is have higher APM and try to play like MC (i shot up to 100 one game when i'm normally 60 and I don't spam). But the problem is that gateway compositions are not as efficient as roaches/lings, hence force fields. And the problem with the protoss' harass options (DTs, blink stalks, phoenix) isn't mobility, but the fact that you lose if you don't do enough damage. You basically need to snipe their third if you don't want to play at a disadvantage. And idra already showed that 2 base zergs can fight 2 base protoss no problem. It's going to suck when every zerg starts blindly getting spore crawlers and learning to deal with all protoss harassment too. I'd like to be able to move out with a gateway combo without it being some all-in where i lose if my attack fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Zealot - nothing wrong with this unit at all. It's one of the most efficient offensive units in the game.

Observer - whatever ability is added, it better not hike up the price. I like the observer for what it is and wouldn't wish to see it go.

Phoenix - who cares that it can't directly attack ground? This is kind of an arbitrary complaint.

---

I completely disagree. The Zealot and Observer are quite simply bland, and the Phoenix had no reason to ever exist. Oh, my beloved Corsair. *tear*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Force Fields - i agree with wankey. even though it's one of the most fun mechanics in the game, cowering in my base with FFs until i get to deathball is getting annoying. protoss have such crappy harass options and I wouldn't mind being able to step out onto the map before 175 food.

---

If you're cowering in your base behind the FF, the enemy is expanding, and you're still even. As you said, the Zealot, while boring, is a very good offensive unit and is the main reason the 4-gate is so strong. All those Sentries you're building early game for FF could be Zealots and Stalkers, with the extra gas going towards upgrades. There is nothing wrong with FF, there is something wrong with needless passivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I completely disagree. The Zealot and Observer are quite simply bland, and the Phoenix had no reason to ever exist. Oh, my beloved Corsair.

---

The corsair couldn't attack ground either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

If you're cowering in your base behind the FF, the enemy is expanding, and you're still even. As you said, the Zealot, while boring, is a very good offensive unit and is the main reason the 4-gate is so strong. All those Sentries you're building early game for FF could be Zealots and Stalkers, with the extra gas going towards upgrades. There is nothing wrong with FF, there is something wrong with needless passivity.

---

It's not needless at all. I'd love to see anyone survive the losira timing push without force fields and not be screwed afterwards. Zerg can afford to attack/defend heavy pushes while still maintaining a high drone count and more expos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

The corsair couldn't attack ground either.

---

In SC1 it was fine that the Corsair couldn't attack ground, because the other two races had units that couldn't either - the Devourer and the Valkyrie. In SC2 this is not the case, only the Protoss are gimped. That's not the point I was trying to make though, it was an afterthought >_<. The real point, is that there was no reason for Blizzard to create the Phoenix when the Corsair already did its job. Scrapping the Corsair for the Phoenix was a pointless move and a waste of time; they're basically the same damn unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

It's not needless at all. I'd love to see anyone survive the losira timing push without force fields and not be screwed afterwards. Zerg can afford to attack/defend heavy pushes while still maintaining a high drone count and more expos.

---

I'll have to look up that rush, I'm far more familiar with IdrA and Nestea type Zergs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

What I can do is have higher APM and try to play like MC (i shot up to 100 one game when i'm normally 60 and I don't spam). But the problem is that gateway compositions are not as efficient as roaches/lings, hence force fields. And the problem with the protoss' harass options (DTs, blink stalks, phoenix) isn't mobility, but the fact that you lose if you don't do enough damage. You basically need to snipe their third if you don't want to play at a disadvantage. And idra already showed that 2 base zergs can fight 2 base protoss no problem. It's going to suck when every zerg starts blindly getting spore crawlers and learning to deal with all protoss harassment too. I'd like to be able to move out with a gateway combo without it being some all-in where i lose if my attack fails.

---

Ah-ha, then instead of nerfing Force Field, we buff the gateway units a bit. And that opens up a larger variety of options. What if Stalkers were adjusted specifically? Say, higher damage but longer research time for Blink, and/or longer Blink cooldown? Slower build time in exchange for higher HP and shields?

The one thing I strongly disliked from Day 1 is two buildings for each type of Templar. Templar of either kind are already a heavy investment, making us wait to build a second building only hurts that. What if Templar went back to having one building so you could call them out sooner? Or, time for another wacky idea - Templar (of one kind or both) are moved down to require the Twilight Council, and the Templar building(s) offer their upgrades? Say, DT and HT can be built once you have the Twilight Council, but Psi Storm is still on the Templar Archives. Or, DT perma-cloak needs to be researched at the Dark Shrine, but they can be built without cloak with a Twilight Council. I'd say if that were the case their HP and shields could perhaps be buffed a bit. Archons in turn could require either a research from the TC, or require a Dark Shrine/Templar Archives to be done. The net result is Templar and Archons come out a bit sooner and thus the gateway force perhaps being a bit stronger.