Poll : Mothership

Yeah!


50 minerals deducted as penalty for violating forum rules. Please read the forum rules and refrain from posting overly short replies.

 

Indigent, one, two, or three word posts, or posts with no meaning are considered spam and are not allowed in this forum. please read the forum rules.

 

When the MS was originally introduced with the revelation of the gameplay demo, I was really proud of Blizzard. They were not afraid to go with very different yet completely new and refreshing ideas for SC. They probably knew that there would be whiners who would point fingers and say that MS is a hero and SC2 is killed and made into War3. Despite all of that, Blizzard had the balls to go into uncharted seas and test new ideas, truly commendable. Then it all changed, they caved and chopped their own balls off. Now they're playing it safe and going with a rehashed SC1 Protoss. Everyone has waited for 10 f**king years, we do not deserve a rehashed race.

The BlizzCon MS? It's really not the MS, it's a completely different unit. Blizzard is just too lazy to give it its own name, model, and lore, so for now it is the "Mothership." That is some real BS, either leave the MS as the 1-per-player super unit as everyone now know it, or don't have it in there at all. Having a different unit falsely represented as the MS only serves to aggrevate the SC fanbase.

The BlizzCon changes to carriers and star relic also piss me off. Tempest or carrier, it doesn't really matter, they are basically the same. If it's only the namesake, people seem to like the carrier name better, so be it. They had an interesting spin on it with the hardened shield vs ground giving it an emphasis on AG, but they caved and went SC1 on that too. A simple rename and model size-up would've been fine. And stasis orb, wtf is that? Hardly seem like a worthy unit at all, especially as a Protoss unit, might as well call it the neutered orb.

People keep wanting to believe that super MS is the same as a hero, but as some others have already pointed out, they are not the same. The most important difference along with the other ones pointed out by Ych9 and others, is that the War3 hero systems is DYNAMIC but the MS is a STATIC unit only available at a specific tech level. With heroes, there was the dynamic factor with experience/level-up, spell choices, and item usage/equipment. A hero(or heroes) can later come back and be way powerful with pumped up stats, uber items, and high level spells(including ultimate). There is no such thing with the MS, it has specific stats and abilities that are static, they are predetermined and will never change(beyond the process of upgrading to the final result, but that is the same with any other lower-tech unit).

You are dealing with a single powerful high tech unit, just as you are BCs or thors. But where Terran has its top-end toys at the highest tech made up of numerous individual units, Protoss is just doing it with one unit. It's similar to how 1 zealot = 4 zerglings, that's just how Protoss has always been.

The argument where the rest of Protoss would be made weaker because of the super unit MS is absurd. With that kind of reasoning, the rest of pre- tier 3 Terran should now be near useless with the huge improvement of ghosts and BCs along with the addition of thors. You only need to balance units vs other races at the appropriate tech level, although that means at tier 3 you have to account for everything from tier 1, 2, and 3 because it's all available and in-play at that point. Here's an example, lurkers which are tier 2, can attack while burrowed. Because a Protoss player can not deal with lurkers at tier 1 with zealots doesn't mean it's OP and all tier 1 zerg will now be nerfed, that's dumb. If all of tier 1 AND tier 2 Protoss can in no way deal with lurkers at equal(not 100% but just similar ) skill, equal effort, equal cost, then the lurker is OP. But even then, nerfing all of Zerg pre- lurker tech would not be the answer as you would have to rebalance everything else instead of just lurkers.

So basically, bring back the MS as a super unit or don't have it in the game at all. I am a Zerg player and Protoss is my least favorite player race, but that doesn't mean they should get the shaft. I believe that the MS can well be balanced as super unit, Blizzard could certainly give it some more honest effort. Making the black hole a DoT AA AoE spell is I believe how many people feel about it. Even if the damage tick is weak, the AoE along with the sucking/slowing effect already carry immense tactical value facing air heavy opposition. Planet cracker IMO was fine too, they can just tweak the damage as needed. If thors can kindly disassemble your buildings from a mile away, an AG AoE that leaves the MS open isn't too OP. The time bomb I also liked, but I don't think we even ever found out the exact specifics about it. But all in all, it all seem very possible IMO.

 

Excellent post Remy I honestly believe that is a great culmination of what alot of people have been saying since they found out about the blizzcon Mothership. owerup: and i wish i could do that more than one in this case.

 

Sry, but I definitively disagree: Motherships and super-units aren't meant to be. Having only one would unbalance things against the Protoss. Bringing it back to the original would make it too OP. I loved the Arbiter, and it's shoes big enough to fill as it is. Don't need an uber unit with uber-powers. And not getting one is not the shaft.

Just because the first one was much much stronger, doesn't mean that Planet Cracker quit being a devastating atk. The ship itself still has a very strong anti-ground dmg. And I prefer a ship that works better with the group than one to fair better on it's own. Let Mother F. Ship be a regular high-tier unit such as Thor, and not the game's main attraction. It hasn't quit being uber, it's just less than the first appearance.

Honestly, if she can suck units in an area into a Black Hole, she's a hero unit, as she would be one to rule many, independently from whom this many were*. And that's just too OP, even if you can only make one in the game. It's better close to an arbiter, as Protoss without it's invisibility curtain ain't Protoss.

You say she can be balanced as super-unit if Blizzard make an effort. Well, I say THIS is the balancing, and that she continues as a super-unit!


*Starcraft is a game where every unit has weaknesses, and that doesn't resume itself into growing ever stronger units to beat the old weaker ones. It's about smartness, and having a hugely strong unit was definitively un-starcraftish. Bascally, she didn't have a counter! O_O

Thors were balanced for beeing the way they are, and now Mothership is too.

 

Im not sure of the exact numbers but i would guess 8-10 SC1 scourges could destroy the super unit form of the MS in one expecially since the black hole ability isnt instant and requires some level of player interaction also what was it 2-4 yamatos had the maothership in the red in the gameplay video?

The PROTOSS CANNOT REPAIR THERE UNITS meaning the mothership has its shields left to stand on which isnt much if you cound the EMP of the nomad. Despite all of that most people who still support it as a super unit also support balancing the unit EXPECIALLY THE BLACK HOLE ABILITY.

And it is not like the Mothership is not without counter it has the same counters the battlercruiser and carrier have. Finally the blizzcon version is pathetic it does not even have the ability to attack other units and is one of the most expensive units in the game if not the most expensive.

EDIT: I overreacted earlier so i removed this piece of the post.

 

8-10 scourges are a heck of a high number. 2-4 yamatos too. Zergs don't have EMP shockwave, and if you want to make it fair, you would have to make a good Zerg strategy to beat it the way it was before a well.

It's better as a reproduce able unit. Enables more strategy and thinking than a final unit that if you slip is gone. And that you need a humongous effort to kill. All units have a weakness, and it didn't. The new one has. Weakness is not a way to be killed, but a situation where it has the disadvantage. It had none.

 

What is the carrier's weakness then? Or the battlecruiser's? Also we know nothing about the SC2 zerg as of this moment and SC1 Carriers took 5 scourge destroy and it isnt like scourge are to get.

 

I don't know, a carrier's weakness is heavily armored units because they use tiny little zergling like dammage/ health. And battle cruisers weakness is mass air units mainly because they don't have fast attack and their skills cannot kill more then one thing at a time.

 

Eye_Carumba, I am not sure if you have heard an interview, but one of them stated that the way they are balancing SC2 is to make every single unit overpowered, but in the end, it actually balances out. Mothership can be perfectly balanced if Blizzard wants to. If Blizzard says they will release SC2 when it's ready, I don't see how hard it is to balance a Mothership from now till the release date.

I am a bit bias towards keeping the Mothership as a Super-Unit because they fit the Protoss theme of quality over quantity. If Blizzard decides to axe that idea, then the Mothership's role in battle is just going to overlap the Carriers. Not to mention if that was the case, they would be like a Thor gimmick in that they are both late game power units.

Mothership as a Super-Unit is counterable but with proper support, it would prove to be extremely deadly. You can apply this statement to every single unit in the SC2 univerise and it would prove valid. Mothership simply won't be a game turning point because if Blizzard finds a balance for it, it won't turn out like that. We can't assume that if Mothership is a Super-Unit, it won't be counterable. We have to understand that Blizzard is going to find a way to balance this Mothership if they are going to remain as a Super-Unit. But our prioity right now is to voice our opinions to Blizzard that we as a fan, love the Mothership as been a Super-Unit concept, and when Blizzard takes that in, they can start balancing the Mothership and apply it into the SC2 universe. As seeing from the Protoss demo back in May, a few Yamato cannons nearly took out the Mothership. Some tweaks here and there and I'm sure it would be balanaced and not uncounterable like what you stated. It doesn't have to be a regular unit to have some weakness. Even a Super-Unit will have some sort of weakness if Blizzard implements it correctly.

 

Not getting a super unit is not the shaft, getting a rehashed SC1 race is.  Crying hero hero without giving the super unit concept a chance to be balanced out is quite silly.  I believe that is mostly out of fear for change.  Quite frankly, since the MS was never tweaked and balanced extensively, no one can say the MS as a super unit can not be balanced.

The cloaking field was already there when the MS was a super unit, as a star relic ability.  Now both the MS and the star relic(now stasis orb) are just two half-assed halves.

Just because the MS is hard capped at 1 per player, doesn't mean it can fully function without support.  Even at its first showing, I have never thought so.  But to be able to overpower and out-muscle a greater number of lesser units has always been the Protoss theme and design whether you acknowledge it or not.  Psionic storm, reaver, maelstrom, archon, stasis field are all examples of this, now there is also colossus and overload.

Black hole as a DoT AA AoE would not make the MS a hero, or high templars would aslo be heroes with psi storm.  Black hole tweaked as suggested by many would be an AoE spell that does damage over time(tick damage), but to differenciate it from psi storm and also not OP as the gameplay demo version, the AoE would be greater than storm with an added snare effect, and against air ONLY.  How would that single ability be the determining factor in making the MS a hero when the Protoss has always had many tools of that nature?  The fact is, people are focusing on the one-per-player aspect and immediately drawing unfounded conculsions that it automatically is the same as a hero, even though there has been no extensive(public) testing of a MS as a super unit.

It is true that traditionally, everything in SC has a counter and that they are pushing hard counters more in SC2.  But it is not true that everything in SC has had a glaring weakness.  Hydras and goons are pretty balanced and moderately self-sufficient units.  And BCs, especially SC2 BCs, what is their weakness?  IMHO, an MS as a 1-per-player super unit is the same thing as having multiple BCs in one basket.  You would have greater power and capabilities in a single unit as a super MS takes the place of many BCs, but at the same time if you ever choose to tech to it you are also carrying a greater risk and liability if you lose it.

EDIT:  Wow, a lot of posts squeezed their way in between while I was posting mine.  I did have to go take care of something, but still.  Anyway, 8-10 scourges to take out an MS is NOTHING.  Did you even play SC1?  Each SC1 BC needed 5 scourges to take it down, but in reality it takes much more than 5 if you even wanna do it with scourges.  Scourge is one-shot-kill for a BC, and who the hell gets just one BC?  Against a group of BCs, you can't even get your scourges anywhere close, and that's just from BC attacks alone.  Don't get me started on the rest of the stuff around that would be shooting at the scourges.

 

From 5 to 8-10 is a huge difference. Firstly because the old Time Bomb would freeze projectiles coming to the Mothership, and in the meantime, all scourges could be killed. Just like BCs do: they kill scourge clouds directed to them on sight, with their 20 air dmg and long enough range.

Battlecruisers can be taken out by wraiths, by scouts, by devourers and hydralisks. Carriers were a bit harder, but Zerg Queen's goo would slow the interceptors, and Scourges would actually hit them if you aim.

All of them would also be useless against the Defiler's orange cloud. Long ranged units cannot harm ground units inside the orange cloud (forgive me cuz I forgot the name). And with it, Hydras could take care of both. Planet cracker deals with it, as the "orange cloud" doesn't get in the way of special skills.

Mothership's skills were too OP. Only Planet Cracker was somewhat regular, and was kept. But the old Time Bomb made it more imortal than the Immortal. And Black Hole made it more lethal than a battalion of BCs together with Yamato-guns.

@ posts made while I was writing mine, lol :

Ych9, but this new Mothership is still a super-unit, just like everyone noticed right away that the Thor was, even if you could make more than one per game.

Remy, if you make MS a unit than can only be one per player, you will have to balance it by making it way tougher. So tougher that it wouldn't have a counter. Not making it possible to make many, would go against the Protoss if you don't give the MS a super-strength. And giving it a super-strength is unfitting in the being able to be countered department.

these BCs have a very nice counter, pointed out by Indigent. His counter is even better than mine above mentioned If mothership can hit air-units, and is enoughly toughed to be kept as 1 unit per player, it will be unbalanced. that's what I think.

 

Remy that one has been the best post of this tread, i dont share your opinion about the carrier being the same as the tempest, i know it sounds stupid but its the other way around, the tempest was a downgraded version of the carrier, but that´s not my purpose in this post.

i guess the mothership is just to much for some players to try to fight against, this is starcraft 2, and if blizzard hasn´t shown us the zerg i say it´s way to early to say there are no counters for the mothership, i wonder what the terran players would say if in the next video we saw, the thor was as weak as a goliath, no bombardment ability, cuz its´s OP, but yeah, he´s still the thor...
i hope that the new tweaks to the mothership are just to see how we reacted, i got this idea from the topic that was created a few weeks ago, when we first saw the demo, and how blizzard devs were dissapointed of how little reaction the mothership got, and also from the fact that they give the cloak ability to the mothership, come on! a big juicy mothership to hide units? yeah right, i bet they couldnt find a crappier skill to give her...so maybe they want to know how much do we like this unit, if not, then #$%$#"% blizz, lol, no seriusly, we don´t like this new crapy mothershi(t) please bring back that super unit (yeah hero for those who fear it) and let us figure out with all the cards on the table how it can be taken down.

 

Invisibility is a very nice skill. I think it's way better to have it back, and not on those crappy star-relics (invisibility isn't meant to be so accessible), because it kills one of the old protoss weaknesses: keeping the Arbiter alive. now with MS to play the invisible curtain, she's tough enough to handle it. And with teleport capabilities, the Arbiter's recall would fall in misuse. It's better to have a random atk skill like Planet Cracker anyway.

Ppl are just complaining because they "had" a very powerfull unit in the beginning and now it was "taken" away from them. "For no good reason". Well, I wouldn't want a RPG's MVP to pop up inside of Starcraft, that's for sure. I like to win a game with equal chances. And not be taken down because one single unit was finnally destroyed.


Protoss cannot be all about one single unit, one for all and all for one. She would restrain all strategies to "attain the mothership first", and all oposing strats to "destroy the Mothership at last".

 

Eye your still making the same fatal flaw you where making earlier your assuming the player using the Mothership is always watching and has the energy to use its abilities in defense. If that is true that player will not have the focus on other units or have his Mothership have enough energy to actually attack anything. The base Mothership is extraordinarily weak without its abilities and those abilities have energy requirements. 10 scorges requires 5 larvae 5 supply and 125 minerals and 375 vespen (assuming the numbers are the same as SC1) that is not alot expecially considering the Mothership would probally cost than 1000 resources.

 

LordKerwyn, what i'm saying is: If they make the MS so easily killeable like you paint her, then the Protoss would be far too vulnerable. In order to make her vulnerable, they also have to enable ppl to make more than 1. Otherwise the Protoss player would be held hostage to having a Mothership with him. No single unit should hold that responsability.

She has to be made less important, in order to keep the Protoss players on the game with other possible strategies.

 

My point is the Mothership is not a hero unit. IT IS NOT A SOLO ONE SHOT KILL. It is a heavy caster support unit similar to the Arbiter but more useful because of its more effective abilities. The only really effective way to balance abilities like the Mothership should have is to only 1 of that kind of unit on the field for that player at any given time. The abilities arnt overpwoered like they otherwise should because you cannot have multiple units cassting thos abilities at once. Also people arnt defending the super unit Mothership because they dont want to lose there heros there defending because the old Mothership followed the theme of the Protoss all the way to conclusion and made them even more unique than otherwise.

This atleast is how the Mothership should be. Also you didnt respond to my earlier posts arguments. Im curios to see if there is a good resposne.

 

Not to mention build time how high it is in the tech tree, and everything it uses needs to be reasearched before it can be used.

 

Let me go through it quickly.

- 8~10 scourges is nothing.
- Having A SWARM OF AIR UNITS as its counter is NOT a weakness.
- You are arguing everything as if people want the MS to be exactly as it was in its first showing, and to have all the abilities OP. No, people want the super unit concept to be retained but have the MS tweaked for balance.

Just to point out Eye_Carumba, you are contradicting yourself. You repeatedly point out that a super MS would be so OP because all the old abilities are so OP. But when people point out how plausible it would've been to kill the original super MS based on what we saw from the gameplay demo, you make two kinds of arguments against it. One is that what was necessary in killing it was already way too much(which it wasn't if you even understood SC1), and another is that it needs to be made even harder to kill for it to be worthy of the 1-per-player limit and that's bad.

Stop arguing against old MS abilities exactly as they were before, nobody even wants that. Everyone that want the super unit basically all agree that there needs to be balance changes. It is way too early in development for you or anyone to make the conlusion that something can not be balanced.

Quite frankly, things aren't as rigid and one sided as you would make seem Eye_Carumba. It isn't like what you think in that there are only two choices to balancing the MS. Either make it 1-per-player and it would have to be so strong that it can't have a counter OR make it counterable would make it so weak as to being completely unworthy of 1-per-player limit. There is certainly much area in the middle that you fail to realize or choose not to believe. And that, is thankfully the responsibility of Blizzard to figure out. Most people other than yourself believe that it is possible, even Blizzard hasn't said that the reason for the change was because a 1-per-player unit is just impossible to balance.

And as I said before, not everything in SC1 had a glaring weakness. Having possible counters and having glaring weaknesses are not the same thing. If you can accept being beaten by a swarm of air as a glaring weakness, I don't know why you are setting the double standard where that is too much to counter a MS. Also, stop accounting for MS abilities as if they are regular attacks. They are energy costing spells casted by a 1-per-player unit, you won't see a bombardment of time bombs and black holes.

@ Everyone else, I was thinking that if they go back to the super unit mechanic for the Mothership, perhaps everytime a player gets one on the field there should be a universal message. Just like the nuke, but announcing a Motherships entry into the current time-space, dimension, or whatever. And I'm not sure how it was before, but I don't think a Protoss player should have to ability to warp-in the MS anywhere. It should be warped-in to the tech structure that activates its production.

 

but then, it would became as I said: a race towards getting the Mothership first. If one player having it means a lot of advantages in relation to the other, she unbalances the game. If to prevent Black-hole, you had to keep smaller numbers of units in the battlefield, and she's a very good unit that needs many to be killed, nothing would work well.

It's not a matter of fear from a hero unit, but rather the loss of fun in the game, to be able to simply own the other player with a much more powerfull unit in any possible scenario. It HAS to hit only ground. It HAS to have it's black-hole nerfed, and there was no need for yet another Psy storm skill. And it HAS to have a high, but not humongous hit-points. It's 600 while a reproducible unit, what do you expect for a singled-out one? Flying Hatcheries?? lol


This part after I read Remy's post: Ok, Remy, I won't say anything about the old skills anymore. But combining the things you pointed out: Making the MS one per player and yet weak: bad for Protoss and unbalanced. Making the MS free to build as many as you wish, and tough: bad for all everyone, as it would make the Mothership too strong and definitively unbalanced. Make just one and tough: still too focused just on her, would make the game very repetitive and MS centered, as she would be such a good unit that whoever has her, probably will win. Make her vulnerable and free to be reproducted: as it is now and you're complaining of.

So I really don't see which possibility you're pointing out that I miss. In order to say it exists you have to at least have seen it somewhere. Otherwise it's just demagogy. I'm using arguments on all the possibilities that I can think of, and please give me a new one if you think I'm lacking of those. I've answered about tough+1only, about weak+1only, about tough+many, and about weak+many motherships hypotesis. I don't know what am I missing.