Protoss Unit Roster: A Review (with suggestions)

Remy and Hominid you both keep saying the carrier wasnt very good in its position in SC1 so you both want to givie 1 or 2 smaller (small is a relative thing i just esed smaller) weaknesses in exchenge for making it more accesible. My question is then this if the carrier is weak in its current position why not make it stronger and leave it where it is instead of making it weaker so you can get it a little earlier?

I personally (being an obvious carrier lover and protoss player) would like to sae the carrier gain a new ability to make it on par with its position in the tech tree on top of maybe giving the carrier a little more shielding and armor (maybe an extra 25-50 each). A number of ability suggestions have been floating around the forums for the carrier (like having a choice or interceptors, a semi hardened shield for air/ground/or both, or maybe giving it an option to build scarasbs instead of interceptors or mayber a combination of both). Out of alot of the suggestions i think the scarab one would work really well for a number of reasons. First it would give the protoss some much needed late game heavy splash damage and siege abilities. Second it would add some needed choice and extra firepower to the carrier. Finally since the scarab would be flying it wouldnt suffer from the pathing problems the reavers scarabs did. (which i believe is an enmorous bonus if this was implemented).

 

The problem isn't in the Carrier unit itself. The problem lies with the fact that there is now another Tier 3 Protoss Capital Ship that IS going to take the place of the Carrier. It can't really be denied that the Mothership (since you can build more than one) with its caster abilities is going to be the preferred unit over the Protoss Carrier, unless balancing is absolutely horrible.

So basically you have an ATG Capital Ship for the Protoss. It has a decent range and a lot of firepower. It's weakness is that it can't defend against ATA attacks, as it should be. Now, while I'd like the MS to be its original super-unit, but with the same weaknesses(but with black hole included, etc.) it's quite possible that won't happen.

If that is the case, then the Carrier's position on the tech tree SHOULD be changed. It simply cannot remain where it is because it's going to be completely overlapped by the Mothership. I mean, why tech Carriers in Tier 3 when you could teching to the Mothership?? Unless, of course, you're countering a Mothership, but then you could just produce other AA units.

So the Carrier SHOULD move down to perhaps late Tier 2 or very early Tier 3. As far as an GTA shield or specific abilities against the ground, I'm not so sure. I mean, that's what the Mothership is specifically for, attacking ground.

So wouldn't it be a better option to increase the Carrier's effectiveness against AIR units? Against ground units it already has the added benefit of range. Maybe we should adjust its weaknesses. Give the interceptors GTA shields so the range of the Carrier is even more emphasized, and in turn make those same interceptors weaker against air units. So a player effectively has to micro his Carriers a little more than was previously required.

The Carrier itself is more vulnerable to GTA attacks, but its interceptors are more HARDENED to GTA attacks. While the Carrier is more hardened to ATA attacks, its interceptors are vulnerable to ATA attacks. It would really change the dynamic of the unit. Players with GTA units are going to have to hit the Carriers for the most effect, and players with ATA units are going to have to go after the Interceptors to reduce its effectiveness.

 

@ NateSMZ, If you meant double detection for the Haunt, I still think that it would be imba. Everything would still apply, it's not really any better because it's not a combat unit.

The conditions for countering the Haunt would not be met a great majority of the time. Players, especially Zerg, do not go around and randomly build towers all over the map. So the only time when the Haunt might possibly be countered would be when it's in enemy bases, where the means required to counter it would actually be available.

But consider the fact that the Haunt provides wide range radar scan and not actual vision. Since you already know that there would be enemy units in enemy bases, there is no reason for you to even deploy a Haunt into the enemy bases in the first place anyway. To use the Haunt meaningfully, you would deploy it away from enemy bases in places where you would want to detect enemy troop movement.

So realistically, the Protoss would have a recon tool that is just about impossible to counter. Of course it is possible, since the means to do it is made available. However, the effort required for one to counter would still far out-weigh the ease of execution and benefit reaped by the one using the Haunt. I really wouldn't consider that balanced. IMO, it wouldn't even worth the effort for people to try to counter the Haunt requiring double detection. I think the effort that would go into countering the Haunt is just as much of a disadvantage for a player as having troop movement known to the enemy.

@ hominiddd, I did read your post, did you read mine? I did not discount the fact that you are pro tempest. Our opinions differ in whether or not the carrier/tempest should attack air, and that is grounds for debate. I've stated my thoughts specifically to address that, not to argue against you being anti tempest.

@ LordKerwyn, I think making the carrier stronger would only worsen it. Let's take the nuke as an example. It wasn't very useful and thus, wasn't used a whole lot in real games. Let's say they made it stronger that it wipes out an entire base completely in one shot, but consequently made it so it's harder to pull off. Do you think the nuke would now be used more because it is so powerful? No, in actually it would see even less use because it is now a even less practical tool.

Same thing with the carrier, or just about anything else. Accessibility and practicality is far more important than the actual strength of the individual unit. The scout wasn't bad, but because of its high cost, it was impractical. The dark archon definitely wasn't bad at all, all its abilities were very powerful and potent and useful, but its poor accessibility made it one of the least used units in SC1.

To be honest, I think even if you made the carrier more powerful, it would be taken down just as easily. I think because of the very nature of the unit, it would continue to be so until you start getting into the realm of imbalance before you see a change. But in the end, to balance out its power, it would just end up being one of the least accessible units, which in turn would make it the least used unit. It is better to have a moderately useful tool available at a timing where you can maximize its use, than to have an extremely powerful tool where you'll never get to use it. That is my opinion with the carrier.

@ Jon, When I look at everything, I personally don't take the mass produced MS(or even the stasis orb) into the equation, at least not in its current form. As far as I'm concerned, it's not the carrier that overlaps the crap MS(as opposed to super MS), it's the crap MS that overlaps the carrier. For me personally, before they come up with a much better crap MS, I'll assume that the game will run with the super MS. Public opinion is for them to move in that direction anyway.

But to address your opinion on making the carrier more effective against air, it would actually go against the idea of making it more accessible or available earlier IMO, unless you mean make it suck vs ground. But you can't make it good all-around AND make it easier to get. You're raising two notches on the strength side of the scale while leaving the weakness side untouched.

You also only need at max two types of air units for AA, one for large heavy air and one for mass of small light air. Taking down large air is the job of tactical air and killing swarms of small air is the job of air superiority support air units, you don't need anything else for AA. The phoenix is tactical air and air superiority support two-in-one for the Protoss. While the warpray isn't tactical air, it is good for taking down large air by design.

But beyond just the need, I think for balance if you make the carrier good vs ground at earlier in the game you need to balance that out by making it suck against air. But in the end it would still be more useful. No air unit that was generally good vs ground was good against air. The muta was the best ground attacking tactical air, but compared to other units in the same class its air attack was pathetic. Guardian is another example, good vs ground, suck vs air.

You can have an air unit that's 1) very good vs ground but poor vs air, 2) very good vs air but poor vs ground, or 3) equally good vs air and ground but limited overall effectiveness or is specialized in use. Choice 3 is what the old carrier is, choice 2 is not needed, so the best choice to make the carrier useful is choice 1.

 

Remy, what I meant by hardening the shields against respective GTA or ATA, I meant that the Interceptors would be better against ground, the Carrier itself would suck.

Then the Interceptor would be more easily countered by air units. Then the Carrier would be a little harder to kill from the air.

You would ALSO move it to late Tier 2 or early Tier 3

 

ahh, I scraped the radar scan idea in favor of the on/off cycle one

yes, but that's kinda the whole point. Why shouldn't the Dark Templar be really good at scouting? Every race has their advantages. Terrans get to move their buildings around, Protoss get to beam warriors in at any point on the battlefield, Protoss and Zerg heal naturally while Terrans don't... Here's a good one, Terrans can now pump out units twice as fast as the Protoss, which paired with their cheaper units anyway means the Protoss will probably not only have to worry about swarms of Zerg, but swarms of Terrans too.... each race has different things they're good at - why not make the Protoss the best at scouting?

good summary - and to add a few options, there's of course 2a which is good vs. small air, and 2b which is good vs big air.... both of these of course already being covered. Then there's 1a good vs. small ground, and 1b good vs big ground.... currently the Mothership pwns both.... I think it should be regulated to countering big ground units... make the Planet Cracker attack force the Mothership to be stationary, balance it by saying the force of the attack pins the targeted unit in place, so whatever unit it gets unleashed on, or building, can't easily escape..... with the attack costing energy, or having cooldown - it would insure that the Mothership only targeted large units to get the most bang for her buck...... the Carrier or Carrier replacement could then fill the roll of bombarding swarms of ground units from the air

EDIT: Just reworked the Void Drifter to fill that roll

 

While i believe your correct and i definitely understand your arguments. The problem with making the carrier weaker has nothing to do with balance its the story behind it because why would the protoss remove part of the carrier's shielding or the interceptors weapons? Thats why i think blizzard made the tempest instead of remaking the carrier, but most poeple want the "carrier" not the "tempest" (Im one of them sorta). And its with that in mind that i keep suggesting making the carrier stronger instead of increasing its accessibilty. Because if cant get rid of the carrier and you cant make it weaker and it currently isnt good enough for its accesibility the only thing you really can do is make it stronger.

So if you have to make the carrier stronger how do you do it without making it imbalanced or reducing its accessibilty? (even though reducing its accessibility would make since there is probally very few protoss shipyards left that could build a carrier if there is any left at all) While i dont really have a good answer for this my suggestion would be to give the carrier a few more shields points and hit points and give the option of building "scarab-ceptors"

 

@ Jon, I think I have misunderstood you, but I still can't say that I've figured out what you were trying to say.

Don't these two statements directly contradict each other and mean the exact opposite thing?  I'm kinda lost.

@ NateSMZ, Of course every race has different strengths and weaknesses.  Each of them are different from each other and each of them have things that they are the best in.  But I don't think a strength in a particular area of any race is achieve by having imbalanced units or mechanics.  Being better than the other two races in a particular area is very different from having something that has no realistic counter(or a counter that is efficient enough to be equal in effort).

@ LordKerwyn, I won't mix balance with lore.  I have neither the interest nor the patience to find out if there is a way to put lore first and still end up with what is best for gameplay.  I think what we are talking about are in two completely separate dimensions, so our discussions should part ways here.  Interestingly, it's actually the Protoss players who seem to be holding back Protoss development.  But basically the Protoss just went wack since BlizzCon anyway.

EDIT:  OK, I think I realize what you're trying to say Jon, you're talking about the carrier and the interceptor separately.  I don't think you should try to balance the carrier and its interceptors separately.  Attacking the interceptors isn't something you can do intentionally or efficiently with micro.  You can get a bunch of units that can attack air and leave them there, they would try to shoot down the interceptors, but that plan of action is not in your best interest.  Basically, to go for the interceptors, your giving up your ability to focus fire on the carriers.  FF is more efficient, more controlled, and all the interceptors die with it anyway.  But balance wise, I don't think you can really treat carriers and interceptors as separate units anyway.

 

Okay.... lemme try to example it, I guess.

The Carrier has interceptors. When it uses the interceptors it has a kind of "ranged" attack. The Interceptors are all that are in range of ground targets it is attacking.

Since the interceptor is in range... I was saying that it should have those GTA shields like the Tempest did. So it's HARD to kill the interceptors with ground units. They take more hits from the ground. In order to do this, you lower their HP against air units, the shields are weaker if, say, a phoenix starts shooting at them.

So you're using the interceptors for "range" so your Carrier doesn't need GTA shields as much because it is further away from the ground targets. So you lower the shield's effectiveness against GTA in exchange for INCREASING it against ATA. So the Carrier is now harder to kill with ATA attacks.

So with your Carriers, you would want to position them so that air units attack your Carriers and ground units attack your Interceptors in order to keep your Carriers alive. This would make them a little more counterable by ground units, but would make them survive longer in ATA combat.

It might also add a nice dynamic by giving an incentive for opposing players to attack the interceptors and render the Carriers useless instead of going straight for the Carriers.

 

I think I kind of understand now. But I guess what I was saying about the carrier is different from you as well. I want them to make air a major weakness for the carrier/tempest. Sure it can have an air attack, it wouldn't really be OP. But I'm saying make it just really suck vs air so it can really rock hard vs ground at an earlier timing.

I think your idea makes the carrier too good, especially with support, considering both of our ideas are to put the carrier earlier in the game. It's not unlike putting the guardian lower on the tech tree AND making it more resilient vs air on top of that.

 

Remy you definitly misinterpreted what i posted. Im not trying to balance the carrier with respect to lore intentionally im trying come up with ideas to make the carrier a better overall unit. But the majority of people who wanted the carrier to come dont want to see any new weaknesses for it expecially drastic ones. So i am trying of ways to make the carrier a better overall unit without giving it any more weaknesses. In the hope that the change will have a better chance of happening because there will be fewer people oposing it.

Also on a semi seperate note. While gameplay of course comes first starcraft would be nothing without its great story and its ability to tell it. So the new units and changes in SC2 really need to help the story not hurt it if you want the game great not just good.



P.S. As always these are just my views of the current situation and most likely arnt completely correct.

 

Protoss are the only race which get permanently cloaked warriors. What is the defense against Dark Templar? A player fighting the Protoss knows that they have to keep a good spread of static detector units and a few mobile detectors just in case the enemy decides to send Dark Templar. The cost of defending your base against the Dark Templar threat is high. You have to build units and structures, that maybe you wouldn't otherwise use... just because of that unit.

I don't see how it makes sense to say that difficulty seeing a non-combat unit is imbalanced, but the game already has a combat unit that is difficult to see. The greater difficulty in finding the Haunt is offset by it's inability to attack. That's a pretty fair trade-off. A Dark Templar that can't attack but is extra hard to see.... if that was how I described the unit, how would you call it imbalanced? Most people would probably think that was a poor trade... now I'm extra hard to see but I lost my ability to do any harm to the enemy? I want the old Dark Temps back!

So if Dark Templar are better than Haunts, then clearly the unit is not imbalanced. It would give the Protoss an advantage - but the other races have advantages of their own... It's not a combat unit, it's a tactical one.

 

@ Remy , I figured the interceptors sucking against air would be enough.

And I mean SUCK! It really IS an extension of your idea. I just think Carriers cost too much to be completely pwned by air.

What I should have said is that the interceptor will have hardened GTA shields and LESS ATA shields than before.

Then the Carrier will have the SAME ATA shields as before, but LESS GTA shields. This is in exchange for coming out earlier.

See what I mean NOW? It's basically making the Carrier's weaknesses more pronounced while at the same time giving them a chance to survive against air a LITTLE.

That's exactly the point. It emphasizes the use of support rather than solely the Carrier. After all, that's what we're going for now with Protoss since we want the Mothership to require support.

 

Nate I still don't know why you think that the Haunt is not unbalance. But I'll try to address it one more time.

You compare the Haunt to the DT. So let's break this down. Your Haunt is UNDETECTABLE even with detectors while the DT is cloak all the time (like the Haunt) but IS detectable by detectors. These two ideas are not the same. I'm a Protoss player and there's a reason why I never DT rush Zerg players. Because for the simple fact that Overlords are all over the place. This is a losing strategy. With your Haunt you can have any number of OL and you still cannot know where it is. You can DT rush Terran easier but a good player will scout you and know what you are up to and build accordingly, be it, comsat, turrets or SV. The simple fact is the DT can easily be countered. They might swing big but they have low life and can be detected. The Haunt on the other hand can rarely be detected if at all. Now that's imbalance.

What you are proposing with the Haunt is basically a permanent Comsat Sweep because being undetected this is what it is. Can anyone imagine being able to have a permanent comsat sweep on your enemy that's a Huge advatage. This is basically your enemy share their view with you when they ally you in a multiplayer game. Now if you have multiple of these all over the map it is equivalent to that cheat code that you type in when you play against computer that let you see the whole map. This is way unbalance. They don't call it a cheat code because it is balance.

As to the Carrier discussion, I think the Carrier will be change either way. Now I wish the MS be return to a super unit. It doesn't have to be a one limit but make expensive enough where it is hard to make multiples. But as of right now, the MS is overlapping the Carrier (which I despise). And lets face it, even in its weaken state it is still better than the Carrier. If the MS stays the way it is, why not make the "new" carrier earlier in the tech tree? We get to keep the "carrier" and in the process get an early harasser which I think is a big bonus!! Like an air seige tank of sort.

Now if the MS returns to its Superduper unit (which is a strong possibility because the opinion is so strong in its return) then they carrier will/can stay as a capital type ship because all three races have at least one top tech air. Now they can still change the carrier into a tempest type and build another unit to take the carrier's place (the unpopular road) or keep the carrier. In which case, I still think carriers need something new such as more interceptors (personally I like the melee attacks of the shurikens...good against dark swarm), longer range, more hp/shield but it can't stay as is. The BC already has an upgrade. Besides in SC, BC upgrade will beat fully upgraded Carrier. The Protoss are suppose to be more advance how can this happen? The Carrier needs to be stronger than the BC!!! (I wouldn't mind it a little unbalance in the Carrier's favor hahahha).

 

@ NateSMZ, I fail to see your point in why a unit can be allowed to be imbalanced simply because it is not a combat unit.  By that reasoning, the radar dome can cover the entire map since it doesn't directly do harm to anyone, and it's actually a visible structure where you can hunt down and destroy.

DT is not better than the Haunt, they merely have different roles.  The Haunt not being a combat unit has no bearing.  It is still a recon tool that offers the Protoss player a tactical advantage over his adversaries all the while without a realistically effective way to be countered.  If it can't be countered effectively, it is imbalanced.  Why should anyone be allowed to have an eye on the enemy while the enemy can't do anything about it?  If something can be done, it needs to be able to be undone with equal effort.

I think you underestimate the significance of recon in SC.  If you think Protoss players build observers solely cloaked units, you are mistaken.  And building detectors to counter cloaked strats isn't as much of a hassle as you put it.  It is merely having a few well placed towers and having mobile detectors tag along when it's away from your own base.

All mobile detectors in SC1 were multipurpose, none of which you get specifically just for detection anyway.  The observer was one of the best recon tools, overlord you made automatically for food but also to use as transports, and SciVes was one of the best(in my personal opinion the best) caster units in all of SC1.  But to counter the Haunt, you are required to randomly build towers all over the map just in case you might actually be countering one.  I hardly think you can compare the two situations, not that I think what you said about it having no attack made any sense to begin with anyway.

I want them to cost less, I thought I mentioned that, maybe not.  Lower cost is part of the equation for better accessibility.  Just moving it slightly lower on the tech tree while still having a huge price tag in resources would hardly make them more accessible I think.  But to be honest, while I believe what I envision would benefit the carrier in making it more useful and generally used more, I don't think there any chance that Blizzard will implement any of my ideas anyway.  Not anything I said here, not anything I said anywhere else, not even Genetic Code Index... oh well.

 

Darn it Remy.. read the latest post.... I agree with moving it down the tech tree AND reducing the cost!

 

It won't happen... but don't you think Protoss players would get to have a lot of fun if it did? People would actually be worried about carriers for a change, heh.

 

@ hominidd & Remy: Apologies for being so stubborn, but I just really can't see your argument. The best place for a scout to be IS an enemy base. That's the best way to get an early warning for what the enemy is going to do. The enemy base WILL have stationary detectors unless the enemy is foolish... in which case, they deserve whatever they get.

Sure, the Haunt in it's current idea phase could also be used to shadow armies on the march and it would be extremely difficult to effectively counter this. But once an army is already headed for it's target, the benefit of recon is greatly reduced. Recon is used primarily to recognize threats BEFORE they materialize. Knowing what is coming when it's already halfway there would still be helpful, but your time to form an appropriate response is greatly reduced. And as far as that goes, an Observer can already perform the same function, albeit a little more difficultly. Leaving an Observer at a likely path, would give you advance notice of an enemy force on the move, and the Observer could simply be moved out of the way before the enemy spots it.

If you object to recon that can't be countered, how do you feel about the ComSat Scan? What's your defense against that? There is none. The ComSat can scan anywhere on the map... it is balanced via it's own limitations, namely energy - not by anything the enemy can do.

 

if you know its on its way, you can rearrange your defences to more adequately defend against them, by diverting forces from other sides of your base to where they're coming from. or to recall your army to your base to assist in defence.

 

Did you read my post? I think I explained exactly why I think it is imbalance using the comsat as an example. I'll try to explain one more time and this is my last attempt I promise. Here are the exact reasons why the comsat is WAY limited compare your Haunt.

1. first you answered your own question. One limitation of the comsat is that it has energy. In order to use you have to wait a long time to get a quick scan. Your Haunt is nothing like this. It is a Permanent object in the your enemy's base. That's one limitation of the comsat.

2. The comsat scan is extremely recognizable by your enemy. Have you seen the comsat scan....it is so blatant that you have to be blind not to see it. Your Haunt will be cloaked and IS UNDETECTABLE even by detectors. So secdondly your enemy will not know that they are being watch.

3. Third this is the most important and I can't stress this enough. Time Duration of the comsat scan and your proposed Haunt. The comsat only last for a few seconds then you have to wait for the energy. With your Haunt you can permanent see your enemy. Like I said earlier, this is basically like your enemy letting you share his/her view with him. Now answer my question. Do you think this is balance??!! Would you play a game that you know that your opponet will able to see whatever you see or whatever you do in your base? Of course not! Your chances of winning is basically nil.

I also don't think you appreciate the improtance of reconnaissance. It is one of the most important factor in winning or losing a game. Why do you think those pro player are always having their probe running around their opponent's base?

Well I'm through LOL. Maybe someone else can explain to you why a detector that's undetectable is unbalance.

 

@ NateSMZ, I don't think you really want to hear an answer but just in case you do...

The comsat is limited in a few different ways. The first, is that it is energy based, even that in itself is a huge balance check on the comsat. After all, it is the only detector in the game that can be made useless with good micro and repeated attempts of false assault attempts or hit-&run.

The second, is that it is a CC addon. For every comsat you have, it means you've built a CC. I don't think anymore explanation is required for this. Obviously no other recon tool in the game has this immensely inconvenient requirement.

The third, is actually not even the comsat itself, but the Terran tech tree. The Terran has the highest tech mobile detector, the SciVes is the latest available mobile detector in the game. Even with you wording it to make the comsat sound imbalanced, it isn't, because that's what Terran has to go on to ride it out until tier 3. Keep in mind that this is all while limit factor 1 and 2 are in play. Terran is by far the race most susceptible to cloak strats, and somehow I don't think the comsat being a imbalanced godly advantage has anything to do with it.

If you still want to linger on the fact that the scan itself can not be countered, it can. You can make the comsat waste critically valuable scan energy, or just simply go destroy it. Scan is a spell, just like psionic storm. To counter psionic storm, you would avoid it to minimize its effectiveness and waste the energy that went into casting it, OR you would just go kill the high templar. All of these are realistically viable methods that don't require ridiculous conditions for it to happen. So we establish the fact that not only is comsat not imba, it is counterable. Moving on.

The best place to scout includes the enemy base, but not at all in the case of the Haunt. The Haunt merely scans for the presence of enemy units and does not provide direct vision. Since with no vision you have no clue on the enemy's build and you already know for a fact that there will be enemy units in the enemy base(because umm, it's their base), deploying a Haunt just to confirm that is pointless.

So realistically, instead of deploying the Haunt inside the enemy base, you would deploy it outside of the enemy base, as well as anywhere else BUT the enemy base. You won't even have to worry much at all about avoiding double detection, because to use it in a meaningful way the Haunt wouldn't be near any towers to begin with anyway.

I hope you realize that, that is the very definition of imbalance. Something isn't balanced when there simply exist a condition/situation where countering it is possible. Something is ONLY balanced when conditions/situations where countering it is impossible do not exist. Whenever there is even a single situation where something is impossible to counter or doing so is unreasonably difficult, it is imbalanced. Other terms that you can often find assossiated with that are exploit, cheese, and OP. That is exactly why the Haunt is imba.

Instead of arguing that the Haunt is not imba, I think what you're actually doing is arguing that the Haunt's imbalance should be overlooked because of whatever reason you've stated. I don't think I'm the only one that sees a clear imbalance in the Haunt idea, and I see no reason why the Haunt should be allowed to be imbalanced no matter how little that might hurt the game, when the same leniency isn't extended to any other unit or mechanic.