Protoss Unit Roster: A Review (with suggestions)

If I might insert a slight comment here to NateSMZ, despite the fact that this discussion has gone WAY over my head in every sense, I would suggest you drop the idea.

I'm not saying it's dumb or anything. I'm just saying that if you can't convince Remy of it's usefulness and awesomeness in under 6 posts, the idea can't be done. Lol. The man is a balance GENIUS.

 

Woah there Jon. While I am completely flattered and hugely grateful, I am far from being a genius.

I think Nate will either agree with the points that I've stated and see that the Haunt idea is imbalanced, or he just won't. In any case, he is still free to disagree with me.

Do you secretly hate me Jon, and want to get everyone else to hate me with you?

 

Yup. That was the plan.

But seriously. If you don't at least agree to the feasibility of an idea, and neither have I, in under a reasonable amount of posts, the idea is pretty much undoable in its current form.

I'm not saying that as "oh, this idea is stupid" but rather that if none of us (especially you) can see this idea as being feasible, it probably isn't and either needs a rework on the drawing board, or should be canned.

Like the MS. Back to the drawing board, Watson!

 

welp, it may seem I'm not listening.... but then again, I've kept posting that I'm reformulating the idea and yet you guys are still discussing the drawbacks of the original concept and not what I've currently posted... which makes all this back and forth discussion kinda pointless...... you're listing all the problems in the first sketch to me, when I've already taken much of the comments to heart and reworked the idea

so again, I apologize if it appears that I'm not listening to your thoughts... but the reality is, you guys have apparently not been paying very good attention to my continual rework posts

----------
As far as the whole idea regarding balance. I have to disagree there too. Balance does not extend from every advantage of one side being countered with around equal expenditure by the other side. That is one way to create balance.... but it's a restrictive method, just one step above giving each side the exact same things with different colors.

Balance arrives, in an RTS game, when the overall strengths and weaknesses of one team and the other are relatively the same. This has nothing to do with individual abilities, units, or mechanics. We could give the Terrans an invincible unit with one shot kills... and this would not neccesarily make them imbalanced, because there are a vast multitude of other variables to manipulate. Maybe the Terrans could only make one of these God units, maybe the unit was ridiculously slow, maybe the unit would only occasionally obey their commands, etc, etc, etc..... We could do any manner of things which would leave the Zerg and/or Protoss with just as good a chance of winning as the Terrans, even with their God unit. As long as each faction has an equal chance of winning... then they are balanced.

----------
but yes, back to the drawing board... as far as I see it the important thing when considering ideas is first: is it cool? second: is it practical? and third: is it balanced?

now iunno about you, but I think a little twist on the whole stealth vs. detector mechanism is a cool addition - Blizzard has already altered things a bit with the new Terran dynamics... Radar Towers > Sensor Arrays and Survelliance Stations... which are more powerful presumably than the old ComSat, if nothing else - by being directly integrated it means more hit points

So the basis of the Observer unit is: 1. detects and 2. invisible

why not play with this a bit? the 2 sources to make fully visible may seem difficult when you think in SC1 terms of only 2 sources of detection for most races.... but the Terrans already had 3, why not give the Mothership detection and let each race have 3 detectors? 1 static, 1 low-tech mobile and 1 hi-tech mobile... hmm? that would lessen the difficulty of countering while still being more difficult than it was originally

practical?

every added strength should come with an added cost... so what weaknesses balance the added ability? sporatic information and occasional low maneavuerbility as suggested? or are you guys just opposed period to the idea of touching the invisible vs. detector mechanism? if so, why?

 

there seems to be some confusion over what NateSMZ is suggesting, so i'll just quote his latest update to clear everything up:

1 detector to see the blur, so you'll know it's there and can take it out with aoe damage or spell, 2 detectors to see it completely.

i think this is fairly balanced, but instead of being stationary and scanning for "dots" like a radar dome, i think it should simply work like the observer, so only difference would be it's improved stealth capabilities.

 

We don´t know if Attack ground is even n the game, also Protoss plain loose out in classic AoE this time. Attack ground is insofar dangerous as it can counter invisible units without detection. WC3 had attack ground but invisible units were actually invisible - no blur.
In SC you had to be tricky to counter Invisible units when no detection was available. Attack ground while logical would take away from that. Also consider the effect of Ground attacking Siege Tanks on a Choke...

 

Nate, I've read your rework of the idea, and I still don't think its currently workable.

The concept itself of a unit that is only detectable by the presence of more than one detector is simply too complex to be readily countered.

While you have certainly made changes to the idea, now the concept has been "dumbed down." While I originally liked the concept, I think we might need a different fix for the Observer.

 

I think the observer is fine as it is no need to have a complicated new unit that is hard to counter when an existing unit does its job in a satisfactory manner

 

But does it really?

Of course, it's the only detector unit that in itself requires a detector. That's part of why I disagree with the concept of the Haunt in actual application. Since the other races don't HAVE cloaked detectors, having the Protoss with a double-cloaked detector really doesn't make sense. Now it's two steps beyond the other races in terms of an ability rather than one.

But I do think the mechanic of the Observer may need some changes. Once again, though, it all depends on what comes out of Zerg.

 

I have read the reworked idea, which is why I still argued against double cloak, right?  Your idea of balance Nate, IMO does not work for SC.  TBH, I'm not sure if that even works at all, I'm curious as to whether a real life example exists. But whatever, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  But I think I was right about you not arguing against the fact that double detection is imba, you're just arguing that such imbalance should be overlooked for whatever reason.

StarCraft is considered by so many to be such a balanced game, not because there were imbalances that you could do nothing about but you still had ways to win the game somehow.  That concept sounds like a race to each player's own "win strat" rather than playing strategically according to what your opponent is doing.  You have no direct way of effecting the god unit anyway, so the only answer is hurry and carry out your own win strat before you lose to the god unit.

IMO, StarCraft is considered to be so balanced, because anything and everything can be realisitically countered in a reasonable and effective way.  Every single strat in itself, offer advantages yet can still be stopped completely, usually with it costing you.  So not only have you introduced an imbalanced idea, you are now arguing its validity with a balance model that does not exist in or apply to StarCraft.

I have yet to see a real reason why double detection isn't imbalanced.  All I've seen are basically arguments stating that it should be overlooked because of such and such coolness factor.  Please don't even mention the "blur" because Terran doesn't even get mobile detectors or AoE spells until tier 3.

You say that coolness comes first, then practicality, and balance last, I would have to hugely disagree with you there.  When the idea of a unit is first conceived, it might start off with coolness in mind.  But once you start considering actual implementation, coolness no longer matters.  It's balance first, practicality second, coolness way way last.  Looking back to SC1, you'll see that all the units are balanced even if some weren't always very practical, but coolness is completely debatable.  If coolness was first, you would see units wreaking havoc and raising hell with all kinds of crazy spells and effects, but obviously that's not the case because balance is the ultimate limiting factor.

It's cool that MS blackhole wiped out an enemy's entire air fleet in one cast, but why do you think it was an issue?  Because it wasn't cool enough?  Because it was too cool?  No, it was balance.  Balance always come first.  Without balance, everything will be out of wack and we would end up with games that are full of cheese, no one would stick around for long.  Why do you think people even use terms like imba, OP, cheese, and exploit at all?  It's because it matters and directly effects how fun a game can be in competitive multiplayer.

At one point in Street Fighter history, there were these blackmarket mods on the Champion Edition that made you fire like 16 fireballs(hadoken) whenever you did a dragon punch(shoryuken), and everything else was jacked up to a crazy level.  It was fast, it was cool, Capcom even released the Hyper Fighing(SF2 turbo) version later because of it.  But do you think a normal Street Fighter character could've won against the 16-fireball-launching dude on crack?  Possibly, but it would be ridiculously difficult at equal skill levels.  But even the person playing as the insanely stronger character would get bored of it very quickly.  And that's the person winning, consider what it will be like for the losing player.  Coolness means nothing.  Every game that's not close to balance gets really stupid really quickly.  Even winning isn't fun when it's cheesy, no matter how much "coolness" there is.

And you once again make mention of existing SC units to justify the Haunt, but it does not apply once again.  The surveillance station is basically the comsat if I'm not mistaken, so an upgrade/tweak to something that was already in the game is reasonable.  And the radar tower is just like having a Haunt sitting in your own base, and this is what you said about how you feel about the usefulness in that:

Not only is it like having the Haunt able to sit only in your own base, it's with it fully visible, AND the radius known(so also the location of the radar tower itself) to the enemy.

@ Jon, I don't think BirdofPrey was arguing against you Jon.  I agree with Bird that the observer is good enough.  I think the existing observer is better than the Haunt idea in every way, the smaller detection/scan radius can be overcome with movement and is offset by the fact that it's actual vision.

 

I wasn't offering a counter argument...

I was just stating stuff... FINE I WON'T EVER POST!!! *cries*

 

I was just pointing it out because I think you misunderstood BirdofPrey.

 

@Remy: i agree that info is important in determining the outcome of a starcraft game, but it's not the most important or the only factor in determining victory.

as it is in starcraft 1, you can stick an observer around the perimeter around the enemy's base and most players won't notice it anyway, but that doesn't mean the player that don't notice the observer is neccessarily going to lose. i think you have given the haunt idea too much stick, it's not like it's a nuke waiting to explode or something, and it's certainly not a "i win button" once deployed. all it does is observe, plus it can't move. sure the info it obtains is great but you cannot win a game with info alone, you need an army as well, not to mention tactics, strategy, decision making, micro, multitasking etc..

the haunt could be made to be expensive, or take up a large supply, thus having too many of them would reduce the size of your standing army, as long as there's a compromise it's workable. knowing that an army is coming without sufficient units to defend yourself is useless.

 

Remy while i agree with most of what you post and alot of your opinions on the haunt there is one thing i absolelutely dissagree with.

Thats not true and i really hope it will never be. All 3 of those things should be always be treated equally. While i know balance is important for game to be fun for a long period and practicality is nessacerry for unit or race for that matter to get beyond the concept you absolutely cant sell the coolness factor short. Without the "coolness factor" all starcraft would be is chess on steroids, there wouldn't would be 3 different races dukeing it out for domination of a galaxy light years away, hell there probally would be 3 different races. All people would be playing with is various geometic shapes that have no abilities besides the ability to counter another shape. You also wouldn't have different kinds of RTSs because the only difference between them would be how balanced they are. (whether or not every player starts with the same number of queens).

The Mothership is a great example of this. When you first saw the Mothership did you think about how to balance it or did your jaw just drop in amazement of its looks and abilities? (Im not talking about thinking im talking about when you first saw the unit and its graphics) And later whern blizzard changed the Mothership there wasnt a huge amount of outcry against the change because the new version was more or less balanced. Most people where mad because they destroyed the theme of the Mothership.

Now please next time before you or anyone else spouts that coolness means nothing realize that when SC1 first came out it probally wasnt the amazing balance that was the selling point behind the game and balance isnt the only thing that is keeping the game alive now. (even though it is a big part of it) And before anyone bashes me for "knowing nothing of the importance of balance" I will happily tell the balance of the base game of SC1 doesnt mean anything when your playing a UMS map it is the ideas in those maps that make that map fun.

Finally i do care about balance and i do want SC2 to be balanced but balance is only one part of 3 EQUAL things that make a game great.

P.S. As for the continueing debate of the Haunt i dont have much to add besides what i have already posted. But here is an idea for a different route you could take the Haunt. (not as a replacement to the observer of course and i still dont like the void drifter) Why not give the haunt the reverse ability of the comsat station at a energy cost? Basicly make the haunt a cloaked flyer that for 100-125 energy it can force the fog of war on the area aound for about the same duration as a comsat scan. (maybe a little longer but the area of the scan and the forced fog of war should be similar)

 

Well the more I thought about it....

What if you made the Haunt like a "mole." In this role it wouldn't replace the Observer, but would rather compliment it as a separate unit. Maybe you could decide which one to build.

The Haunt would still be a "detector" but only when another unit was providing sight for it. If there are no other units, it cannot see through the fog of war. So you can send it over an enemy base and it is completely visible, not even cloaked. So it's very vulnerable, but in exchange it would be a relatively tough unit. It would still provide the "radar" function like the original idea.

Maybe units that attacked it would be revealed in the fog of war.

 

This is true, but then of course sneaking and detecting is ALL that the Observer does. In SC1 Overlords also functioned as transports and Science Vessels of course had a gamut of abilities. So, depending on if the Overlords and Nomads are more useful than their previous versions might help determine if the Observer should be made more useful....

I don't know man... I read your post, and you were still making points about "the Haunt doesn't have vision, only shows where units are" - but I took that part out - etc, etc

Remy - "But I think I was right about you not arguing against the fact that double detection is imba, you're just arguing that such imbalance should be overlooked for whatever reason."

That's not quite it. I'm not sure if double-cloak would be imbalanced or not. But I think ANYTHING can be made balanced with the addition of weaknesses or conversely improvements to the enemy. So if a unit having double-cloak is imbalanced.... my solution would be to weaken it in some other way.... provided it still left the unit practical, and the idea was cool.

And yeah, iunno - maybe we just have different approaches - that's cool. The only time I think a cool idea should be thrown out the window is when you go to balance it, and you find that you can't get it balanced and leave it practical or useful. ie: Black Hole is cool... but it's too dangerous, so time to balance it. Let's say we make it weaker by decreasing the radius or something.... Well now you have a tiny Black Hole, it just looks stupid and loses both its cool factor and its usefulness. Maybe instead we increase the cost of it... it still destroys far too much..... basically we can't find a combination that is cool, useful and balanced... so scrap it.

Double detection? sounds cool to me, I guess everybody has their own take on it of course tho.... useful? I can think of tons of strategic uses for it - for both sides.... just like you mentioned a defense against a ComSat was faking it out, with the current outlined idea where the Haunt blinks in and out of usefulness - perhaps if enemies had some means of knowing when it was blinked off.... like it flares briefly between blinking in and out? then a savy enemy may move a force in one direction - the Haunt would see it, it blinks off and the enemy quickly changes directions - then the Haunt player masses his forces in one spot thinking he has the recon advantage, and the attack comes from another angle instead....

exactly my point! there are ways to balance anything. The only real question to me is if it's worth it or not.... if the whole concept seems stupid, then why bother? but if the coolness factor is there - and after the balance gets done the unit is still useful... then go for it

There's an idea I like! =] Take the useful part of the Void Drifter concept and the useful part of the Haunt concept and make something interesting with it...

Sounds cool, fits the lore for the Dark Templar, sounds practical - a bunch of strategies could come from it - and I'm sure we could balance it.

Lemme go edit the first post... I think that suggestion might get a lot better feedback.

And yeah, that would make a good Observer + Haunt team. Should it keep normal invisibility? Then you'd have a pair of stealthy units that would give you recon and deny it to the enemy at the same moment...

 

what it all comes down to is just because it is theoretically possible to balance something doesnt mean it should even be included.
i personally dont see myself ever using this haunt over the observer in a game.
double cloak just doesnt really work, as it defies the point of having detectors in the first place.

 

I envisioned both the haunt and the obsever being nearly identical in design and stats but the haunt having a dark templar color scheme and a tiny sight with the ability to recreate parts of the fog of war. (temporarily of course)

 

agreed, I've said so myself... if a unit isn't cool and useful - then why bother figuring out balance? and if the original, or various tweaks didn't sound cool to ppl.... then yeah, scrap it

I like LordKerwyn's idea better now anyway - it fits the whole dual units Protoss theme. Zealots > Dark Templar, Immortals > Stalkers

did I describe it pretty much as you were thinking it LordKerwyn? and would it need to be temporary? it's fairly easy to remove fog of war after all... any unit can do it...

 

@ Nate , exactly. The Observer can only be stepped up as a detector if the other races do so as well.

As of now the Terran detector hasn't done much except for the Sensor Dome, etc.... so it would be acceptable that the Observer do something similar to that while remaining balanced. See my above post.

Now, if the Zerg come out with some awesome mechanic for the Ovies or something... I could envision some more drastic changes.