Last time we made a community update, we talked about what was discussed at our event at the Blizzard campus. We’d like to follow that up with a look at the state of Protoss in Legacy of the Void, which were not only big topics at the event, but also big topics within our community as a whole.
Feedback in general
We’re grateful to see so much passion from the community around balance topics – even when opinions are varied, this level of engagement is truly positive. Something we touched on previously is that we strive to locate and improve specific parts of the game that aren’t working well without taking away from the good parts. We understand that it’s tempting sometimes to just make extreme statements that only look at a part of a system, but what makes the process of improving StarCraft II difficult is trying to look at a system from all possible angles. Our goal isn’t to scrap main systems in the game or to throw away fun elements just because there’s a possible alternative path.
Putting this into context for this week’s topic, we see a lot of broad statements thrown around when it comes to Protoss. Saying things like “Protoss needs a complete redesign from scratch” while focusing only on the few negatives and ignoring the positives make it a difficult topic to discuss at times. We’d like to work together towards locating what the good parts are as well as the specific areas that need improvement so that we don’t throw away the core and fun parts of the race while trying to improve.
Disruptor
We agree that the new version of the Disruptor has a main issue. The issue being that because they’re invulnerable when engaging and retreating it almost feels like it’s a given to be able to save the Disruptor. Obviously, this is the opposite of what we want. We want the moments of saving and reusing Disruptors to be a cool moment, not something that’s almost always guaranteed. One suggestion we thought was good was instead of the Disruptor being invulnerable after the damage is dealt, it has the speed buff so that there is potential for good positioning play on both sides after the shot goes off. We will definitely try this out, and also try to brainstorm and playtest different ideas in order to get this unit in a good place.
Force Fields
Force Fields are something we’re definitely working on as seen from the beta. This can be a difficult topic because there are some very passionate sides regarding their place in StarCraft II. As with any aspect of StarCraft II, we hope that everyone analyzes how new changes to existing abilities or mechanics affect the game rather than stick to set beliefs.
We had some good discussion this topic with the members that participated in last week’s summit. While some players initially had strong opinions on this topic, others pointed out cool counter micro to Force Fields. Not only to negate their effect but ways that both Terran and Zerg could use the Force Fields against the Protoss. This included loading up units into Medivacs and unloading them on the other side, or Roach burrow-move micro to the other side. This highlighted the fact that some statements made about Force Fields just aren’t true.
However, even with some of these counter moves available, the majority of us agreed that Zerg could use more tools against Force Fields in Legacy of the Void, and that Ravagers could be a good tool if we balance it correctly. Not only that, as we see in other matchups, having siege range support also helps deal with Force Fields a lot, and the tier 2 siege-range Lurker change could be a good change vs. Force Fields as well.
If these two additions in the matchup aren’t enough, or if there are other specific scenarios where a change against Force Fields might be necessary, we can explore them on a case by case basis.
Warp Gates
This was another one of those topics where we saw a lot of the voices represented at the Summit. One main point we agreed on is that offensive warp-in is an area that can be improved. We also agreed that the current change might not be the best, and we could explore more in this area.
When going into deeper discussions, it was clear to us that Warp Gates have many interesting factors that shouldn’t be dismissed. It’s such an interesting mechanic and a core part of the Protoss identity - the ability to reinforce defenses quickly on a race that doesn’t have high mobility. Additionally, when we looked at the asymmetry of how each of the three races produce core units we felt it was another strong point for Warp Gates being more good than bad.
The main takeaway here was that we can explore potential changes to nerf the offensive warp-in case. Internally, we’re currently exploring two ideas on this front:
- Pylon power is separated from warp-in power. Pylon power will just serve to power buildings, and Warp Gates will provide power to be able to warp units in near them. Warp Prisms in this scenario will provide Warp-in power.
- In this scenario, in order to do an offensive all-in early, Protoss will need to construct a Pylon and a Warp Gate in order to do an all-in.
- In later stages of the game, players can still use Warp Prisms for warp-in harassment, or to support armies. We believe keeping warp-in strong in this case is good because players will have to commit tech to be able to pull something like this off. And it’ll also be more easily scoutable by the opponent compared to Pylons being hidden in various locations.
- Pylon power is separated from warp-in Power. Pylons would need to be upgraded to have warp-in power. Warp Prisms in this scenario will provide both types of power.
- In this scenario, we’re thinking something like: Costs 100 to upgrade, upgraded Pylons have the same health as normal Pylons, upgrading gives 8 extra supply, time to upgrade takes a very long time, and upgraded Pylons provide both Pylon power and warp-in power.
- Similar general idea as what’s mentioned above, but this change would be more tunable.
If we decide to nerf offensive Warp-ins, we’ll likely explore additional changes in this general area. Please keep in mind nothing is really set here, and we’ll be doing some heavy investigation on this front both in terms of new idea generation and internal playtesting.
Gateway Unit Strength
Some feedback we’ve seen in the area echoes a general belief that because you can warp-in anywhere, Gateways units aren’t very good. We felt this line of thought goes against the spirit of StarCraft as a strategy-based game.
- It’s becoming more and more common even in Heart of the Swarm that mostly Stalkers are forming main armies. This suggests to us that perhaps the cost might be appropriate for the strength and utility of the unit.
- It’s very common to see small groups of Zealots harass and deal high or even game ending damage. Compare this to other races core units - How often do we see Zerglings doing this? Not as often. Which is why we’re also trying out changes to buff Zergling harassment in Legacy of the Void. That isn’t to say that Gateway units are the strongest out of the three races. Gateway unit strength is part of the reason why we’ve added another core unit to the Gateway in Void that is very powerful.
- We’d like to share a scenario that someone mentioned during the summit that we found interesting. Imagine if Warp Gates were removed. Could we just buff Zealot/Stalker health by 5% to 10% and the game will be balanced still? The answers from almost everyone were that Protoss would be way too strong. And we agree, because both of those units are core units that are used in mass so a buff to these could more easily be game breaking compared to a slight buff to end game units which are used in smaller numbers.
This isn’t to say that the current strength of the Gateway is at its max potential nor are we trying to say that we’re opposed to changes to Gateway units. For example, the new Adept is a powerful Gateway unit that was recently added. And even without Warp Gates removed, Zealots also got a speed buff after the Charge upgrade currently in the beta. The main thing we’d like to point out is Warp Gates being in the game isn’t only related to how strong or weak Warp Gate units are. Just because the Warp Gate is nerfed, it doesn’t mean Gateway units have to be buffed and just because Warp Gates aren’t nerfed, it also doesn’t mean we can buff or add to the Gateway strength.
Zealot’s role vs. Adept’s role
We agree with you in terms of Adept overshadowing the Zealot in some situations. We feel that if we’re going to add a core unit to the Gateway, we have to take away somewhat from the role of another core unit. We currently have two core units on the Protoss: Zealot and the Stalker. Because we believe Stalkers are a more interesting unit, we believe the Adept taking some of the Zealot’s role away is the better direction.
With that said, we also agree with you guys that it’s possible the speed upgrade on the Zealot might not have been the best direction. Because the Adept’s role is heavily focused on early game harassment, and tanking damage in combat, we wonder if we can do something different for the Zealot. For example, what if we added the initial burst damage Zealots deal after charging to an enemy? Something like this might be cool for a few different reasons:
- Adept is about the added meat shield, Zealots are about the added damage.
- Zealots would clearly be better in the mid/late game Warp Prism harassment case, while the two main advantages of the Adept would still be intact.
- It has the type of micro that a lot have been asking for: More positioning and movement-based, rather than ability-click based.
Thank you again for taking the time to read our thoughts on this and as always, please continue to share your feedback and concerns with us as we work to make Legacy of the Void, the best game it can be!
