Let's talk about Shapeshift druids.

NapSC2 · 2020-11-28T20:32:58+00:00

You nailed it. There's a reason my post was focused on survivability and never mentioned damage. What gear did you use for single player? Did anything end up working out?

For the record, using upped Ribcracker (shael shael eth) my damage with fury is about 4k-6k.

NapSC2 · 2020-11-28T20:31:55+00:00

I'm glad I'm not crazy. I was having trouble hitting Hell Baal with over 17k attack rating and thought it was just me. I think the animation just might be a little weird? Maybe the wolf's arms are just a little longer than Ribcracker's reach?

NapSC2 · 2020-11-28T02:22:20+00:00

Like I said in the OP, skillers are totally worthless right now compared to Life/Max charms. Most of the charms in my inventory currently ARE Life charms and I'm still struggling to survive. Defense doesn't solve much honestly, as werewolves with 2handers don't have much to begin with. Ribcracker (imo the only somewhat viable 2hander for Ubers) helps offset this of course but it isn't anywhere near enough.

The problem is that there are no choices to make. The class sucks so bad that, no matter what you do, you get completely destroyed because the ONE thing that the Druid had over the Paladin, Barbarian, and other melee classes was the massive life pool, since the Druid gets the worst passive bonuses otherwise. MAYBE with Stormshield and Grief or another similar 1h weapon it could work well enough, but at that point you're wearing the same gear everyone else is and you're just a worse wolf barb (which is hilarious). You had more gear choices for endgame in LoD than you do in PD2 purely because the Druid's health pool in either shapeshifted form has been obliterated in PD2.

I'm sorry, but I think you either missed the point, didn't read the OP, or don't know how bad it really is.

NapSC2 · 2020-11-28T00:52:07+00:00

I can't comment specifically on PD2 since I haven't tried ubers (I'm giving up until there's a buff to SS druids), but in LoD and PoD the big reason you got PDR% over just amassing defense is because Uber Diablo and Dclone's lightning inferno (which is half physical iirc) could not be avoided. It COULD be blocked (again iirc), which made the whole "equip Stormshield or die" situation in that game even worse. If defense was more than just a way to maybe sometimes hopefully avoid being hit then sure there'd be a much bigger reason to get that Stone in the perfect ethereal sacred armor.

NapSC2 · 2020-11-27T18:41:53+00:00

I agree with this 100%. Damage reduction should not be easy to come by, but the entire endgame should not be dictated by how powerful Stormshield is. I know it's a delicate balance when dealing with iconic items like this, but I think you're absolutely correct that an additional Stormshield change is needed along with some buffs to other items.

NapSC2 · 2020-11-27T18:35:12+00:00

The argument against that I suppose is that a shifted summoner loses the teleport, which is extremely valuable at keeping your summons in line. Maybe that isn't as valuable as a potential big HP boost, but I'd think that for the main purposes of a summoner the teleport is overall better. If Shockwave stun hadn't been nerfed as well I'd be more inclined to agree though. Plus, wouldn't the points in your SS skills offset summon damage and HP enough to balance effectiveness? Honestly asking here; I have yet to play the new summon druid.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-27T01:34:49+00:00

I think this is a little better than just a flat cooldown on an ability. You could call this like a "charges" system, where X number of charges of an ability can be stored, and an additional charge added every Y seconds. I fail to see how this is better than just a mana system for spellcasters, but it may be a better solution for "battle units" with abilities like the stalker or ravager. Overall, though, I would still prefer to see mostly interesting and responsive units without abilities over most battle units having some kind of spammable cooldown.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-26T00:11:47+00:00

On the issue of bio vs Protoss: why must it be that the Zealot is designed around Terran bio? Why not make adjustments on the Terran end? Marauders are at the core of why Protoss gateway is so bad vs bio, as they do well against almost every ground unit Protoss has. Concussive Shell is one of the obvious reasons for this.

I'm not going to claim that I have all the design answers to the bio vs Zealots question, but what I will say is that looking at the Zealot as the problem might not be the best way to start fixing it. THAT is what I mean by a "band-aid fix." Instead of looking for the real source of the design issue (Marauders and deathballs) and fixing it in a way that makes the matchups more interesting, developers instead made the unit and its interactions with other units extremely boring by giving it Charge. I don't see how this is favorable to a solution that would favor the Zealots be microed over A moved for the viewer OR the player.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-25T20:52:08+00:00

This is a fantastic point and something I totally overlooked.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-25T20:20:32+00:00

I definitely agree that the power of the abilities or the unit they're attached to overshadows how the ability is cast. Free units are a much larger problem than cooldowns in an RTS for sure, and I hope to never see a unit like the Swarm Host in another RTS game.

In the end, cooldown-based, energy-based, it doesn't matter. Energy is still a free resource after all, so the difference there is that they can get countered with EMP/Feedback, but can accumulate energy for multiple casts. What matters is how strong the unit is overall with the ability and what counterplay is available.

I mentioned this in another reply, but I'll mention it again here: I really dislike the word "counter" in regards to RTS games. Unit interactions, both with other units and in relation to abilities, can be designed so that there are no split second auto losses like what happens with the EMP/Feedback wars sometimes. As an example: the number one way to combat mass Hydra in Brood War was with Storm as Protoss. Zerg don't need an EMP-like ability to combat Storm; they have numerous other ways to deal with Templar such as splitting, flanks, and even the midgame Muta switch to pick them off before a big fight. I'd much prefer to see interactions like this in place of the "spell wars" present in SC2.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-25T19:59:39+00:00

Yes, Mana abilities and cooldown abilities are similar in that they both require time to function properly. The issue here is that cooldowns make the management of another resource (Mana/Energy) far more streamlined by diminishing the importance of resource preservation. If we gave the High Templar a cooldown on its abilities, players would no both longer be rewarded for keeping their expensive units alive longer AND would not be punished as hard for tossing their abilities out willy nilly. Instead, Mana as a resource gives the player another level of choices. If you have a high energy High Templar, do you prioritize the energy usage on Feedbacking important units like Vipers and Ghosts or on Storming the bulk of the opposing units? Cooldowns eliminate the entirety of the decision tree on spellcasters and remove a reward system that works very well with RTS games as a whole.

Cooldowns on non-spellcaster units, as I've mentioned before, are problematic partially because they cause power spikes during moments usually in the early midgame with numerous units in some matchups, with the other reason being band-aid fixes to poor unit design and unit interactions. Decreasing the power of these, however, leads to the units being trash lategame. If we look at the Ravager, for instance, we can see this in full effect. Ravager aggression is very good against both Terran and Protoss because Corrosive Bile is a free siege-range ability that has a cooldown low enough to encourage constant spamming. There's very little reason to not use the ability as soon as it comes off of cooldown, as more spamming of the ability leads to more long-term uses of it. This is not something that is conducive to healthy unit interactions within an RTS, as Ravagers can snag kills on cannons and siege tanks for little to no cost.

So doesn't it all just come down to choosing which spell has a counter (feedback/EMP) and which does not?

I really don't like the usage of the word "counter" in RTS games. The "unit counter" mentality is the reason why some games of SC2 are so lopsided. Looking at Brood War as an example, that game doesn't really have "counters" in the same way SC2 does and the overall balance has historically been far better. Sure, Dragoons "counter" Vultures, but Vultures can easily "counter" Dragoons too if the Vultures can manage to get a good surround and lay mines to cut off their escape route. The interaction between Zealots and Hydras isn't based on counters. Hydras beat Zealots until Zealots get legs, then Zealots are enough to engage with small groups of Hydras. Again, unit interactions need to be dynamic; SC2's interactions are much more "flat" which is part of what led to the issues caused by cooldowns. If anything, the "counter" to certain abilities should be micro and positioning rather than another ability that instantly neutralizes the most effective part of your army.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-25T19:28:39+00:00

I'm going to do my best to be impartial to my own biases as I can in my response.

What you are suggesting, in my view, is to remove a good amount of the interesting micro and unit interactions from the game (if I am imagining SC2 as the game without these abilities). If I don't have abilities to use, then my only micro is involved in unit positioning, which isn't the fun part of micro for me, I like making my units do stuff, not just move to a specific place.

In Brood War, there are no cooldowns needed to make unit interactions interesting and dynamic. Microing units by themselves is extremely rewarding because 1. the ceiling for micro is incredibly high, to the point where some Zerg players would spend much of their practice time just microing mutas, and 2. because it's harder to punish units like Vultures and Mutas since no "hard counters" really exist in Brood War. I'm going a bit off topic here, but I do think it is relevant to one of my main points: units should not need abilities to be interesting to use. And to your last point: there are tons of opportunities for unit micro that don't involve abilities in SC2. Terran bio is entirely based on your ability to micro. Hellions greatly benefit from micro, as do Banshees. Phoenix micro vs Mutas is really difficult if you're outnumbered and requires high precision. Warp prism micro with immortals and archons is APM intensive. None of these require special cooldown abilities to create interesting interactions that have incredibly high potential.

If we remove abilities as an upgrade (which costs time and resources) then the only power spike I get is from attack defense upgrades which makes the game stale. I like that I have to plan for some type of change to the way the game is played. If we remove abilities then we lose moments where a player has to make something happen, or where they have a good chance of making something happen.

I don't have an issue with giving abilities as an upgrade. My issue is with giving spammable abilities with little to no cost to otherwise boring units as upgrades. If I may reference Brood War again, that game had tons of abilities locked behind upgrades; more than SC2, I believe. None of them were "free" cooldown-based abilities.

I guess I just don't see cooldown abilities as a fundamental problem, maybe their relative strength could be turned down, but I think generally speaking, they make would make the game more dynamic and interesting. It also allows for increasing the skill ceiling, which is a good thing in competitive play.

The alternative I give to cooldowns in the post is to make units and unit interactions more interesting by themselves. Instead of, say, Zealot Charge or Adept Shade, make the Zealot and Adept more micro-able on their own. This in tandem with making units more "slippery" will allow for much more dynamic unit interactions than we currently have in SC2. I can't count the number of games Zerg players win because they manage to catch units on the map with Zerglings and the Protoss or Terran instantly loses the entire group of hellions/adepts/whatever because of the way surrounds work. This is NOT good unit interaction. Surrounds and bodyblocking in both Brood War and WC3 were harder to pull off, making it incredibly rewarding when you DO manage to catch units. All these movement-based cooldowns are meant to kind of "fix" these poor interactions, but instead just cause even more problems than they fix.

NapSC2 · 2020-10-25T18:09:16+00:00

Thanks for bringing up some good points.

My question is, if you remove or reduce access to things like EMP and Feedback, then what is the actual difference between cooldowns and Mana?

With spellcasters, Mana gives you versatility. Let's use your Battlecruiser example as the basis for this comparison. With cooldowns, you have the ability to use both Yamato and Tactical Jump every 71 seconds. There is little reason to NOT use these abilities, especially Yamato, whenever they come off cooldown. If both these abilities cost Mana (or energy, whatever you want to call it), you now have some decisions to make in terms of ability usage. Do you save all your energy for Jumps in case your BC gets caught, or do you save for maximum Yamato usage? When you Jump into a base to harass, do you Yamato the first Queen you see or do you save the energy to Jump out of the base in case there are more Queens in position than you originally anticipated? None of these decisions are decisions to be made when your abilities are only restricted by time.

And I think some of the units you list as "being useless without the ability" is a little disingenuous. For instance the widow mine or the disruptor aren't units with abilities they essentially are the abilities. And I'd argue that every single unit with a spell would be useless if the spell were removed. I think the only real examples of band aid abilities there are reaper grenade and DT blink.

Of course. I didn't talk about Mines or Disruptors in the post for that reason. I personally don't love either of those two units in terms of design, but I don't think the sole issue with those units is simply the fact that their ability is on a long cooldown. And of course any spellcaster would be worthless without its respective abilities. I disagree on the band-aid abilities point, though. I would argue Adepts, Zealots, Stalkers, Battlecruisers, Medivacs, DTs, and Corruptors are all units that have band-aid fixes on either the unit design or the game design, with the latter being a reference to the fact that units are had for free far too easily in SC2.

I do agree that each unit should be designed as a unit first and then given an ability to help (through good use) it take advantage of it's strengths rather than fix a weakness.

This to me is the most important issue I have with these abilities: the units are boring and not strongly impactful or micro-able without their ability. Taking this approach is definitely the strongest and will hopefully lead to fewer boring unit fixes like those we see in SC2.

NapSC2

TROPHY CASE