|
alot of things you list are underused because they are difficult to use
for ex, i used to like going all mutalisks in ZvT, because mass lurker + ling is a pain in the ass to manage, especially w/ my hotkey setup (not enough left over for lings n' stuff)
eventually, i learned how to use lurkers much better and now prefer them over mutalisks. they are more difficult, but they work better.
i have found that queens are rediculously effective, but requires a different kind of thinking than the style most zergs play. it sounds a bit too much as tho your changes will make the units incorporate themselves into the standard style of play. i think it would be much more effective to make changes that would create more diversity of play (ie i could go queen + sugo micro vs terran OR mass expand and go hydra/lurk)
i think these suggestions might work, not because the units NEED to be something very effective, but because it will make them a tad more reasonable
1) Broodling drop to 125. Broodling can be very effective vs a terran w/o a gas natural for stopping pushes, but 150 makes it just a few seconds too long. 125 is nothing drastic, but makes the queen more reasonable to use
2) i like the idea of upping infested terrans health, but 80 HP would be fine
3) drop scout cost a bit more. 250/125 sounds good. up ground attack by +1 so its 9 damage per shot. (it can kill a drone in 5 shots instead of 6)
4) hallucination is fine, nukes are fine, ghosts are fine, queen ensare cost is fine (actually its fucking incredible if you can do it right, especially vs M&M)
all in #4 are more of things that are very uncomfortable to use at first but can be very effective if you see someone who 'knows what he's doing.'
ex: Many terrans get a fuckload of goliaths vs carriers, but strong protosses simply start making lots of ground units which can fuckown goliaths pretty hard. i've seen Beast_BG get ghosts against a protoss who is going carrier. since it takes so much gas w/ the ghosts, he ends up with a very well balanced army of vultures/goliaths/ghosts. but since he doesn't need as many gollies w/ the lockdown, he can still continue to produce tanks. it works beautifully if executed properly
ex: JJu has used queens before very very well on island maps (namely paradoxx vs nal_ra) i personally have found that it can fuck up terran M&M micro REALLY hard
so
yea
|
Not gonna read so many pages of crap.
I remember someone said once before...
"Stop trying to change the most balanced game".
|
For those who think that the game is balanced and fine the way it is, fine. Please don't post irrelevant posts that do not add or contribute to the discussion. Obviously there are people who think the game is fine the way it is. That's great.
However, there are people who have ideas and suggestions as to how the game could be further improved. These "radical or extreme" suggestions in the way units could be changed may not be totally reasonable. In some cases, it may sound insane even.
This is no reason to believe that the game WILL be changed or updated to new standards. Please, use your imagination for once and ponder the possibilities.
Blatant comments that suggest the game is perfect and what not are just irritating and unintelligent.
I think the ideas brought up earlier by tfeign and such should be considered. Could it improve the game? Yes, and No. Arguments can be brought up on both sides.
For now, I am not in a position to criticize or glorify. I'm interested in the arguments that could be brought up. Keep the discussion going.
|
Uh. Yeah, starcraft is really balanced, that's why wraith energy is 200/200, scout aerial upgrade is really necessary to get...each race has useless ups...
The game can be improved, msot of these changes I do not agree with, but it would be nice to see some more spellcasters in the game, right now games are so macro based and selective in unit choice that games are all disgustingly similar..
|
Interestingly, the "No" side that you allow for as part of an intelligent argument, is the same side that you slander earlier in your post as "unintelligent".
|
On July 07 2004 21:51 green-tea. wrote:
I haven't read all the posts in the thread, But I would like to say that there is a difference between being underused and underpowered. Let's face it, We've all been copying stuff from replays scince they came out.
I think that part of people don't use queens/dark archons/ valkyries used is because we don't see them used.(in replays) Then the reason we don't see them used in replays is not certainly because they suck, but simply becasue of personal preference and style. This might sound a bit stupid and incoherent, but in short I think It's simply a lack of orignality That prevents them from being used. I have seen ensnare used to win a game, there was a pvz on about starcraft, where it was used. The only thing I could make a case for buffing would be valks, if they were buffed up a bit, just enough so that a force of valkyries of equivilent cost could compete with carriers.
I disagree. There IS a difference between underused and underpowered and trust me, the units and spells that I listed falls under BOTH categories.
An instance of an underused strategy is mass reavers. A good example is zealotito. He uses reavers almost all the time vs every race, including pvz. Now you won't see too many good protoss players use reavers all the time, especially in pvz, where reavers are almost non existent. However, they're not used at all in this matchup because of more like personal preference and style. Zealotito has displayed that reavers are still very effective when used right.
The above paragraph displays something that is underused, not underpowered, since I sure don't think that reavers are underpowered.
However, dark archons, queens, scouts, nuke, infested terrans, valkyries and the spells that I listed fall under the underpowered category, not just underused. Top gamers do not use these in any serious game because they are cost-ineffective, and that there is something else better to use.
(Why use Dark Archon when I can just make high templars, why queens when I can get filers, why scout when I can make corsair, etc...)
High templars, defilers, and corsairs are very cost-effective, which is the reason why they are always chosen over the other underpowered units. That's why I suggest these balance changes. Not to make them overpowered, but to make them stronger -- strong enough so that they are balanced, the way they were originally intended to be.
|
Increasing the effectiveness of spellcasters will turn SC into a turbo version of War3- spellcraft.
|
On July 07 2004 22:14 l2obot wrote:
However, there are people who have ideas and suggestions as to how the game could be further improved. They won't nessesarily improve it.
|
On July 07 2004 22:25 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Interestingly, the "No" side that you allow for as part of an intelligent argument, is the same side that you slander earlier in your post as "unintelligent".
No. The "No" side that I am talking about is people that blatantly seem to say, "NO STARCRAFT IS BALANCED STOP TALKING ABOUT CHANGES FAGGOTS."
Not that anyone has said that, but it is implied.
Btw, some people who disagree with the changes have been including reasons as to why. That is very much acceptable and intelligent.
|
On July 07 2004 22:30 radiaL wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 22:14 l2obot wrote:
However, there are people who have ideas and suggestions as to how the game could be further improved. They won't nessesarily improve it.
Of course.
"...could be further improved."
|
On July 07 2004 22:01 dan1st wrote:
Not gonna read so many pages of crap.
I remember someone said once before...
"Stop trying to change the most balanced game".
Starcraft is the most balanced in the RTS family, but that has nothing to do with it completely balanced or not. For example, if I say that I'm the smartest person out of all my friends, it doesn't mean that I'm smart, it might be because my friends are all not too intelligent.
That's the case with Starcraft, it's the most balanced RTS because all the other RTS are nowhere near as balanced. However, even though Starcraft is the closest to being a balanced game it doesn't mean that it is completely balanced. There are units and spells that were designed to make players think of using them in a game, but they are way underused because the cost, time, and micro to use them do not justify the effectiveness in which they bring.
Again, I'll just write this up again, a repeat of my first post because I can't understand why some people disagree with it.
Why would you want to see high templars chosen instead of dark archons 99.9% of the time, Why would you want to see corsairs chosen over scouts 99.9% of the time, Why would you want to see defilers chosen over queens 99.9% of the time?
|
On July 07 2004 22:34 tfeign wrote:
That's the case with Starcraft, it's the most balanced RTS because all the other RTS are nowhere near as balanced.
Holy shit that's smart. I woulda never figured that out.
|
Those units are in the game for entertainment. Seriously, using them is like humiliation kill, and the people that get those units, know what they are doing and have a specific plan for them.
The game is balanced as it is. Scouts are insane in air battles. Can you imagine 12 queens with 200 energy being able to cast out 24(48) broodlings? What a joke. It takes a brain to keep your queen alive long enough to use broodling, and even then, it would be better to use 3 ensnares than 2 broodlings.
Same with nukes. EMP + Nuke is a viable strategy. To make something work, you must in turn do something else to weaken the target.
I have seen great games turned by Terran players who use nukes against unsuspecting opponents.
The "imbalances" you are talking about are nothing more than units designed to do specific jobs that can devastate the opponent. Wether it be used in offense, defense, or otherwise.
You only need 1 or 2 mind controls in a game if you use it anyways. Your best bet would be to mind control an enemy drone or scv to expand upon your forces.
I applaud Blizzard for thier work on the greatest RTS game ever. No changes are needed other than a few bug fixes.
|
Ok...,
Queens - Not underpowered, and is adsurdly underused due to player ignorance and/or playing habits as stated by knowledgeable players on this forum. Making the energy cost for broodling 125 would have a devastating effect on the average life span of high temps. Already if you happen to kill 2 or 3 temps with one queen, that's pretty cost effective right there.
Dark Archons - Not underpowered, and if Boxer had played Protoss, it would be widely be considered one of the most art units in the game  The only thing that I would consider up for tweaking would be research cost, but c'mon 50 mana for feedback, that's awesome!
Valkyries - Right now, part of their lack of use is that they tend not to fire properly if you have a group of them. You also have to remember that valks are supposed to counter wraiths, scouts, devs and scourge, but not carriers. And in TvZ, vessels counter Zerg air, so there's no need to build valks. So, their main use is in TvT, which I've seen them used in.
Infested Terrans - Their low hp and thus lower chance of detonating successfully is in relation to how devastating a success is. This units was never intended to be a main part of the zerg army anyway, as you have to infest a specific race's command center, and Terran shouldn't be penalized that much by losing a command center by way of giving the enemy another effective unit to use.
Nukes - Same as above, high risk maneuver but a big payoff, although I do think people should probably use nukes more often, it's the current player mindset as with dark archons.
As I re-read these, it occurs to me that most of the so-called balance changes that you want, is really the symptom of people not playing with units enough to become good with them, not the game itself.
|
FOR THOSE WHO WANT A FAST READ IN PAGES AND PAGES OF COMMENTS
interesting thought
if broodling was dropped to 125, it could make queens very very anti-templar. consequently, protosses would more often want to build dark archons to feedback the queens and kill them. hahah
kill two birds w/ one stone
|
On July 07 2004 23:06 Day[9] wrote:
FOR THOSE WHO WANT A FAST READ IN PAGES AND PAGES OF COMMENTS
interesting thought
if broodling was dropped to 125, it could make queens very very anti-templar. consequently, protosses would more often want to build dark archons to feedback the queens and kill them. hahah
kill two birds w/ one stone
Hahah nice!
|
On July 07 2004 22:49 Heaven`uO wrote:
The game is balanced as it is. Scouts are insane in air battles. Can you imagine 12 queens with 200 energy being able to cast out 24(48) broodlings? What a joke. It takes a brain to keep your queen alive long enough to use broodling, and even then, it would be better to use 3 ensnares than 2 broodlings.
Same with nukes. EMP + Nuke is a viable strategy. To make something work, you must in turn do something else to weaken the target.
I have seen great games turned by Terran players who use nukes against unsuspecting opponents.
oh my goodness. That's 100% theorycraft. Dont you realize how much micro it would take to broodling 24 units? The cost it takes to make 12 queens? The lack of units you would have from making 12 queens and waiting until they get 200 energy?
Look, I can play that game too. Imagine 6 Dark Archons with 200 energy. They can cast feedback TWENTY FOUR TIMES. Yes, what a joke, that means forget about making anything with energy because they will all be completely useless for the rest of the game. Take into account that dark archons regenerate energy all the time.
Imagine 12 high templars... they can cast storm TWENTY FOUR TIMES. Yes, what a joke, zvp has just suddently becomes impossible.
Imagine defilers with 200 energy and consume. Congratulations, your enemy's ranged units will be useless for the rest of the game. Not to mention his army will be fighting with 1 hp all the time.
Seriously....the theorycraft imagining stuff is pointless. Instead of making 12 queens you could have made 12 lurkers. If queens are that good then they will be used much more often. Just look at the facts. The facts are that queens suck because they are very cost-ineffective and no good players will use them as a viable strategy when the game is serious.
Nuke is a viable strategy only when you're not serious about winning, because the chances of it working nowhere justifies the cost, time, as well as risk in which it wont work. As I said before, BILLIONS of starcraft games have been played, there statistically HAS to be SOME games in which nuke will work. But why don't you see pros use nukes in serious games? Because again, The chances of it working effectively is not worth the cost, time, micro, and risk. That's why I suggest making nuke cost less.
|
[QUOTE]On July 07 2004 23:15 tfeign wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 07 2004 22:49 Heaven`uO wrote:
Nuke is a viable strategy only when you're not serious about winning, because the chances of it working nowhere justifies the cost, time, as well as risk in which it wont work. As I said before, BILLIONS of starcraft games have been played, there statistically HAS to be SOME games in which nuke will work. But why don't you see pros use nukes in serious games? Because again, The chances of it working effectively is not worth the cost, time, micro, and risk. That's why I suggest making nuke cost less.[/QUOTE]
Strange...
Didn't we see Boxer use nuke against Silent_Control last month?
Boxer didn't seem he was fooling around, and the nuke was pretty effective imo.
|
Tfeign, ignore 12 queens making 24 broodlings, that's not plausible in a full battle. It's the fact that queens are already cost effective vs. high temps, and will only be more so if you give them the ability to broodling twice in a row.
|
I agree with the original post, just because a unit is theoretically useful, or useful in 1 in 1000 games, doesn't make it practically useful, and the game would be more interesting if some of the units that aren't currently practically useful, were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
