|
I can't wait until a new balance patch comes out. Say all you want about balance, you're all in denial that many units are overused while many others are underused.
How I see it:
Dark Archon: This unit is WAY underused. Simply because it costs too much $ and you have to surrender 2 DTs, plus, it costs alot of energy to cast any real useful spells. In pvz you will see high templar prefered over dark archon 99.9% of the time. Good balance means a player has to actually think and decide...hey should I go dark archon or high templar this game? My suggestion: Lower Mind Control to 125 energy. Lower maelstrom to 75 energy.
High Templar hallucinations: This spell is way underused because quite frankly it costs way too much energy for their effectiveness except in a few rare circumstances. How many times have you seen hallucinations changed the outcome of a game? Now how many times have you seen storm changed the outcome of a game? Balance it to the point where a player must actually think and decide...hmmm should I get hallucination first or storm first? My suggestion: Reduce hallucination cost to 75 energy and/or hallucinated units take 1.5x damage instead of 2x.
Scout: Seriously, why is this thing called a scout when a corsair is always used for scouting? Can anyone explain? The scout's air-to-ground damage is downright pathetic. Again ask yourself, how many times have I seen scouts changed the outcome of the game? Then ask yourself, how many times have I seen corsairs changed the outcome of the game? My suggestion: 1. Eliminate the speed and sight range upgrade for the scout -- scouts should have these upgrades already. Who in their right mind would spend 200/200 to give a scout 1 more matrix in sight range? 2. Increase the scout air-to-ground damage by 4.
Queen: WAY underused unit, and rightfully so because queens suck ass for their cost-effectiveness. Defiler can consume to get basically unlimited energy. Dark swarm is a scare and plague rocks. My suggestion: Reduce ensnare cost to 50 energy. Reduce broodling cost to 100 energy. This will also make zerg stronger in island maps.
Update: Another alternate viable solution is maybe to allow queen to start out with more energy than they currently do
Infested Terran: This is probably the worst unit in the game. Seriously, I can't think of any unit that are worse than infested terrans regarding cost-effectiveness. In order to steal a command center it is very hard, so if a zerg player manages to steal a cc, he should be rewarded with something more than the ability to make units that can never make a real difference. When was the last time you saw infested terrans changed the outcome of the game? Seriously, I'm not kidding when I say this is the worst balanced unit there is. The reason is because they have too little hitpoints and die before they can do any damage. My suggestion: Increase their hit points from 60 to 100.
Also to name a few more:
In PvT, when terran has a massive amount of tanks late game, it's almost impossible for a protoss ground army to beat it because tanks with maxed weapon upgrades do too much damage. Suggestion: lower the damage in which weapon upgrade gives to tanks.
When protoss has a massive amount of carriers late game, it's almost impossible for terran to counter it. Suggestion: Lower the interceptor hit points.
We can then see more diverse strategies instead of protoss playing a game of stalling until they can get carriers most of the time.
- Nukes should cost less. They are underused because they are cost-ineffective. The chances of it working effectively is not worth the cost.
I know some of you are gonna argue and say hey I saw xxx used dark archon / scout / hallucinations... blah blah blah vs xxx and won. Well listen, billions of starcraft games have been played. Out of those billions of games, there just probabilistically HAS to be some games in which an underpowered unit made a difference to the game. How often do you seee that? Almost never. I don't care if you see Grrrr used dark archon to beat ultra/crackling or sKy.Proct using scouts to defeat terran with the stove or hallucinated zealots bombing up tanks....these strats have a very VERY small chance of working effectively. You will never find more than a handful of professional reps where these units made a big difference to the game.
In conclusion, no one wants to see high templars chosen instead of dark archons 99.9% of the time, no one wants to see corsairs chosen over scouts 99.9% of the time, no one wants to see defilers chosen over queens 99.9% of the time. The only question is if Blizzard will ever attempt to make another balance patch for the game.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Scouts would be too powerful. WAY too powerful.
Dark Archon is mighty already.
Broodling energy would be awesome at 100 energy, yes.
Infested Terran hp change would be ok.
Nukes are insanely cost effective should they hit
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Hallucination boost would make hallucination too powerful
imagine 23896234 zealots coming at you. Even though only 50 of them are real, thats alot of damage soaking.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
basically you're suggesting taking units that aren't amazing and turning them into monsters. Would make the game very imbalanced.
|
On July 07 2004 15:04 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
basically you're suggesting taking units that aren't amazing and turning them into monsters. Would make the game very imbalanced.
Wrong. I'm suggesting taking units that aren't amazing and balance them. Again, please tell me how many times have you seen hallucinations, nukes, and scouts changed the outcome of a game?
Why do you think they are underused? Because they are cost-ineffective. That's why for example you will see a high templar chosen over a dark archon 99.9% of the time
|
I suggest that we give hydras normal damage instead of explosive so that we will see them more in zvz! THEY ARE UNDERUSED! :D
|
Stop it, Starcraft is balanced =/
|
stop suggesting balance changes, especially if you're going to say stuff like "queens suck"
this game is very, very good ok? let's keep it that way
|
On July 07 2004 15:11 GroT wrote:
stop suggesting balance changes, especially if you're going to say stuff like "queens suck"
this game is very, very good ok? let's keep it that way
This is a serious topic. I do think that queens suck. Give me more than 2 professional replays of queens changing the outcome of a game?
I can surely give you a ton of replays where defilers changed the outcome of a game. Can you tell me why you would rather see delifers always chosen instead of queens 99% of the time?
|
. . .
This game is balanced, queens do not suck, defilers are indeed good.
Don't try to change the game, it will just fuck things up
|
Maybe u should make a ums map with these changes and test it out. it ll be interesting
|
On July 07 2004 15:15 Ryan307  wrote: . . . This game is balanced, queens do not suck, defilers are indeed good. Don't try to change the game, it will just fuck things up
And anyone who doesn't agree with anything I said, give me a reason why.
By the way, a reason isn't simply saying oh "queens don't suck." A reason means pointing out evidence from pro replays where choosing the underused unit over the other was a better decision.
Please answer my question because I have asked it many times now...how many times have you seen a professional player choosing to go queens over defilers and it turned out he made a good decision? Probably less than 5 times.
How many times have you seen a professional player choosing to go defilers over queens and it turned out he made a good decision? Probably thousands of times
|
Here's the deal, if all units were used equally, it wouldn't be fun or amazing when you did see a queen used effectively or when you did see a dark archon used to take ovies so the player didn't need to get detection (was in a tsu rep once).
Also halucinate is not underused. I use it all the time pvt to get shuttles into turreted areas. It may not be used as much as storm, but it has its place.
|
You could make an UMS map with most of these changes and try them out.
|
Dark archons are fine as it is, 50 mana and ~12 range feedback is a pretty damn strong spell, especially PvP it can ruin anyone who goes for HTs. If you don't trust me I should probably upload some Zelias replays
Edit: oh yeah as mentioned by other people hallucination of shuttles is priceless for dropping turreted islands/cliffs, also hallucinations of arbiters. Check this rep http://www.battlereports.com/viewreplays.php?replaynum=2523
|
infested terran is some kind of a bonus, lets not make them release a patch that will make infesting cc a standard in every game ;/
You didn't set your goals for "balance changes", from what you wrote it seems like you want to make unused units become more popular and add possible strategies to each race's repertoire. After reading whole post it occured to me you totally screw game balance between races or at least not care about them while calling Infested Terran "imablanced" for example.
btw, decide what player group are you aiming for - bgh, fastest money, lt or progamers, cuz easier cc infestation would ruin my tvz on fastest which I'm already weak with because of race imbalance you support in your post!
PS while doing "many tank" and mass carrier are super unbeatable tactics that should be weeded out, I didn't see "few arbiters can statis too many units", "terran has no photon cannons", "feedback works only in matchups with spellcasters". Wait, after your changes I would never go mass queen, knowing it would get owned with mass feedback rush ;/
|
On July 07 2004 15:19 pooper-scooper wrote:
Also halucinate is not underused. I use it all the time pvt to get shuttles into turreted areas. It may not be used as much as storm, but it has its place.
I even knew a few people will say this, that's why I even said:
High Templar hallucinations: This spell is way underused because quite frankly it costs way too much energy for their effectiveness
except in a few rare circumstances.
They are only effective in very small occasions when they have to be used for something. They need to be effective to the point where a player must decide whether to go hallucinations instead of storm or storm over hallucination will be better.
Also...what the hell are you guys saying about feedback? I suggested absolutely no changes to feedback
|
The only thing that needs to be changed is that Maelstorm should cost less.
|
Good balance means a player has to actually think and decide...
you're absolutely right. decisions certainly can be made a lot less obvious in BW right now. anyone who disagrees with this is fucking dumb and probably thinks every version is perfectly balanced (at the time) so they should just stay out of this discussion. if u can be sure that a unit could be made more powerful or less expensive without it breaking any matchup (and in many cases you can) then u really should realize that is a hint the game is not completely perfectly balanced and that yes, it can be made at least slightly better.
da's certainly deserve something. they _should_ be some kind of monster for their cost. lowering the research costs of their spells and energy requirements should be done, the only question is by how much. better too small a change than too large a change, altho blizzard usually goes with the opposite philosophy when making any kind of balance change.
halluc could have its energy cost reduced, definitely. again, by how much? blizz seems to like multiples of 25 for spells. i dont know if you need to change the research cost or the actual nature of hallucinations (the amount of damage they take), i would try just tweaking the energy cost, should be enough. maybe the research cost (toss could really use a reduction of many research costs if you want to help them out a bit, a really subjective issue)
scout: scouts definitely could be helped somewhere. they have useless upgrades that are too expensive. and they're at the fleet beacon. wtf. they could be reduced in cost slightly (build time, ore, gas) it's just a matter of how much. maybe the fleet beacon needs to become more feasable as well (of course carriers are too good right now .. maybe make carriers more expensive or weak or whatever in exchange for making the fleet beacon possible to get before you're already rich -- let scout upgrades and dweb be possibly useful before having 3 geysers why not?). you have to be careful when increasing scout's damage to ground at all. it could probably go up a little but i would make as small a change as possible if any.
queens are debatable. they were reduced a lot in cost and people still dont use them at all. some people say they're great. maybe ensnare should be changed to effect rate of fire more than it does. maybe some queen spells could be reduced in costs/energy etc. again i would try to make the smallest change first rather than risking making something too strong overnight.
infested terrans: not sure if they should have more HP, but they cost too much. 100 vespene is what makes them worthless. lower their cost.
PvT: an undocumented change made vulture mines chase things from farther away. protoss goons were made stronger with a range improvement and cost reduction and build time reduction, but then their build time reduction was taken away. pvt used to be all about trying to use storm to break through, but these days it's totally about getting enough bases to get carriers, which is sad. i dont think u can fix this on paper. if you weaken carriers wtf will toss do? remember how turrets were made 75 minerals, vulture mines reduced in cost or something? in retrospect it seems like terrans didnt need it at all, mine/turret spam is such a pain in the ass. buit if you weaken one race in this matchup you have to change other things. i would like to see carriers taken down a notch but i dont think you can come up with the perfect balance in one patch when you are talking about changing such major things.
We can then see more diverse strategies instead of protoss playing a game of stalling until they can get carriers most of the time. interceptors are too invincible because their shields recharge every time they go into the carrier and because of the "tricks" you can use to let carriers shoot from farther away than they are supposed to be able to.
nukes certainly can have some reductoin in their gas cost, build time, maybe mineral cost. dont do it by too much thats all. make a small change first.
|
Brood War IS BALANCED, stop trying to change these things and trying to get peoples attention to just make things your way. Everyone loves the game as it is, I don't see whats the point of changing it. Everything is balanced, it's the strategic points that turn the game around, along with units but STRATEGY is what you should go for.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Making EVERY unit equally useful would a) imbalance the game and b) take away the awe when someone uses one of these units extremely effectively.
Giyom's scout rape vs XellOs comes to mind.
I can't remember which game it was and I can't remember the zerg, but I've seen a game that came down to the wire and was won by Reach when he mass maelstromed a gigantic zerg army and stormed it all.
The game is balanced right now. Changing it would fuck up the game. Plus it wouldn't be nearly as much fun with EVERY unit being equally useful.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Making scouts significantly more powerful would simply rape zerg, too 
|
On July 07 2004 15:23 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
Good balance means a player has to actually think and decide...
you're absolutely right. decisions certainly can be made a lot less obvious in BW right now. anyone who disagrees with this is fucking dumb and probably thinks every version is perfectly balanced (at the time) so they should just stay out of this discussion. if u can be sure that a unit could be made more powerful or less expensive without it breaking any matchup (and in many cases you can) then u really should realize that is a hint the game is not completely perfectly balanced and that yes, it can be made at least slightly better.
Exactly. Stimey hits it on the spot. Starcraft is such a great game because of its balance. Why does starcraft have such balance? Because balance = players have to actually think and decide. For example, a protoss player has to think and decide whether to either go goons + obs, goons + dts, goons + speed zeals, fast exp, reaver drop...etc...because each of these strategies are all effective.
But there is more balance to be made because certain strategies are ineffective (dark archons, queens, scouts, etc.) . And I suggested most of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I think some of these changes are good. Im sick and tired of seeing BW played the same way. Gotta change a couple of these things once in a while. Mix it up a bit. Everybody is using the same god damn strategy every single game. Its starting to get boring. I dont see how progamers can play 50 000 games and not get bored, especially when they keep doing the same thing. TvP has not changed for like years now...
I would make medics less powerful. The fucking terran dropship is way tooooo strong. That thing alone can take out a zerg base.
|
whens the last time you saw broodlings affect the outcome of the game? toss them out!
whens the last time you saw valkyries affect the outcome of the game? no soup for joo!!
seriously though, each unit and skill has their own purposes, and although some have more showtime than others, the units are good as it is. the game is the definition of balanced (in my book, The Definition of Balanced)
|
On July 07 2004 15:17 fheow wrote:
Maybe u should make a ums map with these changes and test it out. it ll be interesting
Sounds like a plan. Somebody give me a list of changes and i'll make it
|
150pool
100/100 lurk research
100 turret
gogogo 1.07!!!!!!!
|
On July 07 2004 15:37 useless wrote:
whens the last time you saw broodlings affect the outcome of the game? toss them out!
whens the last time you saw valkyries affect the outcome of the game? no soup for joo!!
Broodlings = a spell of the queen that is underpowered, that's why I suggested making spawn broodling 100 energy instead of 150 so players may now think of going queens and use broodlings on tanks / templars to change the outcome of a game.
Valkyrie -- Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to put this in. I wouldn't mind at all if valkyries are given more armor so that terran players have an option of going valkyries to counter carriers instead of wraiths all the time. Either that or give valkyries a small air-to-ground attack so that plays can decide whether to make valkyries from time to time.
|
Making all units realistically useful without imbalancing any match ups would make the game better. You're too conservative, steve.
I agree with everything stimey and tfeign said except I don't know how big the changes would need to be and how it would affect the game. I concur that if useless units are made slightly better to have a more comfortable place in the game, things would be more interesting. This would have to be tested very very well and would be really hard to do because almost every little change affects about 100 things about the game. Tfein's suggestions are quite careful ...
|
Norway28714 Posts
queens are awesome. I ignore all balance posts made by people suggesting queens should be balanced, cause they already rock.
|
In any case the game is fine as it is 
|
The problem is that you are trying to balance the units inside each race, but it would change dramatically almost every match up....
And i think it would be VERY difficult to be AT LEAST at the same level of balance than before...
In fact, i think that SC is some kind of weird Frankestein that managed to get A LOT better than it was originally thinked...
(Srry bout my sucky english ^^; )
|
drone have u ever played against someone who used queens on you?
|
On July 07 2004 14:58 tfeign wrote:
I can't wait until a new balance patch comes out. Say all you want about balance, you're all in denial that many units are overused while many others are underused.
How I see it:
Dark Archon: This unit is WAY underused. Simply because it costs too much $ and you have to surrender 2 DTs, plus, it costs alot of energy to cast any real useful spells. In pvz you will see high templar prefered over dark archon 99.9% of the time. Good balance means a player has to actually think and decide...hey should I go dark archon or high templar this game? My suggestion: Lower Mind Control to 125 energy. Lower maelstrom to 75 energy.
Lower Maeltrom to 75 is ok, cause 100 is too expensive, but the Mind Control thing would just make the DA a monster like somebody already said.
High Templar hallucinations: This spell is way underused because quite frankly it costs way too much energy for their effectiveness except in a few rare circumstances. How many times have you seen hallucinations changed the outcome of a game? Now how many times have you seen storm changed the outcome of a game? Balance it to the point where a player must actually think and decide...hmmm should I get hallucination first or storm first? My suggestion: Reduce hallucination cost to 75 energy. Hallucinated units should take 1.5x damage instead of 2x.
hallucination is ok, being able to hallucinate three times per ht would be too much, plus the player would not have to decide too much (make 12 hall units with 2 ht, the rest goes for storm).
Scout: Seriously, why is this thing called a scout when a corsair is always used for scouting? Can anyone explain? The scout's air-to-ground damage is downright pathetic. Again ask yourself, how many times have I seen scouts changed the outcome of the game? Then ask yourself, how many times have I seen corsairs changed the outcome of the game? My suggestion: 1. Eliminate the speed and sight range upgrade for the scout -- scouts should have these upgrades already. Who in their right mind would spend 200/200 to give a scout 1 more matrix in sight range? 2. Increase the scout air-to-ground damage by 4.
changing the scout is ok, but what you are saying is WAAAAY too much. Air to ground damage should not be incresed, the cooldown should be decreased. Speed upgrade should be already included. Don't bother talking about sight upgrade, it's pretty much useless.
Queen: WAY underused unit, and rightfully so because queens suck ass for their cost-effectiveness. Defiler can consume to get basically unlimited energy. Dark swarm is a scare and plague rocks. My suggestion: Reduce ensnare cost to 50 energy. Reduce broodling cost to 100 energy. This will also make zerg stronger in island maps.
Queen is not so bad, esnare is fine like it is (u can esnare 3 times per queen) decreasing it to 50 would be just overkill. Brood ling should be 125 not 100 like u say, just enogh so you can use it twice.
Infested Terran: This is probably the worst unit in the game. Seriously, I can't think of any unit that are worse than infested terrans regarding cost-effectiveness. In order to steal a command center it is very hard, so if a zerg player manages to steal a cc, he should be rewarded with something more than the ability to make units that can never make a real difference. When was the last time you saw infested terrans changed the outcome of the game? Seriously, I'm not kidding when I say this is the worst balanced unit there is. The reason is because they have too little hitpoints and die before they can do any damage. My suggestion: Increase their hit points from 60 to 100.
100 hitponits, again, its too much, maybe 80. Or cost should be reduced to 50/50. Btw, drop 1 or 2 in a min line and tell me if it isn't effective.
Also to name a few more:
In PvT, when terran has a massive amount of tanks late game, it's almost impossible for a protoss ground army to beat it because tanks with maxed weapon upgrades do too much damage. Suggestion: lower the damage in which weapon upgrade gives to tanks.
When protoss has a massive amount of carriers late game, it's almost impossible for terran to counter it. Suggestion: Lower the interceptor hit points.
We can then see more diverse strategies instead of protoss playing a game of stalling until they can get carriers most of the time.
That's not neccesary, you shouldn't need any changes there because you shouldn't let your opponent power up that much (or at least if he gets mass tanks u get mass carrier).
- Nukes should cost less. They are underused because they are cost-ineffective. The chances of it working effectively is not worth the cost.
maybe 150/150 or 175/175, not more. But the real reason people don't use them is not the cost/effectiveness, but the fact that it's extremely complicated to use it effectively (it requires too much brain).
I know some of you are gonna argue and say hey I saw xxx used dark archon / scout / hallucinations... blah blah blah vs xxx and won. Well listen, billions of starcraft games have been played. Out of those billions of games, there just probabilistically HAS to be some games in which an underpowered unit made a difference to the game. How often do you seee that? Almost never. I don't care if you see Grrrr used dark archon to beat ultra/crackling or sKy.Proct using scouts to defeat terran with the stove or hallucinated zealots bombing up tanks....these strats have a very VERY small chance of working effectively. You will never find more than a handful of professional reps where these units made a big difference to the game.
In conclusion, no one wants to see high templars chosen instead of dark archons 99.9% of the time, no one wants to see corsairs chosen over scouts 99.9% of the time, no one wants to see defilers chosen over queens 99.9% of the time. The only question is if Blizzard will ever attempt to make another balance patch for the game.
It's extremely unlikely that Blizzard made a balance patch , I doubt they they would spend the resources required to try to fix a game they seem to want to die. And even if they did make a balance patch, it would simply screw up the game.
One more thing, some said Valks should get more armor to be effective vs carriers, but the valks were never thought to be the counter to carriers, you already have golis and/or wraiths, plus that extra armor would make them own mutas even more than they already do.
Ufff, took me like 15 min to write this
|
-
All units have weaknesses, and some should only be used during certain situations. You should question yourself if Blizzard really meant for all units to be equally good, or used equally much.
The Main Units are, as i see it.
Terran: Marine, Medic, Firebat, Tankz, Vultures, Goliath
Protoss: Zealot, Dragoon, Dark Templar, High Templar, Corsair, Reaver&shuttle
Zerg: Zergling, Hydra, Lurk, Mutalisk, Scourge
Then of course we have the detection units, Overlord, Observer and Vessel which is only needed during detection.
These units... Blizzard created them to be common and used widely. Any combination of the units from the 3 races, could be countered by another set of units.
Then we have the units which is only to be used during special situations.
Terran: Valkyrie, Ghost and Battle Crusier maybe, the situation is, you must have good economy.
Protoss: Scout, Archon, Arbiter, Carrier is almost the same as Battle Crusier.
Zerg: Devour, Guardain, Defiler
The only units that could be made changes to is Dark Archon, and Queens. These units is absolutely not used to the degree they could be... or should be. There are no "special situation" which they are directly needed.
|
Seriosuly somebody give me a well thought out list and I'll make the changes
|
On July 07 2004 15:10 Refrain[FriZ] wrote:
Stop it, Starcraft is balanced =/ I agree.
|
I think Blizzard should put their efforts into making the sequel instead of balancing a 7 year old game that is the most successful RTS ever.
|
i would pay for sc all over again if they started treating it how they treat war3: a real ladder, real balance adjustments (altho nothing as major as in war3 as sc is already good how it is), going after cheaters, coming up with new maps...
|
Tfeign you are a moron. Seriously. You're reasons for wanting balance changes are completely selfish and unreasonable, not only that you try to insult the community because we can't give you replays, when you want to change the game because YOU are tired of seeing the ' same strats used over and over '
If you want to do something new, play a new game. If you want unit choice like you described, basically go play war 2. All that's different are abilities. You're suggesting every unit, awesome or not be balanced to a point where only the ability affects your choice of using it or not. You prove this yourself by listing new mana costs.
The reason there are few replays with those plays you want to see is because those plays have very little room to develop as the mainstream strats have been developed over a LONG period of time and 3-5 of them are enough to counter most anything.
I suggest that you yourself use them, instead of trying to start some kind of revolution you thought you could by starting this thread. Make a UMS map with your changes and get people to play it with you. I doubt it will go any further IF that.
|
On July 07 2004 17:39 Abyss_Bahamut wrote:
Tfeign you are a moron. Seriously. You're reasons for wanting balance changes are completely selfish and unreasonable, not only that you try to insult the community because we can't give you replays, when you want to change the game because YOU are tired of seeing the ' same strats used over and over '
If you want to do something new, play a new game. If you want unit choice like you described, basically go play war 2. All that's different are abilities. You're suggesting every unit, awesome or not be balanced to a point where only the ability affects your choice of using it or not. You prove this yourself by listing new mana costs.
The reason there are few replays with those plays you want to see is because those plays have very little room to develop as the mainstream strats have been developed over a LONG period of time and 3-5 of them are enough to counter most anything.
I suggest that you yourself use them, instead of trying to start some kind of revolution you thought you could by starting this thread. Make a UMS map with your changes and get people to play it with you. I doubt it will go any further IF that.
Abyss_Bahamut = ignorant fool
Also, Arg.Iceman, dropping infested terrans behind mineral lines is about effective as dropping lurkers behind mineral lines. Although lurkers can attack from a distance, above on a cliff, doesn't die unless the opponent actually kills it, and doesn't require you to steal a cc before using one. I really like to see infested terrans being useful, ALOT more useful, as I have seen terran comman centers being stolen before in many games, but then no one would make infested terran since they die way too fast before they can do any damage to justify the cost.
|
How about you stop sucking, and get better without trying to ruin the game.
|
Sadist how about you beat me in a 1v1 using ANY of the underused unit and/or spell some time in the game usefully? (mind control, hallucination, scout, maelstrom, queen, ensnare, broodling, infested terran, valkyrie, nuke).
|
On July 07 2004 17:44 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 17:39 Abyss_Bahamut wrote:
Tfeign you are a moron. Seriously. You're reasons for wanting balance changes are completely selfish and unreasonable, not only that you try to insult the community because we can't give you replays, when you want to change the game because YOU are tired of seeing the ' same strats used over and over '
If you want to do something new, play a new game. If you want unit choice like you described, basically go play war 2. All that's different are abilities. You're suggesting every unit, awesome or not be balanced to a point where only the ability affects your choice of using it or not. You prove this yourself by listing new mana costs.
The reason there are few replays with those plays you want to see is because those plays have very little room to develop as the mainstream strats have been developed over a LONG period of time and 3-5 of them are enough to counter most anything.
I suggest that you yourself use them, instead of trying to start some kind of revolution you thought you could by starting this thread. Make a UMS map with your changes and get people to play it with you. I doubt it will go any further IF that.
Abyss_Bahamut = ignorant fool Also, Arg.Iceman, dropping infested terrans behind mineral lines is about effective as dropping lurkers behind mineral lines. Although lurkers can attack from a distance, above on a cliff, doesn't die unless the opponent actually kills it, and doesn't require you to steal a cc before using one. I really like to see infested terrans being useful, ALOT more useful, as I have seen terran comman centers being stolen before in many games, but then no one would make infested terran since they die way too fast before they can do any damage to justify the cost.
You're the one being ignorant. You don't say anything about my argument because you know what I said is true. You only want balance changes for your own gain. Yeah I'd LIKE to see a new expansion, doesn't mean everyone does or it will happen.
|
infested terrans are weak? oh geez.. have you ever seen what 1-2overlord infested drop at peonline does? massacre. Spawning broodlings in peon line is also fun, but only if terran has 3+ tanks over there (tanks shoot own scv:s). Ensnare is good, it just doesnt end the game, but saves you very often from a attack. nukes are good against toss, any toss that doesnt cannon his exp, will be sorry for that, because emp+nuke means dead nexus, and maybe couple dead probes too, and nuking below overlord is hell, you never know where the nuke is coming, and usually dont see the ghost either (unless zerg has vision upgrade). In 2v2 if enemy toss harasses your ally zerg with 1-3corsairs, 1scout beats them all, if you know how to use shield battery.
|
The main thing I'd like to see is lockdown being an auto-ability for ghosts. And maybe some way for them to be used a tad earlier in the game..maybe make the starport the requirement instead of sci facility, but make covert ops upgrade the usual cloak/sight etc. Would at least see lots more frozen goons/tanks/gols.
|
Abyss_Bahamut the reason why I didn't say anything about your argument is because what you said is just so completely newbishness and stupid that I don't even bother. For example:
"The reason there are few replays with those plays you want to see is because those plays have very little room to develop as the mainstream strats have been developed over a LONG period of time and 3-5 of them are enough to counter most anything."
....
ignorance. Any strats that are useful will become mainstream in no time. I wont even bother with the rest rofl
|
IGNORANCE!! I WILL NOT ALLOW THESE KINDS OF INSUBORDINATION FOR I AM THE MESSIAH OF STARCRAFT
|
On July 07 2004 18:12 tfeign wrote:
Abyss_Bahamut the reason why I didn't say anything about your argument is because what you said is just so completely newbishness and stupid that I don't even bother. For example:
"The reason there are few replays with those plays you want to see is because those plays have very little room to develop as the mainstream strats have been developed over a LONG period of time and 3-5 of them are enough to counter most anything."
....
ignorance. Any strats that are useful will become mainstream in no time. I wont even bother with the rest rofl
I was half-expecting something from you but guess you didn't follow through. Please read what you wrote. I'm tearing my eyes out because you can't see your own stupidity. Any strats that are useful? The ones that are useful have already become mainstream therefore the ones using DA's and Queens aren't used.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
I don't see why anybody would complain about changes that wouldn't affect the balance in the match ups. I mean heck, making queens stronger such as ensnare more powerful to corsair rate of fire could balance out PvZ islands more. Also, you say the game is balanced, and yes it is if you take into account the matchups, but it isn't balanced in the units of each race. The guy has a point that there could be a lot of things that could be changed to make the game better. Like stimey said, the same people who are saying "STFU IT IS FINE THE WAY IT IS" are the same people who have been saying that every single patch along the way. Well guess what? Look back at some of those patches and we can now see some obvious imbalances. If some changes were made and accepted (and didn't screw up the match up balance), then it would make the game more balanced OVERALL.
And while reading this, I just had a random thought. What if the proleagues decided to do their own balancing by using UMS and not bothering to wait for blizzard? It could work... just tell the community exactly what you are going to change and also make official maps of the popular maps that would be played in UMS. It would be easy to tweak and might make things intresting, but unfortunately, it will never happen. But with help of big pro StarCraft gaming groups such as WCG, OGN, and MBC, we could actually make our own patches... of course it would only work if all those big names would support such a thing, otherwise it will just be a few friends using the changes and not the whole community.
|
Dark archons are definitely VERY powerful pvz. try out researching maelstrom instead of storm the next time you pvz, and move out with a darkarchon. you'll be surprised how well it counters muta as well as hydra. after all, you can dodge storm, you can't dodge maelstrom...
Also, you have to realize there WILL BE GAMES where not all units are built. there is no way you're going to find every single unit being used, so don't try to make all units exactly equal. the whole point is that units are unequal, and require different situations to be used. sadist might not beat you using those units because they require a certain situation. however, if he somehow set up a situation where mass scouts would be useful, then you'd be fucked. for example, if he went 2 stargate scout rush against you pvt, and they did 12 damage, PLUS having speed upgrade, how the fuck would it be stopped unless terran completely invested in ebay earlier than normal?
|
On July 07 2004 18:28 RuGbUg wrote:
Dark archons are definitely VERY powerful pvz. try out researching maelstrom instead of storm the next time you pvz, and move out with a darkarchon. you'll be surprised how well it counters muta as well as hydra. after all, you can dodge storm, you can't dodge maelstrom...
Also, you have to realize there WILL BE GAMES where not all units are built. there is no way you're going to find every single unit being used, so don't try to make all units exactly equal. the whole point is that units are unequal, and require different situations to be used. sadist might not beat you using those units because they require a certain situation. however, if he somehow set up a situation where mass scouts would be useful, then you'd be fucked. for example, if he went 2 stargate scout rush against you pvt, and they did 12 damage, PLUS having speed upgrade, how the fuck would it be stopped unless terran completely invested in ebay earlier than normal?
Thank you.
|
Queens are not unbalanced.
|
I mean, i'm all up for changes, but those suggestions aren't good examples of necessary changes.
An idea of mine would be to make scourges have 20 hp, so goons could kill them in 2 hits, and cannons in 1, thus helping toss out with lurk contains/ridges when the zerg keeps killing all the toss' obs.
|
On July 07 2004 18:43 RuGbUg wrote:
An idea of mine would be to make scourges have 20 hp, so goons could kill them in 2 hits, and cannons in 1, thus helping toss out with lurk contains/ridges when the zerg keeps killing all the toss' obs.
God that would be terrific. It's so unbelievably frustrating to lose all of your observers to a few scourge when you're trying to break containment. They don't grow on trees like overlords. =/
|
On July 07 2004 17:13 Slipknot wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 15:10 Refrain[FriZ] wrote:
Stop it, Starcraft is balanced =/ I agree.
I concur.
|
Klogon and Stimey you can't be any more right. I've been thinking of Klogon's balancing by using UMS idea for a while now, however it probably won't happen. It's sadder though that Blizzard doesn't seem to care about Starcraft anymore. All of their attention is devoted to warcraft 3 while Starcraft has been left in the dust.
And regarding RuGbUg's post, why do you think that protoss pro gamers go high templars 99.9% intead of dark archons? It's because high templars are much more cost-effective. They cost less to make, they cost less energy to use, they can harass workers, and psi storm is every bit as good, if not better maelstrom, also great to kill lurkers when you have obs. That's why I think maelstrom needs to be better so we can start seeing Dark Archons in the game more.
|
just because high temps are better, doesn't mean we need to make every other unit stronger. why don't pros get reavers instead of temps? because temps are more cost-effective! lets make them faster so pros use reavers/temps/dark archons late game more too!
...do you see what im getting at?
|
Braavos36383 Posts
if ensnare was 50 mana there would never be a time when your protoss or terran units would be fighting un-ensnared.
|
ensnaring workers 24/7, hot diggity damn talk about an economy crippling
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 14:58 tfeign wrote:
I can't wait until a new balance patch comes out. Say all you want about balance, you're all in denial that many units are overused while many others are underused.
Ya, some units are a bit underused yes.
How I see it:
Dark Archon: This unit is WAY underused. Simply because it costs too much $ and you have to surrender 2 DTs, plus, it costs alot of energy to cast any real useful spells. In pvz you will see high templar prefered over dark archon 99.9% of the time. Good balance means a player has to actually think and decide...hey should I go dark archon or high templar this game? My suggestion: Lower Mind Control to 125 energy. Lower maelstrom to 75 energy.
I think the greatest thing about DA's is their 50 mana feedback, that spell is just a killer! Maelstrom *could* possibly be lowered to 75 but I think that it may just as well stay at what it currently is.. 125 for MC? No. Broodling is 150, and should stay that way, I'll get to that later hence even the higher cost of the DA can't justify that I think-.- Maybe, big maybe. I think they are great @ islands PvZ btw 
High Templar hallucinations: This spell is way underused because quite frankly it costs way too much energy for their effectiveness except in a few rare circumstances. How many times have you seen hallucinations changed the outcome of a game? Now how many times have you seen storm changed the outcome of a game? Balance it to the point where a player must actually think and decide...hmmm should I get hallucination first or storm first? My suggestion: Reduce hallucination cost to 75 energy. Hallucinated units should take 1.5x damage instead of 2x.
I think hallu is fine but I don't think changing it would make too big of an impact (except it might fuck T up some~~~~ big might). Good on islands PvT too I think, it's a nice tactical spell as it is now - not sure if I want that too change, or feel the need for it to.
Scout: Seriously, why is this thing called a scout when a corsair is always used for scouting? Can anyone explain? The scout's air-to-ground damage is downright pathetic. Again ask yourself, how many times have I seen scouts changed the outcome of the game? Then ask yourself, how many times have I seen corsairs changed the outcome of the game? My suggestion: 1. Eliminate the speed and sight range upgrade for the scout -- scouts should have these upgrades already. Who in their right mind would spend 200/200 to give a scout 1 more matrix in sight range? 2. Increase the scout air-to-ground damage by 4.
Ask maleorderbride if he thinks scouts are bad :D:D:D (internal pike
-.- I think that's the word)
Anyways, I think the upgrades should either be cheaper or maybe both in one~ or something. The sight upgrade takes FOREVER (like twice as long as speed? More? Can't be arsed to check) to upgrade O_O
Queen: WAY underused unit, and rightfully so because queens suck ass for their cost-effectiveness. Defiler can consume to get basically unlimited energy. Dark swarm is a scare and plague rocks. My suggestion: Reduce ensnare cost to 50 energy. Reduce broodling cost to 100 energy. This will also make zerg stronger in island maps.
Fuck that. You want to make PvZ IMPOSSIBLE? Seriously, queens - correctly used mind you - are already a pain in the arse.. I think I suggested something like this (not quite as drastic though) and drone explained to me why I was crazy
Infested Terran: This is probably the worst unit in the game. Seriously, I can't think of any unit that are worse than infested terrans regarding cost-effectiveness. In order to steal a command center it is very hard, so if a zerg player manages to steal a cc, he should be rewarded with something more than the ability to make units that can never make a real difference. When was the last time you saw infested terrans changed the outcome of the game? Seriously, I'm not kidding when I say this is the worst balanced unit there is. The reason is because they have too little hitpoints and die before they can do any damage. My suggestion: Increase their hit points from 60 to 100.
Gimmick unit yo! It's cool, you can drop them on sup depots, on an army or in scv lines I think it's not as much the infested itself, it's you getting a 750 hp CC down that much faster!
Also to name a few more:
In PvT, when terran has a massive amount of tanks late game, it's almost impossible for a protoss ground army to beat it because tanks with maxed weapon upgrades do too much damage. Suggestion: lower the damage in which weapon upgrade gives to tanks.
When protoss has a massive amount of carriers late game, it's almost impossible for terran to counter it. Suggestion: Lower the interceptor hit points.
We can then see more diverse strategies instead of protoss playing a game of stalling until they can get carriers most of the time.
I dunno if that'd be good.. Once terran gets to that point toss SHOULD have carriers or be far enough ahead + smart enough not to waste units at a wall of tanks. PvT is balanced.
- Nukes should cost less. They are underused because they are cost-ineffective. The chances of it working effectively is not worth the cost.
Nukes are fine.
I know some of you are gonna argue and say hey I saw xxx used dark archon / scout / hallucinations... blah blah blah vs xxx and won. Well listen, billions of starcraft games have been played. Out of those billions of games, there just probabilistically HAS to be some games in which an underpowered unit made a difference to the game. How often do you seee that? Almost never. I don't care if you see Grrrr used dark archon to beat ultra/crackling or sKy.Proct using scouts to defeat terran with the stove or hallucinated zealots bombing up tanks....these strats have a very VERY small chance of working effectively. You will never find more than a handful of professional reps where these units made a big difference to the game.
In conclusion, no one wants to see high templars chosen instead of dark archons 99.9% of the time, no one wants to see corsairs chosen over scouts 99.9% of the time, no one wants to see defilers chosen over queens 99.9% of the time. The only question is if Blizzard will ever attempt to make another balance patch for the game.
Not so sure if a new balance patch is needed but if they do, I hope they don't fuck it up~
Anyways, something I've suggested for a long time (I think I first suggested it in the early days of TL.net) is the reaver upgrade for damage to be 28+ instead of 25. That way, when the zerg is at 3+ reavers don't 1 hit KO, but they do before that (could help solve various issues with lurkers, though I must say the toss pro's have gotten signifcantly better at dealing with lurker contains these days - still, it may be good for maps where the gas is sparse like nostalgia). Don't think it will fuck zerg over that bad~~
|
it would be fun as hell if there were some units used as effectively as others units cauz i don't see a single Dark archons nor a nuclear launch. Wouldn't it be very very funny if there were all units that are used a lot ? Like queen / nuclear launch / darkarchons and many more...
I really can't imagine how fun it would be if all units and strategic are used... Plz think of it. It would make the game very very very funnier
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 19:54 RaiZ wrote: it would be fun as hell if there were some units used as effectively as others units cauz i don't see a single Dark archons nor a nuclear launch. Wouldn't it be very very funny if there were all units that are used a lot ? Like queen / nuclear launch / darkarchons and many more... I really can't imagine how fun it would be if all units and strategic are used... Plz think of it. It would make the game very very very funnier
I actually think that would make it more dull, if queens and stuff were EASIER to use it would put a lower skill cap on the game. I think people will find great ways to use Dark Archons, I think people will find great ways to use queens. Nukes can be used ~ queens can be used, dark archons can be used, scouts are already used vs BC's and devourers (as well as valkyries I guess?)~
|
dark archons are already good right now, its only 100/100 for researching maelstrom, and 250/200 for a single dark archon. just get one, and it'll really win alot of battles
|
On July 07 2004 20:01 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I actually think that would make it more dull, if queens and stuff were EASIER to use it would put a lower skill cap on the game. I think people will find great ways to use Dark Archons, I think people will find great ways to use queens. Nukes can be used ~ queens can be used, dark archons can be used, scouts are already used vs BC's and devourers (as well as valkyries I guess?)~
Lower skill cap ? How a guys like you who has been experienced starcraft since a short time can think about how usefull queens can be ? Or what good, very good reasons can you give me why queens aren't really used a lot ? Plz dude next time gimme a very good reason to make me think that queens are enough good like it is right now.
I don't want to flame you but i think i needed to be as very clear as possible about this change. Cauz i'm playing this game since a long time and i know it would be funnier if others units would have more used in games.
Ps : Sorry for my grammar english, i got a lot of troubles about grammar even if i got a good english test for a french ppl like me. plz forgive me or correct me
|
On July 07 2004 20:48 RaiZ wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 20:01 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I actually think that would make it more dull, if queens and stuff were EASIER to use it would put a lower skill cap on the game. I think people will find great ways to use Dark Archons, I think people will find great ways to use queens. Nukes can be used ~ queens can be used, dark archons can be used, scouts are already used vs BC's and devourers (as well as valkyries I guess?)~ Lower skill cap ? How a guys like you who has been experienced starcraft since a short time can think about how usefull queens can be ? Or what good, very good reasons can you give me why queens aren't really used a lot ? Plz dude next time gimme a very good reason to make me think that queens are enough good like it is right now. I don't want to flame you but i think i needed to be as very clear as possible about this change. Cauz i'm playing this game since a long time and i know it would be funnier if others units would have been more used in games. Ps : Sorry for my grammar english, i got a lot of troubles about grammar even if i got a good english test for a french ppl like me. plz forgive me or correct me
|
T_T sorry i didn't want to quote but wanted to edit.
I'm too high sorry ppl.
|
Making queens stronger will NOT make pvz impossible because remember we're making dark archons stronger as well. Dark archon with can counter queens with feedback. Queens counter high templars with spawn broodling. High templars counters defiler (swarm) with storm, etc.
How the hell can you think that games will be dull when the weak units are balanced? Think of how fun pvz will be when Dark Archons and queens are made stronger so they can become cost-effective. Battles will become even more micro-intensive than the way they are now.
With hallucinations made stronger, carriers weakened, tank weapon upgrade weakened, we will see alot more diversities in pvt instead of stalling until carriers, as protoss may be able to take on terran with massive tanks now with hallucinations, storm, and since tanks doesn't do as much damage at max upgrades.
|
|
|
What I would like to see is PSI storm doing 1 more damage, so they can kill a unupgraded lurker in one storming. Would really help PvZ, yet wouldn't fuck up PvT.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 21:01 NotSorry wrote:
What I would like to see is PSI storm doing 1 more damage, so they can kill a unupgraded lurker in one storming. Would really help PvZ, yet wouldn't fuck up PvT.
That's how it was in 1.07.
|
If the queen's spawn broodling spell was reduced to 100, I think it would be a bit overpowered. 125 sounds like a good number, just enough so that a queen with full energy can cast it twice, but not low enough to be massively spammable.
I think that scout's ground damage should remain unchanged. The scout's role is not to take out ground. However, I do agree that the scout needs a buff. I think the mineral cost should be reduced to 250-ish
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 20:48 RaiZ wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 20:01 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I actually think that would make it more dull, if queens and stuff were EASIER to use it would put a lower skill cap on the game. I think people will find great ways to use Dark Archons, I think people will find great ways to use queens. Nukes can be used ~ queens can be used, dark archons can be used, scouts are already used vs BC's and devourers (as well as valkyries I guess?)~ Lower skill cap ? How a guys like you who has been experienced starcraft since a short time can think about how usefull queens can be ? Or what good, very good reasons can you give me why queens aren't really used a lot ? Plz dude next time gimme a very good reason to make me think that queens are enough good like it is right now. I don't want to flame you but i think i needed to be as very clear as possible about this change. Cauz i'm playing this game since a long time and i know it would be funnier if others units would have more used in games. Ps : Sorry for my grammar english, i got a lot of troubles about grammar even if i got a good english test for a french ppl like me. plz forgive me or correct me
There's quite a few players who use queens succsesfully. Intotherain used to use Dark archons succsesfully. Proof that both units are useable and tampering with them will likely lead to no good-.- 75 mana for ensnare is good enough ^^ Broodling could possibly be made cheaper, but drone has already explained to me why that would suck : ) (try searching 'my balance changes' or something with frozenarbiter as username -.-)
Btw, interceptor HP = less = taking islands on maps like LT = even worse.
PvT IS FINE!
You can't really make DA's cheaper. Why? You want cheaper dark templars -_-? Possibly 100/100 or something -.- Faster mana regenaration maybe.
Hallucination is fine, if you wanna put everything at 75... The strategical use of ensnare, hallucination, nukes, maelstrom, feedback etc is the things that add spice to this game.. I'm not going to try to type anything else until I wake up in 7-8 hours, it's 6 am now :D
I think a lot of Queen/DA builds could be used in pro circuits IF the risk wasn't so big for most pro games :o
Slight buffs, yes sure. But NOTHING like the first post -.- I don't want every unit to be equal, no flare left then~ It's like war 3 sort of.. Well at least how I percieve it.
|
On July 07 2004 21:04 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 21:01 NotSorry wrote:
What I would like to see is PSI storm doing 1 more damage, so they can kill a unupgraded lurker in one storming. Would really help PvZ, yet wouldn't fuck up PvT. That's how it was in 1.07.
Know what, I enjoyed 1.07, even as a zerg player at the time.
|
I am having flashbacks to a thread remarkably similar to this one from a while back. Some guy wrote up a "suggested balance changes" thing, and it took people almost a page to realize that he was joking. It's taken us 4 pages. :o
|
Decrease Maelstorm energy, it's all u need to do.
|
I think there are still some good solutions to these perceived problems that would not in any way endanger the current balance of the game.
1.) Increase the starting mana a queen posseses when first spawned. No need to change the mana costs of her spells, because over the long run they are perfectly priced. The concern is that there is a period of time from when you first spawn your queens to when she finally gets 100(or 150) mana that you have a bit of useless tech. Perhaps an increase to 75 or so base mana when spawned would help timing issues, and present queens as a viable early tech solution to tanks, templars,muta, etc.
2.) Either keep scout upgrade prices the same and move them to the cyber core, or decrease their cost while keeping them in the fleet beacon. There is really no sense in the cost that must be incurred just to make scouts fly as fast as other air units while "Scouting" one pixel farther. I think the slight deduction in upgrade costs by either of these methods would at the very least lessen the disincentive that is present for any P user thinking about using scouts in their present match.
3.) Decrease the upgrade cost for many of the +50 mana upgrades. Wraith energy, for example, doesn't need to be 200/200. Sairs, DAs, ghosts, arbiters... most spellcasters could probably benefit from a reduction in their +50 mana upgrades to 100/100 without any real negative impact on the game. Similar in effect to the change that goliaths faced when charons were reduced to 100/100 from 150/150 where a slight reduction in research costs helped players better budget an upgrade that they were going to get anyways if they were planning on using the unit which benefitted from it (and honestly that upgrade is far more game impacting than any of the mana upgrades).
There really isn't much that needs to be done to BW, and even the changes i suggested are wholly unnecessary in order for the game to function in a balanced and enjoyable fashion. However, I can't really see much harm in these changes either, and I think they might at the very least affect the mindset of a player when it comes down to whether or not he is going to use an artful queen build or some sexy scout manuvering.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On July 07 2004 23:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
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.
Okay, it looks like you missed one of my posts in this thread where I responded to a guy thinking that pvz would be impossible when queens's broodlings cost less energy, so I'll just copy and paste:
"Making queens stronger will NOT make pvz impossible because remember we're making dark archons stronger as well. Dark archon with can counter queens with feedback. Queens counter high templars with spawn broodling. High templars counters defiler (swarm) with storm, etc.
Think of how fun pvz will be when Dark Archons and queens are made stronger so they can become cost-effective. Battles will become even more micro-intensive than the way they are now...."
...Besides storming, toss players will now have to worry about queens, and zerg players have to worry about dark archons. Feedbacks, maelstrom, storm, broodling, ensnare, hallucinations, all coming into play in a battle to see who can utilize them most effectively. I don't know what about you, but I think that would be a ton of fun.
Sadly, the thought above is only a dream because the high templar is the only cost-effective unit out of the 3. You will only see toss players making high templars and no zerg will make queens 99.9% of the time. That mean every pvz, expect high templars and storms. You won't be seeing maelstrom, feedback, broodling any time soon unless some balances can be made.
|
On July 07 2004 21:35 x[ReaPeR]x wrote:
Decrease Maelstorm energy, it's all u need to do.
I think block units by maelstrom longer would be more effective than the cost energy.
Shaz wrote:
1.) Increase the starting mana a queen posseses when first spawned. No need to change the mana costs of her spells, because over the long run they are perfectly priced. The concern is that there is a period of time from when you first spawn your queens to when she finally gets 100(or 150) mana that you have a bit of useless tech. Perhaps an increase to 75 or so base mana when spawned would help timing issues, and present queens as a viable early tech solution to tanks, templars,muta, etc.
I like the way that queens spawn at 100 energy for being more usefull with broodling in ZvT and keep 150 energy for broodling cauz if not then 6 queens w/ upgraded energy and 125 energy broodling would kill 12 tanks and that's a lot.
A3il3ron wrote:
Increasing the effectiveness of spellcasters will turn SC into a turbo version of War3- spellcraft.
That's a strong point also.
|
This is the only game I've ever played that has such a well thought out and well balanced game, even though i HATE pvz with the passion, its not because its imbalanced, its lack of experience and lack of wanting to practice the game, its not about what race is better, its about which player is better, and every unit's cost, energy, ect.. is well thought out, stop trying to change a well done game.
|
Let the goon be able to shoot please...
|
On July 07 2004 23:50 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 23:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
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. Okay, it looks like you missed one of my posts in this thread where I responded to a guy thinking that pvz would be impossible when queens's broodlings cost less energy, so I'll just copy and paste: "Making queens stronger will NOT make pvz impossible because remember we're making dark archons stronger as well. Dark archon with can counter queens with feedback. Queens counter high templars with spawn broodling. High templars counters defiler (swarm) with storm, etc. Think of how fun pvz will be when Dark Archons and queens are made stronger so they can become cost-effective. Battles will become even more micro-intensive than the way they are now...." ...Besides storming, toss players will now have to worry about queens, and zerg players have to worry about dark archons. Feedbacks, maelstrom, storm, broodling, ensnare, hallucinations, all coming into play in a battle to see who can utilize them most effectively. I don't know what about you, but I think that would be a ton of fun. Sadly, the thought above is only a dream because the high templar is the only cost-effective unit out of the 3. You will only see toss players making high templars and no zerg will make queens 99.9% of the time. That mean every pvz, expect high templars and storms. You won't be seeing maelstrom, feedback, broodling any time soon unless some balances can be made. You seem to lack the creative mind to have fun with starcraft. don't FORCE players to play so hard, let them play relaxed, or let them try to play. don't be like warcraft and force them to get mixed units if they don't want to. however, you vastly don't seem to understand pvz. you don't NEED storm. Some toss's just go all ground without storm, and play a purely micro pvz. Some toss' use reavers, goons, sairs, dts, don't FORCE them to do what you want them to do just because if they don't, they are FUCKED due to the imbalance created by strengthening all these units. If you buff up the queen, toss's will be forced to get dark archons, and temps will be damn near worthless. Strengthening dark archon will end up ridiculously powerful. How can a zerg go muta if he can lose all of them in one maelstrom? A zerg can't go 3 hatch hydra by risk of losing every single micro battle to dark archon maelstroms. THEN, if the zerg tries to go to its savior, the now powerful queen, then supposedly, toss can counter that AGAIN with dark archon. Zerg will have zero counter for a dark archon.
To be honest, i don't see hallucinations ever having a use in pvz besides trying to drop with shuttles or something. Get off your ego trip and realize you're not accepting anyone else's points as much as they are ignoring yours. Stop saying "sigh..." and raelize there are reasons for both arguments. Quite frankly, the only changes that competent sc players would agree with would be the entirely minimal changes, like the costs for certain upgrades.
|
Right.
But some people DO think the game is balanced. However, there is a small itch that tells them "I want to make it MORE balanced!".
|
Saying that protoss players do not need storm to beat zerg is complete ignorance. WTF does sair + reavers strat has anything to do with it? So what? There's a lot of different strategies, but the problem is that some strategies are inferior to others, like dark archons / queens. Buffing them to make them a viable strategy nothing out of reach.
And why the hell would muta rush be ineffective when maelstrom costs less? It'll be as effective, if not less effective, than 2 high templars with storm, which costs roughly the same. Even an archon which doesn't need any research costs will be as effective.
And what are you talking about that zerg cant go hydra when maelstrom costs as much as storm? That's like saying a zerg can't go 3 hatch hydra by risk of losing every single micro battle to high templar storms.
Seriously, how long have you played Starcraft RuGbUg?
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Any change to Starcraft could upset its fine balance. I am opposed to such risks being taken in futile efforts to 'improve' the game.
|
On July 07 2004 22:00 Day[9] wrote:
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
Wow, pretty good analysis on playing style. Lots of underused units would be ok if used in a different style. Nonstandard styles are inferior to the standard style that's why the standard style is the standard. Still you can experiment and get away with a lot of different ideas and systems. So IMO the changes by the original poster would just propagate a different standard style and decrease the number of reasonable nonstandard styles.
|
Underused units dosn't make them Useless!! If you want you can still use them and own... SCBW is all about using your imaginiation and creating good strategies!!
|
Underused units dosn't make them Useless!! If you want you can still use them and own... SCBW is all about using your imaginiation and creating good strategies!! Like Garimtos last OGN game, Strait up Arbiter tech/mass zealots and BoxeR's ghost lockdown counter. Man I loved that game, the true essence of BW!
|
actually, i like the idea of queens having more initial mana AND lowering the spell to 125. this would make queens be usefull alot earlier than around the seventh minute, at least that's when i have them with 150 mana. also browsing the blizzard page (and reading a thread at starcraftgamers) i realized that ensnare actually doesn't help as much as i tought before as it doesn't lower the cooldown rate?
i'm a z player so i might be subjective in the matter of queens (and yes, i tried to use them fairly often but with the high cost of the spells like broodling and the low upcoming it's very very hard. also it requires insane micro imho). the infested cc and the infested terran are only a goodie for the zerg, nothing really serious imho.
it would be nice tough to see queens used EFFECTIVELY, rep anyone?
i've already seen reps, tough the queens were only used to show off 
valkyres are actually pretty nice already.
dark archons are probably underused because of their micro intensenes, together with hts. reducing the cost of maelstorm or improving the duration would make them too usefull imho. possibly lowering the cost of the update would be better.
in pvz i find scouts already usefull, at least, i tried them out. a tech build like:
gate (2 zeals), core, stargate(2 sairs, 1 scout) -> overlord hunt to dts worked fine for me, the scout really helped too. i don't know about other match ups tough.
nukes are just as dark archons, underused because of beeing much too micro intense. i tough don't think there's a really good solution to that.
that are just my two bits to that. 
|
NOTE: high cost of broodling i didn't mean the update but the mana cost
|
all i got to say is, TOSS NEEDS STORM. Otherwise we'd all play zerg and just worry about terran matchup.
|
Decrease scv hp to 40 or at least 45. Right now they are overpowered for no apparent reason
|
DA's cost to much. There underuse has nothing to do with mana costs. They are EXPENSIVE, require a lot of micro, and are only really effective vs spell casters (never gonna be widly used because of micro) and lot game ultra crack. You're not gonna get them vs ultra crack because that won't come untill late game and if you got the money for them you've probally ahead. If however you have a few DTs laying around you can get them, and they are useful.
Nukes aren't weak because of anything having to do with the nuke itself. Terran players need scanners more than nukes. Ghosts die easily because of low HPs making the nukes not nearly as useful. Blizzard has said they won't change ghosts because of single player.
Queens are a great unit. Problem is they SHOULDN'T be as powerful as defilars because they are lair tech and no hive tech. They are fun to use, but if you get them you're most likely taking a small be somewhat important unit hit making the queens nest early, researching the queens spells, and then getting them. This will either lower your units needed to defend expos, delay hive tech, or as day said force you to try to out micro a terran force. Also if I'm not mistaken irradiate kills queens with 1 hit...reason I stopped messing with them vs terran. Vs tos broodlings on HTs is a nice move, so is parasites. They do have a place there, it's just a choice if you want to use them or not.
Scouts are a very good anti terran push units on maps where the terran can't use turrets to push. Good example is blade storm where if you saw Grots RWA he talked about rekrul using it and how he was scared that he'd get hit by scouts while trying to push. They are also used to rush terran (been used in recent pro level games). THey are good vs carriers and BCs and devs. They are also used instead of sairs vs zerg a lot, and they seem to work pretty well. I recall them firing faster in the past so apperently they were too good with a lower cool down rate.
You are completely ignoring island maps. Valks are great on islands. Queens become much more important on islands. All of these air units that you complain about have differnt uses on islands but because most players don't practice or play much on islands they haven't learned the units uses.
Oh and valks vs carrires. That had to be a joke right? Do you understand anything about valks?
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 07 2004 23:25 dan1st wrote:
[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.[/QUOTE]
That may be so. However, the surprise factor is extremely important. The reason you do not see nukes more often at pro level generally is it is not a reliable strategy. The orthodox strategies in current play are orthodox simply because they deliver high winning chances in a wide variety of situations.
|
i relly just think there have to be certain things in sc u could make slightly more powerul or slightly less expensive and it would neither break the game nor take away from current options in a negative way
some options just cost more minerals and vespene than others despite that they aren't the best option anyway. of course if u make too big of a change, that sucks. why are people suggesting "no changes at all" when they fear too big of a change? just demand a smaller change.
and yes, units have to vary in effectiveness and power etc. they should not all be the same. but you can reduce the size of the gap a little when it becomes clear some unit has become not worth caring about for 99.99% of all games.
if you really are interested check out some entry level discussion of minor imperfections in bw and some ideas people have had:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?currentpage=1&topic_id=12587
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?currentpage=4&topic_id=11215
On April 11 2004 10:36 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
it would matter for implications of future RTS design ... it's a theoretical discussion. comparing upgrades systems, resource gathering systems, tech systems, etc. between war2, sc, bw, and all the patches, with war3, etc. is not useless at all.
i dont know why everyone thinks bw is the result of 6 years of tough balancing anyways. if you look at the actual changes that have been made, you'll see most of it is just random and just as many people have argued that every version was the perfect balance as now argue the current one is perfect.
ppl always assume the current version is perfect. if you asked them if we should change the zealot, the sunken, the photon, the academy, the scan, the larva rate, the hydralisk build time, the spire build time, the speed of upgraded overlords, these same ppl would have most likely said the same thing "no, it's perfect, we can't change anything now, it will ruin the game", but all these changes, and many more, happened, and the game miraculously survived
|
I can understand arguments for the other side, but I think it is good that some strategies/tactics are inferior. This is true in everything, this is how you make your choices, through the rational comparison of the relative merits of these strategies/tactics. Maybe the game would technically be more balanced if all strategies/tactics were equally viable, but that would take away a large part of the game people enjoy. I think the balance at the moment focuses on keeping the races equal rather than every game approach, and I prefer this. Another thing to consider is the wet-my-pants enthusiasm shown for the massive increase in micro-wars, did you think about whether people *want* to play that game or not? I am sure most people consider micro in moderation enjoyable, and in excess probably admirable; but, do you want to sit for 34 minutes controlling a group of spellcasters? I think the game *may* still be balanced with your suggestions (possible with some refinements), but I do not think it is the same game. Obviously, this is all just opinion, so feel free to flame me ^_^.
|
build time changes you could probably make safely (i havent looked at ore, gas, or energy only build time so far)
reduce upgrades by 32bt
-level 1 = 234 (from 266)
-level 2 = 266 (from 298)
-level 3 = 298 (from 330)
reduce "forgotten" upgrades to 120bt (from 166)
-robotics upgrades
-energy upgrades
-ocular implants (ghost sight)
-scout upgrades
reduce "underused" upgrades to 100bt (from 120)
-optical flare
-mind control
-emp shockwave
-yamato cannon
-recall (abiter takes and costs long enough already?)
reduce more "underused" upgrades and nuke to 80bt (from 100)
-maelstrom
-cloaking field (wraith)
-plague
-stasis
-lockdown
-nuclear missile
reduce even more "underused" upgrades and units to 70bt (from 80)
-burrow
-restoration
-scout
-spawn broodling
-ensnare
-disruption web
-nuclear silo
-personnel cloaking
-hallucination
faq:
1. those wont make any difference. wrong. every little bit helps. besides, knowing how much you can change things without making a difference gives you a good starting point for deciding where to make changes that are more likely to matter.
2. one of those changes is too overpowering actually. i would not be surprised. complain about it and make your point, that's what this list is for.
|
On July 08 2004 03:41 born-to-porn wrote: Decrease scv hp to 40 or at least 45. Right now they are overpowered for no apparent reason
its because they can easily be attacked when building buildings.
|
if scvs were as easy to kill as probes or drones it would be a lot easier to cheese a terran when he only has 1-2 marines out
|
firstly, u guys should make UMS map and test as much things as possible. No patch after test!
secondly, I see u talk too less about terran. Terran has nuclear launch. Who the hell uses this ability? (except fun games) Noone.
Other races use their ALL abilities. So why terran has less abilities, compared to other races?
Nuclear launch should be reduced cost etc., or this spell should be changed in the more used one.
|
scv don't have range! and it is made to help in battle (build turrets, repair), not like drones and probes, that has just to mine minerals.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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 once faced 14 valks with 7 carriers. My carriers got raped badly ;D My opponent had 4 valks left ;o~
Valks have been used quite a bit in island TvZ btw~
|
On July 08 2004 06:17 Yang wrote:
firstly, u guys should make UMS map and test as much things as possible. No patch after test!
Thats what I'm trying to do, but no1 will type me up a list of changes!
|
imo everyone should always play maps in UMS and map makers should feel free to put small changes in their map if they dare and those changes can simply be considered part of the map (costs, units you start with, etc.). unfortunately there's zero audience for playing such maps.
|
c'mon guys, just let's look, what happends, and then discuss, is it good to change, or not!
|
On July 08 2004 06:24 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
imo everyone should always play maps in UMS and map makers should feel free to put small changes in their map if they dare and those changes can simply be considered part of the map (costs, units you start with, etc.). unfortunately there's zero audience for playing such maps.
nonsence. Go play UMS instead..
Let's make UMS with new balances only for TEST, not for gaming. After lots of tests, blizzard would take action in next patch. But firstly community must want it.
|
If queens broodling spell would just give some broodlings with as much armor as larvae then you would suddenly have a spell that could kill a valuable unit and even draw a lot of fire (maybe not 10 armor, but 5-6 or something of that fashion). The mana requirements shouldn't be changed at all and maybe the research cost should be increased to 150/150.
Ok, that's a wild guess but it sounds fair enough to me.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 22:26 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +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.
Scouts are good vs devourers and BC's, people do make them vs said units Sairs vs devourer....? Rape! Sairs vs BC.. Yeah right! Scouts vs BC? YES!
Since you brought up 1 player as proof that mass reaver is effective (zelotito) then I can bring up intotherain as proof of dark archons being effective Well nal_ra has also used mass reaver, but then again so has reach and garimto -,- High templar vs ling ultra isn't more cost effective than high templar AND dark archons! Valkyries have been used plenty of times @ Island maps in TvZ -.-
|
yang why is it nonsense? in war2 every map had a "default settings", some maps people started with a grunt or a catapult or even a hero sometimes, and the amount of res wasnt always the same as low/med/high either. are u saying its impossible for any of those situations to be interesting or balanced by a mapmaker? why wouldnt that be SC? why does it always have to be "melee" settings 4 workers 50 ore? u dont think u could let a mapmaker try to present any other possible situation to you? why dont you "go" fuck yourself? dont tell me to "go play ums" you prick. if people dared to play a variety of balances (offered by map makers) then it would bring people much closer to knowing what they want blizz to do than a little testing that will never happen. blow me u ethiopian prostitute.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 22:34 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +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?
Because not every unit was meant as a 'mass' unit, or even a standard one.. I don't want it to be like that - war 3, in my experience, is not too different from what you are describing.
Dark archons are wonderful tactical units, queens too. They could be VERY slightly buffed, but not to the point were they will be used as much as High templars.. they aren't meant to be high templars! They should be supporting units --;;;; I might not be getting my point across very well..
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 23:01 A3iL3r0n wrote: 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.
Good post! Btw, valks are good with goliaths to counter mutalisks when meching~ And they can be used to kill interceptors quite effectively!
|
Dark Archon and High Templar is a great combo. Mealstorm and Psi Storm is lika a Protoss wet dream. Of course we don't see DA so much in games, those 300 gas which could be used to make 2 High Templars must insteed be wasted in 1 single DA. Mealstorm takes 100 psi, and that takes for ever if you're contained etc.
DA, and HT, is very similar. They are both spell casters, and works great togheter. However it's extremly hard to afford them both, thanks to unit imbalance.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2004 23:50 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 23:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
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. Okay, it looks like you missed one of my posts in this thread where I responded to a guy thinking that pvz would be impossible when queens's broodlings cost less energy, so I'll just copy and paste: "Making queens stronger will NOT make pvz impossible because remember we're making dark archons stronger as well. Dark archon with can counter queens with feedback. Queens counter high templars with spawn broodling. High templars counters defiler (swarm) with storm, etc. Think of how fun pvz will be when Dark Archons and queens are made stronger so they can become cost-effective. Battles will become even more micro-intensive than the way they are now...." ...Besides storming, toss players will now have to worry about queens, and zerg players have to worry about dark archons. Feedbacks, maelstrom, storm, broodling, ensnare, hallucinations, all coming into play in a battle to see who can utilize them most effectively. I don't know what about you, but I think that would be a ton of fun. Sadly, the thought above is only a dream because the high templar is the only cost-effective unit out of the 3. You will only see toss players making high templars and no zerg will make queens 99.9% of the time. That mean every pvz, expect high templars and storms. You won't be seeing maelstrom, feedback, broodling any time soon unless some balances can be made.
First of all.. I've seen good zergs make queens (really good ones too, just look at )is(city, sonic)black, yellow and our very own drone - not quite the same league but he's good!). I've had people make queens against me (as well as defilers), I made dark archons and they sure as fucking hell weren't cost in-effective! Queens are fucking MOBILE, they rock when above cliffs and such~
It's already balanced asddafsaf
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 00:28 tfeign wrote:
Saying that protoss players do not need storm to beat zerg is complete ignorance. WTF does sair + reavers strat has anything to do with it? So what? There's a lot of different strategies, but the problem is that some strategies are inferior to others, like dark archons / queens. Buffing them to make them a viable strategy nothing out of reach.
And why the hell would muta rush be ineffective when maelstrom costs less? It'll be as effective, if not less effective, than 2 high templars with storm, which costs roughly the same. Even an archon which doesn't need any research costs will be as effective.
And what are you talking about that zerg cant go hydra when maelstrom costs as much as storm? That's like saying a zerg can't go 3 hatch hydra by risk of losing every single micro battle to high templar storms.
Seriously, how long have you played Starcraft RuGbUg?
I get Maelstrom. Click ON a mutalisk, never misses. EVER. Mutalisks get stuck over 4 cannons, under an archon or ready to be stormed. Jippie fucking kay yay? I have done that before actually, it's effective enough as it is now :D And no, 3 hatch hydra would not be viable - you seem to think people would get ONLY dark archons-.- Dark archon templar yo..
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 02:30 WtF.Dondy wrote: actually, i like the idea of queens having more initial mana AND lowering the spell to 125. this would make queens be usefull alot earlier than around the seventh minute, at least that's when i have them with 150 mana. also browsing the blizzard page (and reading a thread at starcraftgamers) i realized that ensnare actually doesn't help as much as i tought before as it doesn't lower the cooldown rate? i'm a z player so i might be subjective in the matter of queens (and yes, i tried to use them fairly often but with the high cost of the spells like broodling and the low upcoming it's very very hard. also it requires insane micro imho). the infested cc and the infested terran are only a goodie for the zerg, nothing really serious imho. it would be nice tough to see queens used EFFECTIVELY, rep anyone? i've already seen reps, tough the queens were only used to show off valkyres are actually pretty nice already. dark archons are probably underused because of their micro intensenes, together with hts. reducing the cost of maelstorm or improving the duration would make them too usefull imho. possibly lowering the cost of the update would be better. in pvz i find scouts already usefull, at least, i tried them out. a tech build like: gate (2 zeals), core, stargate(2 sairs, 1 scout) -> overlord hunt to dts worked fine for me, the scout really helped too. i don't know about other match ups tough. nukes are just as dark archons, underused because of beeing much too micro intense. i tough don't think there's a really good solution to that. that are just my two bits to that.
How many games did it take you to learn how to effectively use mutalisks/lurkers? How many games have you tried queens out? Now be quiet -_- I have loads of replays where queens are not used as a show off (for example sonic)black vs xellos.. Xellos moves out with marine medic force after 2 rax cc, black ensnares and surrounds and RAPES).
2 sair 1 scout is ridiculous. Too much gas invested in those units!
1 scout instead of 1 sair can be good though.
|
Why does not scouts have 'detector' ability and speed upgrade by born?
the rest of the game is quite balanced i think
|
i use scouts to counter carriers in pvp =\ i also use them to counter bc if that situation ever arises - that's really what they're for anyway, to counter the big ships. they should start w/ bigger sight and maybe speed upgrade should be cheapened a bit.
shuttle speed upgrade should definitely cost 150/150 instead of 200/200 =(
everything related to DA is too costly =\ they should start with maelstrom as well as feedback, warp in with more energy, and have lower mana costs on all spells. i would absolutely use them if they were cost effective - i don't avoid them because they're "too micro intensive". if players avoided micro intensive units, then no one would ever use vults or reavers --;
queens are fine, the lower 50/100 cost makes them highly effective.
nukes are fine too. the damage from one is well worth the cost, and if it fails, well, it's the chance you take with anything you build - you may lose it w/o doing any damage at all.
|
On July 08 2004 07:11 HnR)Louder wrote:
i use scouts to counter carriers in pvp =\ i also use them to counter bc if that situation ever arises - that's really what they're for anyway, to counter the big ships. they should start w/ bigger sight and maybe speed upgrade should be cheapened a bit.
...snip....
I play a lot of 2v2 and if you are toss/ran vs toss/ran, toss/toss or ran/ran carrier and in the latter battlecruisers actually become heavily used units in endgame situations. I've tried scouts as a counter and I've really tested them thoroughly, but honestly, they suck incredibly vs opponents that know what they are doing.
1. You need to support them with shuttled templar and get off a healthy amount of storm, otherwise they are not cost efficient, it's as simple as that.
2. Really good opponents will dodge storm and yamato/sniper your shuttle.
3. If opponents scout your scouts counter, they can counter with additional cors/valks, completely obsoleting your scouts fleet. If your opponent builds 6 cors and 2 carrier and you build 8 scouts, corsair and scouts negate each other or better, you have to hide your scouts and he can't attack ground with corsairs. Your opponent still has 2 carrier for free. Plus Dweb is ok costwise, if you got fleet beacon and cors anyways.
To sum all this up: Why would you build scouts, when the same ressources invested into a cors/carrier combo would be superior in every single point? Allthemore as you can't spare the fleet beacon if you want scout speed upgrade ....
|
Soooo, about queens. Queens ARE incredible efficient from the theorycraft point of view, with both ensnare and broodling. In real game situations they aren't used very often, because of the second law of thermodynamics:
http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html
The queens entropy term (the amount of order required) sucks incredibly. You have to decide long in advance
1. the exact number of queens,
2. the exact build time. Build time + energy build up time amount to an uberlong overall effective build time before use for queens. Time equals Money.
Everyone using queens is trying to do the job of a Maxwell's demon and we all know that Maxwell's demons are notorious underperformers ;-)
|
I agree with Stimey and Klogon when they point out that the people who think that the game is 100% balanced right now and needs no changes are the same ones who said that the game was balanced and needed no changes every single patch.
Want an example? Okay, lets say for example that the Dark Archon's maelstrom uses 75 energy instead of 100 in this current patch, and then I make a post saying, hey, I suggest that in the next balance patch, maelstrom should take 100 energy to cast.
Then all of those SAME people would be the ones saying saying oh stfu. 75 energy is perfect. The game is balanced right now. We don't need changes.
...you get where I'm going at?
|
god not another one of these threads im not even gonna bother reading past the first page. Starcraft is good as is.
|
Stop comparing game balance with racial/unit balances.
I can make a game where both players can make ultralisks for 100 minerals, and zealots for 100 minerals.
Would the game be balanced? Hell yes. Each player still has 50% chance of winning. People would just keep on making ultralisks all the time and you'll never see zealots made in games.
What if zealots are then made stronger so people will have to think to decide whether to make zealots + ultras, pure zealots, or pure ultras? That's what I call balance.
That's the case with Starcraft. People who think that it is all balanced and needs no changes need to seriously go back and rethink.
|
On July 08 2004 06:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 02:30 WtF.Dondy wrote: actually, i like the idea of queens having more initial mana AND lowering the spell to 125. this would make queens be usefull alot earlier than around the seventh minute, at least that's when i have them with 150 mana. also browsing the blizzard page (and reading a thread at starcraftgamers) i realized that ensnare actually doesn't help as much as i tought before as it doesn't lower the cooldown rate? i'm a z player so i might be subjective in the matter of queens (and yes, i tried to use them fairly often but with the high cost of the spells like broodling and the low upcoming it's very very hard. also it requires insane micro imho). the infested cc and the infested terran are only a goodie for the zerg, nothing really serious imho. it would be nice tough to see queens used EFFECTIVELY, rep anyone? i've already seen reps, tough the queens were only used to show off valkyres are actually pretty nice already. dark archons are probably underused because of their micro intensenes, together with hts. reducing the cost of maelstorm or improving the duration would make them too usefull imho. possibly lowering the cost of the update would be better. in pvz i find scouts already usefull, at least, i tried them out. a tech build like: gate (2 zeals), core, stargate(2 sairs, 1 scout) -> overlord hunt to dts worked fine for me, the scout really helped too. i don't know about other match ups tough. nukes are just as dark archons, underused because of beeing much too micro intense. i tough don't think there's a really good solution to that. that are just my two bits to that. How many games did it take you to learn how to effectively use mutalisks/lurkers? How many games have you tried queens out? Now be quiet -_- I have loads of replays where queens are not used as a show off (for example sonic)black vs xellos.. Xellos moves out with marine medic force after 2 rax cc, black ensnares and surrounds and RAPES). 2 sair 1 scout is ridiculous. Too much gas invested in those units! 1 scout instead of 1 sair can be good though.
i have tried queens for 2 weeks, i think that's enough to beeing able to say that they're crap atm bahbahbah!
he comes in a bit too late tough, the scout, anyways. you have a link to the rep?
|
This would be good changes IMO. If someone (Eniram or whoever) can make a UMS so we can test it out it would be awesome. Alot are copied and pasted from Stimey's post, and then edited to give further balance.
reduce upgrades build time by 32bt
-level 1 = 234 (from 266)
-level 2 = 266 (from 298)
-level 3 = 298 (from 330)
-robotics upgrades - Lower scarabs capacity upgrade from 200/200 to 150/100. Lower shuttle speed down to 150/150. Lower scarab damage upgrade to 175/175.
-energy upgrades - Lower all +50 energy upgrade by 50 minerals.
-ocular implants (ghost sight) - Lower by 50 minerals
-scout upgrades - Sight & speed upgrades should cost nothing to upgrade IMO.
Reduce the time of these upgrades build time down to 100bt (from 120)
-optical flare
-mind control
-emp shockwave
Reduce the time of these upgrades and nuke build time to 80bt (from 100)
-maelstrom
-cloaking field (wraith)
-plague
-stasis
-lockdown
-nuclear missile
Reduce these upgrades and units build time to 70bt (from 80)
-burrow
-restoration
-spawn broodling
-ensnare
-disruption web
-nuclear silo
-personnel cloaking
-hallucination
- Reduce EMP research cost to 175/175 from 200/200
- Reduce Protoss shield upgrade costs down to as much as it costs to upgrade armor.
- Dark Archon's Mind Control energy cost reduced to 135
- Dark Archon's Maelstrom energy cost reduced to 75
- Queen's spawn broodling energy cost reduced to 120
- Queen's ensnare energy cost reduced to 75 [EDIT: 65]
- Scout's air-to-ground attack enhanced by 3 damage per shot
- Infested Terran's hitpoints increased to 85
Mapmakers gogogo!
|
On July 07 2004 15:26 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
Making EVERY unit equally useful would a) imbalance the game and b) take away the awe when someone uses one of these units extremely effectively.
Giyom's scout rape vs XellOs comes to mind.
I can't remember which game it was and I can't remember the zerg, but I've seen a game that came down to the wire and was won by Reach when he mass maelstromed a gigantic zerg army and stormed it all.
The game is balanced right now. Changing it would f*** up the game. Plus it wouldn't be nearly as much fun with EVERY unit being equally useful.
Actually, I think making these rare units more useful can make the game MORE fun. I won't go into each rare unit's details and suggested modifications, but having more options (viable options, that is) will not only make you think, but also make your opponent more tense! It is true that high templar is favoured over dark archons for spellcaster unit choice.
I find that people who play money maps are not truly aware of the all important cost-efficiency issue simply because...it's not an issue! StarCraft is best played when economy management is involved. As an example, the High Templar vs. the Dark Archon. It's 50/150 for the HT, and 250/200 for the DA. 200/200 for both mind control and psionic storm upgrades. I rather have the HT or the two original Dark Templars because if my opponent rushes me at the earliest he can, I'll still be waiting for the DA to amass 150 mana, 75 more precious mana-time than the HT's psionic storm. Not to mention the additional 20 build time needed for the two DTs to meld. And the earliest rushes are of course, basic units like marines and zerglings. Like the DA's mind controlling one of them would really save you.
So efficiency not only involves cost, but also the timing.
I would love to see another balance patch that will make these rarely used units become more viable. It'll really make strategies and counters more interesting. Imagine a boxer (ha ha, no pun intended), relying primarily on the uppercut. Well, the opponent only has to watch out for the uppercut. But there are more weapons available, like jabs, straights, corkscrews, and dragon punches. It'll be a more interesting fight, with the opponent needing more alertness. The same benefit applies to the opponent if he has more viable weapons to employ.
I really feel this desire for making the rare units more useful isn't as strong with money map players because all the aspects such as economy supervision, expansion decisions, and defending against the early rush are virtually non-existent. These are the factors that make StarCraft such a brilliant strategy game!
Yes, it's true that it's really amazing when someone used a rare unit so ingeniously. An example is when Vince Carter dunked OVER a 7'2" French player. It stands out because it's so unusual. But I rather have a hundred more interesting SC games than a single special one.
I like it when Protoss can go with Reaver or High Templar tech. Both are feasible. Imagine if one of them is more expensive? Most will go with the more cost-efficient. And this is the underlying problem with rarely used units. For the cost and time, they aren't useful.
And this problem is difficult to realize for money map players. So I'm tempted to suspect that those shooting down tfeign are probably money map EXPERTS.
Prose
|
terran lift off and bunkers allows them to cheese like no other race, they are unbalanced
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 12:11 tfeign wrote:
Stop comparing game balance with racial/unit balances.
I can make a game where both players can make ultralisks for 100 minerals, and zealots for 100 minerals.
Would the game be balanced? Hell yes. Each player still has 50% chance of winning. People would just keep on making ultralisks all the time and you'll never see zealots made in games.
What if zealots are then made stronger so people will have to think to decide whether to make zealots + ultras, pure zealots, or pure ultras? That's what I call balance.
That's the case with Starcraft. People who think that it is all balanced and needs no changes need to seriously go back and rethink.
..--
All units are not supposed to see equal play time......
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 12:49 WtF.Dondy wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 06:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: On July 08 2004 02:30 WtF.Dondy wrote: actually, i like the idea of queens having more initial mana AND lowering the spell to 125. this would make queens be usefull alot earlier than around the seventh minute, at least that's when i have them with 150 mana. also browsing the blizzard page (and reading a thread at starcraftgamers) i realized that ensnare actually doesn't help as much as i tought before as it doesn't lower the cooldown rate? i'm a z player so i might be subjective in the matter of queens (and yes, i tried to use them fairly often but with the high cost of the spells like broodling and the low upcoming it's very very hard. also it requires insane micro imho). the infested cc and the infested terran are only a goodie for the zerg, nothing really serious imho. it would be nice tough to see queens used EFFECTIVELY, rep anyone? i've already seen reps, tough the queens were only used to show off valkyres are actually pretty nice already. dark archons are probably underused because of their micro intensenes, together with hts. reducing the cost of maelstorm or improving the duration would make them too usefull imho. possibly lowering the cost of the update would be better. in pvz i find scouts already usefull, at least, i tried them out. a tech build like: gate (2 zeals), core, stargate(2 sairs, 1 scout) -> overlord hunt to dts worked fine for me, the scout really helped too. i don't know about other match ups tough. nukes are just as dark archons, underused because of beeing much too micro intense. i tough don't think there's a really good solution to that. that are just my two bits to that. How many games did it take you to learn how to effectively use mutalisks/lurkers? How many games have you tried queens out? Now be quiet -_- I have loads of replays where queens are not used as a show off (for example sonic)black vs xellos.. Xellos moves out with marine medic force after 2 rax cc, black ensnares and surrounds and RAPES). 2 sair 1 scout is ridiculous. Too much gas invested in those units! 1 scout instead of 1 sair can be good though. i have tried queens for 2 weeks, i think that's enough to beeing able to say that they're crap atm bahbahbah! he comes in a bit too late tough, the scout, anyways. you have a link to the rep?
Nah scout doesn't come too late, search for Enough vs intotherain.
Btw, 2 weeks compared to how much time you've spent on your zerg in general is nothing Drone, Sonic)Black, )is(city all use it to great effect ;D
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 14:29 Prose wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 15:26 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
Making EVERY unit equally useful would a) imbalance the game and b) take away the awe when someone uses one of these units extremely effectively.
Giyom's scout rape vs XellOs comes to mind.
I can't remember which game it was and I can't remember the zerg, but I've seen a game that came down to the wire and was won by Reach when he mass maelstromed a gigantic zerg army and stormed it all.
The game is balanced right now. Changing it would f*** up the game. Plus it wouldn't be nearly as much fun with EVERY unit being equally useful. Actually, I think making these rare units more useful can make the game MORE fun. I won't go into each rare unit's details and suggested modifications, but having more options (viable options, that is) will not only make you think, but also make your opponent more tense! It is true that high templar is favoured over dark archons for spellcaster unit choice. I find that people who play money maps are not truly aware of the all important cost-efficiency issue simply because...it's not an issue! StarCraft is best played when economy management is involved. As an example, the High Templar vs. the Dark Archon. It's 50/150 for the HT, and 250/200 for the DA. 200/200 for both mind control and psionic storm upgrades. I rather have the HT or the two original Dark Templars because if my opponent rushes me at the earliest he can, I'll still be waiting for the DA to amass 150 mana, 75 more precious mana-time than the HT's psionic storm. Not to mention the additional 20 build time needed for the two DTs to meld. And the earliest rushes are of course, basic units like marines and zerglings. Like the DA's mind controlling one of them would really save you. So efficiency not only involves cost, but also the timing. I would love to see another balance patch that will make these rarely used units become more viable. It'll really make strategies and counters more interesting. Imagine a boxer (ha ha, no pun intended), relying primarily on the uppercut. Well, the opponent only has to watch out for the uppercut. But there are more weapons available, like jabs, straights, corkscrews, and dragon punches. It'll be a more interesting fight, with the opponent needing more alertness. The same benefit applies to the opponent if he has more viable weapons to employ. I really feel this desire for making the rare units more useful isn't as strong with money map players because all the aspects such as economy supervision, expansion decisions, and defending against the early rush are virtually non-existent. These are the factors that make StarCraft such a brilliant strategy game! Yes, it's true that it's really amazing when someone used a rare unit so ingeniously. An example is when Vince Carter dunked OVER a 7'2" French player. It stands out because it's so unusual. But I rather have a hundred more interesting SC games than a single special one. I like it when Protoss can go with Reaver or High Templar tech. Both are feasible. Imagine if one of them is more expensive? Most will go with the more cost-efficient. And this is the underlying problem with rarely used units. For the cost and time, they aren't useful. And this problem is difficult to realize for money map players. So I'm tempted to suspect that those shooting down tfeign are probably money map EXPERTS. Prose
God.. Do you know what site you are on :[?
This is the, most likely, biggest site for progaming news in english. The amount of money mappers on this page is minimal! I haven't played money maps since I started in 2001, I and many others on this forum are all going to wcg.
Scores of top players post on this page, this is not some east clan's page :/
Go play war 3 if you want all units to see the same amount of game time...-- Dark archon = Support unit.
Why would you even CONSIDER upgrading mind control to stop an early rush, EVER?
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 12:49 tfeign wrote:
This would be good changes IMO. If someone (Eniram or whoever) can make a UMS so we can test it out it would be awesome. Alot are copied and pasted from Stimey's post, and then edited to give further balance.
reduce upgrades by 32bt
-level 1 = 234 (from 266)
-level 2 = 266 (from 298)
-level 3 = 298 (from 330)
-robotics upgrades - Lower scarabs capacity upgrade from 200/200 to 150/100
-energy upgrades - Lower all +50 energy upgrade by 50 minerals.
-ocular implants (ghost sight) - Lower by 50 minerals
-scout upgrades - Sight & speed upgrades should cost nothing to upgrade IMO.
Reduce the time of these upgrades build time down to 100bt (from 120)
-optical flare
-mind control
-emp shockwave
Hm.. Might be worthy of consideration..
Reduce the time of these upgrades and nuke build time to 80bt (from 100)
-maelstrom
-cloaking field (wraith)
-plague
-stasis
-lockdown
-nuclear missile
Reduce these upgrades and units build time to 70bt (from 80)
-burrow
-restoration
-spawn broodling
-ensnare
-disruption web
-nuclear silo
-personnel cloaking
-hallucination
..Those are already fine ffs..
- Reduce EMP research cost to 175/175 from 200/200
- Reduce Protoss shield upgrade costs down to as much as it costs to upgrade armor.
- Dark Archon's Mind Control energy cost reduced to 135
- Dark Archon's Maelstrom energy cost reduced to 75
- Queen's spawn broodling energy cost reduced to 120
- Queen's ensnare energy cost reduced to 75
- Scout's air-to-ground attack enhanced by 3 damage per shot
- Infested Terran's hitpoints increased to 85
Mapmakers gogogo!
You just lost all your right to comment on anything regarding queens: ensnare is already 75 :[
|
FrozenArbiter to answer your question regarding dark archons, that's because dark archons suck against early rushes. Actually, dark archons suck period. You won't see dark archons anywhere in real games because going dark archons is not a viable strategy except in extreme circumstances that would happen like 1 out of 500 games.
So again, why would you rather see high templars being chosen over dark archons 99.9% of the time? Doesn't balance mean that high templar and dark archon are chosen as close to 50% as possible? Realistically they will not be chosen 50% of the time, but who likes to see high templars over dark archons 99.9% of the time? The same thing goes with queens & defilers, scouts & corsairs too.
Oh and the queen's ensnare is a typo. 50 energy is what I originally intended it to be (first post I made). Although it's understandable for it to be around 60~70 energy.
|
I wonder does tfeign realise that nothing is gonna change?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 15:05 tfeign wrote:
FrozenArbiter to answer your question regarding dark archons, that's because dark archons suck against early rushes. Actually, dark archons suck period. You won't see dark archons anywhere in real games because going dark archons is not a viable strategy except in extreme circumstances that would happen like 1 out of 500 games.
So again, why would you rather see high templars being chosen over dark archons 99.9% of the time? Doesn't balance mean that high templar and dark archon are chosen as close to 50% as possible? Realistically they will not be chosen 50% of the time, but who likes to see high templars over dark archons 99.9% of the time? It's not too hard to understand why dark archons must be buffed.
Oh and the queen's ensnare is a typo. 50 energy is what I originally intended it to be (first post I made). Although it's understandable for it to be around 60~70 energy
MIND CONTROL
VS
RUSH
IS
FUCKING DAFT UNLESS IT COSTS 5 MANA
What do you NOT understand about 'supporting unit'?
InToTheRain has been using dark archons to GREAT effect. Garimto has used them. Nal_Ra has used them. Reach has used them.
Vs Zerg you'll always need to choose high templars over Dark archons simply because you need storm unless reavers. Dark archons can be used as it is now, you just need to adapt your builds - which most people derived from replays ; (
ASDFASDFASDFASDFASD
Queen 50 energy for ensnare? YOu are fucking off your rocker =[
. . . . Cliffs and obstructing terrain will mean terran and toss will NEVER, EVER be anything but ensnared.. Jesus christ :/
|
Currently, in 1.11, Ensnare costs 100 mana, Broodling 150 mana, and Parasite 75 mana. Some people need to keep their facts straight when arguing points.
|
100 is way too much. Originally I thought that 50 is a good number but I've already upped it to 65.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 15:21 Shaz wrote:
Currently, in 1.11, Ensnare costs 100 mana, Broodling 150 mana, and Parasite 75 mana. Some people need to keep their facts straight when arguing points.
Funny.. My map editor says 75 : )
|
|
|
Tfeign give up, please for the love of fucking god give up. Your bitching about units seems to be nothing more than your inability to realize that choosing unit A over unit B is more out of versatility and effectiveness mixed with a wanting to win, rather than wanting to see people routinely do "cool" things with these "unused" units that aren't unused, but more like saved for special occassions. Also, if that doesn't sway you, my ass will get tired of seeing DA's and Scouts and shit everygame if someone does make your changes.
Changing a unit like the Dark Archon won't do a thing, 9/10 times a friggin HT will handle more jobs more effectively than a DA will/can. Why use Maelstrom vs. muta/hydras/lings/lurkers when a storm just absolutely sodomizes them more than just stunning them for a few moments? I'll give you Maelstrom is more effective when a mass amount of ultras are coming straight at you, or feedback is a nice vs. casters like queens. Overall though an HT is just better, and unless you're willing to give new abilities to a DA it's going to stay that way.
Hallucination is fine, if it was with Terrans or Zerg sure, give it a cost reduction. But why in the hell would you reduce it when it produces two units of the race with the overall toughest units? As if microing against a mass of zealots wasn't fun enough, let's give them tons of extra damage taking copies for us to play with YAY.
As for nukes being used effectively, why in the world would ANYONE risk going to the highest tech level for terrans for a one shot deal? Can they work well, sure, but the fact is making them is just one big damn risk...no matter how you "fix" it. Nukes aren't meant to be used "mainstream" they are for surprises. It's like walking to your door and the mail man handing you a package bomb. If you know it's coming you don't answer the door sheesh.
Tanks are fine, unsieged they have concussion type damage don't they? Doesn't that reduce vs. nearly every armor type save shields? And if you were talking about sieged tanks, why are you running guys into them and not dropping on top of them in the first place?
Your Carrier change is also pointless, sure the change for interceptors is a promotion for people to make valkyries more, but come on who's going to risk that firing problem when a group of goliaths and/or wraiths properly micro'd does the job BETTER and lets you attack ground units?
I think Queens have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt not to suck, any change to their mana regen or snare costs is just asking for trouble.
The points I'm making is this game IS "balanced" sure it could use more tweaks to become perfect, but unless you're willing to rework the entire inner workings of the game you need to just stop complaining about "underpowered" and "underused" units because your ass can't use them well.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 15:49 HestkE wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow what an awesome post you made there HestkE :D
|
PissPoorMicro I don't think tanks have concussion damage when unsieged :o just no splash and half the damage and cooldown I think
|
Better yet it's explosive, my bad.
50% to small 75% to medium, so he mustive been talking about sieged.
|
frozenarbiter, city uses the queens only to show off, he took more than half of the map before getting them, i'd not call that effective ;P
by the way, please gimme just one link :I
|
On July 08 2004 00:28 tfeign wrote:
Saying that protoss players do not need storm to beat zerg is complete ignorance. WTF does sair + reavers strat has anything to do with it? So what? they are proof of non-storm strategies. and no, you don't need reavers or storm late game if you have enough units in a good mix.
There's a lot of different strategies, but the problem is that some strategies are inferior to others, like dark archons / queens.
Well no shit, sherlock. How come my mass firebat/medic rush vs toss doesn't work as good as metal? it shouldn't be inferior! let's buff up firebats!
Buffing them to make them a viable strategy nothing out of reach.
And why the hell would muta rush be ineffective when maelstrom costs less? It'll be as effective, if not less effective, than 2 high templars with storm, which costs roughly the same. Even an archon which doesn't need any research costs will be as effective.
And what are you talking about that zerg cant go hydra when maelstrom costs as much as storm? That's like saying a zerg can't go 3 hatch hydra by risk of losing every single micro battle to high templar storms.
Seriously, how long have you played Starcraft RuGbUg?
Jesus christ, do you not understand that a muta can easily run away from an archon, or dodge a storm. How the fuck are you going to dodge a maelstrom? here's a build order for you, if you think maelstrom is fucking shitty: Go 10 gate tech, then get core, citadel, temp archives. get your 2nd gate during the citadel. research leg upgrade, and get 2 temps right out of the 2 gates as the archives finishes. after that, get 2 dts and research maelstrom (it's only 100/100, much cheaper than storm). once you have 1 archon, 1 da, and 4-6~ zealots, move out. use this time to expo with cannon. there is NOTHING at this time that zerg can use to beat your army.
Yes, it will beat 3 hatch hydra, and it will beat ANY muta build. If you've played against any half-assed quality zerg, you'll understand how much hydra micro will rape your so-called storm. there is nothing a zerg can do once you've maelstromed 5 hydras and run in with speed zeals. early game, da is still VERY good.
i'm not saying its invincible, but you obviously don't play enough/have enough imagination to realize build orders.
|
I'd like to see a rep of this tactic =/
|
i'm a bit shy myself, and i don't want to host reps of my friend using it. sorreh
|
Good thing for you, my comp got struck by lightning like 3 months ago and I couldn't even if you agreed.
Kinda odd explaining to a teacher at school, that I'm ignoring his lectures because I'm not in his class and just there to post on a forum.
|
i'm sure glyo would like me to host a rep of this, he's been trying to figger out who i am for a while
|
mineral costs (as of 1.11b)
15: scarab
25: scourge, ghost, interceptor, observer
50: zergling, drone, defiler, lurker, guardian, spore colony, sunken colony,
extractor, marine, scv, firebat, medic, comsat station, control tower,
covert ops, physics lab, machine shop, probe, high templar, observatory,
75: hydralisk, evolution chamber, creep colony, vulture, missile turret
100: infested terran, overlord, mutalisk, queen, hydralisk den, defiler mound,
greater spire, goliath, science vessel, dropship, supply depot, refinery,
science facility, armory, bunker, nuclear silo, arbiter, zealot, pylon,
assimilator, shield battery, level 1 attacks, metabolic boost,
level 1 infantry upgrades, level 1 vehicle upgrades, level 1 ship
weapons, ion thrusters, ocular implants, charon booster,
level 1 armor (protoss), level 1 ground/air weapons (protoss),
apial sensors, carrier capacity, argus jewel, burrowing, spawn broodling,
plague, ensnare, stim packs, spider mines, yamato gun,
personnel cloaking, restoration, optical flare, feedback, maelstrom
125: engineering bay, dark templar, dragoon
150: devourer, lair, nydus, queen's nest, ultralisk cavern, siege tank,
wraith, barracks, academy, starport, corsair, gateway, photon cannon,
citadel of adun, templar archives, forge, stargate, robotics support bay,
level 1 carapaces, level 2 attacks, antennae, pneumatized carapace,
muscular augments, grooved spines, gamete meiosis, metasynaptic node,
chitinous plating, level 1 ship plating, level 2 ship weapons,
u-238 shells, titan reactor, moebius reactor, colossus reactor,
caduceus reactor, level 1 plating (protoss),
level 2 ground weapons (protoss), singularity charge, leg enhancements,
sensor array, gravitic boosters, khaydarin amulet, khaydarin core,
argus talisman, siege mode, cloaking field, hallucination, recall,
stasis field
175: level 2 flyer attack, level 2 infantry upgrades,
level 2 vehicle upgrades, level 2 plating (protoss),
200: ultralisk, hive, spire, spawning pool, factory, shuttle, reaver,
robotics facility, cybernetics core, arbiter tribunal, level 3 attacks
ventral sacs, adrenal glands, anabolic synthesis, level 3 ship weapons,
apollo reactor, level 3 ground weapons (protoss), level 1 plasma shields,
scarab damage, reaver capacity, gravitic drive, gravitic thrusters,
lurker aspect, lockdown, emp shockwave, irradiate, psionic storm,
disruption web, mind control
225: level 2 carapaces, level 2 ship plating, level 2 plating (protoss)
250: valkyrie, level 3 flyer attack, level 3 infantry upgrades,
level 3 vehicle upgrades, level 3 plating (protoss)
275: scout
300: hatchery, fleet beacon, level 3 carapaces, level 3 ship plating,
level 3 plating (protoss), level 2 plasma shields
350: carrier
400: battlecruiser, command center, nexus, level 3 plasma shields
|
interesting list you've compiled there
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 16:19 WtF.Dondy wrote:
frozenarbiter, city uses the queens only to show off, he took more than half of the map before getting them, i'd not call that effective ;P
by the way, please gimme just one link :I
It's not just one game ;o
http://ygclan.vgaclub.co.kr/?m=replay
Search )is(city or city -_-
Sonic)Black uses them alot too~!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 16:27 RuGbUg wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 00:28 tfeign wrote:
Saying that protoss players do not need storm to beat zerg is complete ignorance. WTF does sair + reavers strat has anything to do with it? So what? they are proof of non-storm strategies. and no, you don't need reavers or storm late game if you have enough units in a good mix. Show nested quote +There's a lot of different strategies, but the problem is that some strategies are inferior to others, like dark archons / queens. Well no shit, sherlock. How come my mass firebat/medic rush vs toss doesn't work as good as metal? it shouldn't be inferior! let's buff up firebats! Show nested quote +Buffing them to make them a viable strategy nothing out of reach.
And why the hell would muta rush be ineffective when maelstrom costs less? It'll be as effective, if not less effective, than 2 high templars with storm, which costs roughly the same. Even an archon which doesn't need any research costs will be as effective.
And what are you talking about that zerg cant go hydra when maelstrom costs as much as storm? That's like saying a zerg can't go 3 hatch hydra by risk of losing every single micro battle to high templar storms.
Seriously, how long have you played Starcraft RuGbUg? Jesus christ, do you not understand that a muta can easily run away from an archon, or dodge a storm. How the fuck are you going to dodge a maelstrom? here's a build order for you, if you think maelstrom is fucking shitty: Go 10 gate tech, then get core, citadel, temp archives. get your 2nd gate during the citadel. research leg upgrade, and get 2 temps right out of the 2 gates as the archives finishes. after that, get 2 dts and research maelstrom (it's only 100/100, much cheaper than storm). once you have 1 archon, 1 da, and 4-6~ zealots, move out. use this time to expo with cannon. there is NOTHING at this time that zerg can use to beat your army. Yes, it will beat 3 hatch hydra, and it will beat ANY muta build. If you've played against any half-assed quality zerg, you'll understand how much hydra micro will rape your so-called storm. there is nothing a zerg can do once you've maelstromed 5 hydras and run in with speed zeals. early game, da is still VERY good. i'm not saying its invincible, but you obviously don't play enough/have enough imagination to realize build orders.
Yeah late game you can go like sair/dt, carrier/sair, DT archon zealot etc~ But you usually need it for middle game, or you will be overpowered : )
|
On July 08 2004 15:52 PissPoorMicro wrote:
Changing a unit like the Dark Archon won't do a thing, 9/10 times a friggin HT will handle more jobs more effectively than a DA will/can. Why use Maelstrom vs. muta/hydras/lings/lurkers when a storm just absolutely sodomizes them more than just stunning them for a few moments? I'll give you Maelstrom is more effective when a mass amount of ultras are coming straight at you, or feedback is a nice vs. casters like queens. Overall though an HT is just better, and unless you're willing to give new abilities to a DA it's going to stay that way.
EXACTLY. And why the HELL would you want an HT to handle more jobs effectively than a DA can 9/10? ESPECIALLY when a DA cost alot more and more time to make. An HT has changed the outcome of the game countless number of times. How many times has a DA changed the outcome of a game? You can't admit that the DA sucks and needs a buff so it will become more efficient so people can start using DAs in viable strategies?
Hallucination is fine, if it was with Terrans or Zerg sure, give it a cost reduction. But why in the hell would you reduce it when it produces two units of the race with the overall toughest units? As if microing against a mass of zealots wasn't fun enough, let's give them tons of extra damage taking copies for us to play with YAY.
How many times have you seen hallucination changed the outcome of a game? Give me more than 3 professional replays where hallucinations changed the outcome of a game. I can give you a thousand of professional replays where storm changed the outcome of a game. Why do you think hallucination is used so little? Maybe because its units doesn't absorb as much damage? Maybe because it costs too much energy? Maybe because it's nowhere as effective to the level that it should be? Maybe it needs a buff?
As for nukes being used effectively, why in the world would ANYONE risk going to the highest tech level for terrans for a one shot deal? Can they work well, sure, but the fact is making them is just one big damn risk...no matter how you "fix" it. Nukes aren't meant to be used "mainstream" they are for surprises. It's like walking to your door and the mail man handing you a package bomb. If you know it's coming you don't answer the door sheesh.
Errr..you answered it yourself? Why the fuck would anyone risk going to the highest tech level for terrans for a one shot deal? That's why nuke should cost less and/or be able to be achieved faster so that the risk isn't as high as it is now so that players can use it more without basically risking everything.
Tanks are fine, unsieged they have concussion type damage don't they? Doesn't that reduce vs. nearly every armor type save shields? And if you were talking about sieged tanks, why are you running guys into them and not dropping on top of them in the first place?
NO PROTOSS GROUND ARMY CAN BEAT UPGRADED MASS TANKS. A medium-sized protoss army can beat a medium-sized army of tanks. But in late game, a massive army of tanks can't be touched by a protoss ground army.
http://ygclan.vgaclub.co.kr/?m=replay&board=gosureplay&assort=&search=nal_ra&searcht=player&page=1&rno=34179
http://www.yaoyuan.com/download.php?action=soft&id=27918
Not saying all, but most professional pvt games are a race between terran killing the protoss before protoss have powered up too many carriers.
Your Carrier change is also pointless, sure the change for interceptors is a promotion for people to make valkyries more, but come on who's going to risk that firing problem when a group of goliaths and/or wraiths properly micro'd does the job BETTER and lets you attack ground units?
Why exactly is adding a different viable strategy be a bad thing?
I think Queens have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt not to suck, any change to their mana regen or snare costs is just asking for trouble.
Again, ask yourself how many times have you seen queens changed the outcome of a game vs a professsional player. You can dig up all the old replays, dig up the millions of them you can, you will probably find about 5-10 at most. As I said before, BILLIONS of starcraft games have been played, out of those billions, there STATISTICALLY HAS TO BE SOME GAMES where an underpowered unit makes a difference in a game. When it does, you go crazy all over yourself and say hahahaha look! queen rocks. Well, the truth lies in the statistics. I can dig up thousands of replays where defilers changed the outcome of a game. Why the hell do you think queens are so rarely made? Why do you think defilers are made all the time? If that's not imbalance to you then what the hell is?
AND IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIMENT: Go to http://www.broodwar.co.yu and download about 30 random zerg replays. Then look to see how many times a defiler have been made in those 30 games. Then look to see how many times a queen have been used in those 30 games.
Then ask yourself why do you think people dont use queen often?
Do this same experiment with protoss dark archon and corsair or terran valkyrie if you wish.
Why would you not want to add viable strategies to the game -- the way that these units were originally designed to be, is beyond me
|
Sweden33719 Posts
You are a thick one aren't ye :[ They are supposed to be supporting units full fucking stop
Protoss ground armies can sure as hell beat mass upgraded tanks if you either a) use mass hallucination or b) arbiters (I think you should still count that as a ground army). Then again you could just get carriers, not sure what you are on about - terran is slightly stronger than toss on ground, what's wrong with that? ~ But a 3-3 terran has oftentimes outplayed the P..
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Btw care to guess why the DA costs more and is less versatile? That's right, it's a specialist unit meant for support.
|
tfeign i think u should go for smaller changes first. changing the nature of one part of a matchup is very difficult and u have many different maps to consider
|
On July 08 2004 17:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Btw care to guess why the DA costs more and is less versatile? That's right, it's a specialist unit meant for support.
Guess what a high templar or a defiler is. A specialist unit meant for support!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 18:00 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 17:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Btw care to guess why the DA costs more and is less versatile? That's right, it's a specialist unit meant for support. Guess what a high templar or a defiler is. A specialist unit meant for support!
A High Templar isn't exactly specialist :[ It's a rather cheap middle game unit. The dark archon is an expensive, situation based unit. Much more specialized than the HT.
The defiler is higher up the tech tree than the queen, but it's rather obvious it's meant to be the main spell caster for zerg - just look at consume. Nothing you do short of making either a) Queen too good or b) Defiler too bad will even it out.. The queen is already great, it's just overshadowed by the defiler.
|
That increased cost is because at what the DA is used for, it does GREAT. It doesn't matter the limited scope of its uses, it's A HELL OF A LOT BETTER when you play it for its abilities and not its shortcomings.
I've seen tons of people known and not known use hallucination to win, because it's a damn good spell. Whether it's a giant mass of zealots or on arbiters so they can recall right in the middle of your base. It's a spell that also HAS A LIMITED SCOPE.
Leave tanks the hell alone they do 50% damage to zealots stop your bitching. Just like nukes, why the hell do you think it would be a GOOD thing to make high levels of tech like that available to Terrans for cheaper? Nukes are fine the way they are, EMP + Nuke = thnx now stop your damn whining.
Finally for Queens, mid-late game you need to realize that QUEENS DONT WORK AS WELL AS DEFILERS. Nothing is stopping you from using them but they ARENT AS GOOD
There is no more "adding" viable strategies, there are what works and what doesn't work. It's just like the way Standard Tournaments are for Magic: The Gathering. People have EXHAUSTED what works and what doesn't work to the point you only see those things that kinda work in rare instances. That's the whole point of them, they are surprise factors that are meant to hit your opponent. If there weren't things like this there would be no "Nuclear Launch Detected" warning it would just drop. Live with the game the way it is, it's as balanced enough to where people can play without headaches. We don't need people going "0MFG THEY NEED T0 USE THIS M0RE 0FTEN THAT'D S0 FU><><IN PWNZ0R"
Your "balance" issues are on things that don't need that much tweaking, but like most muleheaded assholes you refuse to accept the fact you're wrong.
|
i dont buy that the DA fits a support role very well. if you made protoss weaker, it wouldnt mean that they need to use DA's more. the reason DA's are underused right now isnt convenience. trying to use DA's more would just make toss even weaker. u cant reduce the cost of da, but u can reduce the cost of its spells to make using a da more worthwhile. should you even have to pay for researching any of the da's spells? maybe making all of the spells researched by default would be enough of a change by itself without changing any energy costs.
if u can say "u dont ever need to use this unit, this unit is just showing off basically u can ignore it" it really should be considered u make it slightly more useful.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Ya, hallucination is fucking great~ Used it in 2 games today - let's just say I'd wager I'll hardly play a PvT without trying to use them from now on :O
And the archons you can morph afterwards, ROCK!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 18:06 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
i dont buy that the DA fits a support role very well. if you made protoss weaker, it wouldnt mean that they need to use DA's more. the reason DA's are underused right now isnt convenience. trying to use DA's more would just make toss even weaker. u cant reduce the cost of da, but u can reduce the cost of its spells to make using a da more worthwhile. should you even have to pay for researching any of the da's spells? maybe making all of the spells researched by default would be enough of a change by itself without changing any energy costs.
if u can say "u dont ever need to use this unit, this unit is just showing off basically u can ignore it" it really should be considered u make it slightly more useful.
Ugh I think Grrr, Reach, Garimto, Nal_ra and intotherain using them in TV games shows it's not useless T_T?
BTW, late game PvZ they are excellent -_-;
I think feedback in PvP has great potential (DT's will become obsolete anyways once the opposition gets obs).
|
PissPoorMicro arguing with you is a waste of time.
Do me a favor and go on Neogame-i and then use terran and use your EMP + Nuke = thnx strategy in all of your games and let me know what kind of rating you've accumulated after playing 10 games. Go do it.
And you even admitted that "mid-late game you need to realize that QUEENS DONT WORK AS WELL AS DEFILERS" -- When the hell does queen work good at all? Why would you NOT buff the queen? Are you that stubborn?
|
how many geysers do u have to get before building a da? even if you use them in a pvp where you went dts and saved your dts after he got obs, researching spells of the da will usually hurt u more than it helps u that early. its too much of a mineral/gas hit to research their spells. and u cant cast its spells often enough for something that cost you two dt's. mael in pvp? if u get to feedback his HT's then fine. if u get to MC a shuttle with reavers in it or an observer then cool. but wouldnt u usually, most games, , almost all games, be much better off never making a single DA? slowing down ur expo, ur upgrades, any tech.. is not worth the risk. its just a weak thing to do. when u are trying to piss money on a zerg then yeah mael is cool but do you think the game would be ruined if u didnt have to research anything for a DA or if any of the spells cost slightly less energy? if anything it would make the matchup better.
|
On July 08 2004 17:06 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 16:19 WtF.Dondy wrote:
frozenarbiter, city uses the queens only to show off, he took more than half of the map before getting them, i'd not call that effective ;P
by the way, please gimme just one link :I It's not just one game ;o http://ygclan.vgaclub.co.kr/?m=replay Search )is(city or city -_- Sonic)Black uses them alot too~!
okokok, i tried to be lazy, didn't work
am downloading all city and sonic black reps on ygclan now ;P
btw. searching for )is(city would cause errors in the search engine
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 18:14 tfeign wrote:
PissPoorMicro arguing with you is a waste of time.
Do me a favor and go on Neogame-i and then use terran and use your EMP + Nuke = thnx strategy in all of your games and let me know what kind of rating you've accumulated after playing 10 games. Go do it.
And you even admitted that "mid-late game you need to realize that QUEENS DONT WORK AS WELL AS DEFILERS" -- When the hell does queen work good at all? Why would you NOT buff the queen? Are you that stubborn?
Mid-game and in certain situations queen works better than defilers :/
|
Hm... I don't know if it's already been mentioned since I didn't want to read through all ten pages, but changing the scout size from large to medium would certainly make it more useful and cost-efficient.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I dont think you can maelstorm mechanical units.... on this micro map I tried maelstorming on goons and it just didnt work at all...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 18:50 Tien wrote:
I dont think you can maelstorm mechanical units.... on this micro map I tried maelstorming on goons and it just didnt work at all...
That's correct, who said otherwise :O?
|
One of the main reasons these units arnt being used is because They dont usually ammune to the situations.If a terran went mines/turrets/tanks What good would Dark archons do which a Terran does most of the time If they reacted different maybe so would a protoss player.
And btw Hallucination Owns!!!!
|
Just because certain units are used more than others doesnt mean the game is unbalanced.
|
On July 08 2004 18:16 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
how many geysers do u have to get before building a da? even if you use them in a pvp where you went dts and saved your dts after he got obs, researching spells of the da will usually hurt u more than it helps u that early. its too much of a mineral/gas hit to research their spells. and u cant cast its spells often enough for something that cost you two dt's. mael in pvp? if u get to feedback his HT's then fine. if u get to MC a shuttle with reavers in it or an observer then cool. but wouldnt u usually, most games, , almost all games, be much better off never making a single DA? slowing down ur expo, ur upgrades, any tech.. is not worth the risk. its just a weak thing to do. when u are trying to piss money on a zerg then yeah mael is cool but do you think the game would be ruined if u didnt have to research anything for a DA or if any of the spells cost slightly less energy? if anything it would make the matchup better. getting a darkarchon/researching maelstrom costs the same as getting an archon (gas-wise, which is what you're talking about). and no, its not just "pissing money" on zerg. it's a viable unit, but most players are too lazy to get it.
|
On July 08 2004 19:16 OcToBeR_ToSs wrote:
Just because certain units are used more than others doesnt mean the game is unbalanced.
I don't think that anyone should disagree with this statement, however, just because the game is balanced doesn't mean it couldn't be more fun.
|
If you want to have more fun go ahead and use the units
|
On July 08 2004 18:43 sushiman wrote:
Hm... I don't know if it's already been mentioned since I didn't want to read through all ten pages, but changing the scout size from large to medium would certainly make it more useful and cost-efficient. why? what units would it need a different armor type for?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Gol and turret would only do 50% : )
|
|
|
FrozenArbiter, i watched the city reps AND he didn't use a single queen in all of them (i know he uses queens to show of two times in the rep pack on sg.com)sOoOoOoO, still waiting for a hint on usefull use of queens  gogogogo 1:1 1+++ reps z queen vs tpz
|
search the site, theres one with drone using queens very well.
the thing is, queensdon't work in just 2 or 3, you have to get a good number going before they start taking effect
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On July 08 2004 18:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 18:50 Tien wrote:
I dont think you can maelstorm mechanical units.... on this micro map I tried maelstorming on goons and it just didnt work at all... That's correct, who said otherwise :O?
i wasnt arguing with anybody . Just trying to make sure. I think maelstorm was MEANT for ultralisks. There is no other unit that maelstorm does a better job on. Protoss always cry about ultra/ling imbalance, maybe they can start using maelstorm a lot more...
|
i tried it with 8, but then my economy would be broken (+broodling for sure), at least against t, and i wouldn't have enough money for lurkers.
dunno about 6 though
|
On July 08 2004 20:51 Tien wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 18:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: On July 08 2004 18:50 Tien wrote:
I dont think you can maelstorm mechanical units.... on this micro map I tried maelstorming on goons and it just didnt work at all... That's correct, who said otherwise :O? i wasnt arguing with anybody . Just trying to make sure. I think maelstorm was MEANT for ultralisks. There is no other unit that maelstorm does a better job on. Protoss always cry about ultra/ling imbalance, maybe they can start using maelstorm a lot more... yeah, but that means toss players would have to actually use different strats, and who wants to try when u can complain
|
Get 1-2 queens and ensnare the terran army when it starts to move out. Terran will most likely just stop and not risk getting flanked. If they do move you can flank them. Queens work very well against m&m. They also work on speed lots if you catch them massing in groups before attacking. They are also and ESSENTIAL unit on ISLANDS.
DAs vs ultra ling. Try it out. I have no idea why more tos players don't use it against people who get ultras off 4 gas (anymore than that and zerg is probally just gonna run all over you either way). Archons without shield upgrades really aren't that powerful vs fully upgraded ultras, temps don't do enough other than kill lings.
Let me say this one last time. Queens have an IMPORTANT use for the zerg army. They will NEVER be as effective as defilars and they never were intended to be. Temps and DAs just were NEVER ever ever made for you to have to choose one or the other. They have totaly differnt uses in the game.
Don't think of the units like frozenarbitor said. Think of them as possisional units. Temps are useful vs hydras, all pvp battles, and in some pvt battles early-mid game. Archons are useful vs mutas, m&m if you even get in that possition, they can be used in pvp. DAs are good vs ultras ling and can be used in special cases in other matchups though aren't really a good choice imo (feedback vs temps or mind control in any case because of lack of mobility).
|
just to put my 2 cents in. tfeign, you arent a known player. Therefore whoever you play will be your level and u can both afford to diverge on your tech trees and build these "underpowered" units for your "FUN". So go ahead, the progamers dont have that luxury. They play for money and they will not put next weeks meal on the line for the opportunity to humiliate their opponent with da's, or queens etc.
(just an extreme representation dont complain about their "salary" cuz its known the less known pros live on something similar to a subsistence income level)
From another perspective. People use the builds and units they use because those units are VERSATILE. For example a tank can harass, be used in a push or defense or ANYTHING. its useful. same as a ht, it can be used in an army, or to rape probes. a dark archon however can stop an army, but WTF WOULD YOU DO WITH A DARK ARCHON when harassing. its a question of versatility, cost effectiveness and concentration. When you play at a high level, or at least very intensely you dont have much spare mental energy to keep track of your queens and mentally keep track of their uses or current mana points. and u cant usually spare a hotkey for a unit that is used and forgotten for 2 minutes till it becomes useful again.
so even with balance changes the units still need time to regenerate mana. and they still need to be trained with and understood fully to be able to be used as effortlessly in fast paced combat as a control group of dragoons. AND finally they arent versatile enough, even forgetting the cost effectiveness angle for a minute. if u expect a terran to go mm u go dark archon to be sneaky, whoops tanks roll out and what can u do? stall time and research MC? even then u have a _maximum_ of 3-4 tanks that u stole. big whoop, might as well build more goons, save the gas from mc and build a unit with long range, lots of life and a sturdy ass. the carrier.
so like stimey i would love to see balance changes making underused units more worthy. but until you can make maelstrom affect tanks and vultures they arent useful enough. and until you can broodling a whole army (at which point u have no ground and ur enemy scouts it and builds sairs) then THIS CONJECTURE IS ALL FOR NOTHING. (also please dont be narrow minded and see this as the only example i have. just accept that you CANT use these situational units everywhere)
if u want spells and intense unit micro and gayness, play warcraft. thats what i do when i want to be gay with cool looking spells and yell "HUMILIATION" quake styles at the monitor when i hit an undead gold mine with 4 lquid fired batriders!!!!!
|
i have seen countless replays of very good players building nothing but zealot,dragoon and shuttle vs tanks, vultures and dropships. thats just 3 units per race max. not counting the peons of course :O. i think ppl are just not creative enough and its not a balance issue.
|
like stimey said, there a balances that can be made, and they will make a difference. but quite frankly those small upgrade changes won't make a shit of impact in the world, and it doesn't have a limpdick's chance in hooters to ever happen.
i still say scourges should be 20 hp fo shoa~
|
I think some ppl won't be happy until they see most games where all units from a race go into serious battle againt all units from another. It is then only they would render the game balanced.
Heck, might as well plan for StarCraft 3...
|
queens are imbalanced. they are way too cost effective. everyone that doesnt use them late game are retarded. my 2 cents
|
hell i beat iloveoov 2-1, both games i won i used queens, and i used them VERY VERY VERY effectively in 1 game, and would have lost without the queens. so there ya go, 1 pro gamer replay in which queens ultimately made the difference.
www.people.virginia.edu/~fgt4w/iloveoov1.rep
www.people.virginia.edu/~fgt4w/iloveoov2.rep (better queen usage)
(yes, i know he wasnt trying, and yes, im sure it was the real iloveoov, verified by many koreans, including zerglee who ive talked to and played with many times, and is on iloveoov's team, and also by ppl at ygclan.com, and a few kinda well known koreans around at the time i played him)
|
talk about a great point, beating oov with queens :p
|
On July 08 2004 15:38 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 15:21 Shaz wrote:
Currently, in 1.11, Ensnare costs 100 mana, Broodling 150 mana, and Parasite 75 mana. Some people need to keep their facts straight when arguing points. Funny.. My map editor says 75 : )
Hmm, I did an excellent job getting my foot stuck in my mouth didn't I? I was getting the 100/100 research cost mixed up with the spell cost. Whops! 
|
The way I see it, they are not really "balance changes" because the standard you use is the frequency the units were being used. The interacial balance is the most important balance in this game. If you want to ruin the main balance just trying to use some certain units more often, it is wrong.
I can't imagine if all his suggestions were added to the next patch, how could terran stay in this game. All zerg and toss's magic units got greatly enhanced...
Another thing i want to say is, not every unit means to be equally cost-effective.
|
great post
scourge = 20 hp = great change
|
On July 08 2004 22:39 88)KicKDoG wrote: hell i beat iloveoov 2-1, both games i won i used queens, and i used them VERY VERY VERY effectively in 1 game, and would have lost without the queens. so there ya go, 1 pro gamer replay in which queens ultimately made the difference. www.people.virginia.edu/~fgt4w/iloveoov1.repwww.people.virginia.edu/~fgt4w/iloveoov2.rep (better queen usage) (yes, i know he wasnt trying, and yes, im sure it was the real iloveoov, verified by many koreans, including zerglee who ive talked to and played with many times, and is on iloveoov's team, and also by ppl at ygclan.com, and a few kinda well known koreans around at the time i played him)
KickDog..
These replays proved absolutely nothing. Reasons given below
Replay #1: You won this game because you harassed the shit out of him with lurkers. You would have won the game anyway REGARDLESS IF YOU HAD MADE QUEENS OR NOT. Queens did not change the outcome of the game AT ALL. You won the game already before the queen did anything.
Replay #2: You won the game because you harassed the shit out of him with lurkers again. However, this time the queen does come into play more as you stole his command centers.
However, did I ever complain that command center infestation is underpowered? NEVER.
This is an excellent example of underused vs underpowered. Infestation is underused, but I never ever said it was underpowered. I fully understand that infestation is underused, but not underpowered.
What I bitch at is Infested Terrans, Spawn Broodling, and Ensnare. These 2 spells and unit ARE UNDERUSED AND UNDERPOWERED. These 2 spells & the weakness of infested terrans are what make the queen suck.
How many times have you seen these spells changed the outcome of a game? Compare that with how many times you've seen a defiler changed the outcome of a game
|
the irony is so thick you could sell it at a garage sale as a futon
|
On July 08 2004 19:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Gol and turret would only do 50% : )
they would do 75% since they deal explosive damage.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 09 2004 06:42 sushiman wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 19:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Gol and turret would only do 50% : ) they would do 75% since they deal explosive damage.
Urgh, isn't mutalisks medium units, and doesn't turrets do 50% to them? T_T
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 20:17 WtF.Dondy wrote: FrozenArbiter, i watched the city reps AND he didn't use a single queen in all of them (i know he uses queens to show of two times in the rep pack on sg.com)sOoOoOoO, still waiting for a hint on usefull use of queens gogogogo 1:1 1+++ reps z queen vs tpz
Blah I have seen him use queens, try to find xellos vs sonic)black, ygclan is down temporarily though
Btw, Drone vs Crystal - was posted on this site I think, or http://www.teamareola.com
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2004 23:35 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 08 2004 22:39 88)KicKDoG wrote: hell i beat iloveoov 2-1, both games i won i used queens, and i used them VERY VERY VERY effectively in 1 game, and would have lost without the queens. so there ya go, 1 pro gamer replay in which queens ultimately made the difference. www.people.virginia.edu/~fgt4w/iloveoov1.repwww.people.virginia.edu/~fgt4w/iloveoov2.rep (better queen usage) (yes, i know he wasnt trying, and yes, im sure it was the real iloveoov, verified by many koreans, including zerglee who ive talked to and played with many times, and is on iloveoov's team, and also by ppl at ygclan.com, and a few kinda well known koreans around at the time i played him) KickDog.. These replays proved absolutely nothing. Reasons given below Replay #1: You won this game because you harassed the shit out of him with lurkers. You would have won the game anyway REGARDLESS IF YOU HAD MADE QUEENS OR NOT. Queens did not change the outcome of the game AT ALL. You won the game already before the queen did anything. Replay #2: You won the game because you harassed the shit out of him with lurkers again. However, this time the queen does come into play more as you stole his command centers. However, did I ever complain that command center infestation is underpowered? NEVER. This is an excellent example of underused vs underpowered. Infestation is underused, but I never ever said it was underpowered. I fully understand that infestation is underused, but not underpowered. What I bitch at is Infested Terrans, Spawn Broodling, and Ensnare. These 2 spells and unit ARE UNDERUSED AND UNDERPOWERED. These 2 spells & the weakness of infested terrans are what make the queen suck. How many times have you seen these spells changed the outcome of a game? Compare that with how many times you've seen a defiler changed the outcome of a game
You are just dumb, ensnare is fucking cost effective! I mean seriously, it's the most cost effective shit I've ever seen.. Kickdog/drone uses queens in like every serious game they play?
|
On July 09 2004 06:49 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 06:42 sushiman wrote: On July 08 2004 19:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Gol and turret would only do 50% : ) they would do 75% since they deal explosive damage. Urgh, isn't mutalisks medium units, and doesn't turrets do 50% to them? T_T
Mutalisks are considered small units.
Explosive damage deal 75% to medium units and 50% to small units. Then there's concussive that deal 50% to medium units and 25% to large units.
That's why scouts would be better as medium sized units. They have a strong air attack and the most hp of the 3 basic air units, but since mutalisks have a bouncing attack and wraiths can upgrade the extremely useful cloak ability, scouts aren't worth the high price and supply since they can't compensate for most anti-air attacks.
|
Milzo
France656 Posts
tfeign you're just being annoying now, you're not really listening to the good points that are made in response to your propositions.
Oh, and I don't know why you're fixating on infested terrans, they're just an added fun bonus, it's not a "real" unit (they can be present in only one mu), the queen is powerful without this whole deal of infesting command centers. Seriously, re-read your last post, it makes no sense, it feels like you just wanted to be pissed of and argue with everybody about what is most certainly a lost cause.
Peace.
|
how about broodlings, they are weaker than workers for god's sake
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 09 2004 08:35 sushiman wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 06:49 FrozenArbiter wrote: On July 09 2004 06:42 sushiman wrote: On July 08 2004 19:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Gol and turret would only do 50% : ) they would do 75% since they deal explosive damage. Urgh, isn't mutalisks medium units, and doesn't turrets do 50% to them? T_T Mutalisks are considered small units. Explosive damage deal 75% to medium units and 50% to small units. Then there's concussive that deal 50% to medium units and 25% to large units. That's why scouts would be better as medium sized units. They have a strong air attack and the most hp of the 3 basic air units, but since mutalisks have a bouncing attack and wraiths can upgrade the extremely useful cloak ability, scouts aren't worth the high price and supply since they can't compensate for most anti-air attacks.
Ohhhhh mutalisks are small
|
On July 09 2004 08:41 Milzo wrote:
tfeign you're just being annoying now, you're not really listening to the good points that are made in response to your propositions.
Oh, and I don't know why you're fixating on infested terrans, they're just an added fun bonus, it's not a "real" unit (they can be present in only one mu), the queen is powerful without this whole deal of infesting command centers. Seriously, re-read your last post, it makes no sense, it feels like you just wanted to be pissed of and argue with everybody about what is most certainly a lost cause.
Peace.
What the hell? What was the good point being made? I watched the 2 replays and the good point that was made was that infestation can be a useful spell. Did I not agree with his point? Both replays showed that infestation can be useful, and I agree -- what the hell do you want me to say?
When did I ever say that infestation sucks? So what exactly am I saying to you that's "not really listening to the good points that are made in response to your propositions." when my propositions NEVER even touched infestation in the first place? DID you read my post entirely and understand it??
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
Frozenarbiter,
It seems that you gave changed your mind because of the statement:
"I mean for fucks sake the queen costs the same as a muta, has the same hp as a muta and flies as fast as a muta. however one ensnare or one broodling is normally far more effective than the damage dealt by *one* muta."
My opinions:
1. Mutas are not supposed to be made in groups of 1, but in groups of 5+
2. Mutas can harass workers, queens can't
3. Mutas can kill buildings, queens can't
4. Mutas can attack any kind of unit, queens only broodling mechanicals
5. You can mass up mutas way before you can get queens with enough energy so that they can deal any real damage, which by that time you could have been attacked by the enemy multiple times without sufficient units to defend and/or counter
6. Mutas can defend your base from drops, especially in zvt mnm/bats drops, or zvp reaver/dt/zealot drops. Queens can't
7. Mutas can morph into guardians later on in the game when you need.
8. In zvt mutas will force terran to waste hundreds, if not thousands of minerals on turrets, bunkers, and leaving marines in their base as well as any of their expansions for a while, during that time you can mass expand. Queens will not make terrans waste money on these buidings
9. In zvp mutas will force the protoss player to waste hundreds, if not thousands of minerals on cannons around their base as well as any of their expansions. Queens will not make protoss players waste money on these buidings
10. Mutas will greatly delay any other opponent from expanding until they can get enough troops to defend their expo from muta harass. Queens will not delay them from expanding any time they want.
11. In zvz you need mutas MUCH MUCH more than you need queens. That's a no brainer
12. There are a lot more but I wont name them, like muta can attack air units, queens doesn't deal dmg to any air unit, muta will delay terrans from rushing you with mnms, queens can and etc. but I won't name them all
So the post does bring up a good point, as one of the reasons why queens very very rarely made is because a muta is generally much more cost-effective than a queen in every single matchups there is. That's why I've been suggesting lowering the energy cost for the queen spells
|
On July 09 2004 13:32 tfeign wrote: Frozenarbiter, It seems that you gave changed your mind because of the statement: "I mean for fucks sake the queen costs the same as a muta, has the same hp as a muta and flies as fast as a muta. however one ensnare or one broodling is normally far more effective than the damage dealt by *one* muta." My opinions: 1. Mutas are not supposed to be made in groups of 1, but in groups of 5+ 2. Mutas can harass workers, queens can't 3. Mutas can kill buildings, queens can't 4. Mutas can attack any kind of unit, queens only broodling mechanicals 5. You can mass up mutas way before you can get queens with enough energy so that they can deal any real damage, which by that time you could have been attacked by the enemy multiple times without sufficient units to defend and/or counter 6. Mutas can defend your base from drops, especially in zvt mnm/bats drops, or zvp reaver/dt/zealot drops. Queens can't 7. Mutas can morph into guardians later on in the game when you need. 8. In zvt mutas will force terran to waste hundreds, if not thousands of minerals on turrets, bunkers, and leaving marines in their base as well as any of their expansions for a while, during that time you can mass expand. Queens will not make terrans waste money on these buidings 9. In zvp mutas will force the protoss player to waste hundreds, if not thousands of minerals on cannons around their base as well as any of their expansions. Queens will not make protoss players waste money on these buidings 10. Mutas will greatly delay any other opponent from expanding until they can get enough troops to defend their expo from muta harass. Queens will not delay them from expanding any time they want. 11. In zvz you need mutas MUCH MUCH more than you need queens. That's a no brainer 12. There are a lot more but I wont name them, like muta can attack air units, queens doesn't deal dmg to any air unit, muta will delay terrans from rushing you with mnms, queens can and etc. but I won't name them all So the post does bring up a good point, as one of the reasons why queens very very rarely made is because a muta is generally much more cost-effective than a queen in every single matchups there is. That's why I've been suggesting lowering the energy cost for the queen spells
Tfeign, just give up man, you are wrong and plenty of people have proved it.
I will formally counter-argue every point you've made here, queen vs muta.
' My opinions ' :
1. Queens are also not supposed to be made in groups of 1. Btw moron, one is not a group. You need at least 4-5 queens [ Just like you said 5+ mutas ] to: A. Survive long enough to cast shit 2. Have enough so waiting on mana is not a constant issue. 3. To make up for the resources you used to upgrade their spells.
2. Queens can't harass workers? Lolz, you have to be shitting me. Ever see ensnare on workers? Ensnare is in MOST cases better than mutas, why? Because one you get advantage financially, and if any units come to protect, your ensnare hits them too so at which point you can counter his front or do some other type of harass as it will take his units a long time to get somewhere else.
3. Since you want to be so god damn specific I will be too: Queens can't kill buildings? Uh, with 4-5 queens you can easily broodling enough workers to kill all peons which means that exp is useless. Not to mention that you can ' infest ' which is BETTER than destroying the CC.
4. Queens can ensnare any type of unit, can broodling non-robotic ground units, AND can parasite Mutas can only attack, ever look at it that way?
5. True, You CAN mass up mutas way before queens have energy, because think about it, unless you're a retard who the hell goes queens nest before mutas if your plan is to have mutes as your main force.
Next, your arguement about not having enough units to defend/and or counter is completely wrong. Queens cost nothing mineral-wise, and as you said yourself you don't need/get as many queens as you get mutes so therefore, sunks and lings can be made, which is adequate enough to hold off any counter.
6. True, mutas can defend your base from drops. False what you said about queens. Your definition of defense is very vague. If terran comes with double tank drop or just gols and tanks, you broodling them = You defended your base AND now you have harass units. If toss or zerg drops you can ensnare which is also a type of ' Defense ' if you deny this then you're also denying that d-matrix which is also a spell is not ' Defense ' Idk about you but even if I know I am going to lose, I'd rather fight ensnared units than non-ensnared ones.
7. Um, queens usefullness is 100% from the moment you have them. So tell me if that's worse than having to get/wait for greater spire for something that will most likely die because by that time it's late game and guard just gets pwned too easily nowadays.
8 + 9. Yeah man you're so right on these two, I mean I've never EVER seen anyone get turrets against queens. I mean they're just queens right? All they do is broodling tanks on cliffs so cracks can go through and rape everything.
10. Again, queens can ensnare the worker going on the way to expand and you'll have enough time for a ling to come and clean it up, either that or parasite it or broodling it ' If possible '
11. Um..... ZvZ? Air vs Air, Ensnare + Scourge + less mutas is better than Mutas+scourge. Hydra vs muta, ensnare hydras and counter his main?
12. Yeah all these points I already covered.
Mutas more cost effective than a queen in every single matchup? Don't think so.
|
tfeign, why do you still insist that every unit must have the same impact in every game?
theres a reason why zerglings aren't always as good as ults, and theres a reason why queens/darkarchons aren't always as good as defilers/temps. give it up and stop whining like a little child
|
Milzo
France656 Posts
On July 09 2004 10:38 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 08:41 Milzo wrote:
tfeign you're just being annoying now, you're not really listening to the good points that are made in response to your propositions.
Oh, and I don't know why you're fixating on infested terrans, they're just an added fun bonus, it's not a "real" unit (they can be present in only one mu), the queen is powerful without this whole deal of infesting command centers. Seriously, re-read your last post, it makes no sense, it feels like you just wanted to be pissed of and argue with everybody about what is most certainly a lost cause.
Peace. What the hell? What was the good point being made? I watched the 2 replays and the good point that was made was that infestation can be a useful spell. Did I not agree with his point? Both replays showed that infestation can be useful, and I agree -- what the hell do you want me to say? When did I ever say that infestation sucks? So what exactly am I saying to you that's "not really listening to the good points that are made in response to your propositions." when my propositions NEVER even touched infestation in the first place? DID you read my post entirely and understand it??
I'm talking in general about the power of queens. It's a very good unit as it is, with or without infestation. I can't believe you're having this whole argument about infestation and infested terrans. It's so uninteresting.
On the whole discussion, I think you raise some good points but the balance between races is the most important thing in SC. It has been achieved so I believe that it would be dangerous to try to change some units since that could lead to unbalance between races.
|
PvZ balance could definitely use some work my friend, lurk ridge and lurk contains aren't coolio in my book
|
On July 08 2004 21:57 Hoops wrote:
Get 1-2 queens and ensnare the terran army when it starts to move out. Terran will most likely just stop and not risk getting flanked. If they do move you can flank them. Queens work very well against m&m. They also work on speed lots if you catch them massing in groups before attacking. They are also and ESSENTIAL unit on ISLANDS.
DAs vs ultra ling. Try it out. I have no idea why more tos players don't use it against people who get ultras off 4 gas (anymore than that and zerg is probally just gonna run all over you either way). Archons without shield upgrades really aren't that powerful vs fully upgraded ultras, temps don't do enough other than kill lings.
Let me say this one last time. Queens have an IMPORTANT use for the zerg army. They will NEVER be as effective as defilars and they never were intended to be. Temps and DAs just were NEVER ever ever made for you to have to choose one or the other. They have totaly differnt uses in the game.
Don't think of the units like frozenarbitor said. Think of them as possisional units. Temps are useful vs hydras, all pvp battles, and in some pvt battles early-mid game. Archons are useful vs mutas, m&m if you even get in that possition, they can be used in pvp. DAs are good vs ultras ling and can be used in special cases in other matchups though aren't really a good choice imo (feedback vs temps or mind control in any case because of lack of mobility).
tfein it appears to me that you just avoid some good points made by other people. this is just one good post. i want to know what is your response to it.
|
oh,he has countered it, because these units haven't affected the outcome of the game as much as defilers, so therefore they suck. see?? it makes perfect sense please read next time
|
Milzo
France656 Posts
On July 09 2004 14:16 RuGbUg wrote:
PvZ balance could definitely use some work my friend, lurk ridge and lurk contains aren't coolio in my book
Use DAs to MC the lurkers?
|
On July 07 2004 14:58 tfeign wrote:
Queen: WAY underused unit, and rightfully so because queens suck ass for their cost-effectiveness.
followed by you saying
On July 08 2004 23:35 tfeign wrote:KickDog..
These replays proved absolutely nothing.
followed by you saying:
On July 08 2004 23:35 tfeign wrote:
What I bitch at is Infested Terrans, Spawn Broodling, and Ensnare. These 2 spells and unit ARE UNDERUSED AND UNDERPOWERED. These 2 spells & the weakness of infested terrans are what make the queen suck.
Ummm... my replays proved that queens are "cost-effective" you originally said that your complaint is that queens are NOT cost effective. therefore, this replay proves something.
Also, you admitted queens changed the outcome of the game in that game with me infesting cc's, which proves you wrong saying queens suck, but you tell me i prove nothing?
and btw, i never said BOTH games had queens changing the outcomes, i said ONE game the queen changed the outcome. then u got an attitude and tried to get back at me by saying queens didnt make a difference in the first game. ummm... its implied that queens didnt make the difference in both games when i specifically said that queens made the difference in ONE of the games.
plz think before responding this time, and ill forgive you for the lack of intelligence in your first response.
|
As shown here, you will get owned by the sane TL community, therefore, quit bitching and try to contribute useful things here, otherwise go whine somewhere else.
|
i still think 20 hp scourges are a wonderful idea...
|
so that takes care of your balance issues with that unit having no purpose. it has a purpose, and its just underused, so theres no balance issue there. unless you want to complain about how there are things that are completely useless such as spells, upgrades, etc. Well, say you lowered the cost of broodling or ensnare and made infested terrans more powerful. then the queen has 905843905834 uses and would be WAY imbalanced in favor of zerg, because queens already OWN. not my fault pros dont understand that yet. and if you are simply mad that there things in sc that arent worth their money, such as ensnare (even tho i believe its worth it), then why dont you also complain about worthless things like overlord sight upgrade? or scout sight upgrade? or wraith energy limit upgrade? all worthless, but WHO CARES? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. the easiest way to get rid of worthless things such as those is to simply remove them from the game, but NOBODY CARES about them, so why bother spending the time? and if you say they should make changes to make every spell, upgrade, etc useful, then ur asking for SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Much time to make them useful, and then make all these other changes to maintain the great balance bw has now, and NOBODY is willing to do that much work, especially blizzard on a game this old.
so... any other complaints about queens?
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
uhhm, FrozenArbiter, i was searching for Sonic vs Xellos though, there's no such rep on ygclan, and also... i may have expressed myself badly when i meant something like: "queens are crap "
i actually meant the queens broodling cost and the not lowering of the cooldown of ensnare, are crap
i didn't watch the rep of drone, as it's 1.10 (and i'm too lazy right now, sorry :D) but i'm pretty sure he used mostly ensnare on the mutas?
which is ok with hydras and scourge
btw. the thing with the workers is a pretty neat idea! the economy reduced to half instantly! nice idea
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 09 2004 14:16 RuGbUg wrote:
PvZ balance could definitely use some work my friend, lurk ridge and lurk contains aren't coolio in my book
1) Play non LT/WCG maps
or
2) Get gosu timing. Timing is 99% PvZ on LT
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 09 2004 15:30 WtF.Dondy wrote: uhhm, FrozenArbiter, i was searching for Sonic vs Xellos though, there's no such rep on ygclan, and also... i may have expressed myself badly when i meant something like: "queens are crap " i actually meant the queens broodling cost and the not lowering of the cooldown of ensnare, are crap i didn't watch the rep of drone, as it's 1.10 (and i'm too lazy right now, sorry :D) but i'm pretty sure he used mostly ensnare on the mutas? which is ok with hydras and scourge btw. the thing with the workers is a pretty neat idea! the economy reduced to half instantly! nice idea
Search Sonic)Black
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
On July 09 2004 16:33 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 14:16 RuGbUg wrote:
PvZ balance could definitely use some work my friend, lurk ridge and lurk contains aren't coolio in my book 1) Play non LT/WCG maps or 2) Get gosu timing. Timing is 99% PvZ on LT you're assuming i dont have perfect timing, which I do. I am better than any toss you have EVER SEEN
|
oh, sorry frozen arbiter, it was on page 2! didn't know there was more pages this very tiny arrow and the bunch of ????? didn't seem like that, but now i know, thanks
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Actually it was on the bottom of page 1 for me
|
Best toss on neogamei is 22nd. Why are you so asured that SC is perfectly ballanced?
|
There is a PvZ professional gamer final, that's why.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Neogamei is 99% LT.
There are more good korean Zergs and Terrans (Terrans because of Boxer etc, Zerg because there has always been a lot of zerg players in korea) as well -_-;
OGN:
Grrr has won 1
Garimto 2
Reach 1, final of a 2nd one now
Nal_ra 1
Kingdom 1
Boxer has won 2
Nada has won 1
Xellos has won 1
Sync has won 1
Freemura won Tooniverse Starleague (Pre-OGN)
As you can see, not a single Zerg has won OGN -.-
If you take MBC/KPGA you have Nada with like 4 wins, OOv with 2 I think, Boxer one, Yellow one, Nal_ra one~~~~
WCG =
Gorush
Boxer
Boxer
Ogogo
It's all about the maps ~~~~~~~~
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
Queens as they are are perfect. Scrouge could actually use more armor to allow them some use on islands. As they are once the enamy has a good size air force scourge can't touch anything.
PvZ is all about the maps. Stop playing temple and understand that, other wise get over it.
|
i dont understand why editing an unit it has to change the outcome of game..making them monsters....xD the game is already toooo balanced
|
On July 09 2004 18:40 Hoops wrote:
Queens as they are are perfect. Scrouge could actually use more armor to allow them some use on islands. As they are once the enamy has a good size air force scourge can't touch anything.
PvZ is all about the maps. Stop playing temple and understand that, other wise get over it. why should it be about maps? why not make an attempt to weaken pvz on isladns and strengthen it on land?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 09 2004 16:49 RuGbUg wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 16:33 FrozenArbiter wrote: On July 09 2004 14:16 RuGbUg wrote:
PvZ balance could definitely use some work my friend, lurk ridge and lurk contains aren't coolio in my book 1) Play non LT/WCG maps or 2) Get gosu timing. Timing is 99% PvZ on LT you're assuming i dont have perfect timing, which I do. I am better than any toss you have EVER SEEN
Oh so that's why you complain about PvZ??
If you have good timing you'll win a big enough share of your PvZ LT games ~____________~;
Btw, 'it's all about the maps' doesn't mean land/island. It means Temple or.. OTHER MAPS?!?
Guillotine, Namja, Gaema Gowon, Nostalgia, Mercury, requiem.. The list goes on, and on, and on
Oh and yes I know that was sarcasm -,-
|
On July 09 2004 13:54 Abyss_Bahamut wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 13:32 tfeign wrote: Frozenarbiter, It seems that you gave changed your mind because of the statement: "I mean for fucks sake the queen costs the same as a muta, has the same hp as a muta and flies as fast as a muta. however one ensnare or one broodling is normally far more effective than the damage dealt by *one* muta." My opinions: 1. Mutas are not supposed to be made in groups of 1, but in groups of 5+ 2. Mutas can harass workers, queens can't 3. Mutas can kill buildings, queens can't 4. Mutas can attack any kind of unit, queens only broodling mechanicals 5. You can mass up mutas way before you can get queens with enough energy so that they can deal any real damage, which by that time you could have been attacked by the enemy multiple times without sufficient units to defend and/or counter 6. Mutas can defend your base from drops, especially in zvt mnm/bats drops, or zvp reaver/dt/zealot drops. Queens can't 7. Mutas can morph into guardians later on in the game when you need. 8. In zvt mutas will force terran to waste hundreds, if not thousands of minerals on turrets, bunkers, and leaving marines in their base as well as any of their expansions for a while, during that time you can mass expand. Queens will not make terrans waste money on these buidings 9. In zvp mutas will force the protoss player to waste hundreds, if not thousands of minerals on cannons around their base as well as any of their expansions. Queens will not make protoss players waste money on these buidings 10. Mutas will greatly delay any other opponent from expanding until they can get enough troops to defend their expo from muta harass. Queens will not delay them from expanding any time they want. 11. In zvz you need mutas MUCH MUCH more than you need queens. That's a no brainer 12. There are a lot more but I wont name them, like muta can attack air units, queens doesn't deal dmg to any air unit, muta will delay terrans from rushing you with mnms, queens can and etc. but I won't name them all So the post does bring up a good point, as one of the reasons why queens very very rarely made is because a muta is generally much more cost-effective than a queen in every single matchups there is. That's why I've been suggesting lowering the energy cost for the queen spells Tfeign, just give up man, you are wrong and plenty of people have proved it. I will formally counter-argue every point you've made here, queen vs muta. ' My opinions ' : 1. Queens are also not supposed to be made in groups of 1. Btw moron, one is not a group. You need at least 4-5 queens [ Just like you said 5+ mutas ] to: A. Survive long enough to cast shit 2. Have enough so waiting on mana is not a constant issue. 3. To make up for the resources you used to upgrade their spells. 2. Queens can't harass workers? Lolz, you have to be shitting me. Ever see ensnare on workers? Ensnare is in MOST cases better than mutas, why? Because one you get advantage financially, and if any units come to protect, your ensnare hits them too so at which point you can counter his front or do some other type of harass as it will take his units a long time to get somewhere else. 3. Since you want to be so god damn specific I will be too: Queens can't kill buildings? Uh, with 4-5 queens you can easily broodling enough workers to kill all peons which means that exp is useless. Not to mention that you can ' infest ' which is BETTER than destroying the CC. 4. Queens can ensnare any type of unit, can broodling non-robotic ground units, AND can parasite Mutas can only attack, ever look at it that way? 5. True, You CAN mass up mutas way before queens have energy, because think about it, unless you're a retard who the hell goes queens nest before mutas if your plan is to have mutes as your main force. Next, your arguement about not having enough units to defend/and or counter is completely wrong. Queens cost nothing mineral-wise, and as you said yourself you don't need/get as many queens as you get mutes so therefore, sunks and lings can be made, which is adequate enough to hold off any counter. 6. True, mutas can defend your base from drops. False what you said about queens. Your definition of defense is very vague. If terran comes with double tank drop or just gols and tanks, you broodling them = You defended your base AND now you have harass units. If toss or zerg drops you can ensnare which is also a type of ' Defense ' if you deny this then you're also denying that d-matrix which is also a spell is not ' Defense ' Idk about you but even if I know I am going to lose, I'd rather fight ensnared units than non-ensnared ones. 7. Um, queens usefullness is 100% from the moment you have them. So tell me if that's worse than having to get/wait for greater spire for something that will most likely die because by that time it's late game and guard just gets pwned too easily nowadays. 8 + 9. Yeah man you're so right on these two, I mean I've never EVER seen anyone get turrets against queens. I mean they're just queens right? All they do is broodling tanks on cliffs so cracks can go through and rape everything. 10. Again, queens can ensnare the worker going on the way to expand and you'll have enough time for a ling to come and clean it up, either that or parasite it or broodling it ' If possible ' 11. Um..... ZvZ? Air vs Air, Ensnare + Scourge + less mutas is better than Mutas+scourge. Hydra vs muta, ensnare hydras and counter his main? 12. Yeah all these points I already covered. Mutas more cost effective than a queen in every single matchup? Don't think so.
LMFAO!! Hey I haven't visited this topic in a while and I hate to bump this, but seriously this is the most newbish and ignorant shit I think I have read in my entire time of going to TL.net
Queens can't harass workers? Lolz, you have to be shitting me. Ever see ensnare on workers? Ensnare is in MOST cases better than mutas, why? Because one you get advantage financially, and if any units come to protect, your ensnare hits them too so at which point you can counter his front or do some other type of harass as it will take his units a long time to get somewhere else.
LMFAO!!! Ensnaring workers is better than mutas harass. hahahaha even doing nothing at all is better than wasting your resources ensnaring workers. ROFL. Seriously, can you believe it? Anyone who thinks that ensnaring workers is an effective strategy should not be arguing in this topic, let alone someone who thinks that ensnaring workers is more effective than muta harass, who should just be shot.
Since you want to be so god damn specific I will be too: Queens can't kill buildings? Uh, with 4-5 queens you can easily broodling enough workers to kill all peons which means that exp is useless.
HAHAHAHAHAH (yes! I'm really laughing as I am typing this). Broodling peons is a good strategy LMAO. Next time you all know what to do when your opponent is expanding, thanks to Abyss_Bahamut.
This is the same guy who thinks that mutas are useless until greater spire.
ROFL, seriously read the rest of his post. I literally fell off my chair while I was reading. You know someone is running out of reasons to argue when they make a post like Abyss_Bahamut. I don't want to flame you alot, but seriously I think after reading that post my Starcraft IQ level has dropped down significantly.
|
yea queens ensnaring workers is very ineffective. workers spend most of their time at the patch, mining it. ensnare doesn't affect the speed at which it does that. ensnare only effects its movement, which the worker spends very little time doing when mining. most of the time is spent just working on the patch.
|
lol that's not even counting the ensnare research cost, the time and micro it takes, the cost to make the queen, the time need until it gets enough energy, the 75 energy wasted to ensnare. I'm serious when I say doing nothing is more effective than wasting your resources on ensnaring workers.
Want a more effective strategy ? Making sure that all your drones go right to mining right away once they are built is 1000x more effective than ensnaring your opponent's workers with queens.
|
about "the time it takes to micro it". defilers take MUCH more time to micro. queens u simply fly to where u want it, and cast the spell. defilers are harder to get around in many situations because they are ground units and move more slowly, and you have to spend a lot of time doing that thing to get energy, and defilers are later in the game units. if you built a queen right after u get queens den, And started on hive at same time, then started defiler mound right when hive finishes, then upgraded that energy thing right when mound finishes, your queens will have 200/200 energy =/
|
and ensnare is good if used correctly. same with defiler spells. people know where to use defilers nowadays, but most people dont understand how to use queens to their full effectiveness. id say its easier to use queens effectively than it is defilers, once you understand and are used to playing with both.
|
and u dont hear me arguing that mutas >>>>>> defilers cuz u cant harass and kill a base with defilers and theres no reason to go mass defilers. queens and filers are both units that should be used sparingly, as part of a larger attacking unit army
|
Yeah but it will make him angry and he will start typing explaining like you that it is ineffective
edit: talking about ensnaring workers
|
I have red till the part of scouts.
LoL
with speed scouts right at the beginning and that ground damage pvz would be soooooooooo easy.
build 2 scouts and you could harras without and ending.
I mean he will probably have hydras without speed upgrade at this time, that would be extremely unfair.
|
build 2 scouts and you could harras without and ending.
1 Spore Colony >> 2 scouts.
2 scouts costs more resources to make than making a full expansion complete with cannons to support it.
And 88)WhyYouKickMyDog if you read correctly, the point is that wasting your micro and time to ensnare workers is not worth it. What the hell does a defiler has to do with anything? Yes, defilers take more time to micro and that's fine because their spells are more effective but so what? What does that have to do with the fact that the time + micro + costs it takes for a queen to ensnare workers is not even as effective as doing nothing at all?
And seriously anyone (and in this case it most likely means 1 person) who thinks that ensnaring workers is more effective than muta harass (AKA Abyss_bahamut) should just be shot.
|
On July 09 2004 20:38 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 09 2004 16:49 RuGbUg wrote: On July 09 2004 16:33 FrozenArbiter wrote: On July 09 2004 14:16 RuGbUg wrote:
PvZ balance could definitely use some work my friend, lurk ridge and lurk contains aren't coolio in my book 1) Play non LT/WCG maps or 2) Get gosu timing. Timing is 99% PvZ on LT you're assuming i dont have perfect timing, which I do. I am better than any toss you have EVER SEEN Oh so that's why you complain about PvZ?? If you have good timing you'll win a big enough share of your PvZ LT games ~____________~; Btw, 'it's all about the maps' doesn't mean land/island. It means Temple or.. OTHER MAPS?!? Guillotine, Namja, Gaema Gowon, Nostalgia, Mercury, requiem.. The list goes on, and on, and on Oh and yes I know that was sarcasm -,- Oh, but I DO play other maps, and I DO win a DEFINITE fair share of pvz on LT. but for my amazing skill level i feel as if i shouldn't lose period, because my mastery of this matchup is unrivaled on this earth. therefore i think pvz is unbalanced; i mean once you reach the level I have, losing should not be an option.
|
On July 16 2004 14:58 tfeign wrote: 1 Spore Colony >> 2 scouts. 2 scouts costs more resources to make than making a full expansion complete with cannons to support it. And 88)WhyYouKickMyDog if you read correctly, the point is that wasting your micro and time to ensnare workers is not worth it. What the hell does a defiler has to do with anything? Yes, defilers take more time to micro and that's fine because their spells are more effective but so what? What does that have to do with the fact that the time + micro + costs it takes for a queen to ensnare workers is not even as effective as doing nothing at all? And seriously anyone (and in this case it most likely means 1 person) who thinks that ensnaring workers is more effective than muta harass (AKA Abyss_bahamut) should just be shot. Just because idiots don't know how to use queens doesn't mean they aren't effective.
On July 09 2004 14:12 RuGbUg wrote:
tfeign, why do you still insist that every unit must have the same impact in every game?
theres a reason why zerglings aren't always as good as ults, and theres a reason why queens/darkarchons aren't always as good as defilers/temps. give it up and stop whining like a little child
|
well but it is hard to have spore colonies everywhere and 2 scouts with so many grounddamage can kill drones in no time.
|
On July 16 2004 14:58 tfeign wrote: 1 Spore Colony >> 2 scouts. 2 scouts costs more resources to make than making a full expansion complete with cannons to support it. And 88)WhyYouKickMyDog if you read correctly, the point is that wasting your micro and time to ensnare workers is not worth it. What the hell does a defiler has to do with anything? Yes, defilers take more time to micro and that's fine because their spells are more effective but so what? What does that have to do with the fact that the time + micro + costs it takes for a queen to ensnare workers is not even as effective as doing nothing at all? And seriously anyone (and in this case it most likely means 1 person) who thinks that ensnaring workers is more effective than muta harass (AKA Abyss_bahamut) should just be shot.
i wasnt responding to JUST your post about the ensnaring workers, but a lot of your other posts. all my points disprove a LOT of the different things you were saying. and i already said i agree that ensnaring workers is retarded.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I just used queens on zvt today and man were they useful. Guy went 2 fact tanks and I managed to broodling them all. Then run in with hydra/lurk/defiler.
I think if we made the broodling energy at 100 it would work incredible wonders for zerg.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 16 2004 13:33 88)WhyYouKickMyDog wrote:
and u dont hear me arguing that mutas >>>>>> defilers cuz u cant harass and kill a base with defilers and theres no reason to go mass defilers. queens and filers are both units that should be used sparingly, as part of a larger attacking unit army
Actually if they are terran you plague all their buildings making them burn down ;D
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On July 16 2004 16:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On July 16 2004 13:33 88)WhyYouKickMyDog wrote:
and u dont hear me arguing that mutas >>>>>> defilers cuz u cant harass and kill a base with defilers and theres no reason to go mass defilers. queens and filers are both units that should be used sparingly, as part of a larger attacking unit army Actually if they are terran you plague all their buildings making them burn down ;D
Plague is better worth using on marines and vessels then 3-4 supply depots.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 16 2004 16:53 Tien wrote: Show nested quote +On July 16 2004 16:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: On July 16 2004 13:33 88)WhyYouKickMyDog wrote:
and u dont hear me arguing that mutas >>>>>> defilers cuz u cant harass and kill a base with defilers and theres no reason to go mass defilers. queens and filers are both units that should be used sparingly, as part of a larger attacking unit army Actually if they are terran you plague all their buildings making them burn down ;D Plague is better worth using on marines and vessels then 3-4 supply depots.
Was nitpicking :D
|
LMFAO!! Hey I haven't visited this topic in a while and I hate to bump this, but seriously this is the most newbish and ignorant shit I think I have read in my entire time of going to TL.net Show nested quote +Queens can't harass workers? Lolz, you have to be shitting me. Ever see ensnare on workers? Ensnare is in MOST cases better than mutas, why? Because one you get advantage financially, and if any units come to protect, your ensnare hits them too so at which point you can counter his front or do some other type of harass as it will take his units a long time to get somewhere else. LMFAO!!! Ensnaring workers is better than mutas harass. hahahaha even doing nothing at all is better than wasting your resources ensnaring workers. ROFL. Seriously, can you believe it? Anyone who thinks that ensnaring workers is an effective strategy should not be arguing in this topic, let alone someone who thinks that ensnaring workers is more effective than muta harass, who should just be shot. Show nested quote +Since you want to be so god damn specific I will be too: Queens can't kill buildings? Uh, with 4-5 queens you can easily broodling enough workers to kill all peons which means that exp is useless. HAHAHAHAHAH (yes! I'm really laughing as I am typing this). Broodling peons is a good strategy LMAO. Next time you all know what to do when your opponent is expanding, thanks to Abyss_Bahamut. This is the same guy who thinks that mutas are useless until greater spire. ROFL, seriously read the rest of his post. I literally fell off my chair while I was reading. You know someone is running out of reasons to argue when they make a post like Abyss_Bahamut. I don't want to flame you alot, but seriously I think after reading that post my Starcraft IQ level has dropped down significantly.
|
Pft, i think spellcasters general purpose is to support. Not to win the game by their own strength. Let's leave that as it is. If you still want these changes, make a UMS of the map and edit it or something, because SC is fine how it is.
|
oh btw, scout would be more used in SC than BW, due to lack of corsairs.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
2 scouts = 550/250
nexus/assimilator/pylon/cannon/cannon = 900
expansion costs more =/
|
Yea I was just thinking he couldn't add or something. =/
|
On July 17 2004 13:28 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
2 scouts = 550/250
nexus/assimilator/pylon/cannon/cannon = 900
expansion costs more =/
The widely accepted gas/mineral conversion in pvz is 1gas = 2minerals (gas is extremely important in pvz)
Even is you go at the 1gas=1.5minerals conversion (which is a pvt / pvp conversion), it still costs more
Do the math.
|
wow, I definitely thought this topic was dead. I personally think that people who love queens as I do should just use them. then if you do well with them, it will eventually catch on. Many people were inspired by just one man's queen work.. Tsunami, he used them and inspired many others.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 17 2004 15:07 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 17 2004 13:28 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
2 scouts = 550/250
nexus/assimilator/pylon/cannon/cannon = 900
expansion costs more =/ The widely accepted gas/mineral conversion in pvz is 1gas = 2minerals (gas is extremely important in pvz) Even is you go at the 1gas=1.5minerals conversion (which is a pvt / pvp conversion), it still costs more Do the math.
Lol never heard that before.. Widely accepted, eh? It's probably not far off but never heard it mentioned before (well maybe once or twice)
|
On July 07 2004 15:09 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 15:04 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
basically you're suggesting taking units that aren't amazing and turning them into monsters. Would make the game very imbalanced. Wrong. I'm suggesting taking units that aren't amazing and balance them. Again, please tell me how many times have you seen hallucinations, nukes, and scouts changed the outcome of a game? Why do you think they are underused? Because they are cost-ineffective. That's why for example you will see a high templar chosen over a dark archon 99.9% of the time
Nukes are fine i use them all the time.
Making a DarkArchon cheaper wont make people want to use it, enless it can like effectivly kill things, maelstorm is kinda like Stasis feild Arbiter >>>>> DA As for scout...
Scout Ground attack Air attack
8 28
Wraith 8 20
nobody uses a scout as much because it takes so freakin long to make. 80 seconds as opposed to the wraith 60 or the mutalisk 40, how ever it is stronger then those units, so it is balanced
T.t
|
Russian Federation1020 Posts
80 seconds? or 80 units of time?
|
probably units of time, i just asked people on msn because reading his post is disturbing, plus the fact that we are lucky we got 1.11 patch that DOES nothing useful that only took a year?
|
why is tfeign still arguing?
hes not even arguing his point anymore, he's just arguing to try to be right
On July 17 2004 15:07 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 17 2004 13:28 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
2 scouts = 550/250
nexus/assimilator/pylon/cannon/cannon = 900
expansion costs more =/ The widely accepted gas/mineral conversion in pvz is 1gas = 2minerals (gas is extremely important in pvz) Even is you go at the 1gas=1.5minerals conversion (which is a pvt / pvp conversion), it still costs more Do the math.
|
On July 17 2004 19:34 RuGbUg wrote: why is tfeign still arguing? hes not even arguing his point anymore, he's just arguing to try to be right Show nested quote +On July 17 2004 15:07 tfeign wrote: On July 17 2004 13:28 Rt-S.FakeSteve wrote:
2 scouts = 550/250
nexus/assimilator/pylon/cannon/cannon = 900
expansion costs more =/ The widely accepted gas/mineral conversion in pvz is 1gas = 2minerals (gas is extremely important in pvz) Even is you go at the 1gas=1.5minerals conversion (which is a pvt / pvp conversion), it still costs more Do the math.
Of course I am trying to argue my point. Wtf am I trying to argue then? Someone brings up that +4 to scout air-to-ground damage would be imbalanced toward zerg (2 scout rush). Hell no. 2 scout rush costs more resources than a full expansion with gas and cannon support, and even 1 spore colony > 2 scouts.
|
I think some of these changes are good. Im sick and tired of seeing BW played the same way. Gotta change a couple of these things once in a while. Mix it up a bit. Everybody is using the same god damn strategy every single game. Its starting to get boring. I dont see how progamers can play 50 000 games and not get bored, especially when they keep doing the same thing. TvP has not changed for like years now...
Have you tried playing other maps? The game is 10x better when you play maps other than LT and Hunts. For example: Testie going forge before gate and getting +1 atk on korhal. would you ever see that strat on another map? Programers play 50,000 games and not get bored because they play incredibly skilled players that have different strategies for different maps.
I think Blizzard should put their efforts into making the sequel instead of balancing a 7 year old game that is the most successful RTS ever.
Word.
All the units in the game are find except for DA's and queens. They all serve their purposes when the time comes. Queens aren't bad at all though. Ever try ensnaring rines/sairs/mutas? I'm baffled why more players don't use queens. Spawn broodling should be 100 instead of 125 and maelstrom should be 75 instead of 100. Those are the only two changes that would make the game that much better.
Infested Terrans - i'm not sure if the big issue about infesting a command center is the inf. terrans themselves, or the fact that you kill one of their buildings by damaging it only 50%. Doesn't plague + a few mutes damage a CC enough for a queen to infest it?
|
How about some makes a map with all these changes so we can test out how messed up the game would be (or how much greater)?
I'd be down to make some maps. We just need to settle on the ideas of which changes should be made.
|
Thought of that before, but there really is no use. No one would play on these maps. It will mostly be a waste of time at most. The only hope is Blizzard.
The thing with Blizzard is that they tend to not fix what's not complained about. People complain most when there are big abuses. For example, when lurkers died to 1 storm, people complained and Blizzard patched to fix that.
But on the other hand, for example, you would not normally hear complaints about infested terrans being too weak. People generally only complain about things that are overpowered. People don't generally complain too much about things that are underpowered - not nearly to the extent that they should be. This is understandable. Because if something is overpowered, it will be abused and piss off alot of players, leading to many complaints. If something is underpowered, it doesn't lead to abuses and it doesn't lead to many complaints from players.
That's why SC is left with many underused and underpowered spells. It's not just Starcraft. It's WC3 as well. W3 has literally tons of heroes and spells that are very underused and underpowered. That's why Blizzard's balance team is flawed. Not to sound arrogant or anything, but I do sincerely believe that I'm one of the most knowledgeable when it comes to balancing in a game. If I were to ever work in the balancing team at Blizzard I'll put anything on the line and promise that I'll balance the game to the point where everything is balanced, where spells and units are much more equally used, equally viable, resulting in a much more diverse number of interesting strategies, interesting games, and encourage much more thinking to the game instead of seeing the same things over and over.
|
just because some units are underused doesn't mean it is imbalanced. the balance blizzard is looking for is between the races, not between each unit.
|
I have discussed many times the difference between something that is underused (ex.=Command Center Infestation) and something that is underpowered (ex.=broodling). Read through it to understand more.
Also note that there are a lot more than just the ones listed in the title of the topic that I know are underpowered. Mostly they are the upgrades that doesn't worth the cost (overlord sight range for example). These upgrades should get a reduction in cost to the point where the player has to decide whether they should spend the money to get them or not.
|
if u blame the imblance on BW u better off shooting @ those wc3 players i am sure that makes them feel better ;p
|
Dark Archon is incredibly useful PvT, the mere thought of you getting DAs is enough to put the T player off Battlecruisers. The unit doesn't even appear, but it has a huge impact on the game.
|
I'm fine with some things being underpowered, e.g. Restoration is underpowered vs Protoss.
|
On September 13 2004 21:53 worst.player wrote:
How about some makes a map with all these changes so we can test out how messed up the game would be (or how much greater)?
I'd be down to make some maps. We just need to settle on the ideas of which changes should be made.
I made a map with all of tfiegns's changes.(exept for hallu 1.5x damage instead of 2x).
Haven't played that map too mutch(7 games or so). But one conclusion is:
Scouts are veeery good in pvt and pvz
Two scouts kills a drone with two bursts, so harassing with them is good.
Massing scouts is also a good idea, fast expanding and going mass scouts(with ups) is a real killer PvZ
|
On July 07 2004 15:09 Mindcrime wrote:
I suggest that we give hydras normal damage instead of explosive so that we will see them more in zvz! THEY ARE UNDERUSED! :D
ROFL
|
there could be some changes but not so drastic, these should be very slight coz now the game has come to a certain level of maturity and a drastic change (ie reduce any spell cost by 25) would have a too big impact on the pro scene. Starcraft is 99% balanced but still can be improved, even Julyzerg thinks there should be some minor balance changes.
|
The changes i would like to be done is:
Hydra hp 90
Scv cooldown raised
irradiate tech longer
protoss weapon upgrade longer
lurker burrow slightly faster
walkyrie hp raise to 220 (3 scourge needed)
observer hp raised by 10 or 20
archon morph time longer
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2004 01:19 Malmis wrote: Show nested quote +On September 13 2004 21:53 worst.player wrote:
How about some makes a map with all these changes so we can test out how messed up the game would be (or how much greater)?
I'd be down to make some maps. We just need to settle on the ideas of which changes should be made. I made a map with all of tfiegns's changes.(exept for hallu 1.5x damage instead of 2x). Haven't played that map too mutch(7 games or so). But one conclusion is: Scouts are veeery good in pvt and pvz Two scouts kills a drone with two bursts, so harassing with them is good. Massing scouts is also a good idea, fast expanding and going mass scouts(with ups) is a real killer PvZ
Yeah, mass scout beats 3 hatch hydra with upgrades :D
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2004 04:28 Travin wrote:
The changes i would like to be done is:
Hydra hp 90
Scv cooldown raised
irradiate tech longer
protoss weapon upgrade longer
lurker burrow slightly faster
walkyrie hp raise to 220 (3 scourge needed)
observer hp raised by 10 or 20
archon morph time longer
EINAR ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND???
Hydras are strong enough already -_-
SCV Cooldown.. possibly but uh even more vulnerable @ 12 vs 3 -.-
Irradiate tech longer.. Possibly but ZvT is damn balanced -_- Even though on pro levels I have heard complaints about irradiate so I guess -.-
PROTOSS WEAPON UPGRADE STAYS THE SAME THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Lurkers burrow god damn fast enough  !
Valkyrie --------------I dunno I think this would make island (not semi island) completely impossible for Z ;o
Observer, yeah sure why not :O! That'd be good but not neccessary -.-
ARCHON MORPH TIME LONGER???
No never. Especially with the hydra change that would suck a lot, seriously it would make PvZ really fucking hard early game-- And add to that the higher weapons upgrade time--
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I played a few PvZ's vs a friend of mine who decided to use queens.. Do you have any idea how fucking annoying it was?
He used the walls and cliffs to constantly parasite and brood my units. He just parasited my DA's then he kept well clear of them, I managed to get ONE (1) feedback in all game..
Whenever I would attack he'd brood my templars and ensnare my units, making his mass graded lings lethal together with sunks..
Anyone saying queens are underpowered = dumb!
Oh and just watch drones reps, or sonic)black or )is(City :/
|
scout boost, yamato 100, carrier cost more food, dark archon mealstorm 75, queen getting x2 energy healing rate or something maybe, and also turret 50 would be nice, rememeber they can ONLY hit air and they are damn weak too in zvz...1 spore can delay 8 muttas and even killing 1 for like 10 seconds...a turret will die in 2 seconds ; P althought spore cost 100 more minerals...
also ghost should start with their range upgrade so u can nuke right away and just have to upgrade lockdown if u go that or cloak if u go nuke =]
also make x2 on energy rate for ghost = ]
|
Sweden33719 Posts
ROFL I truly hope that was a joke :D GOD DAMN
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Btw spore is 75 + 50 + 50 (drone)
|
the only thing i'd like to see is irridiate change to 100 or even 125 energy.or change its dmg to 100 or so.
cuz..damn it kills evry z unit(except ultra) in 1 cast + splash dmg on ground and air for 75. that sucks.
if u have only 3-4 vessels in a game u'll have at least 12+ free kills.
OR make broodling to 75 energy too and see how t's whine if the same thing happens to them...
|
gopgo turret 50 minerals =))) so i can camp terr more
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2004 06:55 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
the only thing i'd like to see is irridiate change to 100 or even 125 energy.or change its dmg to 100 or so.
cuz..damn it kills evry z unit(except ultra) in 1 cast + splash dmg on ground and air for 75. that sucks.
if u have only 3-4 vessels in a game u'll have at least 12+ free kills.
OR make broodling to 75 energy too and see how t's whine if the same thing happens to them...
Remove mass kill spells and Z's will have a field day.
100 is way much, guardian rush would rape.
75 sounds about okay, maybe make it last for a shorter amount of time or deal less splash damage :O
|
come on Blozz made Mind Control, hallucination and Infested Terran mostly thinking of noobs...
Queen are still fine but DA and Scout should be upp.
DA as you mention Lower maelstrom to 75 energy and as a basic spell (seriously, nobody wants to waste 2DT and money for the maelstorm upp in the early or middle game)
And scout.... just get rid off it
tank/carr damage might change also be good thing
|
Sweden33719 Posts
It is a late game spell caster anyway --
DAs rock on islands, and late game PvZ -_-
Feedback is an awesome spell if zerg brings out defilers or queens which they are quite likely to do if you start dt + sairing : )
|
On September 14 2004 11:31 FrozenArbiter wrote:
It is a late game spell caster anyway --
DAs rock on islands, and late game PvZ -_-
Feedback is an awesome spell if zerg brings out defilers or queens which they are quite likely to do if you start dt + sairing : )
is not true that DA is only a late game spell. Giving DA mealstorm as a basic and 75 cost spell, would encourage more people to try DT against zerg. One of the problem with early DT + sairs is that its getting rape badly if your opponent goes mass muta + scorge, bc you wont have enough gas for sairs to protect you, but with DA mealstorm it should not be a problem anymore.
|
ALL buildings should have some way of showing whether or not a unit is being made and whether or not it is upgradings. It's frustrating that some buildings don't reveal this and it makes it a bit unfair. Like gateways or citadel speed upgrade.
|
Part of the problem with a lot of these suggestions is that, you don't need to use every unit to consider the game "balanced". The game is balanced, with Protoss at a slight disadvantage according to the statistics I've seen posted in other threads. When you say balanced, and the go on to explain your changes, what you're really saying is that some units are underused. Which is of course a separate thing from game balance. And every unit doesn't need to be used every game, they just need to be available to create a viable strategy. The tricky thing, is this depends on the players as well as the units, so if players aren't adept/creative enough to use them well, the unit doesn't necessarily need tweaking. So on this theory I continue my post:
Infested Terrans: These aren't intended for every game use. They are intended to be a fun unit, that if you get the opportunity to use well then great. Zerg already has enough harrassment and siege options, and so to those who would make this unit more available, stronger etc. it doesn't need to happen.
Queens: Broodling is already awesome, it doesn't need a mana reduction. A mana reduction would make it super abusable ZvP in particular. One thing I would change about queens, would be that you shouldn't be able to parasite archons: because you either keep it with your army and the Zerg player gets to know exactly what your army is doing, or you kill it/leave it at your base and you've wasted 300 gas. For 100 mana, either option is too powerful.
Dark Archons: I could see this being tweaked a bit. Keep maelstrom the same cost, but have maelstrom be the DA's first ability and make feedback trainable instead.
Scouts: Initially intended to counter Terran tanks and battlecruisers, it's tough to re-make its role in the Protoss army. Basically, you're not going to mass scouts vs. any ground unit and corsairs are better anti-air all-around. So, slightly lower cost, and inherent speed upgrade would make this unit reasonable but still not usable except in The Stove.
High Templars: Hallucinate is fine, when players (and they have already) come up with cool strategies with this spell, it's cool because it's hard to use and making this spell more available isn't necessary PvT is already balanced, and no immediate PvZ uses spring to mind. Storm killing lurkers in one hit I would be interested to see come back as it would make the lurker contain less effective, and Protoss players could more easily guard their cliffs from being lurkered. If Terran players get to kill lurkers with a one-hit spell (irradiate) why shouldn't Protoss, who are already at a disadvantage?
Sci Vessels: Terrans (as do Protoss) need free kills vs. Zerg.
In conclusion, part of what makes BW an interesting game is diversity of unit strengths, and having all units having around the same utility strength would make the game boring. When players pull off effective strategies using "weak" units, then it's really something to be awed of, and changing around the units would take that away. And do we really need to balance this game? All matchups are at about a 50% win/loss ratio.
PS: A lot of the suggestions with unit problems have already been solved by progamers.
|
Almost everything said was about spells, but there's still the most imbalanced unit in all the game: The damn vulture. For only 75 minerals, you have a thing that kills workers in 2 shots. You can have 3 local detectors. you can kill as many zealots (100) as your micro is able to. They're the fastest unit in all the game. They work for all ground protoss units. I think the damage should be reduced to 15 or so, and cost increased to 75+25 or 100+0, and mine research to 150/150 or 200/200.
Also a kind of splash damage of 70 in tanks is too hard. Maybe 50 + 4 per upgrade would be ok.
And the damn medics heal too fast, I think. It should be a bit slower.
Irradiate: increased to 100 and less splash damage.
Goliath ground and air range reduced by 1.
Ghost damage to normal but 8 or 9.
Wraith initial armor of 1.
Marine's stim pack cost 5 of not-healable life.
About protoss: Corsair fire rate slower.
Reaver scarab's damage upgrade cheaper. Maybe 150/150
Zealot shield/armor back to 80/80. That 100 armor with 1 for initial armor is too hard early in game.
Dragoon fire rate slightly improved, maybe through a research.
Shorter stasis field.
Longer maelstrom.
Zergs:
Burrow researched at lair, not hatchery.
Less lurker damage. Their strength is the ability to cloak, not the damage.
Scourge's life to 35 or 40.
Devourer's fire rate slightly increased, and armor decreased to 1.
Hydralisk's damage to 8 normal or so.
Zergling's life 40 and 4 initial damage, with +1 with adrenaline glands.
Defiler's plague cost 125.
Many changes, aren't they?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2004 21:21 Geval wrote: Show nested quote +On September 14 2004 11:31 FrozenArbiter wrote:
It is a late game spell caster anyway --
DAs rock on islands, and late game PvZ -_-
Feedback is an awesome spell if zerg brings out defilers or queens which they are quite likely to do if you start dt + sairing : ) is not true that DA is only a late game spell. Giving DA mealstorm as a basic and 75 cost spell, would encourage more people to try DT against zerg. One of the problem with early DT + sairs is that its getting rape badly if your opponent goes mass muta + scorge, bc you wont have enough gas for sairs to protect you, but with DA mealstorm it should not be a problem anymore.
You could also make defilers buildable from hatcheries if you like!!
If you 1 gate dt sair you should have enough gas for either archon or cannon templar -- And you are going cannons eitherway as the main goal of early sair dt is to get a fast expo -.-
Btw, have you not seen intotherain vs like isaac or something? He does what you said, pretty much, just fine with 100 mana mael --
75 would mean you can't muta harass at all anymore.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2004 23:51 A3iL3r0n wrote: Part of the problem with a lot of these suggestions is that, you don't need to use every unit to consider the game "balanced". The game is balanced, with Protoss at a slight disadvantage according to the statistics I've seen posted in other threads. When you say balanced, and the go on to explain your changes, what you're really saying is that some units are underused. Which is of course a separate thing from game balance. And every unit doesn't need to be used every game, they just need to be available to create a viable strategy. The tricky thing, is this depends on the players as well as the units, so if players aren't adept/creative enough to use them well, the unit doesn't necessarily need tweaking. So on this theory I continue my post: Infested Terrans: These aren't intended for every game use. They are intended to be a fun unit, that if you get the opportunity to use well then great. Zerg already has enough harrassment and siege options, and so to those who would make this unit more available, stronger etc. it doesn't need to happen. Queens: Broodling is already awesome, it doesn't need a mana reduction. A mana reduction would make it super abusable ZvP in particular. One thing I would change about queens, would be that you shouldn't be able to parasite archons: because you either keep it with your army and the Zerg player gets to know exactly what your army is doing, or you kill it/leave it at your base and you've wasted 300 gas. For 100 mana, either option is too powerful. Dark Archons: I could see this being tweaked a bit. Keep maelstrom the same cost, but have maelstrom be the DA's first ability and make feedback trainable instead. Scouts: Initially intended to counter Terran tanks and battlecruisers, it's tough to re-make its role in the Protoss army. Basically, you're not going to mass scouts vs. any ground unit and corsairs are better anti-air all-around. So, slightly lower cost, and inherent speed upgrade would make this unit reasonable but still not usable except in The Stove. High Templars: Hallucinate is fine, when players (and they have already) come up with cool strategies with this spell, it's cool because it's hard to use and making this spell more available isn't necessary PvT is already balanced, and no immediate PvZ uses spring to mind. Storm killing lurkers in one hit I would be interested to see come back as it would make the lurker contain less effective, and Protoss players could more easily guard their cliffs from being lurkered. If Terran players get to kill lurkers with a one-hit spell (irradiate) why shouldn't Protoss, who are already at a disadvantage? Sci Vessels: Terrans (as do Protoss) need free kills vs. Zerg. In conclusion, part of what makes BW an interesting game is diversity of unit strengths, and having all units having around the same utility strength would make the game boring. When players pull off effective strategies using "weak" units, then it's really something to be awed of, and changing around the units would take that away. And do we really need to balance this game? All matchups are at about a 50% win/loss ratio. PS: A lot of the suggestions with unit problems have already been solved by progamers.
Actually P is really only behind on LTish maps;; In the top 25 PGR21 rating there is 9 P's 8 T's 8 Z's (well one random/T in chrh)
Though it should be said that one of the Z's (jinnam) = retired (not sure if byun is still top 25 can't remember)
2 of the P's (Intotherain, garimto) retired and grrr slumping badly
Chrh slumping pretty badly.
And that only one (Reach) P is in the top 10 (he's the only one with the same amount of games as the other top players though :O)
But it's all map dependant ~~;;
Btw, parasite is only 50 or 75 mana IIRC T_T
Kill-lurker-in-one-shot psi would be bad, they changed that for a reason :O
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 15 2004 09:41 Soun wrote: Almost everything said was about spells, but there's still the most imbalanced unit in all the game: The damn vulture. For only 75 minerals, you have a thing that kills workers in 2 shots. You can have 3 local detectors. you can kill as many zealots (100) as your micro is able to. They're the fastest unit in all the game. They work for all ground protoss units. I think the damage should be reduced to 15 or so, and cost increased to 75+25 or 100+0, and mine research to 150/150 or 200/200. Also a kind of splash damage of 70 in tanks is too hard. Maybe 50 + 4 per upgrade would be ok. And the damn medics heal too fast, I think. It should be a bit slower. Irradiate: increased to 100 and less splash damage. Goliath ground and air range reduced by 1. Ghost damage to normal but 8 or 9. Wraith initial armor of 1. Marine's stim pack cost 5 of not-healable life. About protoss: Corsair fire rate slower. Reaver scarab's damage upgrade cheaper. Maybe 150/150 Zealot shield/armor back to 80/80. That 100 armor with 1 for initial armor is too hard early in game. Dragoon fire rate slightly improved, maybe through a research. Shorter stasis field. Longer maelstrom. Zergs: Burrow researched at lair, not hatchery. Less lurker damage. Their strength is the ability to cloak, not the damage. Scourge's life to 35 or 40. Devourer's fire rate slightly increased, and armor decreased to 1. Hydralisk's damage to 8 normal or so. Zergling's life 40 and 4 initial damage, with +1 with adrenaline glands. Defiler's plague cost 125. Many changes, aren't they?
...!
?!?!?!?
!??
!?
!?
!?
!?
?!?
PvT and ZvT happen to be pretty much perfectly balanced, and PvZ is damn close to (note: I know all 3 matchups are map dependant).
Your changes are INSANE!
PvT is already 50/50 which means your changes would make P win more like 85% of the time.
ZvT is just about 50/50, your changes would be insane too though your changes for both zerg and terran are quite insane so I dunno might still be balanced but you'd basically make both die horribly to toss -.-
And 80/80 became 100/80 for a very good reason
|
sun is rigging zerg so bad and shitting terran i hope he wasnt serious
|
I don't agree with those 50/50 in zvt and pvt. Just have a look on any replay page, or look at the top 10 players. I think terran is the best race, just remember always the #1 gamer has been a terran. I don't think it's just for luck.
And the last change in zeals was from 60/100 from 80/80
|
I won a game last night thx to nukes, and almost lost it due to queens parasiting and ensnaring everything. I think it's balanced. If there was a unit I'd change it would be dark archons. Don't know what I'd do with them though. Give them an explosive ranged attacK?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Neogamei statistics shows PvT PvZ ZvT all being reasonably balanced (not perfectly - but close - balanced pvz on LT but that's not even what you are on about) with PvT and ZvT being 50/50 and PvZ pretty close to it.
There's 4 terran grandmasters, Boxer, Nada, Xellos, OOv. Who is there beyond that? Who does great in the prelims etc..
Boxer is the most popular player in korea, of course there will be loads of terran replays and terran players around!!!
The OGN starleague has been won by:
Boxer (2 times win)
Nada (once)
Xellos (Once)
Sync (Once)
July (Once)
Grrr (once)
Garimto (twice)
Reach (once)
Kingdom (once)
Nal_ra (once)
The KPGA/MBC starleague has had nada winning it 4 times, oov 3 times boxer once yellow once nal_ra once and intotherain once (I think). Maybe garimto won one as well..
This isn't due to t imbalance but MAP IMBALANCE..
|
I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think fixing dark swarm so that Siege Tank splash damage didn't kill units under the swarm would assist greatly in balancing lategame ZvT.
|
On July 07 2004 15:17 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 15:15 Ryan307 wrote: . . . This game is balanced, queens do not suck, defilers are indeed good. Don't try to change the game, it will just fuck things up And anyone who doesn't agree with anything I said, give me a reason why. By the way, a reason isn't simply saying oh "queens don't suck." A reason means pointing out evidence from pro replays where choosing the underused unit over the other was a better decision. Please answer my question because I have asked it many times now...how many times have you seen a professional player choosing to go queens over defilers and it turned out he made a good decision? Probably less than 5 times. How many times have you seen a professional player choosing to go defilers over queens and it turned out he made a good decision? Probably thousands of times
Queens own. They aren't used too much, but I'm pretty sure Twisted ha used them a few times. Queen broodling at 100 energy is too powerful IMO. TvZ it would rape the tanks too hard, and thus if you can't micro too well you lose the matchup entirely (you can make up for your loss of micro with tanks... though it won't be as effective). Besides, you can't know when a player is making that decision.
Scouts are pretty good already. They own the shit out of BCs. DA's feedback is awesome. You underestimate it.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 15 2004 13:03 Oxygen wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2004 15:17 tfeign wrote: On July 07 2004 15:15 Ryan307 wrote: . . . This game is balanced, queens do not suck, defilers are indeed good. Don't try to change the game, it will just fuck things up And anyone who doesn't agree with anything I said, give me a reason why. By the way, a reason isn't simply saying oh "queens don't suck." A reason means pointing out evidence from pro replays where choosing the underused unit over the other was a better decision. Please answer my question because I have asked it many times now...how many times have you seen a professional player choosing to go queens over defilers and it turned out he made a good decision? Probably less than 5 times. How many times have you seen a professional player choosing to go defilers over queens and it turned out he made a good decision? Probably thousands of times Queens own. They aren't used too much, but I'm pretty sure Twisted ha used them a few times. Queen broodling at 100 energy is too powerful IMO. TvZ it would rape the tanks too hard, and thus if you can't micro too well you lose the matchup entirely (you can make up for your loss of micro with tanks... though it won't be as effective). Besides, you can't know when a player is making that decision. Scouts are pretty good already. They own the shit out of BCs. DA's feedback is awesome. You underestimate it.
-.-
Then if you are good at micro they'll just ensnare you and it's all for naught!
|
I was thinking about some agressive sairs+DT. By the way how many "intotherain vs like isaac" games have you seen. You can also argue that P should go arbiter v Z ----> look garimto.
Got the point?
But I do agree that if that happens "you can't muta harass at all anymore"
I tried to come up with several new things
... 100 web for sairs ( would make PvZ and PvT none island games more interesting, but on island maps....)
... cheaper reaver or speed to shuttle (balance ground, but island..)
... arbiter cheaper (would balance late PvZ, but would also give late TvP a hard time)
... +3 attack lots kill +3 deffense links (would balance the late PvZ but most of the PvZ practicaly ends up during the middle game)
on the other hand
..hydras can be weaker (zerg would go muta more often in ZvP and ZvT)
and tank weaker or -1 to siege range (wich would balance ZvT if the hydras get weaker, and force TvP to be more creative) at the same time the carrs need 8 supply ---> no massing carrs
|
I totally agree with lowering mana cost for sairs. 125 mana for that little of duration and area of effect is sad.
|
On September 15 2004 12:56 Eclipse.fX wrote:
I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think fixing dark swarm so that Siege Tank splash damage didn't kill units under the swarm would assist greatly in balancing lategame ZvT.
As if lategame zvt isnt hard enough-- ah i thought u meant making lurkers wurnerable sorry
|
On September 15 2004 14:29 Geval wrote:
I was thinking about some agressive sairs+DT. By the way how many "intotherain vs like isaac" games have you seen. You can also argue that P should go arbiter v Z ----> look garimto.
Got the point?
But I do agree that if that happens "you can't muta harass at all anymore"
I tried to come up with several new things
... 100 web for sairs ( would make PvZ and PvT none island games more interesting, but on island maps....)
... cheaper reaver or speed to shuttle (balance ground, but island..)
... arbiter cheaper (would balance late PvZ, but would also give late TvP a hard time)
... +3 attack lots kill +3 deffense links (would balance the late PvZ but most of the PvZ practicaly ends up during the middle game)
on the other hand
..hydras can be weaker (zerg would go muta more often in ZvP and ZvT)
and tank weaker or -1 to siege range (wich would balance ZvT if the hydras get weaker, and force TvP to be more creative) at the same time the carrs need 8 supply ---> no massing carrs
yeah maybe we should make goons weaker and lets put in marines to maybe 30 hp OR not hydras are weak as hell
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 15 2004 14:29 Geval wrote:
I was thinking about some agressive sairs+DT. By the way how many "intotherain vs like isaac" games have you seen. You can also argue that P should go arbiter v Z ----> look garimto.
Got the point?
But I do agree that if that happens "you can't muta harass at all anymore"
I tried to come up with several new things
... 100 web for sairs ( would make PvZ and PvT none island games more interesting, but on island maps....)
... cheaper reaver or speed to shuttle (balance ground, but island..)
... arbiter cheaper (would balance late PvZ, but would also give late TvP a hard time)
... +3 attack lots kill +3 deffense links (would balance the late PvZ but most of the PvZ practicaly ends up during the middle game)
on the other hand
..hydras can be weaker (zerg would go muta more often in ZvP and ZvT)
and tank weaker or -1 to siege range (wich would balance ZvT if the hydras get weaker, and force TvP to be more creative) at the same time the carrs need 8 supply ---> no massing carrs
It just shows it's viable.
Zerg was muta harassing. One mael one storm gg. 12 mutas GONE!
And I feelt he 3+ lot kills 3 + ling in 2 hits = GREAT!
|
On September 15 2004 14:39 RiSE wrote:
I totally agree with lowering mana cost for sairs. 125 mana for that little of duration and area of effect is sad.
dweb lasts for about 20 seconds isnt that enough?
|
I think they should just fucking skip the annoying strictness of spell/ability costs, why can't a ability costs like 80? does it have to be 25-50-75-100-125 etc.. Just pisses me off since it is a lot easier to balance the cost without using strict costs.
|
On September 15 2004 12:56 Eclipse.fX wrote:
I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think fixing dark swarm so that Siege Tank splash damage didn't kill units under the swarm would assist greatly in balancing lategame ZvT.
That would greatly unbalance late game TvZ as it would allow terrans only the sci vessel to fight dark swarm. Now this may not be much of a issue but this would make it rediculiously hard for terrans when they are playing against a one base tech ---> lurker/defilers as the terran would not be able to get enough sci vessels to kill any decent force so zerg could just go ling lurker defilier and roll over the terran.
|
On September 15 2004 14:44 TanGo wrote:
I think they should just fucking skip the annoying strictness of spell/ability costs, why can't a ability costs like 80? does it have to be 25-50-75-100-125 etc.. Just pisses me off since it is a lot easier to balance the cost without using strict costs.
lets see, we have heal as 1
|
On September 15 2004 14:46 bburn wrote: Show nested quote +On September 15 2004 12:56 Eclipse.fX wrote:
I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think fixing dark swarm so that Siege Tank splash damage didn't kill units under the swarm would assist greatly in balancing lategame ZvT. That would greatly unbalance late game TvZ as it would allow terrans only the sci vessel to fight dark swarm. Now this may not be much of a issue but this would make it rediculiously hard for terrans when they are playing against a one base tech ---> lurker/defilers as the terran would not be able to get enough sci vessels to kill any decent force so zerg could just go ling lurker defilier and roll over the terran.
Perhaps some sort of middle ground could be found, normally by the time Zerg is lurkers/defilers Terran is going to have a whole vessel cloud, as it is now the lurkers just die, maybe 1-2 survive if any at all.
Perhaps just lower the splash done by tanks to units under swarm?
Terran "could" use firebats... *laugh* :p
|
how about raising scv cooldown so we would have less cheese in ladders -........- [edit] RAISING NOT LOWERING
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 15 2004 14:50 Eclipse.fX wrote: Show nested quote +On September 15 2004 14:46 bburn wrote: On September 15 2004 12:56 Eclipse.fX wrote:
I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think fixing dark swarm so that Siege Tank splash damage didn't kill units under the swarm would assist greatly in balancing lategame ZvT. That would greatly unbalance late game TvZ as it would allow terrans only the sci vessel to fight dark swarm. Now this may not be much of a issue but this would make it rediculiously hard for terrans when they are playing against a one base tech ---> lurker/defilers as the terran would not be able to get enough sci vessels to kill any decent force so zerg could just go ling lurker defilier and roll over the terran. Perhaps some sort of middle ground could be found, normally by the time Zerg is lurkers/defilers Terran is going to have a whole vessel cloud, as it is now the lurkers just die, maybe 1-2 survive if any at all. Perhaps just lower the splash done by tanks to units under swarm? Terran "could" use firebats... *laugh* :p
?
They completely fucking RAPE under swarm? Zerg gets hydras under swarms? Then you send in bats. Zerg has lings under? Bats.
Only problem is when they have tons of lurkers under, but you can just matrix a few bats and go.
Bats are really underused TvZ late game at low levels at least
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
TvZ and ZvT is BALANCED. Stop messing around with it. Although I think early game bunker gaynesses should be changed. Like taking longer to make a bunker.
Controlling defilers is super hard too. I find it much harder to control defilers than controlling m+m armies. Defilers would be useless if they made swarm weaker.
|
On September 15 2004 14:52 Tien wrote:
TvZ and ZvT is BALANCED. Stop messing around with it. Although I think early game bunker gaynesses should be changed. Like taking longer to make a bunker.
Controlling defilers is super hard too. I find it much harder to control defilers than controlling m+m armies. Defilers would be useless if they made swarm weaker.
thats what i meant by raising scv cooldown it sorta makes bunkeruch useless if ure sending drones to fight in time
|
On September 15 2004 14:49 Travin wrote: Show nested quote +On September 15 2004 14:44 TanGo wrote:
I think they should just fucking skip the annoying strictness of spell/ability costs, why can't a ability costs like 80? does it have to be 25-50-75-100-125 etc.. Just pisses me off since it is a lot easier to balance the cost without using strict costs. lets see, we have heal as 1
You go to hell. And you go to hell and you die!!!
|
Goons without ht are already loosing to mass hydra...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://sebaplus.free.fr/starcraft/starcr46.jpg)
