|
You guys are attempting to defy the mechanics of the game...
You're saying that a RUSH strategy, shoudln't be able to beat a FAST EXPAND strategy? Wtf? You have to take a step back and look at what is beating what - as stated countless times before, fast expand is a privilege, not a right. And so you try to fast expand and you get _rushed_ and you call it inbalance? You want to make it so the zerg can comfortably fast expand every game and even if the terran sacs so much econ to 8rax [a risk in itself if the zerg plays safely] it's no use?
Bitch plz reconsider before you state more bullshit about how scvs are overpowered.
|
|
|
On January 04 2005 19:14 ProudCappi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2005 19:02 Bladox wrote:On January 03 2005 19:35 radiaL wrote:of course terrans will bitch  but not cause of those reasons I mean storm raids will be even more fucking devastating.. even if you do react its gotta be within 1 second reaction time (and this is with 60HP) cause leaving force behind is pretty useless if they drop 1/2 zeals before high temp. Obviously talkin about a good multitasker as a toss here i mean they can easily fight your main army with theirs and raid at the same time =/ I sound like a whining newb but it's fucking hard to play vs a good toss who plays like that ;D most people dont abuse it enough I think how fucked up will reavers be at the beggining? 2nd radius of splash will kill them in one shot too, right? 50% dmg? .. maybe 50HP? You've never played with toss/zerg or what? I mean with toss/zerg you have to deal against reaver and storms with peons that only have 40 hp..... Why terran should have a bonus of hp for there peons....it gives them more time to react/escape and it makes total nonsense... Because that is not the source of the imbalance. If that is changed, terran becomes weaker. Anyways, terran usually has fewer bases with more scv at each base. If they die faster, terran would lose many more scvs than say zerg.
Terran has fewer bases only vs zergs(zergs=no stomrs and no reaver) and it is a great advantage as zergs always have to deal with lots of ''less defended'' bases. But playing agaisnt ptotoss they both have the same number of bases.
As I think scv'S health need to be decreased I dont know to how many hp it have to be fixed.
For the ''probes increased'' thing I think it is not a good idea at all since my sexy probes are always owning bunches of zealots in early zvp but if you insist.. do it 
|
Instead of decreasing SCV HP to 40 lets increase Probe hp to 40 (20 shield still) and Drone HP to 60.
|
United States4991 Posts
I posted this earlier I thought, but I guess my post didn't register or something :O
I think SCVs should just attack at the speed of Probes/Drones. It's not a huge thing, but I see no reason for SCVs to attack quicker than Probes and Drones 
|
On January 04 2005 19:45 HnR)Insane wrote:I posted this earlier I thought, but I guess my post didn't register or something :O I think SCVs should just attack at the speed of Probes/Drones. It's not a huge thing, but I see no reason for SCVs to attack quicker than Probes and Drones
I think the reason of this speedy attack is that even if the scv pilot looks like a total moron he still have better reflex that his 2 cousins aka the dumb spitting crab and the fucked up AI peon. ^^
|
exalted - i'm no zvt pro, but doesn't zerg need that 2nd base sooner rather than later in order to even compete with terran?
|
On January 04 2005 19:45 HnR)Insane wrote:I posted this earlier I thought, but I guess my post didn't register or something :O I think SCVs should just attack at the speed of Probes/Drones. It's not a huge thing, but I see no reason for SCVs to attack quicker than Probes and Drones
OK, then give scvs range.
|
hnr)insane: check the earlier page -_-, it did register it just was a little farther back see
On January 04 2005 12:51 HnR)Insane wrote:I think SCV should just attack at the rate of Drone/Probe. I'm not saying the reason SCVs are overpowered for stuff like Bunker rush is that they attack quicker, but it's just dumb that they attack quicker. I can see the reason for the extra life for SCVs, but not for the quicker attack
and i think changing SCV health from 60 to 45 or even lowering cooldown is a dumb idea --;
*maybe* bunker build time change
|
On January 04 2005 19:28 Bladox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2005 19:14 ProudCappi wrote:On January 04 2005 19:02 Bladox wrote:On January 03 2005 19:35 radiaL wrote:of course terrans will bitch but not cause of those reasons I mean storm raids will be even more fucking devastating.. even if you do react its gotta be within 1 second reaction time (and this is with 60HP) cause leaving force behind is pretty useless if they drop 1/2 zeals before high temp. Obviously talkin about a good multitasker as a toss here i mean they can easily fight your main army with theirs and raid at the same time =/ I sound like a whining newb but it's fucking hard to play vs a good toss who plays like that ;D most people dont abuse it enough I think how fucked up will reavers be at the beggining? 2nd radius of splash will kill them in one shot too, right? 50% dmg? .. maybe 50HP? You've never played with toss/zerg or what? I mean with toss/zerg you have to deal against reaver and storms with peons that only have 40 hp..... Why terran should have a bonus of hp for there peons....it gives them more time to react/escape and it makes total nonsense... Because that is not the source of the imbalance. If that is changed, terran becomes weaker. Anyways, terran usually has fewer bases with more scv at each base. If they die faster, terran would lose many more scvs than say zerg. Terran has fewer bases only vs zergs(zergs=no stomrs and no reaver) and it is a great advantage as zergs always have to deal with lots of ''less defended'' bases. But playing agaisnt ptotoss they both have the same number of bases. As I think scv'S health need to be decreased I dont know to how many hp it have to be fixed. For the ''probes increased'' thing I think it is not a good idea at all since my sexy probes are always owning bunches of zealots in early zvp but if you insist.. do it
Terran always has fewer bases, even versus P.
And lowering scv health would make terran weaker to drops.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 04 2005 19:24 exalted wrote:
You guys are attempting to defy the mechanics of the game...
You're saying that a RUSH strategy, shoudln't be able to beat a FAST EXPAND strategy? Wtf? You have to take a step back and look at what is beating what - as stated countless times before, fast expand is a privilege, not a right. And so you try to fast expand and you get _rushed_ and you call it inbalance? You want to make it so the zerg can comfortably fast expand every game and even if the terran sacs so much econ to 8rax [a risk in itself if the zerg plays safely] it's no use?
Bitch plz reconsider before you state more bullshit about how scvs are overpowered.
If you think fighting terran using 1 base zerg is easy, than shut up and play good terrans using zerg, and go 1 base every game. See how many you actually win. You know why 12/3 positions are so hard for zerg? 2 reasons:
number 1 reason is because zerg doesnt have a fast expansion to work with
2nd is positions are close. So now that we have proven that zergs need a fast expansion just to be equal to a terran, lets discuss the other things you said.
8 rax is risky. Bullshit.
Standard build for terran: double rax
Standard build for zerg: Fast expo
Even start off
Terran going 8 rax has a higher percentage of winning every game.
Zerg going 9 pool has a very low percentage of winning every game.
Considering the other race is going STANDARD BUILD.
12 pooling every game starts zerg off at a disadvantage if terran goes standard build!
A rush build beats a fast expo build. True. But how many terrans do you see fast expoing compared to zergs????
See the disadvantage here?!?! Its so fucking obvious. Just connect the dots and put your ego aside.
All im suggesting is one thing:
- Increase bunker building time (these things build in like 2 secs)
Thats all! Is it too hard? I believe weakening scvs is too harsh against protoss. But since terrans dont need bunkers vs toss I believe this is fair.
I find it insulting that terrans believe it is their god given right to abuse advantages whenever they see fit and openly say it isnt an advantage.
In return for this minor change, I am perfectly happy to weaken the ultra/ling combo for protosses. Or make certain protoss units stronger so that they can fight ultra/ling easier.
Unlike you, im willing to admit to an advantage when I see one.
|
Yep, 9 pool and 12 pool are the only other options besides fast expo for zerg!
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 04 2005 20:33 ProudCappi wrote:
Yep, 9 pool and 12 pool are the only other options besides fast expo for zerg!
Yeah there is 6 pool and 4 pool.
Maybe you should actually read what I wrote. I covered all possible openings of the zerg. Yes that includes in main hatchery!!
|
Well, there's 12 hatch 11 pool.
Anyways, 9 pools don't = a loss. They can set the course for the game.
|
im a terran user and even i agree that bunker build time should be increased
|
AFTER your changes z and p builds will change, coz option of starting game for t will decrease.
Normal z build can change on 14 hatch 13 pool, one scv will die after shoot of 6 mutas. Reaver drops will be insane. I like to play z.
This change will not help community, will not help z and p but it will hurt to all people, when t will slowly disapper. Now t has the lowest percentage of winning on PGT, WGT.
And tell me! Really 8 rax has no counter and is unbeatable?
|
On January 04 2005 20:30 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2005 19:24 exalted wrote:
You guys are attempting to defy the mechanics of the game...
You're saying that a RUSH strategy, shoudln't be able to beat a FAST EXPAND strategy? Wtf? You have to take a step back and look at what is beating what - as stated countless times before, fast expand is a privilege, not a right. And so you try to fast expand and you get _rushed_ and you call it inbalance? You want to make it so the zerg can comfortably fast expand every game and even if the terran sacs so much econ to 8rax [a risk in itself if the zerg plays safely] it's no use?
Bitch plz reconsider before you state more bullshit about how scvs are overpowered. If you think fighting terran using 1 base zerg is easy, than shut up and play good terrans using zerg, and go 1 base every game. See how many you actually win. You know why 12/3 positions are so hard for zerg? 2 reasons: number 1 reason is because zerg doesnt have a fast expansion to work with 2nd is positions are close. So now that we have proven that zergs need a fast expansion just to be equal to a terran, lets discuss the other things you said. 8 rax is risky. Bullshit. Standard build for terran: double rax Standard build for zerg: Fast expo Even start off Terran going 8 rax has a higher percentage of winning every game. Zerg going 9 pool has a very low percentage of winning every game. Considering the other race is going STANDARD BUILD. 12 pooling every game starts zerg off at a disadvantage if terran goes standard build! A rush build beats a fast expo build. True. But how many terrans do you see fast expoing compared to zergs???? See the disadvantage here?!?! Its so fucking obvious. Just connect the dots and put your ego aside. All im suggesting is one thing: - Increase bunker building time (these things build in like 2 secs) Thats all! Is it too hard? I believe weakening scvs is too harsh against protoss. But since terrans dont need bunkers vs toss I believe this is fair. I find it insulting that terrans believe it is their god given right to abuse advantages whenever they see fit and openly say it isnt an advantage. In return for this minor change, I am perfectly happy to weaken the ultra/ling combo for protosses. Or make certain protoss units stronger so that they can fight ultra/ling easier. Unlike you, im willing to admit to an advantage when I see one.
uhm dunno, i really don't think ultra/lings is imbalanced cuz if z has so many ultra /lings he would've prolly won with any other combo anyway cuz u let him get too much exps... and i'm p player, storms is too good vs ultra lings dunno why they make it all archon/zeal, storms is deadly =o storm even get the ultras like they have no armor.... dunno i've never really had any real problms with ultra/ling combo, more with guardians lings lurkers sunkens. Anyway i also think bunker rush although easy to pull off (even i won a game vs satanik like a year ago when i was even noobier and i didn't play terran at all) and wining vs better players, so is having a real easy fast exp as a zerg player, cuz admit it z players it gives you a real awesome advantage as well, u can lurk / muta and terran is really fucked unless they got godly micro... so i dunno :D
|
why would storm drop kill scvs faster with 45 hp than 60? isnt it 20 seconds per second with storms
|
On January 05 2005 00:11 TreK[cF] wrote:
why would storm drop kill scvs faster with 45 hp than 60? isnt it 20 seconds per second with storms
45 is less than 60
U think storm takes 20 damage per second?
So it will last 3 seconds to kill scv.
Storm takes about 115 damage maximaly and it dont last 6 seconds 
|
On January 04 2005 15:36 cacat wrote:
scv's hp doesnt need any change... what needs balancing is....
>>Dragoon's AI.. i dont think any protoss player can disagree with this -_-
>>the fact that 4 goliaths can go into a dropship..
>>and... prob balance vultures a bit... considering their cost, they are far more effective than any other units.
i mean.. a 75 mineral unit having same damage as dragoon(although they do less damage on dragoon's actual hp), and a longer range than a non-upgraded dragoon... but dragoons have longer range when upgraded...
vultures not being able to shoot air and having concussive (omg sux) dmg type makes their value exactly 75 minerals
how much would u like them to cost? 100? like zealot? sure, vultures can eat zealots up, but only if u micro them ~
besides, a cannon can take down 3 or maybe even 4 vults shooting at it.. 4 vults cost like 2 cannons now and if ull change cost 3 vults will cost like it :O
On January 04 2005 19:24 exalted wrote:
You guys are attempting to defy the mechanics of the game...
You're saying that a RUSH strategy, shoudln't be able to beat a FAST EXPAND strategy? Wtf? You have to take a step back and look at what is beating what - as stated countless times before, fast expand is a privilege, not a right. And so you try to fast expand and you get _rushed_ and you call it inbalance? You want to make it so the zerg can comfortably fast expand every game and even if the terran sacs so much econ to 8rax [a risk in itself if the zerg plays safely] it's no use?
Bitch plz reconsider before you state more bullshit about how scvs are overpowered.
I agree with this the most &_&
I'm no Z player and obviosuly by what Tien says it's reallyrealylreally hard beating a terran with one base but expecting to start with 2 bases as a granted fact is just out of place
besides, if boxer would have done anythin except that 8 rax, yellow could have exp and defended it, right?
its an anti-exp build
so even tho it sux for a zerg to go 1 base etc., if he would do one of the builds u suggested against 8 rax, the terran build which makes him behind will make up for the zerg having to deal with 1 base
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
