You know when you tell a unit to attack, and then you tell it to move, as it's shooting, and the target moved out of range? Sometimes the unit will get stuck, and you'll have to press "S" to release it. I know this can be avoided if you know what you're doing, but it's annoying and doesn't make the game any better. I'd take it out of the game completely.
2. Clicking on an icon to center the view on that unit / structure
If you have something selected that is not assigned to a hotkey, the only way to center your view on it is to click on its icon. But whenever a unit is produced, that unit's icon takes up the spot for a really really long time (instead of whatever you have selected). I would either shorten this time, or remove it completely, so that you can always center your view on what you have selected. It's pretty annoying when I'm trying to center my view on a barracks, so I can F4 that shit, and units keep finishing so that I can't. 3. Units always popping out below the building
This is a pretty serious flaw, because it either creates map imbalances, or forces map creators to limit themselves too much. If you could simply set a spawn point (like you can set a rally point) this would be solved. Protoss users could make a high templar from their gateway that is being shot at by hydralisks, no matter what start location they got. Terrans could wall of at all locations and not die to 4 pools, and so on.
4. The general lack of quality of battle.net
I'd just make StarCraft come with wLauncher's anti hack. It's better than nothing. Also, I'd add a functioning ladder to battle.net, automatch, automated tournaments, clan support, and a clan ladder.
What would you add? Do you agree with my changes? Would you nerf Terran?
How could I forget the infamous ramp error... It sometimes happens on the leftmost ramp leading to the 12''o clock expansion on Fighting Spirit. You all know what I'm talking about. T_T
2. Gaps between building should depend on building types being put together and not on which side you put each. Creates minor balance issues for walling in certain maps. Mostly dealt with by map makers, but an issue nonetheless.
I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
On January 22 2014 01:54 traceurling wrote: I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
You know when you select a marine, a marine's face is shown at the bottom of the screen. If you click on his face, the camera will move to his position.
If it were possible to patch something like the Valkyrie sprite bug, I'd like to see that fixed. I guess it's more of an inherent limitation in the game engine rather than something one can simply patch, though.
On January 22 2014 01:54 traceurling wrote: I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
You know when you select a marine, a marine's face is shown at the bottom of the screen. If you click on his face, the camera will move to his position.
On January 22 2014 01:54 traceurling wrote: I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
You know when you select a marine, a marine's face is shown at the bottom of the screen. If you click on his face, the camera will move to his position.
Wow did not know... Can't you also ctrl+c?
What is this CTRL+C you speak of?
I will try it out now
Edit: Ah, I forgot about this. I used to know about it. Thank you for reminding me. I should get used to doing CTRL+C rather than double tapping a hotkey. It actually has a pretty good use. Imagine that you are harassing with mutalisks, and you add a mutalisk from your base to the group. If you want to center your view on one of the mutalisks from the main group, you can press the hotkey for your mutalisk group, select one random mutalisk from the unit array, and press CTRL + C.
:D
But I'm used to clicking on the icon, so the "problem" still annoys me
If it were possible to patch something like the Valkyrie sprite bug, I'd like to see that fixed. I guess it's more of an inherent limitation in the game engine rather than something one can simply patch, though.
Computers are good enough to handle more sprites these days. For 4vs4 and Use Map Settings, raising the amount of allowed sprites would be very beneficial.
StarCraft is written in C++, which is still used today, so I imagine it would be possible to re-write parts of it.
On January 22 2014 01:54 traceurling wrote: I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
You know when you select a marine, a marine's face is shown at the bottom of the screen. If you click on his face, the camera will move to his position.
As everyone is mentioning; fix the god damn goon bug!
Fleet Beacon Disruption Web Cost 200/200 --> 150/150 Gravitic Thrusters Cost 200/200 --> 150/150, Build Time 166 --> 100 Apial Sensors Remove, give scouts 10 sight on default, they're expensive enough as it is.
Templar Archivez Mind Control Cost 200/200 --> 150/150
Covert Ops Ocular Implants Remove, give ghosts 11 sight on default Lock Down Cost 200/200 --> 150/150
Get different resolutions so the game can fit into modern rectangular monitors without half the screen space being taken up by gigantic black bars. Many of the limitations BW imposes on you are part of the charm, including the absence of automine, the absence of MBS and the absence of hotkey customization. The one thing I can't stand, though, is being forced to use an undersized canvas to work my art. I hate how the small window makes me feel so constrained, like it's holding me back. I understand it's very possible to be good at the game regardless and the actual thing holding me back is my lack of skill, but that tiny window really rubs me the wrong way. It's like being in a submarine in a coral reef and being forced to cram your face against a porthole to get even a tiny view of the outside world.
I like all of Peeano's suggestions. However, I would keep Apial Sensors and Ocular Implants after making those changes, but I'd make them short-range stealth-detector upgrades and increase their cost to 200/200.
On January 22 2014 01:54 traceurling wrote: I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
You know when you select a marine, a marine's face is shown at the bottom of the screen. If you click on his face, the camera will move to his position.
On January 22 2014 02:49 Peeano wrote: As everyone is mentioning; fix the god damn goon bug!
It doesn't only happen to dragoons. Their long attack animation simply makes them more conducive to being struck by it.
I know, but since they're most prone to have it happen to them I simply call it goon bug. Also, I think giving scouts upgraded movement speed on default would be a bad idea.
On January 22 2014 01:54 traceurling wrote: I would give scouts inherent movement speed Also make it so workers aren't so bad at mining so that you don't have to worry about mineral formation and gas location which creates mild imbalance. And make it so the bottom two rows of tiles of a map are usable so that the symmetry doesn't create assume try especially in maps where it matters and you need building space like Polaris and Desti and Andromeda Also what do you mean in number 2?
You know when you select a marine, a marine's face is shown at the bottom of the screen. If you click on his face, the camera will move to his position.
Wow did not know... Can't you also ctrl+c?
You can also alt+c.
Indeed I discovered it not a long time ago and it's soo useful. I hated to wait the end of the transmission of an other unit to center the view.
when on Battle.net (non-private servers) then random times when you click on the "join" button to see the list of games, and none appear, despite games existing. (i think it's a lag issue, as the same is done with your profile, where if you edit it, sometimes it won't save your edit)
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
filthy casual
id be the first one playing with legacy keys because i couldnt be bothered to relearn the hotkeys (same as i do in dota2)
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
filthy casual
id be the first one playing with legacy keys because i couldnt be bothered to relearn the hotkeys (same as i do in dota2)
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
Part of the reason I like BW is because of how the game is played and all of the little tricks, shenanigans etc... that you can do. Units getting stuck is annoying but you're not going to lose a game because your unit got stuck lol. If your opponent is already in your main and taking out your gateways, chances are you've already sustained some damage, not to say you still can't win since I've won games after that but I don't see units popping below buildings as a big problem in that specific scenario. Your opponent can also just reposition his hydras around the gateway and kill the units as they are produced so been able to change what direction they come from the gateway won't change much.
Frankly, the only thing I would consider is maybe a slight buff to scout speed. Scouts are my favourite unit yet they don't get used much. Keep the upgrade for them but make them a little faster so that they may get used more. While I also think dark swarm is powerful especially in TvZ(lose the most late game when defiler hits the field), I wouldn't want it removed or debuffed since irradiate is also just as powerful if you utilize it well.
It's actually funny that you posted this thread since I was playing against a zerg player yesterday(he said he hasn't played in 6 years, plays SCII) and then he proceeded to ask me if Terran is still imba from like 2004 XD Don't worry, I managed to educate him that unless you're Flash (I guess nada, iloveoov, boxer and fantasy as well), terran isn't imba lol.
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
While I agree that customization is nice, I don't see why forcing people to stick to specific shortcuts is that bad lol. You'll eventually learn the shortcuts and it won't matter if you changed them in the first place or not but I understand how it can be easier to get into the game if you're from SCII for example and used to a certain set of shortcuts and such.
On January 22 2014 03:47 BigFan wrote: Part of the reason I like BW is because of how the game is played and all of the little tricks, shenanigans etc... that you can do. Units getting stuck is annoying but you're not going to lose a game because your unit got stuck lol. If your opponent is already in your main and taking out your gateways, chances are you've already sustained some damage, not to say you still can't win since I've won games after that but I don't see units popping below buildings as a big problem in that specific scenario. Your opponent can also just reposition his hydras around the gateway and kill the units as they are produced so been able to change what direction they come from the gateway won't change much.
He's refering to the gateway used for walling in your FE on PvZ.
On January 22 2014 03:21 zimp wrote: i would decrease zealot hp at least by 10.
What's wrong with you people! You've all got the david kim flu! Suggesting the fix of annoying features it's alright, but changing the units/stats/balance it's not.
On January 22 2014 03:47 BigFan wrote: Part of the reason I like BW is because of how the game is played and all of the little tricks, shenanigans etc... that you can do. Units getting stuck is annoying but you're not going to lose a game because your unit got stuck lol. If your opponent is already in your main and taking out your gateways, chances are you've already sustained some damage, not to say you still can't win since I've won games after that but I don't see units popping below buildings as a big problem in that specific scenario. Your opponent can also just reposition his hydras around the gateway and kill the units as they are produced so been able to change what direction they come from the gateway won't change much.
He's refering to the gateway used for walling in your FE on PvZ.
On January 22 2014 03:21 zimp wrote: i would decrease zealot hp at least by 10.
What's wrong with you people! You've all got the david kim flu! Suggesting the fix of annoying features it's alright, but changing the units/stats/balance it's not.
Maybe scouts could use a little umph....but w/e...
hmm now that you mention it that way, ya, it was a little annoying to see zealots spawn at the bottom lol but is it really that big of a deal? I'm sure there are more pressing matters like that valkyrie bug that's been mentioned
I'd make lan latency/antihack an integrated part, and I'd make everyone able to make games without having to port forward.
there are a few minor bugs that have happened and made me lose games say 5 games out of 20000 that I would fix, like sometimes units being permanently stuck in ramps. I wouldn't touch any aspect of micro at all, because even the micro-bugs are great for differentiating players. Occasionally my own marines get stuck when I'm chasing down units, but it actually only happens because my commands aren't sufficiently fine-tuned. reaver scarabs too, it's normally quite predictable which scarabs are going to bug and not.
Additionally I kinda agree that it'd be good to be able to change where units pop out, but then one of my most glorious brood war moments comes from exploiting that they always pop out at the same place, so even though it would be good for map location balance reasons, I'm kinda like fuck it anyway.
Also, I actually like how stuff like this forces you to slightly adjust your strategy - and enables your opponent to adjust his strategy - based on starting locations. I remember I had this old 2 hatch hydra build on medusa zvt, where if I started at 11 or 2 I would scout pretty early to determine whether he was at 7 - because the strategy was by far best when used against a terran at 7 because they would wallin differently. Actually I'm not sure I'm remembering the locations correctly cuz it's been forever, but there was one location it worked really really well against. ;p
I like everyone having to work with the same hotkeys, wouldn't want to enable that change.
As for balance, I could see stuff like scouts starting with speed being alright, and ghosts starting with the range upgrade. Those are like, so small that they might not have too much of an impact and only makes the units kinda buildable. (scout speed could actually make the 1 stargate scout into 3 gate dragoon allin too powerful though, it's not always that easy to hold as it is..) But other than that I wouldn't touch anything. Valkyrie sprite bug is like, yeah it sucks that they bug out, but if they didn't, it might require some rebalancing, so I'm not even sure about that. Would be sweet for UMS though.
On January 22 2014 03:47 BigFan wrote: Part of the reason I like BW is because of how the game is played and all of the little tricks, shenanigans etc... that you can do. Units getting stuck is annoying but you're not going to lose a game because your unit got stuck lol. If your opponent is already in your main and taking out your gateways, chances are you've already sustained some damage, not to say you still can't win since I've won games after that but I don't see units popping below buildings as a big problem in that specific scenario. Your opponent can also just reposition his hydras around the gateway and kill the units as they are produced so been able to change what direction they come from the gateway won't change much.
He's refering to the gateway used for walling in your FE on PvZ.
On January 22 2014 03:21 zimp wrote: i would decrease zealot hp at least by 10.
What's wrong with you people! You've all got the david kim flu! Suggesting the fix of annoying features it's alright, but changing the units/stats/balance it's not.
Maybe scouts could use a little umph....but w/e...
hmm now that you mention it that way, ya, it was a little annoying to see zealots spawn at the bottom lol but is it really that big of a deal? I'm sure there are more pressing matters like that valkyrie bug that's been mentioned
I've had to cancel high templars because of hydralisk busts. It sucks, especially if you went for a build order that gets a second gateway very late. It slows down your templar production by so much.
And I've seen professional terrans lose to zergling rushes because their marine spawned outside of their wall... It's bad.
i would make spider mines multi-selectable and add a detonate/disarm command. i would even be fine with them unburrowing and dealing damage while blowing up. i would reduce targeting priority for interceptors below that of spellcasters so goliaths target ground units in range first. i would remove the bug that makes lurkers deal double damage on their last shot when they die.
I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
I would make it so that if you have 6 SCVs you can assemble them into a giant robot that attacks by picking up supply depots and throwing them.
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
I think it's the opposite. It raises the barrier of entry by making you feel like you're playing sub-optimally before you've even gotten in the lobby. It's just tedious and annoying to figure that stuff out. The lowest barrier of entry is what they do now, just making the hotkey the first available letter in the name of the unit. That actually makes sense and is easy to learn except for a few weirdly named upgrades.
-Automated matchmaking!!! (how has no one said this?!?) -Automatically switch patches for older replays -Able to customize hotkeys -Increased resolution -Make it an easier game to stream
On January 22 2014 04:39 Chef wrote: I would make it so that if you have 6 SCVs you can assemble them into a giant robot that attacks by picking up supply depots and throwing them.
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
I think it's the opposite. It raises the barrier of entry by making you feel like you're playing sub-optimally before you've even gotten in the lobby. It's just tedious and annoying to figure that stuff out. The lowest barrier of entry is what they do now, just making the hotkey the first available letter in the name of the unit. That actually makes sense and is easy to learn except for a few weirdly named upgrades.
how so? I mean, I agree that they should stay as is(first letter in name of unit) since I always thought it was easier to remember if you think about it but if someone comes from let's say SCII where marines are A for ex and they change it, it would technically get them into the game faster, no?
For everyone wanting a higher resolution, Insect Loader has always worked for me. It takes some getting used to though, since the units seem a lot smaller, and is probably illegal on bnet since it allows you to see much more of the map.
On January 22 2014 03:47 BigFan wrote: Part of the reason I like BW is because of how the game is played and all of the little tricks, shenanigans etc... that you can do. Units getting stuck is annoying but you're not going to lose a game because your unit got stuck lol. If your opponent is already in your main and taking out your gateways, chances are you've already sustained some damage, not to say you still can't win since I've won games after that but I don't see units popping below buildings as a big problem in that specific scenario. Your opponent can also just reposition his hydras around the gateway and kill the units as they are produced so been able to change what direction they come from the gateway won't change much.
He's refering to the gateway used for walling in your FE on PvZ.
On January 22 2014 03:21 zimp wrote: i would decrease zealot hp at least by 10.
What's wrong with you people! You've all got the david kim flu! Suggesting the fix of annoying features it's alright, but changing the units/stats/balance it's not.
Maybe scouts could use a little umph....but w/e...
hmm now that you mention it that way, ya, it was a little annoying to see zealots spawn at the bottom lol but is it really that big of a deal? I'm sure there are more pressing matters like that valkyrie bug that's been mentioned
I've had to cancel high templars because of hydralisk busts. It sucks, especially if you went for a build order that gets a second gateway very late. It slows down your templar production by so much.
And I've seen professional terrans lose to zergling rushes because their marine spawned outside of their wall... It's bad.
well, I was actually considering mid game or rather when you have like 4-5 gateways in your main so that one unit that gets killed won't end the game but ya, I can see why it would be problematic in that scenario. ya, true, I think I've seen this happen before as well.
Honestly, I don't think I would fix anything except as the OP mentioned: when units get stuck and you have to press 'S' to release them.
Other than that, I appreciate brood war for what it is and what it's always been: the best RTS game ever (not aiming to point this in any sort of debate; it's merely my opinion).
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
filthy casual
id be the first one playing with legacy keys because i couldnt be bothered to relearn the hotkeys (same as i do in dota2)
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
That's what starbow is for
starbow is a different game with different units. Your statement is nonsensical and off-topic.
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
I think it's the opposite. It raises the barrier of entry by making you feel like you're playing sub-optimally before you've even gotten in the lobby. It's just tedious and annoying to figure that stuff out. The lowest barrier of entry is what they do now, just making the hotkey the first available letter in the name of the unit. That actually makes sense and is easy to learn except for a few weirdly named upgrades.
having all of the hotkeys on the left side of the keyboard isnt sub-optimal, in fact, its the optimal way to play. New players will have to learn the hokeys regardless which letter you choose. While having "m" instead of "a" to make a Marine might have more sense, i guarantee you it wouldnt make a difference to you after a couple of games, while on the other hand it might help with stopping the carpal tunnel syndrome
On January 22 2014 04:32 BisuDagger wrote: I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
Yeah, actually, hotkey bindings are the only thing keeping me from playing BW more intensively. I don't want to learn 2 sets of hotkeys switching back from SC2 to BW and vice versa, it would have been nice to just be able to set the hotkeys.
On January 22 2014 05:54 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, actually, hotkey bindings are the only thing keeping me from playing BW more intensively. I don't want to learn 2 sets of hotkeys switching back from SC2 to BW and vice versa, it would have been nice to just be able to set the hotkeys.
On January 22 2014 05:54 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, actually, hotkey bindings are the only thing keeping me from playing BW more intensively. I don't want to learn 2 sets of hotkeys switching back from SC2 to BW and vice versa, it would have been nice to just be able to set the hotkeys.
On January 22 2014 03:47 BigFan wrote: Part of the reason I like BW is because of how the game is played and all of the little tricks, shenanigans etc... that you can do. Units getting stuck is annoying but you're not going to lose a game because your unit got stuck lol.
The easiest thing would be for Blizzard to release the source code, allowing the community to repair any Windows 7 issues, as well as enabling the creation of additional content that would also be backwards compatible. Higher game resolution, additional map tilesets with high-resolution textures and sprites, easily distributable and playable BWAPI AIs to train against, extending the sprite cap so that valkyries don't just shut down, and so on.
The approach that id Software took was releasing the source code to just the Quake engines, but not releasing the full game such as the single-player maps. That way there's still at least some incentive to purchase the full game, but the community is also able to benefit freely from community-provided upgrades to games that would otherwise be considered long-since deprecated and superseded by newer games.
Anyone remember changing their .pak files? Custom models, map textures, HUDs, and sounds that are all interchangeable and customizable, and being able to mix and match from different sets to suit your preferences. Ahh, carriers with flame decals and siege tanks with targets painted on them, or the casting sound for each plague being changed to "PLAGUUU."
On January 22 2014 04:39 Chef wrote: I would make it so that if you have 6 SCVs you can assemble them into a giant robot that attacks by picking up supply depots and throwing them.
I like this one blizzard should definitely consider it
As for balance, I could see stuff like scouts starting with speed being alright, and ghosts starting with the range upgrade. Those are like, so small that they might not have too much of an impact and only makes the units kinda buildable. (scout speed could actually make the 1 stargate scout into 3 gate dragoon allin too powerful though, it's not always that easy to hold as it is..) .
What is this 1 Stargate Scout into 3 Gate Dragoon?
On January 22 2014 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote: I would also remove the bug that lets terran players move scvs through your ramp even though you have blocked it
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
filthy casual
id be the first one playing with legacy keys because i couldnt be bothered to relearn the hotkeys (same as i do in dota2)
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
That's what starbow is for
starbow is a different game with different units. Your statement is nonsensical and off-topic.
Wait isn't Starbow the same units? Well what I meant is play whatever mod it is in Starcraft 2 that plays Brood War and then you can customize hotkeys however you want (unless Im incorrect there) as a way fro SC2 players to transition to BW if they wanted
On January 22 2014 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'd make lan latency/antihack an integrated part, and I'd make everyone able to make games without having to port forward.
there are a few minor bugs that have happened and made me lose games say 5 games out of 20000 that I would fix, like sometimes units being permanently stuck in ramps. I wouldn't touch any aspect of micro at all, because even the micro-bugs are great for differentiating players. Occasionally my own marines get stuck when I'm chasing down units, but it actually only happens because my commands aren't sufficiently fine-tuned. reaver scarabs too, it's normally quite predictable which scarabs are going to bug and not.
Additionally I kinda agree that it'd be good to be able to change where units pop out, but then one of my most glorious brood war moments comes from exploiting that they always pop out at the same place, so even though it would be good for map location balance reasons, I'm kinda like fuck it anyway.
Also, I actually like how stuff like this forces you to slightly adjust your strategy - and enables your opponent to adjust his strategy - based on starting locations. I remember I had this old 2 hatch hydra build on medusa zvt, where if I started at 11 or 2 I would scout pretty early to determine whether he was at 7 - because the strategy was by far best when used against a terran at 7 because they would wallin differently. Actually I'm not sure I'm remembering the locations correctly cuz it's been forever, but there was one location it worked really really well against. ;p
I like everyone having to work with the same hotkeys, wouldn't want to enable that change.
As for balance, I could see stuff like scouts starting with speed being alright, and ghosts starting with the range upgrade. Those are like, so small that they might not have too much of an impact and only makes the units kinda buildable. (scout speed could actually make the 1 stargate scout into 3 gate dragoon allin too powerful though, it's not always that easy to hold as it is..) But other than that I wouldn't touch anything. Valkyrie sprite bug is like, yeah it sucks that they bug out, but if they didn't, it might require some rebalancing, so I'm not even sure about that. Would be sweet for UMS though.
I pretty much agree with what you said with the exception for the valkyrie bug. Valks aren`t cheap, they shoot only air targets, so it is an absolute must for them to actually shoot all time. I lost several games because they just stood there doing absolutely nothing, only watching how my goliaths and themselves got oblitarated by an only muta army. I mean there is no point to have a unit what is not shooting at the crucial moments of the game (like a huge late game engagement), in theory the valkyries become more powerful as their numbers grow, yet somtimes they are completely useless.
As for balance, I could see stuff like scouts starting with speed being alright, and ghosts starting with the range upgrade. Those are like, so small that they might not have too much of an impact and only makes the units kinda buildable. (scout speed could actually make the 1 stargate scout into 3 gate dragoon allin too powerful though, it's not always that easy to hold as it is..) .
What is this 1 Stargate Scout into 3 Gate Dragoon?
On January 22 2014 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote: I would also remove the bug that lets terran players move scvs through your ramp even though you have blocked it
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
filthy casual
id be the first one playing with legacy keys because i couldnt be bothered to relearn the hotkeys (same as i do in dota2)
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
That's what starbow is for
starbow is a different game with different units. Your statement is nonsensical and off-topic.
Wait isn't Starbow the same units? Well what I meant is play whatever mod it is in Starcraft 2 that plays Brood War and then you can customize hotkeys however you want (unless Im incorrect there) as a way fro SC2 players to transition to BW if they wanted
Theres some way to make SCVs go through units on a ramp by like, clicking a geyser then clicking into their base or something, and the scvs will walk through the unit on the ramp(cant really remember how to do it)
Another con of building rally is that the opponent can't abuse it even when it isn't a wall in.
e.g. often in 2 gate proxy vs 1 gate core the cheesing player will build some buildings to trap the goon when it spawns. I really enjoy watching this happen
If you REALLY wanted to remove positional imbalance, you'd need to be able to do the lava trick in all four directions too lol (you could also remove it but it is too cool imo).
I would fix the control-group-adding-when-full bug. Normally, you can add units to a control group by shift-clicking the control group's number when the units are selected. However, when that control group is already full when you try to add the units this way, the next higher control group is replaced by one of these units. It can screw up your control groups pretty bad if you don't notice it.
As for balance, I could see stuff like scouts starting with speed being alright, and ghosts starting with the range upgrade. Those are like, so small that they might not have too much of an impact and only makes the units kinda buildable. (scout speed could actually make the 1 stargate scout into 3 gate dragoon allin too powerful though, it's not always that easy to hold as it is..) .
What is this 1 Stargate Scout into 3 Gate Dragoon?
On January 22 2014 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote: I would also remove the bug that lets terran players move scvs through your ramp even though you have blocked it
Which bug is that?
On January 22 2014 05:48 2Pacalypse- wrote:
On January 22 2014 03:41 traceurling wrote:
On January 22 2014 03:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:
On January 22 2014 02:59 Sayle wrote:
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
filthy casual
id be the first one playing with legacy keys because i couldnt be bothered to relearn the hotkeys (same as i do in dota2)
however, i think this is one thing that wouldnt take anything away from hardcore players while giving a lot to beginning players and those who switch from sc2 etc.
That's what starbow is for
starbow is a different game with different units. Your statement is nonsensical and off-topic.
Wait isn't Starbow the same units? Well what I meant is play whatever mod it is in Starcraft 2 that plays Brood War and then you can customize hotkeys however you want (unless Im incorrect there) as a way fro SC2 players to transition to BW if they wanted
Theres some way to make SCVs go through units on a ramp by like, clicking a geyser then clicking into their base or something, and the scvs will walk through the unit on the ramp(cant really remember how to do it)
that's not race-specific. any worker can do it. you right-click the geyser, then shift-right-click it some more, then shift-right-click where you want to go (don't exceed waypoint limit).
I would make unlimited hotkey selection, automine, unlimited production selection (in 1 hotkey), all units be able to stack onto 1 spot for maximum dps in a concave or small area... + Show Spoiler +
oh wait they already made this game, it's called sc2.
As far as gamer mechanics are concerned (no unit changes, newer OS support, BNet issues etc, interface updates...), these are the most urgent problems to be adressed:
- Completely rewrite the pathfinding/moving algorithms for ground units (too many things just working barely, i.e. absolutely horribly).
- increase all sprite limits significantly.
- make building collision boxes more even and centered, so wallins become easier to learn. Just standardizing them so all buildings have the same free edges is probably not a good idea though, too many nice things you can do with thes different gap sizes...
- make unit spawn at buildings dependant on where the rally point is (this would probably be the easiest way to fix it)
- Fix all the bugged tiles in the BroodWar Terrains, so you can actually use them for maps.
On January 22 2014 07:10 Muff2n wrote: Another con of building rally is that the opponent can't abuse it even when it isn't a wall in.
e.g. often in 2 gate proxy vs 1 gate core the cheesing player will build some buildings to trap the goon when it spawns. I really enjoy watching this happen
If you REALLY wanted to remove positional imbalance, you'd need to be able to do the lava trick in all four directions too lol (you could also remove it but it is too cool imo).
I forgot about that... I've even done that pylon trick myself. It's pretty cool. This complicates things.
On January 22 2014 08:22 Foxxan wrote: Irradiate damage singletarget nerfed from 250 to 120
Nerf darkswarm Smaller radius, 30sec duration
Archon range +1 Shieldbattery, no longer stuns units. It only roots
Smaller size of shieldbattery, and archon
Parasite removed - replaced with 100-125mana (spells name is slime) Singletarget fast projectile. Cast on enemy unit. Reduces range by 50% Cast range: 8vs air, 5vs ground 1,5sec casttime(animation) Duration: infinite
Suddenly terran goes from able to win vs zerg, to never winning vs zerg.
On January 22 2014 08:22 Foxxan wrote: Irradiate damage singletarget nerfed from 250 to 120
Nerf darkswarm Smaller radius, 30sec duration
Archon range +1 Shieldbattery, no longer stuns units. It only roots
Smaller size of shieldbattery, and archon
Parasite removed - replaced with 100-125mana (spells name is slime) Singletarget fast projectile. Cast on enemy unit. Reduces range by 50% Cast range: 8vs air, 5vs ground 1,5sec casttime(animation) Duration: infinite
Suddenly terran goes from able to win vs zerg, to never winning vs zerg.
Slightly increase starting energy of Queens/Ghosts/DA or slightly decrease their spell cost just so you'd see these units a little bit more without fucking over the balance.
Slightly increase air to ground attack for scouts so that you can make 1,2 and force turrets in the extremely rare situation of 12 nex into 2 base carrier/fast arb. Imagine ForGG vs Kal on Colosseum, like that except a little better and scouts would get a legit use in-game, still shitty, but usable.
Fix certain map tiles that are broken and can't actually be used when making a competative map.
More melee map features, I'd go crazy here, give mapmakers a lot of new optione, if they find a legit use good for them, if they don't, no harm done. Everything from collapsable bridges to evenground miss chance ground(which can already be done, but in a limiting manner)
Fix map resolution, so that this would actually allow 126+/126+ maps
On January 22 2014 04:39 Chef wrote: I would make it so that if you have 6 SCVs you can assemble them into a giant robot that attacks by picking up supply depots and throwing them.
I like this one blizzard should definitely consider it
On January 22 2014 08:27 YejinYejin wrote: Lol nvm found the ramp error vodtoast was referring to.
oh ya, I remember this lol. I can see that being game breaking but does it happen that often? I mean I can't recall other incidents like this although I'm sure they must've happened.
On January 22 2014 08:53 Cyro wrote: Native 1920x1080, with higher resolution UI/units/etc so that they were not too small.
^That's halfway there. (:
was just going to ask someone to post something like this, thanks! That's a wide area that you can see so as long as they fix it as mentioned above^, I think a higher resolution would be a good thing.
Interface options, bug removals like the Dragoon glitch, much that has already been said. In addition to the Dragoon glitches, Ultralisks actually sometimes failed to attack or just missed stationary targets.
I've posted about this before some time ago, but when I was testing cooldown rates, how things like Ensnare affected them etc., but Ultralisks attacking a modified, 0 armour Xel Naga Temple, tested from numerous angles, would sometimes fail to hit the immobile building. This seemed to occur around about 12.5% of the time, though not precisely, but that made its effective cooldown closer to 17.142857[...]. I did test on a few other objects but not many, so it might be that it only fails to hit against buildings, or only against large enough targets or only from some angles of attack. I think one theory I came up with was that the ultralisk's attack animation did not time well with the attack cooldown, so it might play a little too quickly or slowly for the attack cooldown. Maybe the animation needs to have finished around the target but if the cooldown expired in poor timing with the animation, it would not deal damage? :S I haven't checked animation timings though, so that's just a wild theory. Obviously correcting this issue would be important to include in the hypothetical patch.
Fix mining from gas geysers and mineral patches so that all positions are perfectly balanced!
Improve the default map editor to be similar to the advanced one (I've forgotten the name of it now, because it doesn't seem to be installed on my computer any more! ㅠ___ㅠ). Allow copying and pasting of sections of the map and (maybe you could do this already but...) also rotation of the copied areas. While you could make multiple corners of a map, symmetrically at the same time, by making mirroring your actions, you couldn't mirror sections in hindsight by copying and rotating/mirroring the selection (copied stuff). Add ways of "mirroring" at 120° and 60° angles (or whatever is required) to make 3 player maps more easily! Maybe make maps of non-standard size NOT require UMS to be played and make applications like BWrepinfow.exe, Lord Martin Reply Browser etc. able to read them. The latter options would be up to the third party programmers rather than part of the patch, obviously.
For variety of playstyle: As has been suggested make Spawn Broodlings cost 125 energy (I think it should be fine but it could obviously be reverted at some stage if it proved to be too strong). I think you'd want to try it with the technology research cost being the same at first so that you don't make it take too much time and too many resources to get going in the first place and then if SB at 125 energy seemed good but there were some timings that were too strong, you could increase the technology research cost. Making SB a little more viable or attractive in general also makes them more viable for Ensnare, as you know that if you get them for Ensnare and still have them alive, they can prove to be that much better later on, so preserving them can pay off just a little more than before.
Apial Sensors only take 100 game seconds to complete (was 166), possibly only cost 50/50 (is 100/100).
Scout Ground attack deals either 10 damage or 2×5 damage (again, this can be reverted if too strong) to snipe workers a little more efficiently, be slightly less poor versus hydralisks (good for opening up scout harass vs zerg going hydras? Maybe? Might not be very viable. ) or perhaps instead make scouts a tad cheaper.
Ghost damage upgrade bonuses change to +2 per upgrade? (Still concussive though) Lockdown research cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100?
Spire and Greater Spire hit points increased because both buildings are so daftly low on life for the amount of time required to complete them and for the resources invested into them. Possibly other buildings too but mostly the hit points of buildings seem to work out pretty well in BW. In SC2 they all need more (maybe they should all have more than they have even now -_-) because of how easily you can stick a large number of units behind a base to kill it (multiple medivacs dropping marines/marauders) and how easily you get larger amounts of units. That's less of a concern in BW.
Maybe a moderate hit point buff (somewhere from 135-160?) to lurkers because the best terrans can make marines just so ridiculously efficient and tanks and irradiate already really limit the timings windows for lurkers before Dark Swarm. :\ I would like things like 3 hatch lurker to be more viable at professional level play (possibly get contained and then break out with lurkers and speedlings from 3-5 hatcheries for defence transitioning into heavy aggression maybe?) rather than nigh-necessity to get mutalisks first.
Hit point and/or movement speed buff (from 1.40625 to 1.6875 or 1.875) to Guardians? I would rather see the lurker and guardian buffs both be implemented and then if they're a little too strong, balance them by improving something for the other races trying to deal with them rather than reverting these buffs, because it is much nicer for the game to keep a good number of options (and unit compositions) viable.
Remove or increase the sprite limit cap to allow at least an increased number of Valkyries on the screen without sprite glitch concerns and also make Devourers & Disruption Web a bit more viable somehow?
So mainly the "balancing" ideas are to help more units within each race to be viable options. You would obviously work to make sure any buffs are kept in check by reducing the buff if appropriate, or buffing other things to help the "counters" etc.
Edited to fix a few typing errors including missed number after a plus sign. :Þ
OS compatibility, colour fix, higher resolution, and proper full screen windowed mode would be all I need. It's just too much of a hassle to play BW on multi-monitor windows 7/8.
On January 22 2014 10:21 traceurling wrote: Know what would becrazy? If scourge did splash damage
On January 22 2014 09:15 ArvickHero wrote: fix sprite limit/"cannot create more units" issue.
That's about it, I'm pretty happy with the game as it is
Maybe make it so that you dont need a fleet beacon for additional air upgrades (or change the building required) to help out PvZ a bit. Being able to cancel archon morphing would be nice too.
On January 22 2014 04:32 BisuDagger wrote: I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
suck it terran
You should patch out Hydra busts too.
No. I would patch photon cannons that fire scarabs.
On January 22 2014 04:32 BisuDagger wrote: I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
suck it terran
You should patch out Hydra busts too.
No. I would patch photon cannons that fire scarabs.
On January 22 2014 04:32 BisuDagger wrote: I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
suck it terran
You should patch out Hydra busts too.
No. I would patch photon cannons that fire scarabs.
On January 22 2014 04:32 BisuDagger wrote: I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
suck it terran
You should patch out Hydra busts too.
No. I would patch photon cannons that fire scarabs.
On January 22 2014 04:32 BisuDagger wrote: I would -patch the hold button into lurker button UI. -patch a button that would cause mutas to fly into a stack formation if they start to spread out from each other + Show Spoiler +
suck it terran
You should patch out Hydra busts too.
No. I would patch photon cannons that fire scarabs.
Never got into pro BW scene much, but I am aware of the infamous Dragoon problems. I just wanna ask: what would happen if your strategy hinged on using 1 Dragoon for harassment/scouting, and he got stuck? In a pro game did they allow you a rematch?
On January 22 2014 12:26 xAdra wrote: Never got into pro BW scene much, but I am aware of the infamous Dragoon problems. I just wanna ask: what would happen if your strategy hinged on using 1 Dragoon for harassment/scouting, and he got stuck? In a pro game did they allow you a rematch?
first thing came into my mind: Tempest.
to answer your question, idk, never happened before
Make the scout cheaper. Put scourge @C. Ensnare by default is researched. Make D web on Cybernetics core. Valkyrie now only requires Armory no longer needing a tech lab. Medic Optical Flare is researched by default. Shield Battery is now the size of a pylon now starting at 150 energy. Maelstrom comes by default researched.
The stop bug happens with marines every so often when I fd or move out versus muta. It happens with marines a lot more then goons for me. I don't think it's a huge deal.
Just make it work easily on newer operating systems, so new people can get into it easily. That includes running on HD resolution, BUT I'd prefer it then runs everything just as big as usual and in 4:3 with black lanes - just make scaling handled by the game itself, because not all graphic cards handle it properly. Add ladder to Battle.net that works by just clicking a button and automatically matches people of similar rank - of course, keep "the old way" in the system too.
As for balance changes, I'm quite hesitant to touch anything. But in some matchups there's not much unit variety. Like, in ZvZ it's all about muta-ling, unless it somehow goes late. In such matchups I'd think about making a wider variety of unit strats viable.
Talented modders could patch all the thing mention in this thread if blizzard just release the source code for broodwar ... why are they even keeping the codes man ? after all this years they should just release it to us fans who are still playing it.
On January 22 2014 12:26 xAdra wrote: Never got into pro BW scene much, but I am aware of the infamous Dragoon problems. I just wanna ask: what would happen if your strategy hinged on using 1 Dragoon for harassment/scouting, and he got stuck? In a pro game did they allow you a rematch?
The goon only gets stuck if you try to A click when units are barely out of range, besides you can easily debug it by using hold position.
Not nearly as big a problem as you made it out to be... It basically only effected really bad players who couldn't unbug it.
On January 22 2014 10:14 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Interface options, bug removals like the Dragoon glitch, much that has already been said. In addition to the Dragoon glitches, Ultralisks actually sometimes failed to attack or just missed stationary targets.
I've posted about this before some time ago, but when I was testing cooldown rates, how things like Ensnare affected them etc., but Ultralisks attacking a modified, 0 armour Xel Naga Temple, tested from numerous angles, would sometimes fail to hit the immobile building. This seemed to occur around about 12.5% of the time, though not precisely, but that made its effective cooldown closer to 17.142857[...]. I did test on a few other objects but not many, so it might be that it only fails to hit against buildings, or only against large enough targets or only from some angles of attack. I think one theory I came up with was that the ultralisk's attack animation did not time well with the attack cooldown, so it might play a little too quickly or slowly for the attack cooldown. Maybe the animation needs to have finished around the target but if the cooldown expired in poor timing with the animation, it would not deal damage? :S I haven't checked animation timings though, so that's just a wild theory. Obviously correcting this issue would be important to include in the hypothetical patch.
Fix mining from gas gesyers and mineral patches so that all positions are perfectly balanced!
Improve the default map editor to be similar to the advanced one (I've forgotten the name of it now, because it doesn't seem to be installed on my computer any more! ㅠ___ㅠ). Allow copying and pasting of sections of the map and (maybe you could do this already but...) also rotation of the copied areas. While you could make multiple corners of a map, symmetrically at the same time, by making mirroring your actions, you couldn't mirror sections in hindsight by copying and rotating/mirroring the selection (copied stuff). Add ways of "mirroring" at 120° and 60° angles (or whatever is required) to make 3 player maps more easily! Maybe make maps of non-standard size NOT require UMS to be played and make applications like BWrepinfow.exe, Lord Martin Reply Browser etc. able to read them. The latter options would be up to the third party programmers rather than part of the patch, obviously.
For variety of playstyle: As has been suggested make Spawn Broodlings cost 125 energy (I think it should be fine but it could obviously be reverted at some stage if it proved to be too strong). I thin you'd want to try it with the technology research cost being the same at first so that you don't make it take too much time and too many resources to get going in the first place and then if SB at 125 energy seemed good but there were some timings that were too strong, you could increase the technology research cost. Making SB a little more viable or attractive in general also makes them more viable for Ensnare, as you know that if you get them for Ensnare and still have them alive, they can prove to be that much better later on, so preserving them can pay off just a little more than before.
Apial Sensors only take 100 game seconds to complete (was 166), possibly only cost 50/50 (is 100/100).
Scout Ground attack deals either 10 damage or 2×5 damage (again, this can be reverted if too strong) to snipe workers a little more efficiently, be slightly less poor versus hydralisks (good for opening up scout harrass vs zerg going hydras? Maybe? Might not be very viable. ) or perhaps instead make scouts either a tad cheaper.
Ghost damage upgrade bonuses change to + per upgrade? (Still concussive though) Lockdown research cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100?
Spire and Greater Spire hit points increased because both buildings are so daftly low on life for the amount of time required to complete them and for the resources invested into them. Possibly other buildings too but mostly the hit points pof buildings seem to work out pretty well in BW. In SC2 they all need more (maybe they should all have more than they have even now -_-) because how easily you can stick a large number of units behind a base to kill it (multiple medivacs dropping marines/marauders) and how easily you get larger amounts of units. That's less of a concern in BW.
Maybe a moderate hit point buff (somewhere from 135-160?) to lurkers because the best terrans can make marines just so ridiculously efficient and tanks and irradiate already really limit the timings windows for lurkers before Dark Swarm. :\ I would like things like 3 hatch lurker to be more viable at professional level play (possibly get contained and then break out with lurkers and speedlings from 3-5 hatcheries for defence transitioning into heavy aggression maybe?) rather than nigh-necessity to get mutalisks first.
Hit point and/or movement speed buff (from 1.40625 to 1.6875 or 1.875) to Guardians? I would rather see the lurker and guardian buffs both be implemented and then if they're a little too strong, balance them by improving something for the other races trying to deal with them rather than reverting these buffs, because it is much nicer for the game to keep a good number of options (and unit compositions) viable.
Remove or increase the sprite limit cap to allow at least an increased number of Valkyries on the screen without sprite glitch concerns and also make Devourers & Disruption Web a bit more viable somehow?
So mainly the "balancing" ideas are to help more units within each race to be viable options. You would obviously work to make sure any buffs are kept in check by reducing the buff if appropriate, or buffing other things to help the "counters" etc.
On January 22 2014 09:15 ArvickHero wrote: fix sprite limit/"cannot create more units" issue.
That's about it, I'm pretty happy with the game as it is
Maybe make it so that you dont need a fleet beacon for additional air upgrades (or change the building required) to help out PvZ a bit. Being able to cancel archon morphing would be nice too.
Don't the templar sacrifice themselves to summon an archon? If you cancel it you would just get nothing back.
Queen Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
Queen* Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
doesn't that just imply that they should all get on killer's level? lol.
On January 22 2014 15:34 Hyde wrote: How does everyone feel about an extra location key? so 4 instead of 3
Queen Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
Sorry, but that seems like a dumb solution, wouldn't it be better to increase queen starting energy, easier to transition + not OP in a longer game.
Queen Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
A lot of it has to do with maps actually, FS is extremely good for Terran latemech and almost all the Afreeca streamers agree FS is Terran favored (SOSPA TvZ FS Stats 159-89 (64.1%))
Queen* Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
doesn't that just imply that they should all get on killer's level? lol.
Also this, people only complain about the last season of SPL because JD didn't do as well from what I remember Zero + Soulkey did well.
Queen Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
A lot of it has to do with maps actually, FS is extremely good for Terran latemech and almost all the Afreeca streamers agree FS is Terran favored (SOSPA TvZ FS Stats 159-89 (64.1%))
I don't know meta hasn't changed THAT much since 2009, I think that its just that zergs play worse now - HerO and Killer although Killer seems to have been not so dominant in the past couple of months.
Queen Ensnare Range 9 --> 10 Spawn Broodling Energy Cost 150 --> 125 (This actually might be way too overpowered.)
This! In the last season of bw proleague zergs sucked so much against imba mech switch build, and this continues into afreeca, unless zerg is killer. So I thought that it would be great to buff queens's broodling ability, decrease their energy cost. I would decrease even to 100 !
A lot of it has to do with maps actually, FS is extremely good for Terran latemech and almost all the Afreeca streamers agree FS is Terran favored (SOSPA TvZ FS Stats 159-89 (64.1%))
I don't know meta hasn't changed THAT much since 2009, I think that its just that zergs play worse now - HerO and Killer although Killer seems to have been not so dominant in the past couple of months.
ever since T's integrated the late-game mech switch in tvt, zergs have a hard time dealing with it.
??????? many of the builds used today are very different in many ways from 2009-10, and latemech wasn't even popular until 2011, well after FS was out of circulation. FS's map structure makes it incredibly easy for good latemech players to split the map to their favor
On January 22 2014 16:38 ArvickHero wrote: ??????? many of the builds used today are very different in many ways from 2009-10, and latemech wasn't even popular until 2011, well after FS was out of circulation. FS's map structure makes it incredibly easy for good latemech players to split the map to their favor
really? that's not that far back, interesting. Always thought late mech switching happened back in 2010 at least if not earlier, guess not lol
On January 22 2014 16:38 ArvickHero wrote: ??????? many of the builds used today are very different in many ways from 2009-10, and latemech wasn't even popular until 2011, well after FS was out of circulation. FS's map structure makes it incredibly easy for good latemech players to split the map to their favor
Hmm... Interesting. Although I would still argue that if the 2009/10 Terrans were to play their style on FS versus today's zergs they'd still rape them hard. I'm basically trying to say that there's A LOT of room for improvement in today's play. Even at the end of Brood War the best players made mistakes and could still improve.
Basically I'm trying to say that if somebody really starts dominating right now maps and meta won't stop him regardless of race.
On January 22 2014 16:38 ArvickHero wrote: ??????? many of the builds used today are very different in many ways from 2009-10, and latemech wasn't even popular until 2011, well after FS was out of circulation. FS's map structure makes it incredibly easy for good latemech players to split the map to their favor
really? that's not that far back, interesting. Always thought late mech switching happened back in 2010 at least if not earlier, guess not lol
And you're right, late full-mech-switch was seen f.e. in Fantasy vs Zero in 2010, Sea vs Jaedong (also 2010) and many more, but it became a standard mindset in 2011.
players began experimenting w/ latemech around 2010, but wasn't very effective until 2011.
are we trying to compare 2009/10 progamer Terrans to today's expro/amateur Zergs, because that would be such an unfair/stupid comparison. Better to just compare them to the average 2012 progamer Zerg, who by then were so good at defending against bio that even Light (who was one of the last bastions of lategame TvZ bio) had to switch over to latemech.
but that's really beside my point, which is that FS is imba (despite what some people say) especially in regards to latemech, and FS's problems relating to latemech carries over to many other maps that derive their structural elements from FS. We don't really need a patch to combat it, just new maps. Case in point: optimization of PvZ timing attacks led to a massive swing in balance towards Protoss in around 2009, until Zergs figured out how to simcity. As a result, maps from that point on were designed with simcitying in mind, for balance.
Yea skill can transcend map balance, but you can't just go "hey any Protoss can beat any Zerg on Tears of the Moon all the time if they're skilled enough" or "oh well its ok if Zerg can't simcity on this map, he can still win if he's better". These things matter.
On January 22 2014 18:19 ArvickHero wrote: players began experimenting w/ latemech around 2010, but wasn't very effective until 2011.
are we trying to compare 2009/10 progamer Terrans to today's expro/amateur Zergs, because that would be such an unfair/stupid comparison. Better to just compare them to the average 2012 progamer Zerg, who by then were so good at defending against bio that even Light (who was one of the last bastions of lategame TvZ bio) had to switch over to latemech.
but that's really beside my point, which is that FS is imba (despite what some people say) especially in regards to latemech, and FS's problems relating to latemech carries over to many other maps that derive their structural elements from FS. We don't really need a patch to combat it, just new maps. Case in point: optimization of PvZ timing attacks led to a massive swing in balance towards Protoss in around 2009, until Zergs figured out how to simcity. As a result, maps from that point on were designed with simcitying in mind, for balance.
Yea skill can transcend map balance, but you can't just go "hey any Protoss can beat any Zerg on Tears of the Moon all the time if they're skilled enough" or "oh well its ok if Zerg can't simcity on this map, he can still win if he's better". These things matter.
I feel like even better Protoss players cant beat Zergs because of sim city most of the time. Its almost impossible to do anything against it. Just like I feel like on FS for sure Swarm makes it practically impossible to attack as T, unless you kill them with 5/6 rax aggression builds
On January 22 2014 18:19 ArvickHero wrote: players began experimenting w/ latemech around 2010, but wasn't very effective until 2011.
It was effective enouth to cause a massive balance whining from Zerg players, lol. (not that Zerg players hadnt whine earier, flash pushes, fantasy build and leta wright style also brouth a massive amount of whining, but its really difficult to find more nerdzerg-rage thread than the one from MSL game 1 - Jeadong vs Sea )
Speeking of balance...many of suggestions here are straith awfull...
On January 22 2014 18:19 ArvickHero wrote: players began experimenting w/ latemech around 2010, but wasn't very effective until 2011.
are we trying to compare 2009/10 progamer Terrans to today's expro/amateur Zergs, because that would be such an unfair/stupid comparison. Better to just compare them to the average 2012 progamer Zerg, who by then were so good at defending against bio that even Light (who was one of the last bastions of lategame TvZ bio) had to switch over to latemech.
but that's really beside my point, which is that FS is imba (despite what some people say) especially in regards to latemech, and FS's problems relating to latemech carries over to many other maps that derive their structural elements from FS. We don't really need a patch to combat it, just new maps. Case in point: optimization of PvZ timing attacks led to a massive swing in balance towards Protoss in around 2009, until Zergs figured out how to simcity. As a result, maps from that point on were designed with simcitying in mind, for balance.
Yea skill can transcend map balance, but you can't just go "hey any Protoss can beat any Zerg on Tears of the Moon all the time if they're skilled enough" or "oh well its ok if Zerg can't simcity on this map, he can still win if he's better". These things matter.
Well what would you want kind of features would you want to add to make lategame mech weaker?
Wider chokes leading to expansions? Well that would fucker over early game for some other match ups. How exactly does one build a map to take lategame mech into consideration?
On January 22 2014 18:19 ArvickHero wrote: players began experimenting w/ latemech around 2010, but wasn't very effective until 2011.
are we trying to compare 2009/10 progamer Terrans to today's expro/amateur Zergs, because that would be such an unfair/stupid comparison. Better to just compare them to the average 2012 progamer Zerg, who by then were so good at defending against bio that even Light (who was one of the last bastions of lategame TvZ bio) had to switch over to latemech.
but that's really beside my point, which is that FS is imba (despite what some people say) especially in regards to latemech, and FS's problems relating to latemech carries over to many other maps that derive their structural elements from FS. We don't really need a patch to combat it, just new maps. Case in point: optimization of PvZ timing attacks led to a massive swing in balance towards Protoss in around 2009, until Zergs figured out how to simcity. As a result, maps from that point on were designed with simcitying in mind, for balance.
Yea skill can transcend map balance, but you can't just go "hey any Protoss can beat any Zerg on Tears of the Moon all the time if they're skilled enough" or "oh well its ok if Zerg can't simcity on this map, he can still win if he's better". These things matter.
Well what would you want kind of features would you want to add to make lategame mech weaker?
Wider chokes leading to expansions? Well that would fucker over early game for some other match ups. How exactly does one build a map to take lategame mech into consideration?
Expansion layout
The same thing that makes late mech weaker, make bio stronger.
well that'd actually be an interesting discussion now wouldn't it? There's a lot of different possibilities, from trying to deal with it indirectly by giving Zerg a better chance at setting up an advantage in the early/mid-game to translate to a stronger position late-game, or tackling it more directly, such as creating novel map structures (not everything has to be 4player corner maps made from a Luna blueprint).
It'd be fun to see how the game, balance and meta progresses from this point .. or we can just keep using FS and stagnate.
On January 22 2014 18:57 ArvickHero wrote: well that'd actually be an interesting discussion now wouldn't it? There's a lot of different possibilities, from trying to deal with it indirectly by giving Zerg a better chance at setting up an advantage in the early/mid-game to translate to a stronger position late-game, or tackling it more directly, such as creating novel map structures (not everything has to be 4player corner maps made from a Luna blueprint).
It'd be fun to see how the game, balance and meta progresses from this point .. or we can just keep using FS and stagnate.
I definitely see your point though. At this point FS should be discarded and left to rot in some empty hole somewhere. Seriously to many maps are literally Fighting Spirit with a twist or two. I know I joined the scene relatively late, but to me it seems like most of the maps released in the last 2 years of Brood War were trying to be FS, maybe it's just because KESPA - Brood War was starting to go down hill because of the matchfixing scandal, Blizzard suing KESPA etc etc etc.
But this is 2014, KESPA is pretty much dead, gone and burried as far as I'm concerned and we have SOSPA now and a great opportunity to go back to more wacky map design. Mist for instance seems like a step in the right direction, but I wish that Sonic would just rotate out most of the old KESPA maps next season, maybe leave 1 map, but let it not be FS. Something like Othello maybe - Standardish, but still interesting.
I imagine that practicing new maps is probably the last thing the current top SOSPA players want, but Sonic has already established himself and he has the power to enforce new maps and these players most definitely won't leave because they have to practice a couple of new maps like they have for their entire careers.
Slightly less relevant: Have any of the current top SOSPA players actually talked or expressed their feelings on how they feel about Sonic adding and enforcing more new maps?
On January 22 2014 19:03 Boonbag wrote: what we need is hd redesign that changes the color set / art of the game i think map editor is sufficient
the dark sci fi theme is so 90's
BETRAYAL IN OUR RANKS!!! TERRAN PATRIOTS, TO ARMS!!!
This is completely unacceptable for me personaly. Color set is fine, but its my personal, completely biased and subjective opinion.
haha i meant mainly giving it a more arcade vibe the retro look is pretty good i just feel it would be better if it looked little more punchy, as far as specating goes
Terran Ghost - i would make them come out earlier, maybe fac tech.. i have the idea of them fending off muta attks with their 7 range, 8 in bunkers. cloak research from academy.
mines needs nerfing, either in the form of costing some minerals like 5 or 10 or reducing number from 3 to 2.
Goliath - AA weap upgrade is too good change from +4 to +2.
Vessel - cost increase to 3 supplies.
BC - attk change from 25 to 30.
Valk - cost decrease to 225/125.
Zerg Queen - Spawn Broodling mana cost 150 to 125, upgrade increase 100/100 to 200/200. Change infest to work on all races, for zerg the infested hatch becomes ur own, for toss nexus gets to build a zerg/toss hybrid unit.
Devourer - increase attk rate. cost decrease to 125/50.
Toss DT - armor nerf to 0. cost increase or hp decrease.
DA - MC needs rework imo, make it a temp MC, mana and research cost both reduced, and it no longer costs shields.
Scout - increase ground attk to 10, increase fire rate. cost decreased to 225/125.
Lol I can't believe the post just above mine. I don't think broodwar needs that much changes balance wise. Only things that would seem wise to me is to slightly buff completely unused units.
Gameplay wise, maybe a slight buff for firebats. Not so much so that they become a problem in early/midgame TvZ, but so bio could be a littttttle less brittle in bio TvP. Maybe soak up a bit more storm/reaver/goon damage. Not enough that bio is considered as viable as mech in that matchup, but just enough to give a bio player some semblance of a meat shield/tank that can help against zealots and possibly buy them *some* time to transition into a better unit composition. Might create situations where both T and P have to dance around and position their zealots/dragoons/HT v marine/medic/firebat to get optimal damage in. As of now bio TvP is 100% based on the element of surprise. It still should be, but maybe giving a bigger window to survive after the bio strat is known to the protoss player could make it less of an all-in/gimmicky strat. Again, I don't know if this could be done in a meaningful way without breaking TvZ. I would guess that if Z could survive the early game somehow that it wouldn't affect the matchup too much.
I think creep spread that didn't give vision would help Z defend new expos in ZvT. Just a slight speed bonus or something. Thinking along the lines of expos like 12,3,6 and 9 on FS where getting a nydus sometimes just doesn't help all that much when you can't really run down those ramps in most cases. Would probably break PvZ though? If you could use sunkens/spores/creep colonies to spread creep down ramps this mechanic could help Z without seeing maps completely covered in creep every game like in SC2. Zergs would have to invest more to "build" creep and it could be a mostly defensive thing. This is probably too much to add to BW though thinking about it more. Would be hard to justify implementing it and even harder to find a way to make it useful but not completely game changing.
Scount speed without upgrade definitely. Cutting its air to ground attack speed in half (or maybe by a third) seems wise. Those two buffs with a slightly lower cost (maybe even a little bit less build time) would make the scout a bit less useless but not so much so that we'd see them often at all. Definitely gives the unit a bit of versatility that it COMPLETELY lacks atm.
Other than that more obvious things include the valk sprite bug... ever so slightly buffing the scarab pathfinding AI (SLIGHTLY!!!!)... and increasing resolution slightly. Of course multiplayer improvements like auto LAN latency, easier hosting, etc. but I was mostly approaching it from a gameplay perspective.
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
The keys should remain the same, just as everyone should play with the same fotball in a fotball match .
protip: if you play the spanish, german or english version of Brood War, they have different settings. omg, op.
Which version has the hardest to use hotkeys?
Germans have larvae on L and French have probes on S. Also, if I remember correctly Germans have messed up keys for marines/medics or something like that, cant remember exactly what now.
...but fixing colors aka OS support seems to be the biggest thing.
On January 22 2014 23:57 endy wrote: I've always played BW with a French keyboard layout. "A" and "Q" keys are switched, so it becomes much much easier to 1A2A3A4A.
I play with german keyboard layout. Means z and y are switched, makes it easier to build drones. L larvae and Z zerglings.
On January 22 2014 05:54 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, actually, hotkey bindings are the only thing keeping me from playing BW more intensively. I don't want to learn 2 sets of hotkeys switching back from SC2 to BW and vice versa, it would have been nice to just be able to set the hotkeys.
Since I noted there are a few people that would like the ability to change hotkeys and apparantely even some that are prevented from full enjoyment: Try Doxstar
On January 22 2014 01:49 vOdToasT wrote: 1. Units getting stuck
You know when you tell a unit to attack, and then you tell it to move, as it's shooting, and the target moved out of range? Sometimes the unit will get stuck, and you'll have to press "S" to release it. I know this can be avoided if you know what you're doing, but it's annoying and doesn't make the game any better. I'd take it out of the game completely.
2. Clicking on an icon to center the view on that unit / structure
If you have something selected that is not assigned to a hotkey, the only way to center your view on it is to click on its icon. But whenever a unit is produced, that unit's icon takes up the spot for a really really long time (instead of whatever you have selected). I would either shorten this time, or remove it completely, so that you can always center your view on what you have selected. It's pretty annoying when I'm trying to center my view on a barracks, so I can F4 that shit, and units keep finishing so that I can't. 3. Units always popping out below the building
This is a pretty serious flaw, because it either creates map imbalances, or forces map creators to limit themselves too much. If you could simply set a spawn point (like you can set a rally point) this would be solved. Protoss users could make a high templar from their gateway that is being shot at by hydralisks, no matter what start location they got. Terrans could wall of at all locations and not die to 4 pools, and so on.
Do you agree with my changes?
I hate these things as a player that wants to win, but I love these kinds of difficulties, whether they were intended or not, as a player that loves the game itself because (to me) it MAKES you appreciate and be in awe of great players who perform extremely technical rushes or beautiful crisp long management games.
When I was watching Starcraft for the first time when I was a kid, the game was amazing because it was a great spectator sport to watch, and the energy you could feel from the players and the casters and the game itself was addicting. When I played the game for the first time, the game became even more amazing when I realized just how difficult it was just to execute a seemingly simple opening, and it made me love the players and the games that I watched even more.
On January 23 2014 06:39 Gamegene wrote: all i want is changes to the battlenet UI to make it more modern with even more functionality.
reading about remapped hotkeys scares me and arbitrary stat changes scares me.
Why do remapped hotkeys scare you? Various countries already have different hotkeys than an English version.
I like the current hotkeys, even though I do misclick a lot on pressing O for Siege Mode and clicking P for patrol kiting just because they force your hand to move across the keyboard and makes you consider how you want to have the most efficient hotkey set up.
Pressing 4M5M6M7M is just such a powerfully cool feeling that could never be satisified with the A key. Similarly I like using F2 F3 for building my SCVs instead of using 6+7 or 9+0 just beacuse it also feels awesome to move my hand up to the function row and hit S!
Even though it's small, being forced to spend the extra half second to move your fingers and reach for that P key or L key is just something I love about the game and wouldn't want to go away
If I was given the choice, I would probably change to a easier hotkey set up just so I could have more of an advantage in my games because I want to win as much as I can despite everything that I just said, which is why I'm scared that one day in the distant future Blizzard releases a remake with all the SC2 UI functionality and I become sad.
On January 22 2014 12:26 xAdra wrote: Never got into pro BW scene much, but I am aware of the infamous Dragoon problems. I just wanna ask: what would happen if your strategy hinged on using 1 Dragoon for harassment/scouting, and he got stuck? In a pro game did they allow you a rematch?
On January 23 2014 06:39 Gamegene wrote: all i want is changes to the battlenet UI to make it more modern with even more functionality.
reading about remapped hotkeys scares me and arbitrary stat changes scares me.
Why do remapped hotkeys scare you? Various countries already have different hotkeys than an English version.
I like the current hotkeys, even though I do misclick a lot on pressing O for Siege Mode and clicking P for patrol kiting just because they force your hand to move across the keyboard and makes you consider how you want to have the most efficient hotkey set up.
Pressing 4M5M6M7M is just such a powerfully cool feeling that could never be satisified with the A key. Similarly I like using F2 F3 for building my SCVs instead of using 6+7 or 9+0 just beacuse it also feels awesome to move my hand up to the function row and hit S!
Even though it's small, being forced to spend the extra half second to move your fingers and reach for that P key or L key is just something I love about the game and wouldn't want to go away
If I was given the choice, I would probably change to a easier hotkey set up just so I could have more of an advantage in my games because I want to win as much as I can despite everything that I just said, which is why I'm scared that one day in the distant future Blizzard releases a remake with all the SC2 UI functionality and I become sad.
Uhm, no one would force you to have different hotkeys. Nothing would be taken away from you, while players switching from SC2, those with small hands or for whatever other reason would be able to customize hotkeys to their liking.
On January 23 2014 05:24 Dazed_Spy wrote: Well, I'll combine this with my power of retroactivity and use it to delete replays from existence. Fuck replays.
Replays are the best.
It'd be even better if replays had been leaked more often, especially nowadays as there is nothing to hide.
On a scale of one to ten, how imba would Ghosts become if the had snipe as an ability (they have that in sc2)? I'm probably not the only one that has trouble making them usable in any strat.
Other change would be to either incease the projectile speed or cast range of emp.
On a completely unrelated note: can somebody tell me if there's gonna be another Gambit Cup at all? The rebirth of Korean BW seems to have killed the foreign efforts to an extent (sorry if some other Teamleague has been announced but I probably didn't notice since I was away from TL for a year or so).
On January 23 2014 18:39 RageCommodore wrote: On a scale of one to ten, how imba would Ghosts become if the had snipe as an ability (they have that in sc2)? I'm probably not the only one that has trouble making them usable in any strat.
Other change would be to either incease the projectile speed or cast range of emp.
On a completely unrelated note: can somebody tell me if there's gonna be another Gambit Cup at all? The rebirth of Korean BW seems to have killed the foreign efforts to an extent (sorry if some other Teamleague has been announced but I probably didn't notice since I was away from TL for a year or so).
Always thought it was kinda fucky how archons can attack ground targets and splash air targets. Really sucks when you trying to scourge obs over a mass of protoss ground trying to break lurkers. Or when ling/muta.
1. ghost with increased health at least by 30 and increased damage so that producing them does not feel so bad aside from nuking in tvt 2. an upgrade for marine/medic/firebat found in science faculty/covert ops that makes the production for them cheaper or make them a more powerful so that you can use bio vs protoss(i know sc2 already has this but think about it the kal vs forgg was so fun to watch .. just like in tvz we get 3 types of composition of units .. it would be nice to do the same with tvp )
i think this was the game .. i am not sure which one contains english cast
3. key binding 4. scouts faster build time, speed upgrade already given or easier access of it and/or less cost so that they are not used for trolling purposes only 5. less laggy starcraft that does not suck online(idk if this can be improved in the starcraft application alone in terms of programming the networking tools better) 6. and color thingy for win 7 users .. it doesn't mind me but turns of other people when they see the graphics pretty broken
On January 23 2014 22:06 JustPassingBy wrote: If you lose a game with battlecruisers, then the unit is renamed to cattlebruiser in the next game you build them.
Germans have larvae on L and French have probes on S. Also, if I remember correctly Germans have messed up keys for marines/medics or something like that, cant remember exactly what now.
Interesting, always made me curious if Koreans use English hotkeys or do they have their own, adopted to Hangeul or smth? Edit: To actually add something on topic I think I would allow buildings to create walls witch each other regardless of configuration, changes to where the units come out wuold be cool too. I'd also like to see some form of Anti hack being an internal feature of the game
Though they could try to make Dark Archons a viable spellcaster by improving its spells. They could make Queens better by improving its spells They could make Ghosts get better spells to make it more viable.
And last somewhat improve Scouts, either by decreasing it costs, or improving its damage output.
And the best improvment: Make it possible to morph two Archons together to a even bigger archon, with even more damage and shields and supplycost. And make this possibility endless (supply-cap).
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
The keys should remain the same, just as everyone should play with the same fotball in a fotball match .
protip: if you play the spanish, german or english version of Brood War, they have different settings. omg, op.
Which version has the hardest to use hotkeys?
Germans have larvae on L and French have probes on S. Also, if I remember correctly Germans have messed up keys for marines/medics or something like that, cant remember exactly what now.
With a french game/keyboard playing zerg is quite hard because buildings are on "M" (for Mutate) instead of "B" and on an azerty keyboard M is located to the right of the "L".... far away !
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
The keys should remain the same, just as everyone should play with the same fotball in a fotball match .
That comparison makes 0 sense.
On January 22 2014 23:32 thezanursic wrote:
On January 22 2014 23:28 IntoTheWow wrote:
On January 22 2014 23:09 ICanFlyLow wrote:
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
The keys should remain the same, just as everyone should play with the same fotball in a fotball match .
protip: if you play the spanish, german or english version of Brood War, they have different settings. omg, op.
Which version has the hardest to use hotkeys?
Germans have larvae on L and French have probes on S. Also, if I remember correctly Germans have messed up keys for marines/medics or something like that, cant remember exactly what now.
With a french game/keyboard playing zerg is quite hard because buildings are on "M" (for Mutate) instead of "B" and on an azerty keyboard M is located to the right of the "L".... far away !
Register your game on battle.net and download the english version
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
The keys should remain the same, just as everyone should play with the same fotball in a fotball match .
That comparison makes 0 sense.
On January 22 2014 23:32 thezanursic wrote:
On January 22 2014 23:28 IntoTheWow wrote:
On January 22 2014 23:09 ICanFlyLow wrote:
On January 22 2014 02:31 2Pacalypse- wrote: customize keyboard shortcuts - i never understood why people are so adamantly against it
i agree with all your points too
The keys should remain the same, just as everyone should play with the same fotball in a fotball match .
protip: if you play the spanish, german or english version of Brood War, they have different settings. omg, op.
Which version has the hardest to use hotkeys?
Germans have larvae on L and French have probes on S. Also, if I remember correctly Germans have messed up keys for marines/medics or something like that, cant remember exactly what now.
With a french game/keyboard playing zerg is quite hard because buildings are on "M" (for Mutate) instead of "B" and on an azerty keyboard M is located to the right of the "L".... far away !
Register your game on battle.net and download the english version
he's likely gosu at hitting those buttons by now so there's no point in learning new ones lol
Any balance change is risky, but if I got to change something, I'd try changing Hydralisk's air attack to do normal damage instead of explosive. Most air units are large, so there'd be no change in damage for those. Mutalisks are small though, so it would increase the viability of Hydras in ZvZ, as their vs-Muta damage would be doubled. (Observers are small too, so it would decrease the number of hits on them from 10 to 6, which is potentially a problem for PvZ.)
The non-mirrors and TvT are already fine and don't need any changes. For PvP, I'd want to do something to help early scouting a little, but I don't know what to touch there.
Multiple buildings selection and everybody have perfect macro, plus casual friendly game. Apm will decreace and players will be able to focus more on micro, strategy and multitasking.
On January 24 2014 18:28 _Animus_ wrote: Multiple buildings selection and everybody have perfect macro, plus casual friendly game. Apm will decreace and players will be able to focus more on micro, strategy and multitasking.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
I don't really frequent BW forums a lot as when I came to TL, I was already playing SC2, but this topic made me think about all the things I hated about BW and I started to make a list of changes I would make, which ended up being essentially SC2 with BW units and abilities. It's acutally quite puzzling that noone has yet made such a mod for SC2. There is Starbow, but that has their own mix of units and abilites and there is SC2BW, but that went, in my opinion, too far in "recreating BW", because they also recreated a lot of the things I would patch out. I understand that at high level it would be probably imbalanced due to smartcasting and macro, but at lower level, it could be a lot of fun to play.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
wasn't that also the reason why boxer switched too terran becouse of the reaver nerf?
but can't somebody just go through the change logs of sc instead of just talking for random sources lol
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
wasn't that also the reason why boxer switched too terran becouse of the reaver nerf?
but can't somebody just go through the change logs of sc instead of just talking for random sources lol
He did switch to Terran after a reaver nerf, but that could have been the transport nerf - that makes it so that units can't attack right after being unloaded from a transport.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
I can assure you it doesn't work, this was disproved many years ago.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
I can assure you it doesn't work, this was disproved many years ago.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
I can assure you it doesn't work, this was disproved many years ago.
Then let's fight :D
I'm not at home just now but I'm happy to test this with you at some over the weekend, I'm telling you though it just comes down to which SCV gets the first shot in.
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
I can assure you it doesn't work, this was disproved many years ago.
Then let's fight :D
I'm not at home just now but I'm happy to test this with you at some over the weekend, I'm telling you though it just comes down to which SCV gets the first shot in.
Ok. Message me on ICCup when you can. My name is vOddy
You can also PM me on TL or add me on Skype: vOddy-
SC2 style wall-ins Resolution Scouts to have speed buff for free Dweb lower mana cost more tilesets auto repair for scvs Invisible dark archon UI button for unit groups mix the unit type spells
New casual mode: auto mine mbs unlimited unit selection auto stacking air units auto patrol micro auto cast spells free queuing auto wall suggestions auto mineral jump auto scout (works like "explore" civilization or 4x games)
All I want is SC:BW HD like AoE HD... The game is perfect! The balance of all units is OK. It depends of players skills - who will make game more IMBA for other player. xD
On January 24 2014 17:49 thezanursic wrote: [quote] Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
I swear that it you take 2 SCVs and fight eachother one with normal attack one being spam attacked, the spam attack will always win by more than just 5hp next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
That's bullshit, it just doesn't work on your own units. Do it on an enemy unit and it works. If you don't believe me, let's fight right now - you attack normally, I spam. My SCV will beat yours.
I can assure you it doesn't work, this was disproved many years ago.
Then let's fight :D
I'm not at home just now but I'm happy to test this with you at some over the weekend, I'm telling you though it just comes down to which SCV gets the first shot in.
Ok. Message me on ICCup when you can. My name is vOddy
You can also PM me on TL or add me on Skype: vOddy-
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
It used to be that the reaver didn't have a delay before shooting so you'd drop your reaver from the shuttle and it would fire instantly then you'd pick it up and well.. that's truly imba.. hahaha
On January 23 2014 20:30 WGT-Baal wrote: the reaver scarab not exploding...
Scarabs actually used to have smarter AI, but they were dumbed down because they were OP.
So this one is a no-no.
Where did you get this information from?
Actually on the topic of reavers there's one thing I'd like to fix and that's the attack angle, like when you can't attack sunkens even though you out-range them and your reavers just keep moving forward, or on the ramp. That was annoying, especially in the campaign.
Probably Sayle, but he has been known to spread untrue information.
*Cough* SCV Attack Spam *Cough*
wasn't that also the reason why boxer switched too terran becouse of the reaver nerf?
but can't somebody just go through the change logs of sc instead of just talking for random sources lol
No the reason Boxer switched was because of the delay added to the reaver firing after being dropped from the shuttle. As far as I know nothing was dumbed down in terms of AI for the reaver and the scarab. It's always been the same.
SC2 style wall-ins Resolution Scouts to have speed buff for free Dweb lower mana cost more tilesets auto repair for scvs Invisible dark archon UI button for unit groups mix the unit type spells
New casual mode: auto mine mbs unlimited unit selection auto stacking air units auto patrol micro auto cast spells free queuing auto wall suggestions auto mineral jump auto scout (works like "explore" civilization or 4x games)
SC2 style wall-ins - Why simcitying is an art form. Literally it makes so much of a difference in ZvP for both races. Resolution - Fine Scouts to have speed buff for free - Maybe, but I'd rather see them having more dmg vs ground Dweb lower mana cost - While I'd like this change in PvT, I think this would potentially break sair/reaver in ZvP more tilesets - Obviously always good auto repair for scvs - Why not include this in the casual mode instead? Invisible dark archon - Are you high? UI button for unit groups - Huh? mix the unit type spells - Wut?
I wouldn't make changes to the game per se, but custom hotkeys as well as fixing the event buffer are good updates for the 21st century.
One thing that peeves me but not enough to want to change the game is medics can heal SCVs and bio from the other races, but SCVs can't repair Protoss units. That seems inconsistent.
SC2 style wall-ins Resolution Scouts to have speed buff for free Dweb lower mana cost more tilesets auto repair for scvs Invisible dark archon UI button for unit groups mix the unit type spells
New casual mode: auto mine mbs unlimited unit selection auto stacking air units auto patrol micro auto cast spells free queuing auto wall suggestions auto mineral jump auto scout (works like "explore" civilization or 4x games)
SC2 style wall-ins - Why simcitying is an art form. Literally it makes so much of a difference in ZvP for both races. Resolution - Fine Scouts to have speed buff for free - Maybe, but I'd rather see them having more dmg vs ground Dweb lower mana cost - While I'd like this change in PvT, I think this would potentially break sair/reaver in ZvP more tilesets - Obviously always good auto repair for scvs - Why not include this in the casual mode instead? Invisible dark archon - Are you high? UI button for unit groups - Huh? mix the unit type spells - Wut?
I want to add that blocking zealot movement, while allowing marine movement, is an important part of TvP walling. It's more interesting than just blocking everything, like in SC2. So I do not agree with making wall ins SC2 style. Also, lifting and landing a barracks takes a lot of time, so forcing Terrans to lift a barracks in order to exit with marines from a completely walled in base is actually a nerf to Terran. Not to mention it would let Terran do ling tight wall ins on maps that it's not supposed to work on.
I also totally agree that the event buffer should be improved in a patch. It's too bad Blizzard won't get off their asses and do it. We could even get some amateur programmers to do it for them (or just use the fix that literally already exists... Just make StarCraft run with his executable automatically). All they would have to do is upload the patch. But it won't happen.
On January 26 2014 00:24 oBlade wrote: I wouldn't make changes to the game per se, but custom hotkeys as well as fixing the event buffer are good updates for the 21st century.
One thing that peeves me but not enough to want to change the game is medics can heal SCVs and bio from the other races, but SCVs can't repair Protoss units. That seems inconsistent.
Do you happen to still have that software? I'm really interested in trying it but the sites linked in the OP are dead.
I think most everyone can agree with certain things, like upping the rez, doing anything possible to stop map-hacking, fixing obvious bugs/limitations like the valk sprite bug, etc.
But many of the balance changes suggested are pure sheeite. Even I can see that. A lot of it seems to fall under, "Well, I personally have a problem fighting this unit, soooooo..." Also not much recognition of how changing one thing affects other matchups/can break them. Balance is notoriously tricky, probably drives game designers literally mad. Poor devils.
When suggesting balance changes, probably is best to begin with a set of GOALS, and work from there.
For me, those goals would be:
1) Make underutilized/seldomly-seen units more useful.
It's not only about buffing the unit in question, it can instead be about mildly de-buffing counter-units/spells/abilities that render it so useless, or making what *it* counters show up more, thus increasing the need/role for said underutilized unit.
For instance, if you saw BCs more, you'd very likely see Scouts more, even in their present form. Not that Scouts aren't crying out to be altered in certain ways (i.e. faster/cheaper speed upgrade). And, sure, both Scouts and Wraiths would be a lot more interesting (and used) if you went the buff route and upped ATG damage even moderately.
But of course, you buff even a little too much, and suddenly/surprisingly, the game is broken. It's like a spring-loaded bear-trap, doesn't take much. Having observed the absolutely massive and heated 'Imba Wars' discussions that played out on the Bliz forums prior to the 1.04 and 1.08 patches, I can tell you that a surprisingly huge % of ppl don't get that.
2) Make certain matchups less 'tunnel vision'/less played out in mostly the same old ways. Goes hand-in-hand with 1).
For ex, ZvZ is very often about muta-ling. TvP almost always requires the Terran to go mech (and push). There's ultra-obvious reasons why that is (i.e., Protoss area-effect units absolutely devastating/hard-countering T bio), but think beyond the 'Captain Obvious' box... does it absolutely have to be that way, or are there clever ways to make certain matchups play out in more varied ways, but without breaking other matchups? What would those be?
3) Level out whatever few things remain that are pretty obviously OP'd/cheesy.
I think Blizzard did a very good job of getting this mostly under control, but there are a few things remaining that are still borderline, such as Irradiate, perhaps. Some would say Dark Swarm too. Certain 'hard counters' might be a bit too brutal as well. OP'd stuff obviously limits strategic choice, since most everyone will go for the OP'd unit/spell/tactic every time if they can. Sameness = stagnation.
4) Try to keep matchup win percentages in line.
If you've done 1), 2), and 3) pretty well, but suddenly T is beating P 70% of the time or P is beating Z same, maybe you still screwed up somewhere. Though of course you have to give players time to adapt and devise new strats and ways of playing, otherwise you're 'fixing' something that may not in fact be broken.
Of course, that was one of the major reasons given to not change anything back in the pre-1.04 patch days, and time and new strats did not seem to fix matters, or did not fix them enough for most.
Just my personal .02 . And obviously it's super-unlikely Bliz will ever do another big patch for BW, but it's fun to speculate and think it through.
But Jebus H Christmas, if Bliz ever did do a 'StarCraft 1.5', modernizing the graphics/rez (but without losing that distinct BW 'look and feel'), fixing the limitations/bugs, and taking the balance/matchups to Nirvana... man, heaven help anyone who got between a BW fan and their purchase of same.
There'd be fools lying unconscious on the pavement outside the doors of game stores, because they were in the path.
Alter dark swarm slightly, maybe something like 90% of ranged damage is blocked but not all. Because it's sort of silly how literally anything under swarm can force a 200/200 terran army to retreat, and zerg can spam it forever with consume. I'd welcome some other form of buff to zerg to compensate for this.
1. Spider mine vision reduced to 1. Make a difference between the animations when it explodes and when it is killed. Make the spider mine show very small on the mini map. I hate seeing Terran all over the map 2. Hydralisk gains some extra damage vs Mutalisks. Yes, I know that many will yell at this. But ZvZ is by far the best mirror in SC when it is in full flight imo, and I know that it can be fixed if it were somehow possible to reach Lurkers. Defensive abilities of the Zerg would take it from there. Requires some tweaking, but it is possible. 3. Ghost starts with vision upgrade and more energy. Lockdown is cheaper to cast. Nukes should cost less, build faster, and ghost's nuke aiming should take a bit less time 4. Scouts faster/more maneuverable, possibly with improved sight. Or make the upgrade cheaper and faster to do. Or increase ground damage/rate of fire a bit. Scouts need buffs, in short 5. Guardians don't float as much into anti-air fire by themselves 6. Disruption web costs a bit less to cast, builds faster 7. Ensnare affects a bit larger area. Queen itself costs a bit less gas 8. Fix Valkyries sprite bug. 9. Mind Control costs less to research. Dark Archon should be smaller and start with a bit more energy. Perhaps change the model completely. 10. Optical Flare costs less to research 11. Be able to choose color. There are also a few colors that are too similar on the mini map
Medic restore small area of effect. Ensnare has a set rate of fire reduction percentage instead of arbitrarily random. cost 50/100 instead of 100/100. Dark Archon does not lose shields when using mind control, smaller unit size, same as archon.
On January 27 2014 00:05 rel wrote: You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
If that'd remained Bliz's attitude as of v1.00, not sure BW would've become as great as it did. Probably not.
Well chess went through a lot of changes throughout the centuries until it became the game it is today, same thing with BW I guess.
Really good point. For instance, chess didn't start out with either en passant or pawns having the option to move two squares on their first move. Those things came later.
Chess evolved for quite awhile before it became the game we play today, even checkers went through some changes early on. If you want a game that was 'done' on first draft, try tic-tac-toe.
On January 27 2014 00:05 rel wrote: You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
On January 27 2014 00:05 rel wrote: You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
There are way too many draws in high level chess for my tastes It's one of the main reasons I'm more interested in Go
I know I suck and that it doesn't matter at a beginner's level, but if I pick a game up, I'd like to end up being decent at it one day. And then it will matter.
On January 27 2014 00:05 rel wrote: You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while.
I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating .
Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while.
I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating .
ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again
I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol.
Regarding Liquid'Drone's point above about maps, as he said how Terran cost effeciently beats Protoss armies, but with current maps where Protoss can outexpand it doesn't matter; Do you guys think that Brood War could still be balanced with different maps that currently would be considered "unstandard"? If the meta of maps shifted (as they have in the past) would the meta of builds, playstyle, and games also be able to change and still produce balanced games, a 50/50 win ratio between to equally skilled, different race players? Or are the maps intrinsic to the balance?
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
On July 29 2009 22:43 ret wrote: Both matchups now had a clear path set for me to follow; and I did. I learned that Terran was more and more a race. A race to get to the ammount of units that the Zerg simply could not defend. I started playing games with only one goal in mind:
'Have as many units as possible within the physics of Starcraft:Broodwar. If you can do this, there is almost no way the zerg can muster enough of an army to stop you before defilers, unless they micro/macro'ed perfectly.'
couldn't find the original just found myself quoting it. h8rs gonna h8
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while.
I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating .
ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again
I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol.
Heh, well just because you make it harder on yourself because you want to get better doesn't mean then it's harder at the lower levels. You're intentionally making it harder for yourself .
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
On July 29 2009 22:43 ret wrote: Both matchups now had a clear path set for me to follow; and I did. I learned that Terran was more and more a race. A race to get to the ammount of units that the Zerg simply could not defend. I started playing games with only one goal in mind:
'Have as many units as possible within the physics of Starcraft:Broodwar. If you can do this, there is almost no way the zerg can muster enough of an army to stop you before defilers, unless they micro/macro'ed perfectly.'
couldn't find the original just found myself quoting it. h8rs gonna h8
Ret is always ret of course, but doesn't that sound very all in-ish? What if he holds? Personally I never like to play as if I fear the lategame in any matchup, even though I'm only D
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD
You don't patch chess... you don't patch Broodwar... it's perfect right now...
Now SC2.. I'd love to patch the whole game out of existence.
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
:O balance whining! reported!
On January 27 2014 06:51 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote:
On January 27 2014 03:02 miercat wrote: [quote]
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while.
I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating .
ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again
I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol.
Heh, well just because you make it harder on yourself because you want to get better doesn't mean then it's harder at the lower levels. You're intentionally making it harder for yourself .
if BW can be played at hyper speed, I would play it at that lol. Well, I see your point but I guess it's one of those habits that I want to stick to. Given, I'm not really complaining about defilers and such. I know I have to improve a ton more before I can get to a level I'm satisfied with and personally, I'm enjoying the ride :D
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD
On January 27 2014 09:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 08:22 BigFan wrote:
On January 27 2014 08:01 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 07:07 BigFan wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote:
On January 27 2014 03:02 miercat wrote: [quote]
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance. No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
:O balance whining! reported!
On January 27 2014 06:51 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote: [quote] based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while.
I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating .
ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again
I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol.
Heh, well just because you make it harder on yourself because you want to get better doesn't mean then it's harder at the lower levels. You're intentionally making it harder for yourself .
if BW can be played at hyper speed, I would play it at that lol. Well, I see your point but I guess it's one of those habits that I want to stick to. Given, I'm not really complaining about defilers and such. I know I have to improve a ton more before I can get to a level I'm satisfied with and personally, I'm enjoying the ride :D
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD
On January 27 2014 09:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 08:22 BigFan wrote:
On January 27 2014 08:01 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 07:07 BigFan wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote: [quote] based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.>
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
:O balance whining! reported!
On January 27 2014 06:51 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote: [quote]
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit.
ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game
Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control.
my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc...
I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this
Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while.
I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating .
ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again
I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough
On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote: Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about)
On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote: Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol.
Heh, well just because you make it harder on yourself because you want to get better doesn't mean then it's harder at the lower levels. You're intentionally making it harder for yourself .
if BW can be played at hyper speed, I would play it at that lol. Well, I see your point but I guess it's one of those habits that I want to stick to. Given, I'm not really complaining about defilers and such. I know I have to improve a ton more before I can get to a level I'm satisfied with and personally, I'm enjoying the ride :D
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
If there were a lot of seemingly imbalanced (or more accurately - powerful) aspects, that ended up cancelling each other out, then a given matchup in question would simply not be imbalanced, and this would be reflected in roughly equal winrates for the matchup. The fact is, looking into winrate statistics (and a whole lot else) for certain matchups, there is a significant discrepancy - with the consequent conclusion that some matchups are in fact, not very fair at all (further more, direct analysis of games, will yield specific reasons, as to why the winrate statistics are consistently skewed as they are - but this would necessitate a whole separate discussion). You conspicuously mentioned PvT, which is the most balanced non-mirror, but further examination would yield less positive results.
The basic concept regarding "balance" is the following: theoretically all other things being equal, players of a similar skill level, should have a similar chance of winning, regardless of matchup. This is clearly not the case with BW (various comprehensive evidences for this- take your pick).
Map and strategic evolution has ameliorated certain matchup imbalances, at some points in time, to some extent, but it has not been nearly enough. Certain matchups have historically been consistently imbalanced - as per winrate statistics (among other things), and currently in the Pro-Scene for example, the situation for some matchups is essentially as bad as it's ever been - even using some of the most balanced maps in history.
In any case, if the discussion is regarding how to improve BW, the way to go about it, is not to accept that there are significant imbalances (evidenced by comprehensive statistics, among other things) and try and attempt to fix this through indirect methods, which have typically been insufficient, and which would not address the root issue, which would remain problematic in future/other situations - Rather, the goal should be to balance the matchups such that relative skill difference closely mirrors winrate differential, among all matchups, in a wide range of situations (e.g. maps,etc). From this point forward, you can tweak maps, you can modify strategy, and this way, the game is fundamentally strong - from the most basic gameplay elements, all the way upwards. The end result is better in all respects, for all parties involved. Fundamentally strong(balanced), more fun, more entertaining.
Don't get me wrong, I have said many times, that BW is probably the best game, but to put the current version on a pedestal and say that it is objectively balanced or perfect, or that there are no possible improvements (in addition to what could be achieved through maps/strategy, etc - both could/should be done), is not correct or productive. Think about the context, the developers created BW in the late 1990s. The last balance patch was in 2001. It is now 2014.The developers had no idea how to play the game, what it would become, how units would be used, etc. The Strategy guide is absurd. In the early 2000s, understanding of BW was still rudimentary in comparison. But anyways, so it's the case that BW developers, in 2001, with no knowledge of what BW would become, somehow created the perfect last patch, and all the matchups became perfectly balanced for all time, and all the units are perfect, and there are no possible future patches that could in any way improve the gameplay/balance of BW - even taking into account changes in maps/strategy? Well, considering the vast complexity of BW, it is actually somewhat of a miracle that the game even became/remained playable at all. The developers did an exceptional job, all things considered, but no, the game is not perfectly patched/balanced. There are perhaps likely, a number of relatively minor patching changes that could be implemented to improve certain matchups, and perhaps some others that would require a bit more thought. The end result however, of a more balanced, fundamentally strong game, would be beneficial for everyone in the BW community.
Drone never said anywhere in his post that BW is perfect, rather he said that even with some of the imbalances in some units, the development of the metagame and maps etc... have helped in reducing their effect to the point where it's possible for the better player to win.
anything within 55-45 for any given matchup is imo very acceptable and I don't think a large sample size of highest level games have ever amounted to significantly worse than that? I'm actually gonna add up the 20 first maps from TLPD to see whether this holds up, wait for it at the end of the post. Traditionally this has been a t>z>p>=t thingy.
At a lower level than the highest level, people just need to improve, and at the highest level it has always been pretty much fine although some map pools have occasionally made one race too weak or too tough, if you look at "most played map for certain era" then that map has pretty much always been within the 45-55? I think dark swarm+lurker being too powerful is actually countered really well by irradiate being too powerful, I think terran mech being too powerful in a fortified position is actually countered really well by zerg and protoss both being able to vastly outexpand and outproduce a defensively minded terran, etc, to the point where I don't can't actually come up with anything broken outside from certain scenarios that might play out in certain games on certain maps - but nothing broken that a player can force "every game"-ish.
I guess if you and your buddy started at the same time and he chose protoss and you chose terran and he's destroying you now even though you've both played 150 games each then it might feel annoying and like the game is actually imbalanced, but I really think any real bw imbalance harmful to the playing experience is only really a thing when considering that new terran players might feel that their improvement is going too slowly. And for a 15 year old game that's not such a big deal.
maps used are: circuit breaker, electric circuit, fighting spirit, blue storm, sniper ridge, neo jade,bloody ridge, dante's peak, outlier, aztec, chain reaction, colosseum 2, destination, god's garden, heartbreak ridge, jade,longinus, luna, match point, medusa. I chose these ones because I was too lazy to think of any other semi-random way to pick them. from all of these, the only matchups with more than 50 games played and more than 60-40 either way are: tvz and pvt aztec (but more than anything this is just a terran graveyard - with them only winning 39% vs z and 35% vs p.) pvt god's garden (once again though, one of the most graving imbalances is one that goes the other way from the norm - protoss only wins 38.5% zvp and pvt luna - here zerg wins 60% of zvp and p wins 60% of pvt
I basically think that this is perfectly fine and that it showcases that with proper map pools, then racial imbalances are no significant factor. wanting to patch any part of the bw gameplay should be argued from a different point of view, imo.
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
If there were a lot of seemingly imbalanced (or more accurately - powerful) aspects, that ended up cancelling each other out, then a given matchup in question would simply not be imbalanced, and this would be reflected in roughly equal winrates for the matchup. The fact is, looking into winrate statistics (and a whole lot else) for certain matchups, there is a significant discrepancy - with the consequent conclusion that some matchups are in fact, not very fair at all (further more, direct analysis of games, will yield specific reasons, as to why the winrate statistics are consistently skewed as they are - but this would necessitate a whole separate discussion). You conspicuously mentioned PvT, which is the most balanced non-mirror, but further examination would yield less positive results.
The basic concept regarding "balance" is the following: theoretically all other things being equal, players of a similar skill level, should have a similar chance of winning, regardless of matchup. This is clearly not the case with BW (various comprehensive evidences for this- take your pick).
Map and strategic evolution has ameliorated certain matchup imbalances, at some points in time, to some extent, but it has not been nearly enough. Certain matchups have historically been consistently imbalanced - as per winrate statistics (among other things), and currently in the Pro-Scene for example, the situation for some matchups is essentially as bad as it's ever been - even using some of the most balanced maps in history.
In any case, if the discussion is regarding how to improve BW, the way to go about it, is not to accept that there are significant imbalances (evidenced by comprehensive statistics, among other things) and try and attempt to fix this through indirect methods, which have typically been insufficient, and which would not address the root issue, which would remain problematic in future/other situations - Rather, the goal should be to balance the matchups such that relative skill difference closely mirrors winrate differential, among all matchups, in a wide range of situations (e.g. maps,etc). From this point forward, you can tweak maps, you can modify strategy, and this way, the game is fundamentally strong - from the most basic gameplay elements, all the way upwards. The end result is better in all respects, for all parties involved. Fundamentally strong(balanced), more fun, more entertaining.
Don't get me wrong, I have said many times, that BW is probably the best game, but to put the current version on a pedestal and say that it is objectively balanced or perfect, or that there are no possible improvements (in addition to what could be achieved through maps/strategy, etc - both could/should be done), is not correct or productive. Think about the context, the developers created BW in the late 1990s. The last balance patch was in 2001. It is now 2014.The developers had no idea how to play the game, what it would become, how units would be used, etc. The Strategy guide is absurd. In the early 2000s, understanding of BW was still rudimentary in comparison. But anyways, so it's the case that BW developers, in 2001, with no knowledge of what BW would become, somehow created the perfect last patch, and all the matchups became perfectly balanced for all time, and all the units are perfect, and there are no possible future patches that could in any way improve the gameplay/balance of BW - even taking into account changes in maps/strategy? Well, considering the vast complexity of BW, it is actually somewhat of a miracle that the game even became/remained playable at all. The developers did an exceptional job, all things considered, but no, the game is not perfectly patched/balanced. There are perhaps likely, a number of relatively minor patching changes that could be implemented to improve certain matchups, and perhaps some others that would require a bit more thought. The end result however, of a more balanced, fundamentally strong game, would be beneficial for everyone in the BW community.
Ramble, ramble ramble.
I'm not even going to adress your arguments, all I need to say is:
For every non-mirror matchup there have been maps which swung statistical balance into the favor of either race of the matchup and there have been maps where both races remained relatively even.
Liquid'Drone's argument that everything can be balanced through maps is correct.
Yours isn't necessarily wrong, but it's completely irrelevant, all those statistics indicate is that KESPA made more maps that favor one race over the other.
I'd like to finish saying that by your logic the game is truly balanced only if all the races achieve 50% wr on a completely flat map with 8 minerals, a gas and zero terrain to speak of.
What you have there is a non argument. Also I only read the first two paragraphs because you were obviously walking into a logical loop and thats impossible to argue with.
On January 22 2014 09:07 thezanursic wrote: Slightly increase starting energy of Queens/Ghosts/DA or slightly decrease their spell cost just so you'd see these units a little bit more without fucking over the balance.
Slightly increase air to ground attack for scouts so that you can make 1,2 and force turrets in the extremely rare situation of 12 nex into 2 base carrier/fast arb. Imagine ForGG vs Kal on Colosseum, like that except a little better and scouts would get a legit use in-game, still shitty, but usable.
Fix certain map tiles that are broken and can't actually be used when making a competative map.
More melee map features, I'd go crazy here, give mapmakers a lot of new optione, if they find a legit use good for them, if they don't, no harm done. Everything from collapsable bridges to evenground miss chance ground(which can already be done, but in a limiting manner)
Fix map resolution, so that this would actually allow 126+/126+ maps
I think the timing for zealot into DA into third exp vs standard zerg who counters no stargate with muta is already so close that tinkering with DA starting energy (assuming you wanna make it like, 75 and not a tiny change like 55) is really dangerous and likely to break more than it fixes. and queens are already good, and they don't need any improvement.
making ghosts start with 75 or even having lockdown at 75 prolly wouldnt break anything though, and in the best case could cause for some fun recall-defense with more frequent hallucinated arbs as a counter.
I dunno about scouts, I'm basically fine with them being kinda useless, not sure if they could fill an actual necessary gap without breaking anything. See, the thing is, if you add 1 building scout instead of corsair as a viable option for zvp, or 1 stargate scout rushing pvt, then you're not just creating a new option, you're forcing the opponent to adjust his staple build order. I'll take a quick look at tvp to illustrate my example. Now, usually if the terran scouts the protoss, then he will be able to tell that nothing outrageous is going on. Like, even if the scv dies without seeing a citadel or robo, simply noticing the absence of them makes it likely that there's some 1 gate nexus thing going on, and it further tells you how long you have until reavers or dts can show up assuming he starts that tech immediately after your scv is dead. After that scv dies, you will often not be able to really scout anything crucial for a couple minutes. However, a good terran player can adjust to the information he did get and make as many scvs as he can afford to while timing his mines/tank/turret defense in a way that successfully handles either a mass goon attack (with gateways started after leaving) or some bulldog or reavers or dts. And lets be honest - even good terrans do lose against either of these 1 gateway nexus followups because they make assumptions and try to cut corners - but it will be even harder to make a good staple counter build order if 1 stargate scout is gonna be another possible followup.
As an addendum, their air to ground attack was actually nerfed in one of the early patches, maybe 1.02?, because mass scouts was super strong to a lot of players back then, especially terrans had a really hard time dealing with them - they would destroy turrets and goliaths.
Yup, all they did was increase the cooldown of their respective ATG attacks from 22.5 to 30 (I have no idea what that translates to in real-time measurements).
They also made Starport and Control Tower addon cheaper.
Speaking of air units I would like to see the Valkyrie be able to move immediately after it has fired. As it stands I believe it's the only fighting unit in the game that's completely un-microable, unless you count the marginally useful reverse patrol trick.
On January 28 2014 08:48 fencer wrote: They also made Starport and Control Tower addon cheaper.
Speaking of air units I would like to see the Valkyrie be able to move immediately after it has fired. As it stands I believe it's the only fighting unit in the game that's completely un-microable, unless you count the marginally useful reverse patrol trick.
That would make it a lot more difficult to battle valkyries considering they are already powerful in number and have a decent enough speed. At least, that's what I think
On January 28 2014 08:48 fencer wrote: They also made Starport and Control Tower addon cheaper.
Speaking of air units I would like to see the Valkyrie be able to move immediately after it has fired. As it stands I believe it's the only fighting unit in the game that's completely un-microable, unless you count the marginally useful reverse patrol trick.
Marginally useful? Dude, that shit is insane Just because it's extremely hard to learn doesn't mean it's not very useful once you do know it
On January 28 2014 06:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: As an addendum, [Scouts] air to ground attack was actually nerfed in one of the early patches, maybe 1.02?, because mass scouts was super strong to a lot of players back then, especially terrans had a really hard time dealing with them - they would destroy turrets and goliaths.
Tadah wrote: Yup, all they did was increase the cooldown of [Scouts and Wraiths] ATG attacks from 22.5 to 30 (I have no idea what that translates to in real-time measurements).
Yah, that change happened in the 1.04 patch. And IIRC, the reason Bliz gave for it on their forums was the sheer mobility of massed Scouts and Wraiths. They could hit you somewhere all at once as a pack, and dart from base to base and harass to harass.. but meanwhile, the defending player's anti-air was split among his bases/armies.
Even so, a lot of ppl complained about the change at the time, as it still didn't seem to make much sense.
I mean, pre-nerfing, Scouts' and Wraths' ATG attack was maybe almost on par with that of Mutas (Muta ATG did considerably more dmg per shot, if you remember the bounces, but Muta cooldown was worse). And Mutas are a cheaper unit (much cheaper than Scouts actually), and their small size makes them fairly hard to kill too, as we all know.
Sure, Wraiths have cloaking, and Scouts are durable as heck, but all that really did was balance out how cheap mutas are for the ATG damage they do. It got you 'back to even', so to speak.
So, with the Scout and Wraith ATG nerf, you ended up with, "Oh, so it's okay for Zerg to be able to mass very mobile and effective ground-attacking air units in midgame, but it somehow 'breaks the game' if Protoss and Terran have that capability too? Um... whaa?"
Perhaps for 'vanilla' Starcraft (non-BW SC1), it could almost make sense, but BW came out at the same time as the 1.04 patch, and brought with it Charon Boosters, Valks, Corsairs, etc, i.e. things that could deal with massed Scouts and Wraiths well.
Don't know if it makes sense to balance for vanilla SC anymore, even back in the '90s it was largely abandoned once BW came out, 'cept for a few diehards.
Weak Scout and Wraith ATG also screws others things up, if you think about it. For instance, Valks have a pretty small role ('cept vs Z sometimes) and don't get used much, but if you saw more frequent Scout and Wraith ATG assaults (do you ever even see a mass Scout ATG assault anymore?), Valks would suddenly become more broadly useful (and used). At least in medium numbers (thank you, stupid sprite bug).
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
If there were a lot of seemingly imbalanced (or more accurately - powerful) aspects, that ended up cancelling each other out, then a given matchup in question would simply not be imbalanced, and this would be reflected in roughly equal winrates for the matchup. The fact is, looking into winrate statistics (and a whole lot else) for certain matchups, there is a significant discrepancy - with the consequent conclusion that some matchups are in fact, not very fair at all (further more, direct analysis of games, will yield specific reasons, as to why the winrate statistics are consistently skewed as they are - but this would necessitate a whole separate discussion). You conspicuously mentioned PvT, which is the most balanced non-mirror, but further examination would yield less positive results.
The basic concept regarding "balance" is the following: theoretically all other things being equal, players of a similar skill level, should have a similar chance of winning, regardless of matchup. This is clearly not the case with BW (various comprehensive evidences for this- take your pick).
Map and strategic evolution has ameliorated certain matchup imbalances, at some points in time, to some extent, but it has not been nearly enough. Certain matchups have historically been consistently imbalanced - as per winrate statistics (among other things), and currently in the Pro-Scene for example, the situation for some matchups is essentially as bad as it's ever been - even using some of the most balanced maps in history.
In any case, if the discussion is regarding how to improve BW, the way to go about it, is not to accept that there are significant imbalances (evidenced by comprehensive statistics, among other things) and try and attempt to fix this through indirect methods, which have typically been insufficient, and which would not address the root issue, which would remain problematic in future/other situations - Rather, the goal should be to balance the matchups such that relative skill difference closely mirrors winrate differential, among all matchups, in a wide range of situations (e.g. maps,etc). From this point forward, you can tweak maps, you can modify strategy, and this way, the game is fundamentally strong - from the most basic gameplay elements, all the way upwards. The end result is better in all respects, for all parties involved. Fundamentally strong(balanced), more fun, more entertaining.
Don't get me wrong, I have said many times, that BW is probably the best game, but to put the current version on a pedestal and say that it is objectively balanced or perfect, or that there are no possible improvements (in addition to what could be achieved through maps/strategy, etc - both could/should be done), is not correct or productive. Think about the context, the developers created BW in the late 1990s. The last balance patch was in 2001. It is now 2014.The developers had no idea how to play the game, what it would become, how units would be used, etc. The Strategy guide is absurd. In the early 2000s, understanding of BW was still rudimentary in comparison. But anyways, so it's the case that BW developers, in 2001, with no knowledge of what BW would become, somehow created the perfect last patch, and all the matchups became perfectly balanced for all time, and all the units are perfect, and there are no possible future patches that could in any way improve the gameplay/balance of BW - even taking into account changes in maps/strategy? Well, considering the vast complexity of BW, it is actually somewhat of a miracle that the game even became/remained playable at all. The developers did an exceptional job, all things considered, but no, the game is not perfectly patched/balanced. There are perhaps likely, a number of relatively minor patching changes that could be implemented to improve certain matchups, and perhaps some others that would require a bit more thought. The end result however, of a more balanced, fundamentally strong game, would be beneficial for everyone in the BW community.
Ramble, ramble ramble.
I'm not even going to adress your arguments, all I need to say is:
For every non-mirror matchup there have been maps which swung statistical balance into the favor of either race of the matchup and there have been maps where both races remained relatively even.
Liquid'Drone's argument that everything can be balanced through maps is correct.
Yours isn't necessarily wrong, but it's completely irrelevant, all those statistics indicate is that KESPA made more maps that favor one race over the other.
I'd like to finish saying that by your logic the game is truly balanced only if all the races achieve 50% wr on a completely flat map with 8 minerals, a gas and zero terrain to speak of.
What you have there is a non argument. Also I only read the first two paragraphs because you were obviously walking into a logical loop and thats impossible to argue with.
That you didn't read the whole post is quite obvious. Your response was incoherent, without a single point of value.
I addressed the fact that maps, have ameliorated imbalances to some extent, and at some points in time, and explained why this process has been insufficient and suboptimal - explained in original post.
I addressed the issue of balancing matchups through maps, as opposed to other means - and it turns out, that whether or not you can balance through maps is not the main issue. Also mentioned why alternative methods of balancing would be superior in comparison, and why ultimately using a variety of methods to balance (including maps, patches) would be more optimal- explained in the original post.
Your understanding and assessment of the BW/matchups/ and the statistics in question, is simply incomplete and inaccurate - (While maps play a large role in balancing, racial aspects often play a similar or larger role. - if historical imbalances exist (in terms of statistics, and gameplay analysis) regardless of a constantly changing map pool - then it is obvious that maps are not the primary factor involved - common sense - similarly it is obvious that just changing maps is not the optimal solution) (Both arguments are quite relevant with regards to balancing, it's just that my argument is more comprehensive and has stronger points). - explained in original post.
You have no understanding of "my" logic. The example you gave is false (the balance explanation I provided, was actually lifted from a fairly comprehensive TL article I read years ago, although I cannot remember the title. It was so well worded and clear, and meaningful, that I remembered and decided to use it - obviously though, it went way over your head). - as per original post.
The concept you might be starting to realize, is read a post before you decide to comment on it. Idiot.
What you are referring to as a "logical loop", is actually just an example of basic coherent thought. Something which you seem to have very little understanding of. Of course, you didn't read the post, so you wouldn't know anyways.
Don't waste my time by making stupid irrelevant responses. Read the post and try to make an informed response or don't bother at all. Although based on your previous response, your reading comprehension is apparently not at the level where it would even necessarily make a difference.
On January 28 2014 12:23 [[Starlight]] wrote: I mean, pre-nerfing, Scouts' and Wraths' ATG attack was maybe almost on par with that of Mutas (Muta ATG did considerably more dmg per shot, if you remember the bounces, but Muta cooldown was worse).
I think Blizzard's reason for nerfing their air to ground damage was a very valid one, they only forgot to give the scout a new role once it could no longer fill the old one. With scouts' ridiculous air to air damage and HP, not even valkyries or corsairs necessarily do that well against them, so they needed to be killable from the ground so not every game would devolve into massed basic air units. Wraiths have a clear role in the game despite lowered ground damage so I don't understand your criticism there. I can only imagine how with the old damage TvT would be basically ZvZ by now with rushed massed wraiths every game. Just look at how powerful the wraith already is in TvT.
On January 28 2014 12:23 [[Starlight]] wrote: I mean, pre-nerfing, Scouts' and Wraths' ATG attack was maybe almost on par with that of Mutas (Muta ATG did considerably more dmg per shot, if you remember the bounces, but Muta cooldown was worse).
I think Blizzard's reason for nerfing their air to ground damage was a very valid one, they only forgot to give the scout a new role once it could no longer fill the old one.
With scouts' ridiculous air to air damage and HP, not even valkyries or corsairs necessarily do that well against them, so they needed to be killable from the ground so not every game would devolve into massed basic air units.
Wraiths have a clear role in the game despite lowered ground damage so I don't understand your criticism there. I can only imagine how with the old damage TvT would be basically ZvZ by now with rushed massed wraiths every game. Just look at how powerful the wraith already is in TvT.
I haven't tested it recently (am just coming back to the game after a long absence), but I'd have to think massed valks or sairs would clobber an equal-cost amount of scouts or wraiths(assuming detection, and assuming the fight isn't big enough for the valk sprite bug to be an issue).
We can say, 'Oh, that's just the SC Compendium, its silly', but Bliz staff and designers themselves were saying the exact thing on the Bliz forums way back when. That's the model they were working from.
Valks don't really have a role vs TvP unless Scouts show up, and in numbers. And post-1.04 patch, didn't see many wraiths 'cept in TvT.
I also remember pre-1.04 Starcraft. Yes, there were Wraith and Scout rushes (gosh, I sure do miss Scout rushes, don't you?), but it wasn't 'every game'. And then BW came along with the counter air units and Charon Boosters. Those might've been enough to deal with the issue, without nerfing ATG on top of it. Or perhaps a milder nerf would've worked better.
I have to admit TvT wraith rushing being more enabled is one thing that worries me. But again, valks. Charon Boosters. EMP vs mass cloak. And wraiths are pretty fragile, at the end of the day... muta HP, but while being Large.
On January 28 2014 13:30 [[Starlight]] wrote: I haven't tested it recently (am just coming back to the game after a long absence), but I'd have to think massed valks or sairs would clobber an equal-cost amount of scouts or wraiths(assuming detection, and assuming the fight isn't big enough for the valk sprite bug to be an issue).
Probably yes but they wouldn't destroy them like corsairs do mutas once they reach critical mass. The idea behind the pure air to air units is that you should be able to counter his air units with much less resources invested. If the valkyries and corsairs only have a slight edge then the guy with the multipurpose air units will have a huge advantage.
So given how strong scouts are in air to air combat they couldn't really have that AND good ground damage. Although admittedly simply nerfing the ground damage wasn't a good solution either, they should have just reworked the unit from the ground up and given it a new role.
On January 28 2014 13:45 fencer wrote: Probably yes but they wouldn't destroy them like corsairs do mutas once they reach critical mass. The idea behind the pure air to air units is that you should be able to counter his air units with much less resources invested. If the valkyries and corsairs only have a slight edge then the guy with the multipurpose air units will have a huge advantage.
Well, someone's going to have to test it, then.
I'll try to get around to it in the next couple of days, if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Maybe even if. I'm now very curious to see exactly how hard the counter is. Because y'know, you just didn't see the actual fight that much in practice, IIRC. Scouts flat-out don't get used, and wraiths don't get seen all that much 'cept in TvT.
On January 28 2014 15:01 fencer wrote: Just noticed you said "scouts and wraiths", I only meant scouts not being terrible against sair/valks. Wraiths would get raped of course
If you're equalizing for cost it shouldn't matter *too* much. Scouts are tougher and hit harder, but they also cost way more.
And they both have 0 base armor... bad thing for 'em vs valks/sairs.
On January 28 2014 15:01 fencer wrote: Just noticed you said "scouts and wraiths", I only meant scouts not being terrible against sair/valks. Wraiths would get raped of course
If you're equalizing for cost it shouldn't matter *too* much. Scouts are tougher and hit harder, but they also cost way more.
And they both have 0 base armor... bad thing for 'em vs valks/sairs.
Actually ferncer is right. Scout murder valk's and sairs. Test it with speed boost, valks have absolutely no chance.
And test it with microing.
Its offcourse only pure vs pure, valks are support unit and thats what they should do in fights vs scouts.
On January 28 2014 15:01 fencer wrote: Just noticed you said "scouts and wraiths", I only meant scouts not being terrible against sair/valks. Wraiths would get raped of course
If you're equalizing for cost it shouldn't matter *too* much. Scouts are tougher and hit harder, but they also cost way more.
And they both have 0 base armor... bad thing for 'em vs valks/sairs.
Actually ferncer is right. Scouts murder valk's and sairs. Test it with speed boost, valks have absolutely no chance.
And test it with microing.
I find that hard to believe, but, that's why we test things. I'll test it in a few days... busy week upcoming.
I'll test simple a-move first, then micro, like focus-fire and splitting. But I won't do anything too unlikely, like each scout coming in from a different angle/point-of-origin and surrounding the valks or sairs whilst being perfectly spread out. Just doesn't happen much in real-world games.
5 scouts 2 shot a single Valk to kill it. For comparison 5 wraights 3 shots valks to kill it. Also, effective health of scout is highter than that of wright and valkyrie. [armour bonus calculates here twice for valkyrie, becouse scout makes "doubled attack", 14 points each] - I dont know about upgreaded valk vs upgreaded scout yet.
Funny theorycrafting: it is theorytically possible to beat unupgraded scouts with unclocked wrights by abusing its superior range and speed. i never tested that, so maybe its just a pure theory.
[post-bump] [have been searching for balance posts for a long time]
one thing that really annoys me is that how Lurker spines can miss their targets when enemy units are running away or running past them - whereas tanks have ZERO delay from firing to shell exploding.
Lurker spines shoot just a hair faster, and maybe a 20 millisecond delay for the tank shots, hitting where the target was 20 milliseconds ago (such that if a zergling were to run in direction of the tank it would still get killed in one shot).
On January 20 2016 03:59 gabsingin wrote: [post-bump] [have been searching for balance posts for a long time]
one thing that really annoys me is that how Lurker spines can miss their targets when enemy units are running away or running past them - whereas tanks have ZERO delay from firing to shell exploding.
Lurker spines shoot just a hair faster, and maybe a 20 millisecond delay for the tank shots, hitting where the target was 20 milliseconds ago (such that if a zergling were to run in direction of the tank it would still get killed in one shot).
- improvements for battlenet (lan latency, automated matchmaking, copy paste, scrolling through in game chat,...)
- additional replay functionalities (such as rewinding)
- Fix specific bugs (ramp bug (see bisu game), frozen units, larva blocking the morphing of buildings, sprite issue of valkyries)
- Balance issues? Not sure... I ran the numbers for queens and it takes around 3 minutes and 20 seconds (!!!) to gain 150 energy to cast a single spawn broodling. Increasing their energy regeneration or slightly reducing the cost of spawn broodling would be immensely helpful in my opinion.
I'm still unfamiliar with protoss and terran but I think the ghost and scout could use some small tweaks.
I'd do : key rebinding; multiple building selection & unlimited unit selection (no need to tell me for the millionth time this breaks the game i'm aware of it) add a visual line to see what a unit will do when I press shift + a visual line to see where rally points go (SC2 style) add the ability to shift click buildings (for supply depots/pylons for example); add the ability to give a constructing scv a shift clicked order on what to do next add a game lobby option to show the map at the start of a game (greyed map + fog of war, SC2 style)
All in all that's changes to make the game more enjoyable and less stressful for newbies so I could play it with my -even worse than me- friends.
On January 20 2016 05:15 TwiggyWan wrote: I'd do : key rebinding; multiple building selection & unlimited unit selection (no need to tell me for the millionth time this breaks the game i'm aware of it) add a visual line to see what a unit will do when I press shift + a visual line to see where rally points go (SC2 style) add the ability to shift click buildings (for supply depots/pylons for example); add the ability to give a constructing scv a shift clicked order on what to do next add a game lobby option to show the map at the start of a game (greyed map + fog of war, SC2 style)
All in all that's changes to make the game more enjoyable and less stressful for newbies so I could play it with my -even worse than me- friends.
On January 20 2016 05:57 mca64Launcher_ wrote: remove toss race
You confused it with SC2, don't you?
I was thinking to create similar thread, glad this already exists. So my ideas are:
*** Since zerglings are small units and pop out as 2 from 1 larva egg allow to select 24 of them instead of 12 at once. *** Scourges also are small and pop out from 1 larva egg (read above) *** Implement HD soundtrack (My HD music patch for example) *** -Reserved-
Also since OP says "If you could..." I think patching by your own desire BW isn't really hard deal. There are some modding programs which can change so many things of game, especially unit tweaks such as DPS, spawn time, cost etc.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/My5zmrk.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZS7Uy.jpg)
next time I get online I'll test it so that it can be settled without arguments of attack animations acceleration and shit is just straight up which one wins
