|
On January 26 2017 07:44 Antisocialmunky wrote:For example: take the Scout range thing someone mentioned in this thread as an example. That doesn't change anything. Do you know what scouts do? They kill capital ships. Does anyone use capital ships vs P? No. Why? Because scouts DESTROY THEM HARD. You don't see scouts because they are REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. Therefore no one in their right mind builds capital ships because they are so good. So what do you do if you want to see scouts? Buff BCs so they can't get feedback'd or are otherwise viable in TvP, make maps that encourage Sair-Reaver so you see huge Devourer vs Scout battles in ZvP (Go watch the Stork vs Fake Yellow). Of course this also buffs Dark Archons so you might not see scouts because Dark Archons are even scarier vs BC's. This would of course require comp changes to include EMP and so forth.
Lmao, this is like when a Zerg / Protoss player says Tanks don't need a buff, they're great at what they are supposed to do - siege enemy bases from long distance and you Terrans complain and say more diversity and flexibility is great for game until it finally gets a buff. And now they wanna give a buff to one of the most badly designed and under-used unit in the game and you're like hell no? lmaooooo the bias is real.
|
Blizzard hasn't released a BW balance patch for well over 15 years.The talk about balance here is amusing but some are taking it a bit too seriously because the patch will not be addressing any balance issues.
|
please close this thread because it derailed into another balance whine thread like the 4 others that were about the patch.
|
I wonder if they're going to take out LAN support, make it an online game only, and try to control the eSports aspect of it like they did with SC2.
|
On January 26 2017 07:58 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 07:44 Antisocialmunky wrote:For example: take the Scout range thing someone mentioned in this thread as an example. That doesn't change anything. Do you know what scouts do? They kill capital ships. Does anyone use capital ships vs P? No. Why? Because scouts DESTROY THEM HARD. You don't see scouts because they are REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. Therefore no one in their right mind builds capital ships because they are so good. So what do you do if you want to see scouts? Buff BCs so they can't get feedback'd or are otherwise viable in TvP, make maps that encourage Sair-Reaver so you see huge Devourer vs Scout battles in ZvP (Go watch the Stork vs Fake Yellow). Of course this also buffs Dark Archons so you might not see scouts because Dark Archons are even scarier vs BC's. This would of course require comp changes to include EMP and so forth. Lmao, this is like when a Zerg / Protoss player says Tanks don't need a buff, they're great at what they are supposed to do - siege enemy bases from long distance and you Terrans complain and say more diversity and flexibility is great for game until it finally gets a buff. And now they wanna give a buff to one of the most badly designed and under-used unit in the game and you're like hell no? lmaooooo the bias is real.
Yeah, Battlecruisers are pretty underpowered. 
|
On January 26 2017 08:54 Devolved wrote:
I wonder if they're going to take out LAN support, make it an online game only, and try to control the eSports aspect of it like they did with SC2.
In that case it's still extremely easy to simply not patch the game so that you can continue playing on private servers and keep the LAN.
|
On January 26 2017 07:31 [[Starlight]] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 02:40 neobowman wrote:On January 26 2017 02:18 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Maybe we should just have the mods change this to the Balance Whine thread. I think SCII had a stickied one for WoL.
I don't care about balance or whatever because its mostly an issue of maps these days, but I'm sick of every thread turning into a balance whine thread. There seems to be a social stigma in the Brood War community about discussing balance changes. I think it's come half from acceptance that Blizz won't be balance changing and half from balance change threads usually devolving into poorly thought out arguments. I don't think it should be something avoided. If people are rational and open to ideas then it can lead to a lot of good discussion. Balance is just fun to talk about, even though I doubt Bliz is going to do anything there. The discussions do tend to go off the rails though, due to several kinds of unhelpful posters: 1- The guy who can't even accept that a balance discussion is going on and gets mad, aka "Shut up you idiots, BALANCE IS PERFECT, SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP, YAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!"
If you assume everyone is a screaming lunatic, you can make just about anyone sound bad. Regardless of their 'tone', however, they would be right. I have not seen a legitimate case of anyone proposing and then testing a balance change. Either a balance change fixes a glaring issue with the gameplay or it doesn't. I don't see a reason for silly ones like "Let's give the Queen 5 more energy", because it's such a tiny change that it's not even worth discussing.
2- The guy who can't even accept that a balance discussion is going on and decides to troll, aka "Durr hurr, I think tanks should have 10000 hp and shoot nukes, hurr hurr, me so funny and clever and original, no one has made jokes like this before, derp derp derp."
I don't understand what your problem with humor is.
3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere.  4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
|
On January 26 2017 14:07 ninazerg wrote:
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
Lemme throw some stuff out there and see if any stick
For ZvP we could try
Corsair +10 hp. 2 extra hits from mutas when alone and about 1 extra in groups. Small subtle change slightly improves Protoss against Z, not against T.
And/or
Archon +50 shields. Won't change the way they're used, it'll just make them stronger.
How bout TvZ?
Queens: Spawn broodling cost down to 125 energy. Queen energy upgrade down to 100/100 from 150/150 and time down to 50 from 105. Small queen boost against Mech.
And/or
Nydus canal build time down to 20 seconds from 40. Health up from 250 to 350.
Thoughts on those?
Some more I've thought of.
+1 Infantry up to 125/125.
Medic build time up to 22 from 19.
Consume research time down to 70 from 100.
Maelstrom takes 20 seconds to research down from 63.
Dark Templar Shields up to 60 from 40.
Corsair -20 shields +1 armor. So new total would be 100 health 40 shields, 2 armor to begin with. Extra boost against mutas.
There's so many very minor changes that could be made that would improve each matchup just a little but more while ideally keeping the core gameplay the same. Of course, some of them could completely change the meta for unforseeon reasons or something but there are clearly going to be solutions that work here. It's just a matter of finding out exactly what.
|
Decent changes.
I suggest mind control research cost reduction to 150/150.
|
On January 25 2017 05:20 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 22:12 zaMNal wrote:
From other thread Talking about TvZ issues:
SCV hp of 60 was one of the bigger baffles for me personally for the longest time. It takes whole 7 mutalisks to 1-shot an scv but probe and drone need just 5 mutalisks. This difference is huge, pretty unfair.
Some say it's because SCV doesn't have regeneration like probes or drones. BUT it has direct manual healing(repair) available at any time, which is at least as good as regen, and is especially superb when doing bunker/scv rushes.
Bringing scv to 40 hp would make it very fair, especially as it can be repaired to 100% in few seconds. Or 45 hp max (still 5 mutalisk to 1-shot it). 60 is just waay over the top as long as they can be repaired. Look, if you want to talk about balance, then you NEED to bring in EVERYTHING. Thats called logic. Without logic your post loses value. What you didnt bring up here is that scvs when building structures NEED TO STAY AT THAT BUILDING TILL ITS FINISHED. This means two things. 1) SCVS more vulnerable to attacks. 2. THE scv CANT MINE MINERALS for the duration of the walk movement+structure building. All of a sudden, it doesnt look UNFAIR anymore. So please, MORE LOGIC less emotions.
First of all, don't use caps. Second, by your logic (that scv should have 60hp because quote: "scv can't mine minerals for the duration of structure building") the drone then should have 100hp because it dies when it's building. See what i did there? As explained earlier, no need to have scv hp over 45, really.
|
On January 21 2017 05:34 Foxxan wrote:
...
I dont follow bw to well lately, but would
personally like to see:
...
2. More dynamic pvp and zvz.
...
You want the matchup that is the most dynamic matchup of the BW by lightyears to be more dynamic? Why?
On January 26 2017 10:16 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 08:54 Devolved wrote:
I wonder if they're going to take out LAN support, make it an online game only, and try to control the eSports aspect of it like they did with SC2. In that case it's still extremely easy to simply not patch the game so that you can continue playing on private servers and keep the LAN.
I think by far the best option is to not patch the game at all. I seriously hope that the Korean BW community sticks with the current patch.
|
On January 26 2017 10:00 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 07:58 parkufarku wrote:On January 26 2017 07:44 Antisocialmunky wrote:For example: take the Scout range thing someone mentioned in this thread as an example. That doesn't change anything. Do you know what scouts do? They kill capital ships. Does anyone use capital ships vs P? No. Why? Because scouts DESTROY THEM HARD. You don't see scouts because they are REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. Therefore no one in their right mind builds capital ships because they are so good. So what do you do if you want to see scouts? Buff BCs so they can't get feedback'd or are otherwise viable in TvP, make maps that encourage Sair-Reaver so you see huge Devourer vs Scout battles in ZvP (Go watch the Stork vs Fake Yellow). Of course this also buffs Dark Archons so you might not see scouts because Dark Archons are even scarier vs BC's. This would of course require comp changes to include EMP and so forth. Lmao, this is like when a Zerg / Protoss player says Tanks don't need a buff, they're great at what they are supposed to do - siege enemy bases from long distance and you Terrans complain and say more diversity and flexibility is great for game until it finally gets a buff. And now they wanna give a buff to one of the most badly designed and under-used unit in the game and you're like hell no? lmaooooo the bias is real. Yeah, Battlecruisers are pretty underpowered.
Do you want to just buff everything T has and nerf the crap outta the other races and just steamroll your opponent? We can make that easy for you...just make marines do 200 dmg per attack while other races start with only 1 worker. If he builds more than 8 workers, a free nuke comes by and nukes his mineral line.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50861 Posts
On January 26 2017 17:18 zaMNal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 05:20 Foxxan wrote:On January 22 2017 22:12 zaMNal wrote:
From other thread Talking about TvZ issues:
SCV hp of 60 was one of the bigger baffles for me personally for the longest time. It takes whole 7 mutalisks to 1-shot an scv but probe and drone need just 5 mutalisks. This difference is huge, pretty unfair.
Some say it's because SCV doesn't have regeneration like probes or drones. BUT it has direct manual healing(repair) available at any time, which is at least as good as regen, and is especially superb when doing bunker/scv rushes.
Bringing scv to 40 hp would make it very fair, especially as it can be repaired to 100% in few seconds. Or 45 hp max (still 5 mutalisk to 1-shot it). 60 is just waay over the top as long as they can be repaired. Look, if you want to talk about balance, then you NEED to bring in EVERYTHING. Thats called logic. Without logic your post loses value. What you didnt bring up here is that scvs when building structures NEED TO STAY AT THAT BUILDING TILL ITS FINISHED. This means two things. 1) SCVS more vulnerable to attacks. 2. THE scv CANT MINE MINERALS for the duration of the walk movement+structure building. All of a sudden, it doesnt look UNFAIR anymore. So please, MORE LOGIC less emotions. First of all, don't use caps. Second, by your logic (that scv should have 60hp because quote: "scv can't mine minerals for the duration of structure building") the drone then should have 100hp because it dies when it's building. See what i did there? As explained earlier, no need to have scv hp over 45, really.
technically the drone dies only after its done building.
|
I wonder if Blizzard truly considered the cost of losing drones all the time in ZvT.
Take a sunken colony for example. They cost: creep colony (75), sunken (50) and a drone (50) for a total of 175 minerals. But then they continue to cost 8 minerals every mining cycle for the rest of the game!
The total cost for each sunken colony is probably well over 500 minerals. Need 3 sunkens at the front? 1500 minerals please. That's 30 marines or 20 vultures worth of minerals for a structure that may not even get a single shot off, as the terran can often ignore it or wait for tanks!
|
On January 26 2017 17:48 Jae Zedong wrote:
I wonder if Blizzard truly considered the cost of losing drones all the time in ZvT.
Take a sunken colony for example. They cost: creep colony (75), sunken (50) and a drone (50) for a total of 175 minerals. But then they continue to cost 8 minerals every mining cycle for the rest of the game!
The total cost for each sunken colony is probably well over 500 minerals. Need 3 sunkens at the front? 1500 minerals please. That's 30 marines or 20 vultures worth of minerals for a structure that may not even get a single shot off, as the terran can often ignore it or wait for tanks!
It doesnt exactly work like that. Yes you factored in opportunity cost but remember Zergs can produce 3 workers at a time so losing a worker doesn't hurt as much as losing SCV or Probe. On the other hand, Zergs share larvae with their fighting units so if you waste time producing workers, you can't produce actual units. It's complicated stuff. Sunken isn't the best at what it does (I'd rather have bunkers anyday), but it sure doesn't count 1000+ minerals
|
On January 26 2017 18:15 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 17:48 Jae Zedong wrote:
I wonder if Blizzard truly considered the cost of losing drones all the time in ZvT.
Take a sunken colony for example. They cost: creep colony (75), sunken (50) and a drone (50) for a total of 175 minerals. But then they continue to cost 8 minerals every mining cycle for the rest of the game!
The total cost for each sunken colony is probably well over 500 minerals. Need 3 sunkens at the front? 1500 minerals please. That's 30 marines or 20 vultures worth of minerals for a structure that may not even get a single shot off, as the terran can often ignore it or wait for tanks! It doesnt exactly work like that. Yes you factored in opportunity cost but remember Zergs can produce 3 workers at a time so losing a worker doesn't hurt as much as losing SCV or Probe. On the other hand, Zergs share larvae with their fighting units so if you waste time producing workers, you can't produce actual units. It's complicated stuff. Sunken isn't the best at what it does (I'd rather have bunkers anyday), but it sure doesn't count 1000+ minerals
What. Zergs suffer more for each worker loss than the other races, as Zerg can't make workers and fighting units at the same time. Regardless of the rest of my argument, I'm pretty sure TL agrees on that. Choosing when it's safe to drone up is a delicate balance for Zerg who can't just spam workers nonstop like T and P. This is a finely tuned craft often unknown to lesser terrans and protosses.
Sunkens are actually a comically bad deal against terrans, it takes 4 shots to kill a single marine from full health if he is being healed at the same time. They're just a necessary evil sometimes. And I think 500 minerals is a fair estimate of what an early sunken actually costs.
|
On January 26 2017 17:48 Jae Zedong wrote:
I wonder if Blizzard truly considered the cost of losing drones all the time in ZvT.
Take a sunken colony for example. They cost: creep colony (75), sunken (50) and a drone (50) for a total of 175 minerals. But then they continue to cost 8 minerals every mining cycle for the rest of the game!
The total cost for each sunken colony is probably well over 500 minerals. Need 3 sunkens at the front? 1500 minerals please. That's 30 marines or 20 vultures worth of minerals for a structure that may not even get a single shot off, as the terran can often ignore it or wait for tanks!
You realize that this discussion is nonsense as you also have to cut probe/scv production in various moments (for example to place turrets vs muta), so it could also mean that 1 scv not made * 20 minutes = 1500 minerals or so! Of course there is a bigger cost for zerg but all that is somewhat embedded in game mechanics and balance.
|
not to mention that zerg can produce multiple workers from one hatch, its a balance of powering drones and scouting when to stop or start again that makes top zerg players a cut above the rest
|
i cant believe you guys are arguing about balance lol
|
On January 26 2017 17:48 Jae Zedong wrote:
I wonder if Blizzard truly considered the cost of losing drones all the time in ZvT.
Take a sunken colony for example. They cost: creep colony (75), sunken (50) and a drone (50) for a total of 175 minerals. But then they continue to cost 8 minerals every mining cycle for the rest of the game!
The total cost for each sunken colony is probably well over 500 minerals. Need 3 sunkens at the front? 1500 minerals please. That's 30 marines or 20 vultures worth of minerals for a structure that may not even get a single shot off, as the terran can often ignore it or wait for tanks!
Well, terran bunker costs 100 minerals plus 50 mineral for each marine for it to be effective, so it is between 150 to 300 minerals. Protoss cannon costs 150 minerals, but it needs a pylon to work, so its additional 100 minerals that makes a total of 250. Of course, one pylon can power multiple cannons, so more cannons per pylon - less it costs to maintain them.
Zerg hatchery only costs 300 minerals plus 50 mineral drone = 350. Other two races - 400 minerals.
Zerg evolution chamber costs only 75 minerals + 50m for drone, total - 125m. Terran e-bay - 125m, armory - extra 100m and 50g totaling to 225m and 50g. Protoss forge 150m.
And so on...
So yes, in my opinion Blizzard considered the cost of losing drones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
