EPTDA make their spells cheaper or give them a boost with the amount of energy they get once they are created.
and Corsair Dweb same as DA cheaper spells.
other things are ok, well maybe giving the Vulture 2 mines instead of 3.
Can we talk about Broodwar's underused units? - Page 5
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic611 Posts
DA make their spells cheaper or give them a boost with the amount of energy they get once they are created. and Corsair Dweb same as DA cheaper spells. other things are ok, well maybe giving the Vulture 2 mines instead of 3. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
as to the Dark Archon it is sitting on the edge of viability and could be a balance concern but seems something reasonable to explore potentially another thought that comes to mind is moving the corsair disruption web research to the cybercore which again has to be verified in terms of balance... oh i see that scout movement is mentioned to cybercore as well, i am skeptical if this would have any effect to the scout's usage overall i think creating new strong timings is not the right direction, but creating new long-term interaction phases of the game is the better route, like either slow to implement mid-to-late game compositions or new late game compositions that don't have very strong and sharp timings one of my favorite spells is ensnare, shame to see it on the shelf -- this seems more of an interface issue, there just might be too much to micro already that players don't bother incorporating a clumsy ensnare that may or may not have much effect -- thus such an issue leads the spell into a strong timing or don't use type of situation i think one good example of what any changes could seek to accomplish is how late game TvZ transitions into the mech-style, although obviously this transition being viable was not the result of changes to the game's design. off the top of my head early to mid game viability is tougher to introduce because it will create more concurrent options (less predictability) as well as strong timings (fine tuned balance). late game compositional viability like the TvZ mech can probably be more easily analyzed for its overall cost efficiency and apm requirements | ||
|
joblog
1 Post
fav link: speed dating 分享 | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19201 Posts
The first two definitely solves issues regarding queens and corsairs *Tab through units for abilities *Smart casting where only the closest unit would cast its spell on command The last one is just a quality of life improvement that mostly benefits poor macro players. *Auto mining | ||
|
outscar
2832 Posts
Only thing I would like is to give scouts upgrades from very start, no price change so it can be used to catch terran off guard and force to make goliaths, this way scouts will secure it's place as harass unit at early game and it won't get out of control, max. 2-3 of them because they're expensive and can be quickly repelled. | ||
|
errol1001
454 Posts
On March 22 2019 01:23 BisuDagger wrote: I'd be willing to entertain balance through mechanical updates over unit changes as this would also make the game a bit more accessible to new users. Mechanical changes I would like: The first two definitely solves issues regarding queens and corsairs *Tab through units for abilities *Smart casting where only the closest unit would cast its spell on command The last one is just a quality of life improvement that mostly benefits poor macro players. *Auto mining this post took serious balls | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 22 2019 01:23 BisuDagger wrote: I'd be willing to entertain balance through mechanical updates over unit changes as this would also make the game a bit more accessible to new users. Mechanical changes I would like: The first two definitely solves issues regarding queens and corsairs *Tab through units for abilities *Smart casting where only the closest unit would cast its spell on command The last one is just a quality of life improvement that mostly benefits poor macro players. *Auto mining Heretic! I mean, I remember arguing that the map should be autoexplored from the start and people were flaming me because of that. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
there is of course still the case where the group contains two different types of spellcasters this feature would essentially simplify the control group management. for example, a zerg player could have 11 hydra + 1 queen on each of hotkeys 1,2,3 and get off 3 ensnares with a smooth attack move. this kind of continues with the theme of simplifying the interface which started with simplifying hotkey management by allowing custom hotkeys. how did the balance turn out on that anyway? was protoss suddenly superpowered without having to reach across the keyboard to hit p?  though this one might have farther reaching consequences, interestingly they decided not to allow control group hotkeys to be customized (i.e. you still needed to use f2-f4 for screen locations and 1 through 0 for control groups) | ||
|
MooPower92
8 Posts
We saw queens being utilized more in ZvT to combat heavy tank lines and very rarely we see ensnare in the match up, we see ensnare in ZvP as well when protoss goes sair/reaver. DA and even reavers before in PvZ were an option but was not seen as a obligatory army composition. wraiths/valks in TvZ in the 1-1-1 build I saw flash in one video try sair goons as protoss vs terran and he steamrolled the opponent with d-webs in mid game just off 1 stargate if i remember correctly. Perhaps some of the reasons why we don't see the underutilized units other than a unit like scouts isn't completely because they aren't viable but simply because it hasn't been practiced or ingrained into the meta long enough to be competitive enough to take that risk in matches. PvT , Corsair vs Arbiter Debate Pros of Corsair -Faster/cheaper to make 300/200 = 2 corsair vs 100/350 for 1 arbiter for disabling a portion of terran army relative to how much area of effect they have for the cost and time, easier to have excess minerals than it is for gas in resource management. -Corsair movement speed is faster, making it easier to dodge EMPs. -D-web casting range is farther than stasis. -With the sheer number of d-webs relative to how many stasis you'd be able to cast in that time frame your army survivability goes way up vs casting 1-2 stasis in most scenarios. Cons of Corsair -Isn't as multi-purpose as arbiter who has the ability to recall as well as cloaking field. Cloaking field hardly makes a big difference unless Terran is inattentive with scans or vessels. -You have to build 5-6 corsairs at all times to have a considerable advantage in fights for the population they take up (10-12 vs 8 population for 2 arbiters small difference imo relative to the area of effect you get with corsair vs arbiter) -If they are clumped up together and unattended to, EMP could wipe out your sair fleet energy at once. This is more relying on you playing bad. -Spell duration is only 15 seconds and units under the spell can move, it still buys precious several seconds for siege tanks to move and then resiege in a favorable spot. 2 stasis spells for arbiters can disable anywhere ranging from 6-10 tanks on average, depending on terran army spread and goliath/turret/vessel zoning. Often times progamers have to settle stasis tanks in the front otherwise they wouldn't get it off at all due to vessels/goliath zoning. 4 dweb spells for corsairs can disable anywhere ranging from 8-12 tanks on average, depending on terran army spread and goliath/turret zoning is less of a factor since d-web casting range is a bit further, but EMPs are main thing to avoid and to not clump corsairs which is unlikely since they need to be spread to cast the d-webs all around anyways. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
essentially you are putting a long-shot investment into practicing a strategy/mechanical style that may or may not prove to have a payoff at the same time you are missing out on further refinements and maintenance of established strong strategies/mechanical styles i think the solution is to have very good players (not pro players) to specialize into one type of new strategy or tactic for one type of matchup to prove its viability at a very high level of play, thus it might convince pro players to incorporate it --- i know for me it has always been mid-to-late game PvT that has irked me in professional play. generally i find the protoss play using very poor strategy and generally rushing to arbiters too quickly and holding a weak standing army and giving up ground too easily to the terran and not spreading production well throughout the map. for me, the goal in the late mid game is to get to 24 speed zealots and 24 dragoons as soon as possible and then to have another group of 12 (zealots if fighting tanks, dragoons if sniping an economic base) ready for a tactical recall. mind you this is extremely tight on supply, requiring 120 for ground forces, perhaps 60 for probes and then leaving only 20 supply for observers and arbiters (and shuttles if on the field). at 4 supply a pop, arbiters should not be high in number on the field. oh also about 2 templars for hallucination so that's another 4 supply leaving only 16 for arbiters and observers. if i'm not mistaken you can see this in Rain vs Last in the last ASL on block chain. Last has his push timed perfectly before the rushed arbiter tech and Rain's standing army is too small because of that. i also find that the engagement on sieged tanks doesn't focus enough on drawing tank fire away from clumps of charging zealots (either by a few spread zealots leading the charge or by shuttles dropping out zealots to draw initial tank fire). makes a big difference if your clumps of zealots can cover a bit more ground before starting to soak the splash damage. also hallucination i find is a good spell that doesn't get much attention. the main use i hold in mind for hallucination is to essentially force through turret rings. with current terrans playing with extremely quick EMP shots, it perhaps can also soak up some of those. also important is to have your arbiters moving in crafty routes. i'd say the key points of contention should be unsieged tanks (trying to push forward too quickly), sieged clumps (using splash sucking tactics and zealot recalls), sniping CC using dragoon recalls, and sniping factories (!!) when recalling into the main. this is such a big point i think if you snipe a factory you are essentially killing off production and forcing extra apm to be spent to rebuild them. also costs 100 gas it's basically killing a tank plus delaying production. especially good if you're killing the factories with machine shops on them. the best play i saw in the last ASL was by Best (in the series against Sharp) even though it was poorly executed, he recalled a force to kill a remote base and then used a secondary recall to evacuate them after a contain was set up. unfortunately by the time he executed the evacuation recall, most of the forces had been killed off. stasis i don't think is a very good late game spell. i see it as more of a timing/tactical/emergency spell. recall is by far the stronger spell especially if you are playing with a ground force count of 60 (supply cost of 120). i see far too many attempts to rush in and get off some good stasis, forced plays. i think stasis can be good if you have good vision of the area and its clear there is an opportunity and it might also serve to deflect some timing attacks (interestingly researching stasis does not delay recall when you look at how the timings stack up). in the late game you should be preparing a quick carrier switch by increasing your stargate count from 2 (for arbiters) to at least 5, thus if you can get up 10 carriers while the terran is maxed on tanks and you can delay them from killing all remote bases you can make a strong play. by far some of the dumbest things i see (besides trying to rush in and attempt to force stasis clumps) is forcing army trades when maxed without having even banked much money or secured much resource locations. people seem to have this magical notion that once they are maxed faster than their opponent they can just throw away units at terrible trading rates and they'll magically remax on some turbo macro, ignoring the fact that a mere 12 zealots cost 1200 minerals and take time to produce. | ||
|
MooPower92
8 Posts
On March 22 2019 05:50 mishimaBeef wrote: yes i believed it for a long time essentially you are putting a long-shot investment into practicing a strategy/mechanical style that may or may not prove to have a payoff at the same time you are missing out on further refinements and maintenance of established strong strategies/mechanical styles i think the solution is to have very good players (not pro players) to specialize into one type of new strategy or tactic for one type of matchup to prove its viability at a very high level of play, thus it might convince pro players to incorporate it --- i know for me it has always been mid-to-late game PvT that has irked me in professional play. generally i find the protoss play using very poor strategy and generally rushing to arbiters too quickly and holding a weak standing army and giving up ground too easily to the terran and not spreading production well throughout the map. for me, the goal in the late mid game is to get to 24 speed zealots and 24 dragoons as soon as possible and then to have another group of 12 (zealots if fighting tanks, dragoons if sniping an economic base) ready for a tactical recall. mind you this is extremely tight on supply, requiring 120 for ground forces, perhaps 60 for probes and then leaving only 20 supply for observers and arbiters (and shuttles if on the field). at 4 supply a pop, arbiters should not be high in number on the field. oh also about 2 templars for hallucination so that's another 4 supply leaving only 16 for arbiters and observers. if i'm not mistaken you can see this in Rain vs Last in the last ASL on block chain. Last has his push timed perfectly before the rushed arbiter tech and Rain's standing army is smaller because of that. i also find that the engagement on sieged tanks doesn't focus enough on drawing tank fire away from clumps of charging zealots (either by a few spread zealots leading the charge or by shuttles dropping out zealots to draw initial tank fire). makes a big difference if your clumps of zealots can cover a bit more ground before starting to soak the splash damage. also hallucination i find is a good spell that doesn't get much attention. the main use i hold in mind for hallucination is to essentially force through turret rings. with current terrans playing with extremely quick EMP shots, it perhaps can also soak up some of those. also important is to have your arbiters moving in crafty routes. i'd say the key points of contention should be unsieged tanks (trying to push forward too quickly), sieged clumps (using splash sucking tactics and zealot recalls), sniping CC using dragoon recalls, and sniping factories (!!) when recalling into the main. this is such a big point i think if you snipe a factory you are essentially killing off production and forcing extra apm to be spent to rebuild them. also costs 100 gas it's basically killing a tank plus delaying production. especially good if you're killing the factories with machine shops on them. the best play i saw in the last ASL was by best even though it was poorly executed, he recalled a force to kill a remote base and then used a secondary recall to evacuate them after a contain was set up. unfortunately by the time he executed the evacuation recall, most of the forces had been killed off. stasis i don't think is a very good late game spell. i see it as more of a timing/tactical/emergency spell. recall is by far the stronger spell especially if you are playing with a ground force count of 60 (supply cost of 120). i see far too many attempts to rush in and get off some good stasis, forced plays. i think stasis can be good if you have good vision of the area and its clear there is an opportunity and it might also serve to deflect some timing attacks (interestingly researching stasis does not delay recall when you look at how the timings stack up). in the late game you should be preparing a quick carrier switch by increasing your stargate count from 2 (for arbiters) to at least 5, thus if you can get up 10 carriers while the terran is maxed on tanks and you can delay them from killing all remote bases you can make a strong play. by far some of the dumbest things i see is forcing army trades when maxed without having even banked much money or secured much resource locations. people seem to have this magical notion that once they are maxed faster than their opponent they can just throw away units at terrible trading rates and they'll magically remax on some turbo macro, ignoring the fact that a mere 12 zealots cost 1200 minerals and take time to produce. Agree with a lot of the points you made there. I think stasis plays could use improvement as they forced out by the terran to stasis tanks or units at the front or they lose their arbiters chance to use it. I am wondering about the use of hallucination as well. I tested a few games and I believe hallucinated units are prioritized by the enemy attacks. So if protoss players simply hallucinated more goons/zealots that soak up damage rather than get their HTs sniped by vultures prematurely before they have a chance to cast GOOD storms, then hallucination may be a good alternative depending on the situation. Hallucination realistically would be 1-2 cast per HTs depending on how newly produced they are. But lets say you saved up energy and can cast 2 per HT and you had 5 HTs. That's 20 extra dragoon/zealots instead of leaving up to chance that your HTs can storm enough tanks. If you could theoretically get off 10 storms off your 5 HTs, that would be great! But usually vultures are quick to snipe even if you drop from shuttles. Jangbi did it before but maybe terrans got smarter since then to snipe them. And the point about researching arbiter energy before the other spells is true. There was video on it explaining there's no reason to not upgrade energy first and then stasis or recall 2nd, because by the time the arbiter finishes building anyways, your energy upgrade and subsequent research would've been finished for your 1st spell to be ready in energy, yet I see progamers still research stasis or recall first, and I'm thinking aren't they supposed to be the expert to know this? Unless they are starving for resources which is unlikely, they have no reason to not research energy first. I think there's still a lot of growth/improvement and innovation that's still to be explored in the game. | ||
|
29 fps
United States5722 Posts
This is, of course, just wishful thinking. But not impossible. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
Look at Dota or something, you leave the scene for 6 months and you don't know anything. In theory, a couple very small changes could make the game better for the contemporary audience, but it'd be at the expensive of BW's longevity. Furthermore, it opens the door for more and more balance changes, and like mentioned previously, the risk of messing things up is too great. The time for this thread was 2004, not 2019. | ||
|
AntiHack
Switzerland553 Posts
There's no more bw community on TL which is sad. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4328 Posts
On March 22 2019 18:57 AntiHack wrote: This tread is what happen when you're dealing with the sc2 community (Yes, even the bw forum is just sc2 community). There's no more bw community on TL which is sad. Totally false.Maybe people don't play as much as they used to be able to but they're still around, at varying activity levels. | ||
|
AntiHack
Switzerland553 Posts
On March 22 2019 19:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Totally false.Maybe people don't play as much as they used to be able to but they're still around, at varying activity levels. Am I talking about players? Think about it. | ||
|
Shana
Indonesia1814 Posts
Thankfully I'm not involved with balance in any capacity. On a serious notes, bw doesn't need balancing design wise. It should be balanced via maps and not unit and/or unit values. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
seeing as how balance is tightly coupled to the map design, is there any good that can come from matchup specific maps? creating a cool and interesting map for one particular matchup can be done but most times will be imbalanced for some other matchup maps that are required to fit all 6 matchups greatly reduces the space for innovation and creativity i think this might be the number one way to breathe fresh ideas into the game without touching any of the core gameplay mechanics. all that is required is a paradigm shift away from the idea that every map is made to fit all matchups. | ||
|
whaski
Finland576 Posts
| ||
|
mozzybw
Canada24 Posts
| ||
| ||
