On November 22 2020 09:03 TT1 wrote: Imo they should turn reavers into a hybrid flyer/ground unit, like vikings in sc2. That way P can harass without a shuttle, you'd have great anti air splash damage and you could land them wherever you want for ground harass. You could also add a speed upgrade for them but that might be too OP... it's worth exploring tho.
I actually really like this change. I think it would lend itself well to the PvP meta game when we see reaver vs reaver builds. The micro potential is off the charts!
On November 22 2020 09:03 TT1 wrote: Imo they should turn reavers into a hybrid flyer/ground unit, like vikings in sc2. That way P can harass without a shuttle, you'd have great anti air splash damage and you could land them wherever you want for ground harass. You could also add a speed upgrade for them but that might be too OP... it's worth exploring tho.
For one moment I thought you were serious about it.
im being serious.. there's too much rng with scarabs, reavers need more utility
Well, making those changes would be... massive difference. I'm talking about making air upgrades 5 seconds shorter haha.
On November 22 2020 09:27 WombaT wrote: Not scouts as I can’t really see an actual niche for them that opens up strategic variety if they’re balanced to be a stronger unit. You’d have to overbuff them to the degree they would replace say, sairs in PvZ, and the game is more interesting with sairs and their strengths and drawbacks than the boring old scout.
If anything it’s kind of neat a unit is so relatively bad that it has a unique niche as a troll unit.
In general terms, sure tweak things IMO. Not sure what I would tweak but just not against it in principle.
Yeah, I also think changing the scout in some ways would be dangerous to the corsair. I didn't say anything about aa on it since I think they got that pretty much covered.
I mean, you can see Scouts being used here at like ~2200+ MMR, that's already the top 5% of the player population or something, right? Why do all units need to be mainstream and no niche? I believe this is the mistake Blizzard made with SC2 to some extent.
I think the only changes would be to User interface, connection on ladder between players ( I always lag playing vs Koreans for awhile now ), team 2v2 Ladder, be able to play SD mode in full screen, etc.
I wouldn't mind seeing a change to make hive tech ZvZ more viable without screwing up the rest of the game. I couldn't possibly tell you how to do such a thing, though.
On November 22 2020 15:06 Kanil wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing a change to make hive tech ZvZ more viable without screwing up the rest of the game. I couldn't possibly tell you how to do such a thing, though.
Each ZvZ starts with both players already having the buildings necessary to force a Hive Tech scenario - I forget what they were from the great era of ZvZ, but there was a definite "formula" whereby two people pursuing different builds resulted in a nearly-forced Hive scenario. It's like starting in Castle Age in AoE2.
The meta game always considers players' own limitations in the structure of the game besides more "hard" stuff like unit costs or training times. Take disruption web, for example. It's way too apm intensive - even if fleet beacon tech and researching disruption web isn't that costly in itself compared to, say, arbiter tech. But with arbiters you get a small number of auto-cloaking, somewhat sturdy units, that don't need extreme micromanagement to stasis a clump of tanks. Ghosts are another example - you'd get a science facility anyway for upgrades, the add-on isn't that expensive, the ghost itself is tiny on the screen so somewhat harder to target, but you need a bunch of them to be effective and say, lock down a few carriers. You need to micro all those separately while moving a large mech force and macroing at the same time.
The reason the defiler is arguably the most effective spellcaster in the game is that you usually don't need more than just a few with you army (consume takes care of energy issues) and both spells are 1) AoE 2) a lot of bang for the buck action-wise, i.e. with comparatively few actions you can cripple an army with plague or turn a battlefield unwinnable for ranged troops.
Of course, devourers and scouts are straight-up fighter units that require little babysitting and therefore are just less bang for the buck because of associated costs or mechanical limitations (the devourer attack animation is ridiculous sometimes). The scout is particularly bad because not only the unit cost is high, but the only useful upgrade comes through tech that is rarely if ever used in PvZ and in PvT you get it for a different unit.
On November 22 2020 12:24 Jealous wrote: I mean, you can see Scouts being used here at like ~2200+ MMR, that's already the top 5% of the player population or something, right? Why do all units need to be mainstream and no niche? I believe this is the mistake Blizzard made with SC2 to some extent.
Great example. Didn't see that game, and the results seem promising. I wonder if he kept looking at it or just discard it after trying the same thing on a couple of games.
I'm not saying all units should be mainstream. Some units are niche, guardians, firebats... But seeing scouts or ghosts (besides nuking) is kinda anecdotical. Of course if you look for it on the 15 years of BW competitive scene you would find some examples.
As I said before, for me it's like the game has X units/abilities and that number leads to Y strategies. Why not try to tweak those units and abilities that are kinda useless on 99% of the games and see if the game gets even more complex. Again, I'm not into extremely buffing stuff to make it viable on all games or creating a new meta, but make it useless on 90% of the games instead of 99%.
On November 22 2020 12:30 TelecoM wrote: I think the only changes would be to User interface, connection on ladder between players ( I always lag playing vs Koreans for awhile now ), team 2v2 Ladder, be able to play SD mode in full screen, etc.
I think these would be welcomed changes.
I always think they should add some analysis tools for observers. I'm not talking about SC2 level, since I think that could wipe the "magic" of some scenarios (sometimes not knowing something is more exciting that having all the details).
Things like how many workers died on a marine/reaver/high templar drop can be useful. Also some graphs for resource income/lost.
On November 22 2020 15:06 Kanil wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing a change to make hive tech ZvZ more viable without screwing up the rest of the game. I couldn't possibly tell you how to do such a thing, though.
Yep. That seems quite difficult...
I wish a pro would find a new way to approach ZvZ. Sometimes I fantasize about burrow+spores+teching to hive being viable haha.
EPT
