There's a lot of history about making new balance patches to BW on the last 10-15 years. If I'm not mistaken, the last patch applying changes was 1.08 almost 20 years ago. Since then, people have talked about new changes, most of the time failing and suggesting things that are completely non-sense.
Now, I won't explain what I would do to balance the game since the game is perfectly balance as it is and it is the most cliche post on TL, Reddit or any forum regarding BW. There's a lot of posts saying "THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO TO FIX THE GAME" and 99% of the times is D rank players trying to obliterate things they lose to.
What I'm talking about is, and here's where I need you opinion...
Would you be in favor of tweaking some units to make the game even more dense?
I'm talking about changing the Scout from 8 ground attack to 9-10 and test how it affects the game for months. Or maybe making tiny changes to the Devourer to see if it fits any strategy.
It seems like 2-3 units are not fitting the meta for the past 20 years, so there's a small part of the game that basically doesn't get into account.
Thanks in advance, and don't worry about it, I understand I'll get a lot of "Do not touch BW" and "The game is perfect as it is". I know I'm entering sacred lands.
While some units may not be "meta" that doesn't mean they don't see use in other game modes. Better to leave things as they are not just because of the impact on the competitive scene but also on the intangible and hard to calculate/adapt cases like BGH 3v3, Blizz map FFA, etc.
Simply, why risk ruining something just to see Scouts used more often or something? Is that really something that we need? We have players on these forums who argue for making Guardians stronger simply because they are their favorite units, that's really what it boils down to and it's pure nonsense.
Minor tweaks would be fine, however we would need the Korean pro scene to vet them and they don't seem to be interested in any kind of gameplay changes. (maybe they have a different opinion on that after 3-4 years since everybody came back to BW).
The meta definitely needs a shake-up after all this time: 10+ years with limited drastic changes to pro play.
On November 22 2020 06:45 Jealous wrote: While some units may not be "meta" that doesn't mean they don't see use in other game modes. Better to leave things as they are not just because of the impact on the competitive scene but also on the intangible and hard to calculate/adapt cases like BGH 3v3, Blizz map FFA, etc.
Simply, why risk ruining something just to see Scouts used more often or something? Is that really something that we need? We have players on these forums who argue for making Guardians stronger simply because they are their favorite units, that's really what it boils down to and it's pure nonsense.
Well, I think making +1 ground attack for example on Scouts would be that problematic in games like BGH or any other map.
Also I don't think it would ruin the game. Ruining the game would be making vultures only carry one spidermine or stupid stuff that people suggest all the time. Making a tiny change can't kill the balance, and also you can tweak that back since you know what is the "natural" state of the game.
Plus, it is not about "Oh I want to see Scouts used more" as a personal desire or anything related. It's more about how can you expand the vast strategy of the game. Someone could say that the change is just to remove Scouts from the game, since they have not a single use more than trolling your opponent. What I mean is maybe is worth a try to lift those units a little bit and see if they have any potential. Let's say we see Scouts or Devourers appear on +2% of the games, since they are more viable at some point of the game. Well, as a player, you should expect that kind of unit composition on those 2% of games and try to adapt to it. You're expanding the viable strategies but also the way players react to those possibilities.
I think what really "bothers" me is that the game has a tiny percentage of units/abilities that were almost anecdotical for decades, and they seem more like a waste of "space" for strategy that could be expanded via, as I said, tiny, minor changes.
On one side I think, well, why change something that worked fine for the past 20 years? On the other side, I think it's like tweaking something people think it's perfect (cause it is in some kind of sense), to make it even better, which is a statement that I think people don't even consider. I'm looking for people like you, thinking about the possibilty and expressing their opinion, not cultists.
On November 22 2020 07:11 oxKnu wrote: Minor tweaks would be fine, however we would need the Korean pro scene to vet them and they don't seem to be interested in any kind of gameplay changes. (maybe they have a different opinion on that after 3-4 years since everybody came back to BW).
The meta definitely needs a shake-up after all this time: 10+ years with limited drastic changes to pro play.
Well I think the meta still changes from time to time. I loved some of the strategies of the past ASLs and I cannot discard the fact that maybe someday any of the matchups will change somehow.
I mean, yeah, I perceive some kind of stagnation, but meta changes are extremely slow and hard to point out.
I won't suggest changing the balance of the game to find new metas or make it more "fun". I think that would be a disaster.
On November 22 2020 07:22 Ollin wrote: Here we go again...
Again, not looking for absurd changes or people suggesting things like that. I'm just asking, do you think the game could be improved by tiny changes? Just that.
On November 22 2020 07:11 oxKnu wrote: Minor tweaks would be fine, however we would need the Korean pro scene to vet them and they don't seem to be interested in any kind of gameplay changes. (maybe they have a different opinion on that after 3-4 years since everybody came back to BW).
The meta definitely needs a shake-up after all this time: 10+ years with limited drastic changes to pro play.
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.
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.
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
A 2v2 ladder as promised! Server tweaks (merge west and east, allow easy crossserver friendlist) For the game itself not really. Too risky. You can play with ums.
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.
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.
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.
That sounds great, but I don't know if making the matches kinda asymmetrical would be embraced by the community. The perception of an RTS being "equal to equal" on every case/scenario is a hard totem.
On November 22 2020 18:07 TaardadAiel wrote: 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 19:47 Severedevil wrote: I want to hear NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED. Buff nukes so they're not just a stylish way to lose.
Imho touching nukes is way too risky. The amount of damage you can get with one (good) nuke is too high to try to expand that into competitive gaming.
If you buff a tiny bit an specific unit, well, you're touching specific scenarios. Maybe you kill 4 drones instead of 3 or wipe 10 marines instead of 8 on a tiny spectrum of the games... but buffing nukes is too much. You could end making them mainstream and boring to deal with since they don't require to much micro or strategy (besides getting your ghost to actually nuke a position).
Reaver attack is so hard to control.. everytime i try to hit something, the scarab stay on hold for a few seconds and i miss my attack. They should fix that
I don't think they should change anything, because even the tiniest change can completely change the balance of something else or introduce a bunch of new bugs/break a lot of other things. It's too risky to do I think.
It's interesting how the units that come to mind for most people are always scouts and queens when the elephant in the room is the ghost. This unit was build for single player only and while you might see it just about as often as a scout, the scout could also be simply removed from the game (if BW was still in an active balance patching state that is exactly what would happen) while the ghost basically represents a whole branch of Terran tech. You need barracks, academy, science facility, covered ops to build one, then you need a nuke silo and a nuke to get use out of it. It has 4 upgrades, of which one is basically required to even use the unit. The ghost is basically a spell caster with an attack which is so bad it would be better without it (like an arbiter) that comes with no spells.
I can see the rage bars filling, so let me go first: I don't say you should buff the ghost, it might just break the game to give Terran just about anything in addition to what they have today. But if you want to change an aspect of the game, the ghost is first on the list. It just hurts the most to have a fully fleshed out tech tree with so many buildings, upgrades and units that is completely and utterly useless, both at lower and pro levels, except for the once per decade stunt that fails 9 out of 10 times and makes pimpest plays if it does not fail for once.
So just for the purpose of floating some ideas (that all might very well break the game), how about any of those (one or two, not all): - make lock down work on ALL unit types - give the ghost a meaningful attack with normal damage type - make the nuke silo an upgrade to the scanner so you can keep the scanner - make ghosts start with the cloak ability (remove the upgrade or make the upgrade change cloak from energy to permanent) - remove the vision and energy upgrade and replace them with good upgrades like doing more damage and/or splash damage or make them benefit from the stim pack upgrade as well
The whole idea should be the give terran more options, not more power. What if instead of rushing for vessels to counter stacked mutas, you could choose to rush ghosts with splash damage upgrade and maybe even the ability to lock down ultras? :-)
The liquipedia article on the ghost puts it nicely when it lists "as a means to show one's dominance or to subtly tell opponents that they have lost" as one of the usages of the ghost - to bm you opponent.
On November 22 2020 22:12 Poly_Optimize wrote: Reaver attack is so hard to control.. everytime i try to hit something, the scarab stay on hold for a few seconds and i miss my attack. They should fix that
There were a lot of people asking for this since the game came out.
On one side, I understand it is quite frustrating, but:
- Maybe "fixing" the attack and making it 100% reliable will be too much. That is a huge buff. - The hype before a scarab hitting or missing is part of the show.
On November 22 2020 22:29 Qikz wrote: I don't think they should change anything, because even the tiniest change can completely change the balance of something else or introduce a bunch of new bugs/break a lot of other things. It's too risky to do I think.
My personal fear is that changing something could mutate the game and getting into the "everything is viable" of SC2.
I mean, BW is more about hard counters than SC2, and nerfing/buffing stuff too much could reduce strategy instead of expand it.
That's why I'm talking about introducing "atomic" changes to see if those obscure units/abilities can be considered into the competitive scene.
On November 22 2020 22:46 Chosi wrote: It's interesting how the units that come to mind for most people are always scouts and queens when the elephant in the room is the ghost. This unit was build for single player only and while you might see it just about as often as a scout, the scout could also be simply removed from the game (if BW was still in an active balance patching state that is exactly what would happen) while the ghost basically represents a whole branch of Terran tech. You need barracks, academy, science facility, covered ops to build one, then you need a nuke silo and a nuke to get use out of it. It has 4 upgrades, of which one is basically required to even use the unit. The ghost is basically a spell caster with an attack which is so bad it would be better without it (like an arbiter) that comes with no spells.
I can see the rage bars filling, so let me go first: I don't say you should buff the ghost, it might just break the game to give Terran just about anything in addition to what they have today. But if you want to change an aspect of the game, the ghost is first on the list. It just hurts the most to have a fully fleshed out tech tree with so many buildings, upgrades and units that is completely and utterly useless, both at lower and pro levels, except for the once per decade stunt that fails 9 out of 10 times and makes pimpest plays if it does not fail for once.
So just for the purpose of floating some ideas (that all might very well break the game), how about any of those (one or two, not all): - make lock down work on ALL unit types - give the ghost a meaningful attack with normal damage type - make the nuke silo an upgrade to the scanner so you can keep the scanner - make ghosts start with the cloak ability (remove the upgrade or make the upgrade change cloak from energy to permanent) - remove the vision and energy upgrade and replace them with good upgrades like doing more damage and/or splash damage or make them benefit from the stim pack upgrade as well
The whole idea should be the give terran more options, not more power. What if instead of rushing for vessels to counter stacked mutas, you could choose to rush ghosts with splash damage upgrade and maybe even the ability to lock down ultras? :-)
The liquipedia article on the ghost puts it nicely when it lists "as a means to show one's dominance or to subtly tell opponents that they have lost" as one of the usages of the ghost - to bm you opponent.
Even I don't like some of the suggestions, I think the Ghost is, as you said, one of the most forgotten units of course.
Making them benefit from stim pack and nuking 2-3 seconds faster would be madness haha.
Some suggestions in here are related to developing new features which Blizzard is clearly incapable of delivering without any major fallback (as shown by the last few patches)
Anything related to cost/build time/upgrades should be trivial to implement (no matter if the game is old, new etc).
Come to think of it. I wonder who would Blizzard listen to if somehow the community (I'm guessing the Korean one) would like some of these things at least tried out.
Given the current state of things I would guess that even something as simple as this would require some bureaucracy justification internally to Activision, which come to think of it, is quite sad.
On November 22 2020 06:45 Jealous wrote: While some units may not be "meta" that doesn't mean they don't see use in other game modes. Better to leave things as they are not just because of the impact on the competitive scene but also on the intangible and hard to calculate/adapt cases like BGH 3v3, Blizz map FFA, etc.
Simply, why risk ruining something just to see Scouts used more often or something? Is that really something that we need? We have players on these forums who argue for making Guardians stronger simply because they are their favorite units, that's really what it boils down to and it's pure nonsense.
Yeah good point. For example, imagine someone making the point in MTGA that each and every card needs to be viable in competetive play... It's ok to have some units that barely see any use. Maybe they have uses in other game modes. Also, I don't think there is a way to buff a single unit, which is not used at all in competivie play right now (e.g. the scout), to appear 2 % more often. That would imply you would give them a niche and you would have to know that niche prior to the change... If you don't do that you will only be able to straight up buff the unit, which will either be not enough so it remains irrelevant or it's enough to take the spot of another unit.
On November 22 2020 06:45 Jealous wrote: While some units may not be "meta" that doesn't mean they don't see use in other game modes. Better to leave things as they are not just because of the impact on the competitive scene but also on the intangible and hard to calculate/adapt cases like BGH 3v3, Blizz map FFA, etc.
Simply, why risk ruining something just to see Scouts used more often or something? Is that really something that we need? We have players on these forums who argue for making Guardians stronger simply because they are their favorite units, that's really what it boils down to and it's pure nonsense.
Yeah good point. For example, imagine someone making the point in MTGA that each and every card needs to be viable in competetive play... It's ok to have some units that barely see any use. Maybe they have uses in other game modes. Also, I don't think there is a way to buff a single unit, which is not used at all in competivie play right now (e.g. the scout), to appear 2 % more often. That would imply you would give them a niche and you would have to know that niche prior to the change... If you don't do that you will only be able to straight up buff the unit, which will either be not enough so it remains irrelevant or it's enough to take the spot of another unit.
Well to be honest, the Scout and Corsair, if both economically viable would not completely cancel one over the other since the Scout can shoot ground.
Maybe Scouts win over in PvZ because they also have an use later in game (as opposed to Sairs being a supply dump in some scenarios of the MU)
Truth of the matter is we don't know until some of the best players in the world try it out for a period of time and adapt their builds to the new changes.
Soccer is boring and stale. I am very smart guy, and I know FIFA will listen to my genius suggestions. Maybe two footballs instead of just one? Lets also give the goalies jetpacks? I think that make for more fun and interesting soccer matches. Sincerely, guy in the chat.
On November 23 2020 02:01 tankgirl wrote: "Monthly Topic Rotation" thread
Soccer is boring and stale. I am very smart guy, and I know FIFA will listen to my genius suggestions. Maybe two footballs instead of just one? Lets also give the goalies jetpacks? I think that make for more fun and interesting soccer matches. Sincerely, guy in the chat.
Automatic redcard for simulation, video review after each game and ban from following 2 games if not caught during the game.
On November 22 2020 07:29 subanchoide wrote: Plus, it is not about "Oh I want to see Scouts used more" as a personal desire or anything related. It's more about how can you expand the vast strategy of the game.
I don't understand this tendency, but I see it often. I'm busy focusing on mastering the game, and you have some people (often more than enough to succeed) interested in changing that game. I'm not talking about Starcraft here either, but it's the same issue. Luckily, Starcraft has enough diehard people willing to resist that temptation that it doesn't happen. But I've had to quit playing games before because they got ruined by ideas like this.
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.
The speed upgrade is definitely too OP for a single unit. Imagine a ball of mutalisks that kills 20 workers at a time instead of 1. That's what you're talking about. I think the logical extension of your idea would be to make shuttles a ground unit, and give them the ability to have a reaver landing pad which can also launch reavers into the air. And keep them as a unit that attacks ground only, like guardians. This way the speed of the shuttle is separate in one unit and the power of the reaver, still slow, is separated into a different one.
niche units are good because when you see them, it's really interesting. See: stork using (a single) scout this ASL. There's also a couple of legitimate uses for scouts, they are pretty good vs BCs for instance, if they ever entered the tvp meta.
ghosts - there was that nuke sunken bust build a couple of ASLs ago, and I think they have a lot of potential in tvp because hitting the lockdown on arbs is easier and cleaner than EMP.
queens - the only reason you don't see these right now is because nobody is playing long mech tvz games... as a direct result of the queen shutting down this style. Zero also used queens vs flash in asl9 to ensnare bio, and has used them in the past in zvp.
devos - doesn't need any changes, you don't see these because no matchup other than zvz turns into a late game air domination battle, mostly as a result of the devo being strong in those situations.
DAs - fills its niche well of countering lategame HT muta snipes, no changes needed.
The reason you wouldn't want to add +2 attack to scouts is a matter of breakpoints - how many hits it takes to kill a unit. Add 2 ground and it goes from 16 hits to kill a gol to 13, which is pretty significant because gols actually suck against mass air, evidenced in similar upgrade muta vs gol battles, which has a nonzero chance to alter the meta, and at that point - we're basically throwing out 18 or so years of map development. Maybe this would only affect lategame tvp because they take so long to make, but still. I don't think it's necessary as all the p matchups operate pretty smoothly without scouts.
Tweaks I'd like to see are in adding more features that map makers can abuse in melee, like air blocking tiles or timers on openable doors or something.
The meta definitely needs a shake-up after all this time: 10+ years with limited drastic changes to pro play.
The meta does not need shaking up with balance patches, and if you think it does, you aren't looking closely enough. Practically every ASL season there's an entirely different meta, and *definitely* from 2010.
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%.
Earlier in the same video, Snow talks about how Movie had prepared a Scout strategy specifically to counter Jaedong on a specific map in OSL - highest level of competition. Only reason it didn't see the light of day is because Jaedong died to the first part of the build (Cannon rush). This is why niche units are needed, because they are SO unexpected and rarely fought against.
If these niche units become even 9% more likely, it puts undue pressure on the opponent and can swing balance/affect decision-making and actually limit the amount of builds the opposing race can opt for, because now there is a 900% increase in how likely it is for X strategy to just fail.
We have this post every month... And I love it every time. It's bw fans fantasizing and bullshitting together =) there's not much else to talk about, so it's good community fun as long as we stay civil.
I've always wondered about disruption web. If sairs could get this ability quicker, would it really break PvZ? I think it would be one of the cooler changes.
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.
The speed upgrade is definitely too OP for a single unit. Imagine a ball of mutalisks that kills 20 workers at a time instead of 1. That's what you're talking about. I think the logical extension of your idea would be to make shuttles a ground unit, and give them the ability to have a reaver landing pad which can also launch reavers into the air. And keep them as a unit that attacks ground only, like guardians. This way the speed of the shuttle is separate in one unit and the power of the reaver, still slow, is separated into a different one.
this makes more sense and plays into the transformers theme we're going for, thanks
On November 22 2020 22:12 Poly_Optimize wrote: Reaver attack is so hard to control.. everytime i try to hit something, the scarab stay on hold for a few seconds and i miss my attack. They should fix that
There were a lot of people asking for this since the game came out.
On one side, I understand it is quite frustrating, but:
- Maybe "fixing" the attack and making it 100% reliable will be too much. That is a huge buff. - The hype before a scarab hitting or missing is part of the show.
SC2:BW has (had?) near-100% hit rate and they were absolutely bonkers. Completely changed the way PvT was played in my experience.
Most people who struggle to hit things with Reavers are, in my experience, struggling because they aren't using the Reavers properly. They're dropping them behind mineral lines, targeting the first SCV in a train running past them when they KNOW it will be bugging the Scarab behind it by the time it gets there, they ignore terrain and angle preferences, etc.
So, it's a two-part problem - not only would implementing the fix be absurdly OP, but also the only people suggesting it are usually low level players who are complaining about things they hardly understand beyond the superficial.
On November 23 2020 02:01 tankgirl wrote: "Monthly Topic Rotation" thread
Soccer is boring and stale. I am very smart guy, and I know FIFA will listen to my genius suggestions. Maybe two footballs instead of just one? Lets also give the goalies jetpacks? I think that make for more fun and interesting soccer matches. Sincerely, guy in the chat.
In fairness the majority of football’s lifespan the goalkeeper was able to pick up the ball from a back pass. It didn’t need changing but in retrospect that was a pretty decent rule change.
None of this will ever happen but I'll throw in my 2 cents...
Proposed Terran Change: - reduce the starting energy of the medic
Proposed Protoss Change: - make ground weapon damage upgrades against biological units such that either at +1, +2, or +3 ground weapons, a zealot/dragoon will kill a hydralisk in 1 fewer attacks - make armor and shield upgrades against biological units such that either at +1, +2, or +3 armor/shield upgrades, a zealot/dragoon will survive just slightly longer against zerglings and hydralisks. Perhaps make it so that it only really takes effect at +2 or +3 to avoid OP timing attacks?
My ideas have the goal of trying to get PvZ and ZvT closer to 50% without disrupting the other matchups. Maybe both protoss changes would be too powerful.
Yeah for sure, there are some issues. protoss is in the weirdest spot because they are super strong against terran but super weak against zerg.
So terran has never won bsl, and is mostly absent in top 8 in tourmanents. Its the hardest race to play , no question. also zerg has won the past 2 asl's and most recently we saw 3/4 finalists as zerg, terran doesnt need nerfs. if terran is nerfed, we wont see terran in any finals ever. If your going to nerf terran, just get rid of ghosts and nukes entirely, as they are not used in competitive play.
I think zerg needs nerfs the most, nerf ling attack speed by 20% and then upgraded ling attack speed by 30%. this would help stop ling busts against protoss early. Nerf hydra damage by 1 from 9 to 8. Nerf defilers obviously, make dark swarm last 10 seconds shorter, and make consume give only half the energy.
Also protoss does need some nerfs against terran. Its odd how all protoss units are viable against terran late game. should add an upgrade to make DT's invis, to delay the DT rush by 30 seconds, very cheesy to deal with as terran. Also carriers start with 4 armor, thats just ridiculous, nerf carrier to start with 2 base armor. As nyoken said, make stasis a projectile, that makes sense. if EMP is projectile, statis should be as well. ALso probes should have to be present to warp in buildings, up to 40% complete. protoss gets too much of an edge from being able to throw down nexus, pylon and 2 cannons all at once with just one probe.
On November 23 2020 07:16 Djabanete wrote: The holy grail is not changing unit balance. The holy grail is developing a much wider variety of balanced maps.
I love how every time we get this thread it's always someone trying to make the scout better. Like wtf the scout is such a boring unit anyway, making it better won't improve the game at all. Think bigger lol.
I love how on the previous page of this thread people are actually agreeing that the scout is a niche unit and it could actually be inserted into some pro builds.
Guys...if a protoss builds a scout out of a Stargate today in the first 10 minutes of the game against any good Zerg he loses 100%. Unless that Zerg is drunk or his monitor is dead.
On November 23 2020 09:35 oxKnu wrote: I love how on the previous page of this thread people are actually agreeing that the scout is a niche unit and it could actually be inserted into some pro builds.
Guys...if a protoss builds a scout out of a Stargate today in the first 10 minutes of the game against any good Zerg he loses 100%. Unless that Zerg is drunk or his monitor is dead.
Again, Movie had a specific Scout build for Jaedong for a specific map. You think your take is better than Snow/Movie?
On November 23 2020 09:35 oxKnu wrote: I love how on the previous page of this thread people are actually agreeing that the scout is a niche unit and it could actually be inserted into some pro builds.
Guys...if a protoss builds a scout out of a Stargate today in the first 10 minutes of the game against any good Zerg he loses 100%. Unless that Zerg is drunk or his monitor is dead.
Again, Movie had a specific Scout build for Jaedong for a specific map. You think your take is better than Snow/Movie?
I think you should stop referencing 10+ year old anecdotes as some sort of valid argument in this discussion.
On November 23 2020 09:35 oxKnu wrote: I love how on the previous page of this thread people are actually agreeing that the scout is a niche unit and it could actually be inserted into some pro builds.
Guys...if a protoss builds a scout out of a Stargate today in the first 10 minutes of the game against any good Zerg he loses 100%. Unless that Zerg is drunk or his monitor is dead.
Again, Movie had a specific Scout build for Jaedong for a specific map. You think your take is better than Snow/Movie?
I think you should stop referencing 10+ year old anecdotes as some sort of valid argument in this discussion.
I'll take Movie 2010 anecdotes over oxKnu anecdotes in 2020 or 3020 for that matter.
On November 23 2020 09:35 oxKnu wrote: I love how on the previous page of this thread people are actually agreeing that the scout is a niche unit and it could actually be inserted into some pro builds.
Guys...if a protoss builds a scout out of a Stargate today in the first 10 minutes of the game against any good Zerg he loses 100%. Unless that Zerg is drunk or his monitor is dead.
Again, Movie had a specific Scout build for Jaedong for a specific map. You think your take is better than Snow/Movie?
I think you should stop referencing 10+ year old anecdotes as some sort of valid argument in this discussion.
I'll take Movie 2010 anecdotes over oxKnu anecdotes in 2020 or 3020 for that matter.
Very cool. Also consider letting other people have a more data-driven/statistical approach to understanding matters as opposed to your choice.
On November 23 2020 07:16 Djabanete wrote: The holy grail is not changing unit balance. The holy grail is developing a much wider variety of balanced maps.
This.
I’ll second this as well. I’d settle for any map that is somehow Protoss favoured In PvZ, as well as being Zerg Favoured in ZvT.
On November 23 2020 07:16 Djabanete wrote: The holy grail is not changing unit balance. The holy grail is developing a much wider variety of balanced maps.
This.
I’ll second this as well. I’d settle for any map that is somehow Protoss favoured In PvZ, as well as being Zerg Favoured in ZvT.
On November 23 2020 09:35 oxKnu wrote: I love how on the previous page of this thread people are actually agreeing that the scout is a niche unit and it could actually be inserted into some pro builds.
Guys...if a protoss builds a scout out of a Stargate today in the first 10 minutes of the game against any good Zerg he loses 100%. Unless that Zerg is drunk or his monitor is dead.
Again, Movie had a specific Scout build for Jaedong for a specific map. You think your take is better than Snow/Movie?
I think you should stop referencing 10+ year old anecdotes as some sort of valid argument in this discussion.
I'll take Movie 2010 anecdotes over oxKnu anecdotes in 2020 or 3020 for that matter.
Very cool. Also consider letting other people have a more data-driven/statistical approach to understanding matters as opposed to your choice.
Where's your data/statistics? You just pulled a random minute mark and percentage out of your ass as a likely-to-be mid-level player at best and act like it holds more water than actual progamers' opinions and actual approach to the game.
I am fully against any changes, simply because there is and never will be a trustworthy and competent authority to implement them.
I am open to the idea of modified UMS tournaments with different changes but I will rage against the dying of the light at the prospect of blizzard or someone they deputize doing it.
Nobody ever talks about it, but changes and patches completely ruin the history and continuity of the game. Every 12 months or so sc2 patches do enough that they previous years of games are all meaningless. Then with it's own history relegated to the wastebin, the champions of yesterday are now, 'patch-champions'. And with all the artificial community turmoil it introduces, the game still ends up imbalanced at all the different skill groups and a certain race in that game seems unable to rise to the top despite years of earnest attempts at balancing.
I would like to see a concerted effort to build a seasons worth of maps, where protoss hits 55%+ on each map v T/Z. If protoss are given a slight edge that is born out by data, and they still lose, fair enough.
It might be as simple as 2 extra mineral patches at each base and it might be as dramatic as Dire Straights, Polaris Prime and Island hop.
I do not believe there is an disadvantage for Protoss, even on the current map pools, at any but the highest levels. But, I am open to listening and learning otherwise.
- lurker/scarab splash don't hit allies (why ever they do splash damage to allies if they don't do splash damage to your own units ?) - add destructable rocks/building that affect unit pathing (so we don't need to invent terrain layout hacks and we just place a pile of rocks and units move around it properly) - forbid using mind control on workers in FFA - add no-fly zones. We have un-wallkable terrain (like water), so why can't we have un-flyable zones?
ghosts - there was that nuke sunken bust build a couple of ASLs ago, and I think they have a lot of potential in tvp because hitting the lockdown on arbs is easier and cleaner than EMP.
The vessel also provides detection and is a flying caster, so easier to control. Plus even if you miss an arbiter, you might still at least get the shields on some of the ground units. And it works against other spellcasters, too, like HTs.
If lockdown removes passive abilities like detection and cloaking like stasis does, it might have some use against arbiters. Come to think of it, I never knew if it actually did, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't. But my point is that ghosts require way more babysitting besides the tech investment (which isn't that much larger compared to vessels) in big hectic fights. Maybe they can be used for recall defense like vessels are, like you say, you can't dodge a lockdown missile. But in a big fight? Vessels just float around, providing detection, and you have to painfully select your tiny ghosts that bump into the huge mech army before you can reach the arbiter(s) and lock it/them down. They have more utility against carriers, like if you manage to lock 2 or more this is a big hit to Protoss, but it's still a pain in the ass to manage. Enough that successful lockdown plays are pimpest play worthy (was it Boxer against DIDI8?)
I'm not even gonna start about nukes, losing scanners for silos is an extremely high price to pay even before the significant min/gas/supply cost.
But whoever said the ghost is the elephant in the room is right. Without mechanical limitations Terran has really nice spellcasting power - the vessels are good enough as they are, ghosts would be really powerful for locking down stuff, even the medic optical flare could be useful (but it costs a bit). The ghost is one of the conceptually coolest units in the game, like some special ops super elite trooper and it has a special place in SC:BW lore (like Kerrigan, duh), but is relegated to be a cheese-of-cheeses in competitive play. There is so much stuff that you have to take care of that the most used abilities are AoE (EMP and irradiate, when it's used in a proper battle rather than assassination/softening raids) and auto-cast (heal). Dmatrix is really cool, but more tactical/specialized, for like drops and stuff.
Same with the other two races, really - queens have gained popularity, but they're pretty tough to use and the most effective way for everyone but the absolute top pros is in lulls in the battle against a somewhat static enemy. Defilers own. Protoss use one spellcaster for one of its (AoE) spells in PvZ, the DA is insanely cool and all but the HT is so important for bare survival against Z in the hydra print metagame that the DA just not worth it most of the time. Arbs are good because they 1) have a passive AoE ability 2) have an AoE disabler 3) have a fkin mass teleport 4) fly 5) are pretty sturdy. All of those mean they are somewhat user-friendly.
Here's a hilarious balance suggestion: give probes a speed upgrade (when moving, not mining) researchable at the nexusb(like burrow is) so a probe can survive longer to scout against Z.
I genuinely think there should be adjustments that only apply to mirror matchups.
You can't break the balance of mirror matchups, and it would add spice to what are usually the least popular matchups.
The adjustments could be tied to maps. There should still be maps where mirror matchups are "traditional" (unmodified).
I remember a long time ago there was a TL mirror match tournament where you could only make one Factory in TvT. There were similar tweaks to the other matchups. I think in PvP, you weren't allowed to make Dragoons or something. No spire ZvZ would also be interesting, as would changing it so you can't build Mutas, but if you get Greater Spire, you can directly build a Guardian or Devourer Cocoon (a Muta that immediately morphs into a Cocoon upon hatching).
Imagine starting with two or three Hatcheries on some maps in ZvZ?
Or multiple Hatcheries and a Hydra Den.
Or a Queen's Nest (to make going Hive slightly easier).
Or if Lurker aspect came pre-upgraded (so you could turn Hydras into Lurkers even at tier 1, and do so without paying the cost of the upgrade).
Or just Hydra speed and/or range came pre-upgraded.
Imagine starting with an Academy on some maps in TvT? Games would still transition to mech eventually, but there would be an infantry phase that could be interesting.
Or starting with a Science Facility with an attached Covert Ops? Perhaps players should also start with an Academy so games don't reduce to rushing to Cloak. Even with a free Science Facility and Covert Ops, I'm not sure Ghosts would be worth making. This also makes +2 much easier to reach, and that might end up being the real effect of such a starting condition. But it would be interesting to find out what happens.
What if you started with an Arbiter Tribunal on some maps in PvP? Or various spells that don't see much usage in the match-up, such as Maelstrom, Hallucination, Disruption Web, were pre-researched?
Overall, unit stats and costs would remain the same to reduce confusion. It's just starting conditions or restrictions (such as not being able to make certain units, or not being able to build more than some number of certain units or buildings) that might change from map to map.
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.
Hydra damage increase vs Mutas and/or Spore damage increase vs Mutas (both, however, are not in line with BW damage system). Seriously, if you are going to change one thing in the game, it would be trying to fix ZvZ (and yes, the mirror is broken).
Other things: no reason to touch Queens, they are actually great vs mech. They might also be used vs HTs, but Mutas are simply better there. If you would buff DA a bit, you might actually Queens with broodling vs HTs.
Scout, Ghost: great care needed with any changes whatsoever. It is a wasted opporunity for the game, that I admit.
Some other proposals in this thread are actually completely bonkers - just no
I agree with the sentiment that if there should be anything new, it should be with the maps. For me, BW would never be the same if the races were different. Their identities, and the decades of memories built on that, gives the game an appeal like a time-honored tradition that would be ruined if it were changed. If novelty and variety are needed, then I think new maps have always been able to provide for that. But maybe we can take it a step further and give mapmakers access to the sort of things we've seen in newer RTS since, like destructible terrain, modifiable terrain, etc. If not, I think the use of more creative maps would help keep interest strong. I think there's still a good amount left to explore with certain features, like the vision-blocking bushes we saw in Cross Game, or the D-Webs of Inner Coven. There were some awesome games on that map.
Who would trust the Blizzard of today to make any changes anyway? I surely not. For real, they even break things and introduce new bugs by only changing maps for the next ladder season. The only way for improvements in the future (not talking about gameplay tho) is to open source SCR cause Blizz won't invest a single cent into SCR anymore. But tbh, open sourcing SCR won't happen either. It's either "stick with it" or "go play smth else" - imho.
No thanks. While I'm sure that some tiny tweaks here and there might be good, trying to pinpoint what those needed tweaks are AND expecting blizzard to actually implement them is next to impossible. You'd have a hard time getting a consensus on what the issues are in the first place as well so a double whammy.
No, just no. This is the best game ever made. You can't improve on the best so leave it like that. By some chance BW turned out so addictive and fun and impossible to master that even Flash can improve. I don't see any change making it more fun. It's seriously great as it is. Mess all you want with maps and that's about it, imo.
Ignoring my joke-y suggestions earlier in this thread, and to mirror what was said by many people here about balancing by maps... What if we made different races spawn with different "maps?" Fixed spawn locations on a 3 person map, with something like... 2 Gasses in the main for Zerg, 2 extra mineral patches for Protoss main, ramped nat for Terran, stuff like that? Not necessarily those exact options, but perhaps a mix of some that could be used to re-balance the map in a race/mu-specific way. Can even be implemented on maps which already exist which are currently considered to be favored for one race over another - having a PvT or TvZ version of the same 2 player map, for instance.
On November 24 2020 06:45 Jealous wrote: Ignoring my joke-y suggestions earlier in this thread, and to mirror what was said by many people here about balancing by maps... What if we made different races spawn with different "maps?" Fixed spawn locations on a 3 person map, with something like... 2 Gasses in the main for Zerg, 2 extra mineral patches for Protoss main, ramped nat for Terran, stuff like that? Not necessarily those exact options, but perhaps a mix of some that could be used to re-balance the map in a race/mu-specific way. Can even be implemented on maps which already exist which are currently considered to be favored for one race over another - having a PvT or TvZ version of the same 2 player map, for instance.
That’s quite an interesting idea. As someone who is rather irked with the monotonous nature of SC2 map design and finds some of the interesting ideas in BW really interesting, I think that’s a pretty sensible extension to enable further experimentation while not completely gimping one particular matchup.
They can't even deliver on half the shit they promised for remastered, they'd would fuck up BW so hard if they tried to touch balance. Rather keep the scout a meme for all eternity.
On November 24 2020 06:45 Jealous wrote: Ignoring my joke-y suggestions earlier in this thread, and to mirror what was said by many people here about balancing by maps... What if we made different races spawn with different "maps?" Fixed spawn locations on a 3 person map, with something like... 2 Gasses in the main for Zerg, 2 extra mineral patches for Protoss main, ramped nat for Terran, stuff like that? Not necessarily those exact options, but perhaps a mix of some that could be used to re-balance the map in a race/mu-specific way. Can even be implemented on maps which already exist which are currently considered to be favored for one race over another - having a PvT or TvZ version of the same 2 player map, for instance.
That’s quite an interesting idea. As someone who is rather irked with the monotonous nature of SC2 map design and finds some of the interesting ideas in BW really interesting, I think that’s a pretty sensible extension to enable further experimentation while not completely gimping one particular matchup.
I feel like having 6 versions of Eclipse would be a modern and prime example. Not saying the map is necessarily imbalanced/bad of course. But imagine a TvZ, PvZ, and PvT version of that map + PvP, TvT, ZvZ.
If spawn location knowledge is an issue, what about a forced 1v1 6 player map? Radial symmetry of 6 mains, 2 of which follow those rules per race, and limited expansions in the middle to make sure games don't go overboard. So, going from 12 o clock, it could be TZPTZP spawns, with a X race player spawning randomly on one of those two locations that are designated for it. I am not sure how exactly that would work but I am sure it is possible with UMS.
I’m totally for a small things patch. I think there are a couple changes that most could agree on. I’d like to volunteer myself to the balance committee. I think I can handle 90% of the BW community calling me names and sending me hate mail.
One small change that I'd like to see is to give the Siege Tank 9999 health, and to shoot a nuclear missile every time it fires. I feel like this would change a lot of the balance problems we see today on modern maps.
On November 24 2020 16:32 ninazerg wrote: One small change that I'd like to see is to give the Siege Tank 9999 health, and to shoot a nuclear missile every time it fires. I feel like this would change a lot of the balance problems we see today on modern maps.
I don't see how that would change much beyond terrans skipping mines.
There's a lot of posts saying "THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO TO FIX THE GAME" and 99% of the times is D rank players trying to obliterate things they lose to.
I think zealots should be removed from the game. 4 min zealot rushes are making it impossible for me to even learn how to play.
The problem with TvT is that tanks are low on hp, cost too many minerals and their range is a joke compared to reavers and lurkers.
If only our game could involve an extra 45 minutes of nuking movable defensive buildings.
Mocking aside. The next big terran leap will be lategame and will involve nukes. Eclipse has tons of great nuke spots, but it is just a little too small and the center just a little too wide. It's going to happen in 2021 for sure. TvZ only ofc.
Back to the topic, if we all agree that protoss and protoss players are broken and suspect, couldn't we just move forward without them? Before modern sports there were leagues where only one race could play, this helped white americans overcome lack of size and talent and earn more money while playing a weaker, less skilled game.
Any protoss player who wished to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and pick a skill based race, would have that option.
While, we couldn't say the two leagues were equal, we would have the benefit of separation.
One of my best friends is protoss, I'm not a racialist, I'm a realistic and the problem is them. For every second place protoss finish, by hook and crook, we could have had a nice well mannered overlord or general, instead of intergalactic theocratic trash.
Tiny tweaks ... no. The purifying glow of fire, the grey rain from ashen clouds, the peace and quiet after. Spring time for starcraft and harmony (cue 'The Producers' smash hit)
There's a lot of posts saying "THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO TO FIX THE GAME" and 99% of the times is D rank players trying to obliterate things they lose to.
I think zealots should be removed from the game. 4 min zealot rushes are making it impossible for me to even learn how to play.
preach
maybe we can get our boy dusty b. to add a few boulders/temples onto maps to make them NR20
There's a lot of posts saying "THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO TO FIX THE GAME" and 99% of the times is D rank players trying to obliterate things they lose to.
I think zealots should be removed from the game. 4 min zealot rushes are making it impossible for me to even learn how to play.
preach
maybe we can get our boy dusty b. to add a few boulders/temples onto maps to make them NR20
There's a lot of posts saying "THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO TO FIX THE GAME" and 99% of the times is D rank players trying to obliterate things they lose to.
I think zealots should be removed from the game. 4 min zealot rushes are making it impossible for me to even learn how to play.
It's been a very long time since I've played, so I could be wrong, but if you're playing TvP, your factory can be done at like 3:00. If you're playing Zerg, you can certainly make zerglings in time.
If you don't believe me, play Protoss for a little while. I think you'll find that it's harder than you may think.
You can argue that there are imbalances in the game. You can say that map makers adjust this balance on certain map pools. But TBH I think the play of the game has been elevated because of the lack of changes made to the game. Even now new things are coming to light, and even old strategies pop in to trick someone up. There could be a few changes that would change game play and maybe even make it more interesting, but i definitely don't trust Activision-Blizzard to make them. TBH the state of SC2 IMO is a lot weaker because of all the changes. Nobody figured out how to adapt and make changes. And the early game is kind of a given in a lot of games because of it as well.
Make Medic Restore a small area of effect spell (smaller than storm) instead of targeted, and reduce the cost a bit. That'll break the game wide open. Take that, mass Blind! If you said, "Medic Restore? What's that?" Well, you wouldn't be alone.
Would also be in favor of moving Scout speed / vision upgrades to the Core instead of Fleet Beacon, but having you have a Stargate complete before you could start the upgrade. That's a better solution than making Scouts cheaper, because if you actually want to go that route, the time and cost of making the Beacon feels too onerous - you can make an extra Scout instead, and have them not be completely awful that much faster.
Don't buff devourers. They are already very powerful against corsair reaver (they hard counter corsairs), as the lategame of the alternative anti corsair reaver style: mutalisk scourge (with eventual queens, devourers, and defilers), and although corsair reaver is viable, we don't want to nerf it. They are also used to protect guardians over a Terran natural expansion versus wraiths.
Scouts are strong in PvZ, but to use them you have to practice a build that can only be used rarely. Much of their strength (which has led to them winning games at very high levels, like mid to high S) comes from the Zerg not scouting for them because there is not much to scout for during the time at which you have to find scouts, so because people don't consider them an option, and don't prepare for them, they also don't scout for them.
I do think that maybe scouts were overnerfed back when wraiths and scouts were made weaker, but I still wouldn't risk buffing them, since they're not actually useless. Wraiths deserved the nerf though. One buff I'd be okay with is decreasing research time for scout speed, and reducing cost for it. They already do good damage.
One change I certainly would make is to remove the random miss chance for dragoons. I once got an SCV in to an enemy base because a dragoon just missed on flat ground.
On December 01 2020 11:17 vOdToasT wrote: One change I certainly would make is to remove the random miss chance for dragoons. I once got an SCV in to an enemy base because a dragoon just missed on flat ground.
All units have a random miss chance AFAIK (1/256), with Dragoons it's just more obvious.
On December 01 2020 11:17 vOdToasT wrote: One change I certainly would make is to remove the random miss chance for dragoons. I once got an SCV in to an enemy base because a dragoon just missed on flat ground.
All units have a random miss chance AFAIK (1/256), with Dragoons it's just more obvious.
Are you sure that it's not just units with projectiles? (so marines can't miss for example)
On November 26 2020 12:42 Radivel-X17 wrote: Make Medic Restore a small area of effect spell (smaller than storm) instead of targeted, and reduce the cost a bit. That'll break the game wide open. Take that, mass Blind! If you said, "Medic Restore? What's that?" Well, you wouldn't be alone.
Don't buff restoration. It's already useful vs plague on battle cruisers and vessels. The reason people don't use it much is that you need a lot of medic energy for it to be strong, which you may not always have. If it turns into an aoe spell, then it'll even be effective on marines and medics, thus nerfing plague. Why would we want to nerf plague? TvZ is fine.
I am fully against any changes, simply because there is and never will be a trustworthy and competent authority to implement them.
I completely agree. Purely philosophically, the game can be improved, but I don't trust Blizzard to do it. They'd just make it worse.
An example: The ghost actually isn't useless, but most people think it is, which would result in them changing it. I prefer it the way it is now, and I use Terran (and ghosts). There are maps and situations in which I would use ghosts if I were playing for my very life.
You can see HiyA using ghosts on his Youtube channel. Flash also nuked the last Protoss expansion from his main on Match Point (nukes are always strong on maps on which this is possible). I also had a nuke rush in TvP that over my life I have literally only lost with once or twice. I did it as a reaction to a DT rush after I had gone fast starport after an expansion, and it always worked unless I messed up. It worked out so that I could always blind his observer and nuke + EMP his nexus. The few times I lost, he killed the medic before sending in the observer because I didn't hide it in the dropship to bait in the observer and to keep the medic safe.
Here's a replay of ghosts being used gainst one of the better players in the foreign scene:
On December 01 2020 11:17 vOdToasT wrote: One change I certainly would make is to remove the random miss chance for dragoons. I once got an SCV in to an enemy base because a dragoon just missed on flat ground.
All units have a random miss chance AFAIK (1/256), with Dragoons it's just more obvious.
Are you sure that it's not just units with projectiles? (so marines can't miss for example)
On December 01 2020 11:17 vOdToasT wrote: One change I certainly would make is to remove the random miss chance for dragoons. I once got an SCV in to an enemy base because a dragoon just missed on flat ground.
All units have a random miss chance AFAIK (1/256), with Dragoons it's just more obvious.
Are you sure that it's not just units with projectiles? (so marines can't miss for example)
Add the other F buttons, including F1, as potential bookmarks on the map. It doesn't make the mechanics easier, because it's more that the player has to use. It raises the skill ceiling and allows for more exciting, closer to perfect play, but only if the player is good enough to do it.
Custom hotkeys were already added. We've already opened that door and it didn't cause any doom.
I was thinking maybe inreasing spore colony damage vs bionic units would be an interesting idea? To kinda get more defender advantage in zvz wars and possibly increase later game ratio? Also, maybe slightly decrease the animation duration for emp? Its really hard to land it on moving objects, even for pros. These are ideas i'd like to test, but not immediately convinced are good ones.
why are people so obsessed with removing mutas from zvz? Actually think about what that would do to the matchup: the only unit you'd see are lings and hydras. Is that any better? You remove the dogfighting and muta vs scourge tension for... pvp minus shuttle/reaver. You'd still get the same low eco games because early lings would still be a thing.
On December 01 2020 20:58 vOdToasT wrote: Add the other F buttons, including F1, as potential bookmarks on the map. It doesn't make the mechanics easier, because it's more that the player has to use. It raises the skill ceiling and allows for more exciting, closer to perfect play, but only if the player is good enough to do it.
Custom hotkeys were already added. We've already opened that door and it didn't cause any doom.
I remember the outrage this caused for some, lol. Where are those people now? Some are just going to complain no matter what, and if developers want to make changes they need to trust their intuitions and ignore the noise. I think expanding user mechanics is a great idea too, when those mechanics encourage better play and not laziness, like the ability to select idle workers. More F keys is very reasonable, I think more control groups would be nice too. Let players use as many keys on their keyboard as possible!
On December 01 2020 21:52 Garrl wrote: why are people so obsessed with removing mutas from zvz? Actually think about what that would do to the matchup: the only unit you'd see are lings and hydras. Is that any better? You remove the dogfighting and muta vs scourge tension for... pvp minus shuttle/reaver. You'd still get the same low eco games because early lings would still be a thing.
wouldnt more hydras being played in zvz result in much more late game development also with defilers and ultras? if mutas were medium they'd probably still be playable while being more counterable by hydras, for example. It would also help P goons vs mutas as well as scouts vs mutas.. all good imo. It would ALSO help goliaths vs mutas. And corsairs actually. Would that make mutas actually too weak, lul. Some change could make the game better no doubt, i think there are some issues and zvz is bad always thought so. Tbh one of the issue also is marine medic too strong vs hydra. There is an issue with hydras, they're kinda only good vs p even though its one of few early options for z.
Scout sight range upgrade also give ground attack range +1/2. Scout speed upgrade also give (ground) attack speed boost. Would give the upgrades some much needed value, better justify the cost for the tech and individual units and create a pretty unique role for it. For the Ghost, make lockdown a small AoE spell, but with shorter duration, mote like Maelstrom.
Never gonna happen, but maybe some one could make a mod like this.
On December 01 2020 21:52 Garrl wrote: why are people so obsessed with removing mutas from zvz?
its not removing, its adding variety TO them. I do love zvz even today, but boy does everyone get exited when any zvz gets to the hive tech! This is like Christmas, really.
On December 01 2020 21:52 Garrl wrote: why are people so obsessed with removing mutas from zvz?
its not removing, its adding variety TO them. I do love zvz even today, but boy does everyone get exited when any zvz gets to the hive tech! This is like Christmas, really.
This would change very quickly if hive zvz was more common. In reality, hive zvz is not that interesting if you think about it. It's extremly volatile because a single plague can win a game. Both players will mostly turtle for an extended period of time until one pulls the trigger and/or finds an opening. The fact that it is so volatile makes it tense. The intensity in combination with its rarity is the reason people get excited. If hive zvz was common I'm pretty sure people would view it the same way they view pvp.
On December 01 2020 21:52 Garrl wrote: why are people so obsessed with removing mutas from zvz?
its not removing, its adding variety TO them. I do love zvz even today, but boy does everyone get exited when any zvz gets to the hive tech! This is like Christmas, really.
This would change very quickly if hive zvz was more common. In reality, hive zvz is not that interesting if you think about it. It's extremly volatile because a single plague can win a game. Both players will mostly turtle for an extended period of time until one pulls the trigger and/or finds an opening. The fact that it is so volatile makes it tense. The intensity in combination with its rarity is the reason people get excited. If hive zvz was common I'm pretty sure people would view it the same way they view pvp.
yeah you might be onto something here indeed. I still think that it would make it more interesting overall if defenders advantage was just slightly increased. But chosing between a bad change/ game-breaking change and no change i choose no change every time.
On December 01 2020 21:52 Garrl wrote: why are people so obsessed with removing mutas from zvz?
its not removing, its adding variety TO them. I do love zvz even today, but boy does everyone get exited when any zvz gets to the hive tech! This is like Christmas, really.
This would change very quickly if hive zvz was more common. In reality, hive zvz is not that interesting if you think about it. It's extremly volatile because a single plague can win a game. Both players will mostly turtle for an extended period of time until one pulls the trigger and/or finds an opening. The fact that it is so volatile makes it tense. The intensity in combination with its rarity is the reason people get excited. If hive zvz was common I'm pretty sure people would view it the same way they view pvp.
Indeed. If hive ZvZ was common, then it's not as special anymore.
On December 01 2020 20:58 vOdToasT wrote: Add the other F buttons, including F1, as potential bookmarks on the map. It doesn't make the mechanics easier, because it's more that the player has to use. It raises the skill ceiling and allows for more exciting, closer to perfect play, but only if the player is good enough to do it.
Custom hotkeys were already added. We've already opened that door and it didn't cause any doom.
That would be nice, one I could semi-mirror my SC2 setup which would be easier for me to bounce between the games.
Personal preference, my SC2 custom hotkeys are borderline standard with a few tweaks, bar the camera ones where I map them with shift, made F1 one and made the space bar another.
It’s handy in SC2, feels so much more crucial to semi-obligatory in BW to use camera locations but they’re a bit more awkward. I’d totally trade more locations and more remapping for using BW default hotkeys!
One more idea for the ghost: make lockdown target a location (instead of a unit), give it a really small area of effect, basically like maelstrom for mechanical units, but with projectile travel time, like the EMP. That would make ghosts an aspect for any TvP or TvT late game and make them worth the effort to get them with all their upgrades. And I would still argue to change their attack type to normal damage and give them (right away or as an replacement for one of their upgrades) a higher attack speed or access to the stim pack upgrade, which could at least potentially make them kind of effective against Zerg.
Zerg get swarm, plague, cracklings, guardians, devourers and ultras on T3. All very powerful options but mainly: options. Protoss gets Carriers, Arbiters (Recall/Stasis), Dark Archons, DWeb: options. Terran's T3 is basically one unit: vessels, which counters Zerg T2 and "soft counters" Zerg T3. It would be nice to just have a few more options on the table, and making the ghost viable could do just that.
I agree ghosts attack should either be normal or something, or just much higher concussive so that they at least have some actual effectiveness with that. Their attack is only 10+1, could easily make it 20+2 i think. Well with that 2 ghosts could 2 shot a high templar (thats kinda pretty fast of course). 2 ghosts cost the same as a high templar. Make it 16+1 and they need 3 shots instead. Or 18+2... so they can be good support damage vs zeals glings and marines, even hydras to an extent etc.
I would love to see the Ghost used more. But I think its problem is that it doesn't work well in its current niche.
The Ghost is pretty much good for two things: 1) neutralizing mechanical units and 2) doing tons of damage in an area.
However the nuke in its current form, as Chosi put it, is really just a single-player novelty. For putting the time and effort in fully fleshing out every bit of your entire technology tree, you unlock the ultimate power - you get super cool nuclear missiles that destroy everything in a single click! If that were improved, it would probably be straight up broken. Every match against Terran would be "beat T before he gets nukes." I think it would have needed to have been radically different in order to be used more.
Maybe nukes should have behaved in a way to occupy the same niche as spider mines - getting space and map control for Terran. Mines are good, but they are easy to remove and limited. Nukes should be a small improvement on that - I think it would've been cool if nukes were quicker to strike, though still giving a reasonable enough time for the enemy to move, but did not do any direct damage. Rather, they left like a radioactive field where any non-friendly units would take damage over time, like plague, so they could not ignore the threat and sit there. This would be especially nice in TvT I think to add some dynamism to the otherwise slow and standoffish nature of tank lines.
With Lockdown, Terran already has no problem dealing with Protoss mech, between Vessels, Wraiths, Goliaths, Tanks, and Turrets. So I think any change should hardly affect TvP or TvP could be easily imbalanced for T. To me, Lockdown has a "sniper" spell feel to it, like Spawn Broodling, so I think it would've been nice to see that emphasized to really give the Ghost more of that sniper feel he exhibits. Instead of it being the rather short spell it is, the range could've been very long, like 13, and only worked on ground units. So like Broodling, it would've been great for neutralizing seiged tanks, and would likely only affect TvT and allow Terran armies to be more mobile.
The people, who are so interested in changes... Just win a big tournament like ASl, BSL or whatever/ or make the winners annouce that they would like changes in the balance... Otherwise you are just wasting the time of anybody with these posts.
The Problem with Mutas in ZvZ is that their only real weakness are Hive Units (Defiler, Devourer). Other than that Mutaling just rolls everything since it's the strongest and most mobile combination.
I'm not really a fan of this matchup so I definitly wouldn't mind a balance change which only affects zvz (e.g. Splash damage for Spore colonies against Bio Units).
Well there is one way to make like half of the currently unused units, spells, upgrades and buildings viable, and that is by basing their buffs around a type of map rarely played competitively, which is island maps, and other gametypes such as Free For All (which has always been my favorite gametype).
When it comes to island maps:
We have already seen the Medic's Restoration spell used on Sparkle (island map) multiple times to remove Parasite
Scouts (using Speed Upgrade and maybe Sight Range Upgrade) can be viable vs BCs, Science Vessels, Dropships, Carriers, Arbiters, Shuttles, Devourers, Guardians and Overlords
Valkyries are used all the time on island maps
BCs are often used (Yamato is usually used whenever mass BC is)
Devourers are very often used
Guardians might be more usable in some matchups on island maps (hopefully )
Queens are very useful and often used, maybe more than otherwise (including Ensnare and Parasite and maybe Broodlings if there are many Queens and/or many offensive enemy ground units)
Other abilities, units etc. can be very useful for example in Free For Alls potentially. For example Infested Terrans in ZvP, if a Zerg that faces both Terran and Protoss opponents manages to infest a Terran Command Center, he could use Infested Terrans, when combined with Dark Swarm, against massed Protoss armies or maybe heavily defended expansions defended by multiple Photon Cannons.
One suggestion I have, which I'm unsure but hopeful about not messing up the balance or metagame of existing non-mirror matchups on regular non-island maps, is to make Goliaths take up twice as much room inside Dropships, Shuttles and Overlords, like most large units. This change would specifically make Goliath drops weaker, and from what I know, Goliath drops aren't central to most competitive 1v1 non-island map non-mirror metagame or strategies. The reason is that from what I've heard one of the major issues with TvP matchups on island maps is that Terran's Goliaths are so strong against Protoss. There could be other reasons but this is at least one.
On December 05 2020 01:48 JonttuTonttu wrote: One suggestion I have, which I'm unsure but hopeful about not messing up the balance or metagame of existing non-mirror matchups on regular non-island maps, is to make Goliaths take up twice as much room inside Dropships, Shuttles and Overlords, like most large units. This change would specifically make Goliath drops weaker, and from what I know, Goliath drops aren't central to most competitive 1v1 non-island map non-mirror metagame or strategies. The reason is that from what I've heard one of the major issues with TvP matchups on island maps is that Terran's Goliaths are so strong against Protoss. There could be other reasons but this is at least one.
Unfortunately, unit size is inextricably linked to damage types. For example, Dragoons do explosive damage, meaning they do 100% damage vs. Large units, 75% vs. Medium units, 50% vs Small units. So, by making Goliaths bigger, you are giving a 33% damage boost to Dragoons against them. This would naturally affect Carrier play in regular 1v1s.
This would potentially have an even greater impact on ZvT, as Hydralisks also do explosive damage, meaning that they will do 33% more damage against Goliaths, meaning that Hydra/Muta against mech gets a boost.
So, yea, sadly it's not that simple and can't be adequately corrected by messing with armor or anything like that, either. Even more evidence that even seemingly innocuous changes suggested by people on these forums are often based on a lack of information/perspective Not tryna rub your face in it since you did preface your statement, I just think it's a good example thereof.
On December 05 2020 01:48 JonttuTonttu wrote: Well there is one way to make like half of the currently unused units, spells, upgrades and buildings viable, and that is by basing their buffs around a type of map rarely played competitively, which is island maps, and other gametypes such as Free For All (which has always been my favorite gametype).
When it comes to island maps:
We have already seen the Medic's Restoration spell used on Sparkle (island map) multiple times to remove Parasite
Scouts (using Speed Upgrade and maybe Sight Range Upgrade) can be viable vs BCs, Science Vessels, Dropships, Carriers, Arbiters, Shuttles, Devourers, Guardians and Overlords
Valkyries are used all the time on island maps
BCs are often used (Yamato is usually used whenever mass BC is)
Devourers are very often used
Guardians might be more usable in some matchups on island maps (hopefully )
Queens are very useful and often used, maybe more than otherwise (including Ensnare and Parasite and maybe Broodlings if there are many Queens and/or many offensive enemy ground units)
Other abilities, units etc. can be very useful for example in Free For Alls potentially. For example Infested Terrans in ZvP, if a Zerg that faces both Terran and Protoss opponents manages to infest a Terran Command Center, he could use Infested Terrans, when combined with Dark Swarm, against massed Protoss armies or maybe heavily defended expansions defended by multiple Photon Cannons.
One suggestion I have, which I'm unsure but hopeful about not messing up the balance or metagame of existing non-mirror matchups on regular non-island maps, is to make Goliaths take up twice as much room inside Dropships, Shuttles and Overlords, like most large units. This change would specifically make Goliath drops weaker, and from what I know, Goliath drops aren't central to most competitive 1v1 non-island map non-mirror metagame or strategies. The reason is that from what I've heard one of the major issues with TvP matchups on island maps is that Terran's Goliaths are so strong against Protoss. There could be other reasons but this is at least one.
On December 05 2020 01:48 JonttuTonttu wrote: One suggestion I have, which I'm unsure but hopeful about not messing up the balance or metagame of existing non-mirror matchups on regular non-island maps, is to make Goliaths take up twice as much room inside Dropships, Shuttles and Overlords, like most large units. This change would specifically make Goliath drops weaker, and from what I know, Goliath drops aren't central to most competitive 1v1 non-island map non-mirror metagame or strategies. The reason is that from what I've heard one of the major issues with TvP matchups on island maps is that Terran's Goliaths are so strong against Protoss. There could be other reasons but this is at least one.
Unfortunately, unit size is inextricably linked to damage types. For example, Dragoons do explosive damage, meaning they do 100% damage vs. Large units, 75% vs. Medium units, 50% vs Small units. So, by making Goliaths bigger, you are giving a 33% damage boost to Dragoons against them. This would naturally affect Carrier play in regular 1v1s.
This would potentially have an even greater impact on ZvT, as Hydralisks also do explosive damage, meaning that they will do 33% more damage against Goliaths, meaning that Hydra/Muta against mech gets a boost.
So, yea, sadly it's not that simple and can't be adequately corrected by messing with armor or anything like that, either. Even more evidence that even seemingly innocuous changes suggested by people on these forums are often based on a lack of information/perspective Not tryna rub your face in it since you did preface your statement, I just think it's a good example thereof.
actually there are exceptions between unit sizes considered for damage compared to the size they are in dropships. for example zealots are small for damage but medium in dropships, goliaths are large for damage but medium in dropship etc. so yeah you could change the size for damage or size in dropship separately it's already irregular.
On December 05 2020 01:48 JonttuTonttu wrote: One suggestion I have, which I'm unsure but hopeful about not messing up the balance or metagame of existing non-mirror matchups on regular non-island maps, is to make Goliaths take up twice as much room inside Dropships, Shuttles and Overlords, like most large units. This change would specifically make Goliath drops weaker, and from what I know, Goliath drops aren't central to most competitive 1v1 non-island map non-mirror metagame or strategies. The reason is that from what I've heard one of the major issues with TvP matchups on island maps is that Terran's Goliaths are so strong against Protoss. There could be other reasons but this is at least one.
Unfortunately, unit size is inextricably linked to damage types. For example, Dragoons do explosive damage, meaning they do 100% damage vs. Large units, 75% vs. Medium units, 50% vs Small units. So, by making Goliaths bigger, you are giving a 33% damage boost to Dragoons against them. This would naturally affect Carrier play in regular 1v1s.
This would potentially have an even greater impact on ZvT, as Hydralisks also do explosive damage, meaning that they will do 33% more damage against Goliaths, meaning that Hydra/Muta against mech gets a boost.
So, yea, sadly it's not that simple and can't be adequately corrected by messing with armor or anything like that, either. Even more evidence that even seemingly innocuous changes suggested by people on these forums are often based on a lack of information/perspective Not tryna rub your face in it since you did preface your statement, I just think it's a good example thereof.
actually there are exceptions between unit sizes considered for damage compared to the size they are in dropships. for example zealots are small for damage but medium in dropships, goliaths are large for damage but medium in dropship etc. so yeah you could change the size for damage or size in dropship separately it's already irregular.
:O My final point stands hahahaha you learn every day! Thanks!
Yes, but only very very small changes, maybe even giving the scout an extra 0.5 ground range instead of 1.0, and who even knows how to make the Defiler meta, not too important imo but yea VERY small changes and only to the non meta units for sure.
On December 05 2020 01:48 JonttuTonttu wrote: One suggestion I have, which I'm unsure but hopeful about not messing up the balance or metagame of existing non-mirror matchups on regular non-island maps, is to make Goliaths take up twice as much room inside Dropships, Shuttles and Overlords, like most large units. This change would specifically make Goliath drops weaker, and from what I know, Goliath drops aren't central to most competitive 1v1 non-island map non-mirror metagame or strategies. The reason is that from what I've heard one of the major issues with TvP matchups on island maps is that Terran's Goliaths are so strong against Protoss. There could be other reasons but this is at least one.
Unfortunately, unit size is inextricably linked to damage types. For example, Dragoons do explosive damage, meaning they do 100% damage vs. Large units, 75% vs. Medium units, 50% vs Small units. So, by making Goliaths bigger, you are giving a 33% damage boost to Dragoons against them. This would naturally affect Carrier play in regular 1v1s.
This would potentially have an even greater impact on ZvT, as Hydralisks also do explosive damage, meaning that they will do 33% more damage against Goliaths, meaning that Hydra/Muta against mech gets a boost.
So, yea, sadly it's not that simple and can't be adequately corrected by messing with armor or anything like that, either. Even more evidence that even seemingly innocuous changes suggested by people on these forums are often based on a lack of information/perspective Not tryna rub your face in it since you did preface your statement, I just think it's a good example thereof.
Who gives you these strange ideas? a unit's "damage type size" is independent of the space it takes up in a transport. Goliaths are large units, just like Tanks and Goons.
On December 06 2020 04:10 Beelzebub1 wrote: Yes, but only very very small changes, maybe even giving the scout an extra 0.5 ground range instead of 1.0, and who even knows how to make the Defiler meta, not too important imo but yea VERY small changes and only to the non meta units for sure.
I don't think there such a thing as a .5 range in BW.
Ok so it seems like the goliath transport size change is possible without it affecting non-mirror gameplay too much outside of island maps. However, how could it be modded to actually test it, I don't know, perhaps someone does. If that is done, people could test how it affects TvP on Sparkle for example.
EPT
Not tryna rub your face in it since you did preface your statement, I just think it's a good example thereof. 
