EPTAnd what if we don't want to go mech? I want to play bio, but if you're going to nerf bio and buff storm to 100 (holy shit..) then I'm fucked
Wouldn't it be so much better for 'variability' if Protoss didn't have to go collosi HT every game
A response to SKMC, the stagnation of TvZ and TvP - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Whatson
United States5357 Posts
And what if we don't want to go mech? I want to play bio, but if you're going to nerf bio and buff storm to 100 (holy shit..) then I'm fucked Wouldn't it be so much better for 'variability' if Protoss didn't have to go collosi HT every game | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
Skimming through: "[Mech openings are weak due to] Susceptibility to early game aggression. Whereas going bio could help you hold certain aggressive builds like 3 gate pressure iinto expand, 4 gate, 3 gate blink stalker, 3 gate robo, going Mech will get you build order countered." This is really wrong, opening with a Factory is good against all of these builds :/. | ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1653 Posts
 | ||
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
.kv
United States2332 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:32 Clbull wrote: In all honesty, I want to play more than one style with the assurance it is viable assuming both players are at the same mechanical level. then keep playing that new style...who's approval are you looking for? mario has been doing mech in all matchups on ladder which generally matches you up against people on the same skill level | ||
|
Ouija
United States129 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:38 .kv wrote: then keep playing that new style...who's approval are you looking for? mario has been doing mech in all matchups on ladder which generally matches you up against people on the same skill level Be serious, Mario is a top GM player with awesome mechanics, and good game sense among other qualities. Even he made a post recently on things HE feels would make mech better and more viable across all match ups, such as reducing the cost of factories and/or the siege tank. | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1927 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:05 Clbull wrote: [b] I really do not like the direction StarCraft II is going and I hope that Blizzard realizes this and gives Heart of the Swarm a ‘Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn’-style overhaul in terms of multiplayer unit design and balance philosophies. Bisu and Jinro retired more-so due to declining results but both look back on the golden days of Brood War. Ten suggestions to improve Heart of the Swarm’s metagame: I am by no means qualified to suggest balance changes. However, the ones I suggest are looking at current problem areas. 1. Nerf bio. Marines need to deal less damage yet still be able to take on airborne units. Even a damage nerf by 1 (and maybe a small health buff to compensate) is good enough. The Marauder either needs removal or a numbers nerf to not be so effective in the later game. Tier 1 should never be the entire solution to later tiers of units. 2. Buff Siege Tank damage to 35 (60 vs Armored, 80 vs Massive.) This will let them three-shot Stalkers, still 4-shot Immortals with an EMP landed down and still keep Roach Hydra just as tanky. This will however greatly improve buff their performance against Ultralisks, Colossus Thors and Archons while not affecting their currently intended counters (Chargelots, Immortals, air units, Swarm Hosts, Vipers.) Even if you have to remove smart targeting and make them overkill units so that we are forced to spread them in all situations, I feel this is a very fair trade-off. Nobody likes the idea of clumped up deathballs anyway. 3. Remove Blink as an ability and replace it with something different like maybe an ability that temporarily gives the Stalker extra range and damage. Blink Stalkers currently outright break the possibility of there ever being mech TvPs due to the sheer strength of Blink Stalker all ins. Temporary extra range and damage could also help greatly against Mutalisks. 4. Buff Psionic Storm damage back to 100 from 80. This was the way it used to be in Brood War. 5. Remove the Widow Mine and replace it with an entirely different unit. Ideally a small anti-air unit creatable from the Reactor but requiring Armory tech. Maybe the Goliath or the (original) Warhound? 6. Allow Hellions to drop Spider Mines in Hellion mode (but make it a researchable upgrade, and make them produce Spider Mines like Carriers produce Interceptors.) This can solve a few issues with zone control that the removal of the Vulture caused. 7. Nerf Hellbat damage by half but greatly buff their health and give them a base Armor of 1. This is what David Kim should have originally done with the Hellbat, not tried to increase their cargo size then nerf their damage to prevent Hellbat drops. The hellbat drops occurred because Hellbats were not fulfilling their original role. 8. Reduce the cost of Point Defense Drones to 75 from 100. This will allow Ravens to cast them upon creation with the Corvid Reactor upgrade. 9. Remove Battlecruiser energy and make Yamato Cannon free but cooldown based. A lot of worthy counters to the Battlecruiser already exist. 10. Remove Medivac boosts. They are the sole reason why Zerg have to make Mutalisks in ZvT. Terrans also had zero problems with dropping without these moronic ‘stimivacs’ put in game. Okay, uhm.. in terms of what I wanted to address 1) What the hell does a "‘Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn’-style overhaul in terms of multiplayer unit design and balance philosophies." mean? To even mention something like this with no additional information is horrendous writing, but even more importantly than that, is the fact that FFXIV has had absolutely NO innovative rehauling or philosophical(?) implications on the MMO world. In fact, FFXIV is BEHIND in the MMO world of creativity, especially compared to teams such as Team Bloodlust, Carbine Studios, PearlAbyss, and many others. So, I have absolutely no idea what was even going on in your head when you typed this.... 2) You really shouldn't talk about people's personal reasons for retiring if you do not know them. Not only is it rude when considering their own reasons but it completely skews an argument, with no factual basis, in your favor. This is bad argumentation. 3) After reading your list of proposed changes I have to say that I agree with your 'save-face' qualifier statement at the beginning. You are most certainly not qualified to suggest balance changes. Let me tell you something special about BW: There was most certainly builds that were incredibly normative to see in pro matches. In fact, you'd often see builds used so many times over that the only thing separating the builds themselves are who was doing them, yet it had a vast difference. I don't quite see how this is a bad thing; that's skill... which is the opposite of what you're trying to say... that 'more eccentric play is great!'. In reality if you're going to have an asymmetrically balanced game there are most certainly going to be certain ways to play the game that are better than others. Just because you want to do other things does not mean they will work, and most certainly, it does not mean it is better for the game to be able to do whatever you want simply because you see a certain build, or final composition, too often. Many of the statements you made throughout the OP are just.... Well... they scream that you have a general lack of understanding of this game. I'm sorry, but I really just can't handle posts like these. It's when people who don't understand what they're talking about post such long and contrived threads that individuals, and even the developers themselves, take the feedback from the wrong people and everyone ends up with horrible changes. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5357 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:45 Ouija wrote: Be serious, Mario is a top GM player with awesome mechanics, and good game sense among other qualities. Even he made a post recently on things HE feels would make mech better and more viable across all match ups, such as reducing the cost of factories and/or the siege tank. Let's be honest here http://www.sc2ranks.com/search/hots/global/1v1/all/all/exact/HTOmario http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/3203375/1/HTOMario/ | ||
|
MattD
United Kingdom83 Posts
| ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
This would mean it would be a similar BW situation where letting the Terran macro is a bad bad idea. | ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:51 MattD wrote: Yeah id love mech to be more viable in sc2, because what i really love is playing against and watching people sit there for 40mins until their army is too strong to deal with. The reality of mech in sc2 is its boring as fuck and bad for the game, no one wants to see that in even 50% of games. And nobody wants to see entirely useless tech. | ||
|
BlackPanther
United States872 Posts
| ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
1) What the hell does a "‘Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn’-style overhaul in terms of multiplayer unit design and balance philosophies." mean? To even mention something like this with no additional information is horrendous writing, but even more importantly than that, is the fact that FFXIV has had absolutely NO innovative rehauling or philosophical(?) implications on the MMO world. In fact, FFXIV is BEHIND in the MMO world of creativity, especially compared to teams such as Team Bloodlust, Carbine Studios, PearlAbyss, and many others. So, I have absolutely no idea what was even going on in your head when you typed this.... I was implying that FFXIV was so poorly designed that SquareEnix not only had to apologize for creating the game but also had to completely rebuild the game from scratch and release it again two years later in a better state. I will not go into the huge glaring problems with FFXIV's original release but if we're only seeing about 30% - 35% of the full Terran composition in a matchup because of glaring unit tuning issues, it is going to make for a one-dimensional game. My balance change proposals should be taken with a grain of salt which I see nobody here has done. I am merely pointing out glaring problems with mech (especially Siege Tanks) where units are designed to be too tanky against them, thus reducing their viability. If the Siege Tank gets phased out in favour of something that is less than half the cost and which can be produced in 2s instead of 1s, that is piss-poor game design. | ||
|
ETisME
12840 Posts
The balance suggestions are just way too big for blizzard to even consider this. You just shouldn't compare sc2 and bw like this at all. everyone wants mech to work in TvP but it just ain't going to happen this way. doesn't help that you think units as tier, you need to think of units as part of composition. you have some points right and just too many points wrong. | ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
What mech really needs is a fast unit from the factory that has strong anti-air. Every Terran unit composition that does not include Marines must include Vikings for anti air. And it is MUCH more expensive to build up a Factory+Starport infrastructure compared to Barracks+Starport infrastructure. Another problem is the Medivac, which makes it possible to build a cheap T1 army all game long, but does nothing for mech. I'd really like to see a the Medivac boosters removed and then add a tech that allows Medivacs to heal (or repair) mechanical units (not just Hellbats). Other than that, all mech really needs is a tech that reduces the build time of units from the Factory and Starport. Mech does fine in even supply fights, its main weakness has always been the slow remax compared to bio. | ||
|
Ouija
United States129 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:47 Whatson wrote: Let's be honest here http://www.sc2ranks.com/search/hots/global/1v1/all/all/exact/HTOmario http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/3203375/1/HTOMario/ ok... remove the word top from my first sentence. He is a GM level player. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
| ||
