SC1 is getting patched soon!!

On January 21 2017 05:01 RoomOfMush wrote:
We had this exact thread a couple times already in the end of 2016. Save yourselves some time and just read one of the older ones.

On January 21 2017 04:45 thezanursic wrote:
There aren't going to be any balance updates, I think some buffs to DA, Queen, Ghost, Scout would be welcome, but I'm not going to rethread the same argument I've had with people before.

It's probably gonna be a patch to make it more easily compatible with modern systems, maybe improvements to battle.net.

Best case scenario they would add Brood War to the Battle.net launcher, that would make it a bit more accessible to newer players

On January 21 2017 05:02 Bareleon wrote:


It's been confirmed by blizzard this time that it will be patched and it will be out relatively soon.

On January 21 2017 05:03 HyralGambit wrote:
[...] You don't need Scout speed if you're using Scouts defensively.

On January 21 2017 05:16 RoomOfMush wrote:

Unless, of course, the zerg isnt retarted and knows a unit called scourge.

Edit: Whoops, sorry for the double post.

On January 21 2017 05:26 outscar wrote:
If they're going to release that 1.17 patch that was leaked last year then my reaction is big meh... It doesn't provide anything for a Win7 user like me except working OK on modern OS and fixing battle.net menus. I don't really know why so much delay.

On January 21 2017 05:03 HyralGambit wrote:

Anti-micro spells like Maelstrom Ensnare and Lockdown should not be made more viable. They should be rare for the sake of a healthy meta.

Scouts will be viable if Guardians ZvP map/Carriers PvP maps are used more. Guardians have base +3 armor and if you lost your Corsairs early game, building 1 scout for defense against Guardian ledge camping is better than building 1 Corsair. You don't need Scout speed if you're using Scouts defensively.

On January 21 2017 05:34 Foxxan wrote:
shouldnt call it a balance patch if you want to just make some underused units more used, that should be called something else.
Antimicro spells isnt really fun and things like that can ruin the entire game if you tweak it just a tiny bit to much.


I dont follow bw to well lately, but would
personally like to see:
1. Zerg able to stay on lair longer vs terran. And potentially more fighting power in lategame without darkswarm vs terran.
2. More dynamic pvp and zvz.
3. More fighting power vs terran mech lategame for protoss without arbiters.

For example, to change pvp up, the shield battery can be key.
For more zerg fighting power lategame vs terran, perhaps a 5hp buff to zerglings buff at hive spawning pool.


I think to really try and make a patch that makes broodwar better than it is, you have to look at all three races at the same time and make changes accordingly.(Which i havent done) Really dont think its good to try and change just one MU, that thinking just doesnt sound to healthy in the long run.

On January 21 2017 05:14 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'd actually prefer to have no balances changes at all to be honest. Hopefully this is more of a networks thing, or compatibility.

On January 21 2017 05:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
Yeah that's the dream! I wouldn't mind seeing community-made maps for "balance" but to be honest I'm reasonably convinced that balancing through maps is the more efficient way of doing it.

On January 21 2017 05:34 thezanursic wrote:

I'm not going to go over this again, a few weeks ago I had an argument with FlashFTW, that Queens would benefit from a starting energy buff, I did some basic math and I found that the timing window for the Queen to get enough energy for it's first Spawn Broodling is 2 minutes and 14 seconds (Doesn't factor in Queen build time, or the time it takes to get the relevant tech), and it will take you 5 minutes and 36 seconds to get your second siege tank (This is when the Queen becomes cost efficient, assuming it doesn't die).

Now the window between the 1st and 2nd Broodling isn't important, and is in my opinion fine, but the timing window between you investing in Queen and getting to use them is something like 148.8s (Build time + time to accumulate energy). This doesn't account for the relevant tech and ect. In the Effort vs Light game (The ASL game where Effort went for Queens, Light saw it and immediately killed him), Light immediately scouted Effort's Queens when they spawned, he pushed towards his natural, Effort counterattacked when Light was almost at his base, Light came back, defended the attack, pushed again to his natural, sieged it down and Effort still had to wait 30 seconds before he could broodling his Siege tanks even though he did a brilliant distraction to keep Light away.

The problem with Queens aren't energy rates, or health, or cost, simply it's the timing window in which you are weak because you haven't been able to get your money back for their large investment.

This seems like retreading old ground.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/517506-do-you-like-these-bw-hd-graphic-effects?page=3

The DA has a similar problem, that the ROI on it is pretty bad, but sadly unlike the Queen balacing it would be a bit more difficult, whereas the Queen is pretty simple to balance, just keep changing the Starting energy until it's just long enough +20, +30, +40, find the right number.

Either way there's really zero point in discussing it as it will be the exact same argument as last time



These are the kind of changes that could kill Brood War's balance, and I oppose 100%, mine are the kind that would sprinkle in a bit of diversity in terms of play, but probably have zero impact on Balance.

On January 21 2017 05:45 HyralGambit wrote:


You know WarCraft3 has maps with these fountains things that give you back mana.

Make a map in Brood War that just like that.

Again, nothing that can't be fixed through BW maps.

On January 21 2017 05:34 Foxxan wrote:
shouldnt call it a balance patch if you want to just make some underused units more used, that should be called something else.
Antimicro spells isnt really fun and things like that can ruin the entire game if you tweak it just a tiny bit to much.


I dont follow bw to well lately, but would
personally like to see:
1. Zerg able to stay on lair longer vs terran. And potentially more fighting power in lategame without darkswarm vs terran.
2. More dynamic pvp and zvz.
3. More fighting power vs terran mech lategame for protoss without arbiters.

For example, to change pvp up, the shield battery can be key.
For more zerg fighting power lategame vs terran, perhaps a 5hp buff to zerglings buff at hive spawning pool.


I think to really try and make a patch that makes broodwar better than it is, you have to look at all three races at the same time and make changes accordingly.(Which i havent done) Really dont think its good to try and change just one MU, that thinking just doesnt sound to healthy in the long run.

On January 21 2017 05:50 onlystar wrote:
its best to put balance talk to rest it has been said a thousand times everything has a perfect place or niche place in the game buffing energy units or scouts would tip off some late game mechanics in the wrong direction.

i know its very interesting to debate about hypothetical changes however realize (our) foreigners are not knowledgeable enough to make an accurate assumption on how buffs/nerfs would make an impact on the balance/gameplay

realize that the experts (korean progamers) are within a 100% agreement the game is balanced perfectly changes would be a disaster balancing is done around the maps and ONLY the maps

same goes for korean netizens/hardcore fish users, even though tvz is underfire concerning balance on certain maps are also agreed that changing how the matchup works would tip everything off and solutions are found within maps/playstyles

On January 21 2017 05:51 awerti wrote:
We know what will be in the patch, because patch notes were leaked: www.staredit.net

No balance changes, no BW: HD or anything game-breaking. It is a small patch that makes BW easier to run on modern systems.

On January 21 2017 05:58 ICanFlyLow wrote:
blizz just give us what everyone wants but is too afraid to say it.. Autocasting, infinite unit selection, automining, warcraft like graphics, carriers with teleport ability, replace defilers with units that cast out boogers and for the love of god where is our ACHIEVEMENT SYSTEM???

I will not address your points 1 and 3 since they would fuck up the balance, but more dynamic PvP and ZvZ is possible through maps. (Broken record here)

Imagine a map where you have Dark Swarms covering the mains' mineral lines that protects you from Mutalisk harrass. Then all of a sudden, Hive tech ZvZ becomes easier to transition to and we will see a more dynamic ZvZ meta.

On January 21 2017 05:56 thezanursic wrote:

God, I really can't help myself.

The idea that the BW is perfectly balanced is absurd, but let's ignore balance, we have certain units that never see play in competative games, if you balance these units just enough, but not too much, they can become a viable alternative without actually becoming better than the standard playing, giving players more options without impacting the balance considerably. I've talked about incremental balancing and I'll say it again.

It's very easy to balance these units without breaking the game. Say the Queen energy Buff. The Queen currently starts with 50 energy, change it to 60, let the players play around with the Queen for a month, see if it's better, if you are satisfied with the results, leave it, otherwise change it to 70, eventually you'll have a healthier Queen, if the buffs go too far, just scale it back. And since we are talking about maybe 3-4 units, this isn't that unreasonable, just incrementally balance these 3-4 units over the course of a few months. Result? We see Queens, DA in competative play ever soo often without actually impacting the balance considerably, if at all.

On January 21 2017 06:09 Foxxan wrote:

WTF, those werent my suggestions those were just some examples.
MAybe if you read more carefully next time you would notice the word "example".. jesus crist people dont fucking know how to read properly nowadays.

And just to spill this out here for future people that maybe want to really discuss things. If you see an example, maybe you can IMAGINE some other change to some other race AT THE SAME TIME instead of writing it off as if you are a fucking genius that know something inside and out.



I will go your route on this one.
This wouldnt make those mirrors dynamic, its just a foolish bandaid fix that makes it set it stone "dont go mutas here".
Nowhere in my mind do i see any dynamic here.

On January 21 2017 06:27 ninazerg wrote:


You can make a queen map. It's called Holy World.

On January 21 2017 06:43 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:

if it is the case why is taking so much time?
but yeah is more than guaranted that balanced is out of question.

On January 21 2017 06:42 thezanursic wrote:

Nice meme, came to mind, but that's still more of a joke

On January 21 2017 06:47 onlystar wrote:


because foreigners just simply LOVE to debate balancing in starcraft and they bring all their personal shortcomings into the discussion or just lack of basic knowledge late game mechanics or are simply unaware how the subject is perceived by progamers/korean scene

On January 21 2017 06:53 HyralGambit wrote:

I do think the BW map editor could use a boost without releasing a Balance Patch. Maybe import some new toys from the powerful War3 editor that gave birth to Dota.

And also fix that snow tileset that is giving Koreans eye cancer.

On January 21 2017 06:53 thezanursic wrote:

Also it's not as if Koreans asked for balance changes for forever, but let's ignore that. This isn't either a Korean or a Foreigner "thing".

On January 21 2017 07:26 Bakuryu wrote:
what are they doing in overwatch? im not following it.

On January 21 2017 05:02 Bareleon wrote:


It's been confirmed by blizzard this time that it will be patched and it will be out relatively soon.

blizzard

relatively soon.

On January 21 2017 08:12 ninazerg wrote:
Seeing Falling, imbatoss, Jungleterrain, and artanis[xp] all posting back-to-back warms my heart.

On January 21 2017 08:28 JungleTerrain wrote:


What do you mean? lol

On January 21 2017 08:41 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i can't believe people actually think this is going to be a balance patch

On January 21 2017 09:36 Terrorbladder wrote:
where is sprite limit fix

On January 21 2017 05:44 IntoTheheart wrote:
But when we see those units [queens, DAs, scouts] it's ultra hype.

On January 21 2017 05:41 thezanursic wrote:

You can't really make a Queen or a DA map though

On January 21 2017 05:58 ICanFlyLow wrote:
blizz just give us what everyone wants but is too afraid to say it.. Autocasting, infinite unit selection, automining, warcraft like graphics, carriers with teleport ability, replace defilers with units that cast out boogers and for the love of god where is our ACHIEVEMENT SYSTEM???

On January 21 2017 12:21 SCC-Faust wrote:


Wat. Queens are being used very often now ZvT against the midgame mech switch. Every map is a queen map!

On January 21 2017 12:33 CursOr wrote:
vultures get 2 mines instead of 3

GG good patch

On January 21 2017 12:33 CursOr wrote:
vultures get 2 mines instead of 3

GG good patch

On January 21 2017 09:40 2Pacalypse- wrote:

Here it is: http://www.staredit.net/topic/16823/

On January 21 2017 12:33 CursOr wrote:
vultures get 2 mines instead of 3

GG good patch

On January 21 2017 14:45 Ty2 wrote:
An official statement on what will be included in the patch has already been made. The changes include OS support and automatic LAN latency on the default BW servers, so no big changes, guys.

On January 21 2017 05:34 thezanursic wrote:

I'm not going to go over this again, a few weeks ago I had an argument with FlashFTW, that Queens would benefit from a starting energy buff, I did some basic math and I found that the timing window for the Queen to get enough energy for it's first Spawn Broodling is 2 minutes and 14 seconds (Doesn't factor in Queen build time, or the time it takes to get the relevant tech), and it will take you 5 minutes and 36 seconds to get your second siege tank (This is when the Queen becomes cost efficient, assuming it doesn't die).

Now the window between the 1st and 2nd Broodling isn't important, and is in my opinion fine, but the timing window between you investing in Queen and getting to use them is something like 148.8s (Build time + time to accumulate energy). This doesn't account for the relevant tech and ect. In the Effort vs Light game (The ASL game where Effort went for Queens, Light saw it and immediately killed him), Light immediately scouted Effort's Queens when they spawned, he pushed towards his natural, Effort counterattacked when Light was almost at his base, Light came back, defended the attack, pushed again to his natural, sieged it down and Effort still had to wait 30 seconds before he could broodling his Siege tanks even though he did a brilliant distraction to keep Light away.

The problem with Queens aren't energy rates, or health, or cost, simply it's the timing window in which you are weak because you haven't been able to get your money back for their large investment.

This seems like retreading old ground.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/517506-do-you-like-these-bw-hd-graphic-effects?page=3

The DA has a similar problem, that the ROI on it is pretty bad, but sadly unlike the Queen balacing it would be a bit more difficult, whereas the Queen is pretty simple to balance, just keep changing the Starting energy until it's just long enough +20, +30, +40, find the right number.

Either way there's really zero point in discussing it as it will be the exact same argument as last time



These are the kind of changes that could kill Brood War's balance, and I oppose 100%, mine are the kind that would sprinkle in a bit of diversity in terms of play, but probably have zero impact on Balance.

On January 21 2017 15:50 Apex wrote:
I'm really excited with the whole SC1 patch, if it's just more upgrades to make BW have better "modern tech" support.

Would be really great to see a revival in the UMS map-scene. As is, it's pretty hard nowadays to find any games of stuff like Turret Defense.

On January 21 2017 05:41 thezanursic wrote:

You can't really make a Queen or a DA map though

On January 21 2017 16:41 HaFnium wrote:



you can make a DA Map...
By including neutral units with upgrades researched.
I.e. Arbiter on Triathlon. If that isn't enough you can insert HT/DA/Corsair/Arbiter/Carrier with all upgrades researched
Maybe you can also include units from other races as well lol

Imagine getting dark swarm vs those scary terran pushes...
Or getting lurkers to defend your bases in pvz...

On January 21 2017 05:56 thezanursic wrote:

God, I really can't help myself.

The idea that the BW is perfectly balanced is absurd, but let's ignore balance, we have certain units that never see play in competative games, if you balance these units just enough, but not too much, they can become a viable alternative without actually becoming better than the standard playing, giving players more options without impacting the balance considerably. I've talked about incremental balancing and I'll say it again.

It's very easy to balance these units without breaking the game. Say the Queen energy Buff. The Queen currently starts with 50 energy, change it to 60, let the players play around with the Queen for a month, see if it's better, if you are satisfied with the results, leave it, otherwise change it to 70, eventually you'll have a healthier Queen, if the buffs go too far, just scale it back. And since we are talking about maybe 3-4 units, this isn't that unreasonable, just incrementally balance these 3-4 units over the course of a few months. Result? We see Queens, DA in competative play ever soo often without actually impacting the balance considerably, if at all.

On January 21 2017 17:18 thezanursic wrote:

Sure, I guess that could be an interesting idea, I'm pretty sure the Terran would just kill the Neutral Defiler in a PvT.

+ I don't think you get a defiler with research, I don't think you can actually do that. You'll just get a blank defiler with no Dark Swarm. I think all you'd be able to do with the defiler is consume things, not very useful

I've got an idea, put neutral Dark Archons on the map, if you get a Dark Archon, you get another one for free.

Buy 1 get 1 free, hehehe

On January 21 2017 18:11 Jealous wrote:

I was about to say, I can name at least ONE person in this thread who hasn't played enough of one race to comment on balance.

On January 21 2017 08:20 lestye wrote:

That's been their goal for a long time. Clasico on the Classic forums said changing it was a huge pain because of the way those servers were designed. Over a year they changed the wc3 battle.net lag from 250ms to 200ms as of last patch. It's probably something they want to do but it could be super-long term.

On January 21 2017 18:11 Jealous wrote:

I was about to say, I can name at least ONE person in this thread who hasn't played enough of one race to comment on balance.

On January 21 2017 17:18 thezanursic wrote:

Sure, I guess that could be an interesting idea, I'm pretty sure the Terran would just kill the Neutral Defiler in a PvT.

+ I don't think you get a defiler with research, I don't think you can actually do that. You'll just get a blank defiler with no Dark Swarm. I think all you'd be able to do with the defiler is consume things, not very useful

I've got an idea, put neutral Dark Archons on the map, if you get a Dark Archon, you get another one for free.

Buy 1 get 1 free, hehehe

On January 21 2017 21:09 esdf wrote:
I hope this doesn't happen.

The game is fine as it is, it doesn't need making more units viable or whatever random shit blizzard is thinking of. And anyway, SC2 along with Overwatch showed that they have no idea what they're doing with their rebalances that lead to patch based meta.


If they want to patch something, it should be bnet & latency issues.

On January 21 2017 19:51 Euphorbus wrote:
LoL, Dota2, WC3 and SC2 all have 250-400 ms build-in latency. That would be considered unplayable in SC BW.
People don't notice or care about it anymore.

Only Starcraft and HoN have low latency, 50 to 100ms.

On January 22 2017 02:59 quirinus wrote:


This will slightly change the gameplay, maybe change the balance a bit.

On January 22 2017 02:59 quirinus wrote:


This will slightly change the gameplay, maybe change the balance a bit.

On January 22 2017 03:50 ne4aJIb wrote:
quenn spawn broodling 100 mana plz

On January 21 2017 19:46 ARREST_HILLARY_NOW wrote:
they should do a graphical overhaul too

On January 22 2017 20:25 radley wrote:
But you are aware of that color glitch has been fixed years ago by using proper launcher with plugin, right?

On January 22 2017 22:12 zaMNal wrote:
From other thread Talking about TvZ issues:

SCV hp of 60 was one of the bigger baffles for me personally for the longest time. It takes whole 7 mutalisks to 1-shot an scv but probe and drone need just 5 mutalisks. This difference is huge, pretty unfair.

Some say it's because SCV doesn't have regeneration like probes or drones. BUT it has direct manual healing(repair) available at any time, which is at least as good as regen, and is especially superb when doing bunker/scv rushes.

Bringing scv to 40 hp would make it very fair, especially as it can be repaired to 100% in few seconds. Or 45 hp max (still 5 mutalisk to 1-shot it). 60 is just waay over the top as long as they can be repaired.

On January 22 2017 22:12 zaMNal wrote:
From other thread Talking about TvZ issues:

SCV hp of 60 was one of the bigger baffles for me personally for the longest time. It takes whole 7 mutalisks to 1-shot an scv but probe and drone need just 5 mutalisks. This difference is huge, pretty unfair.

Some say it's because SCV doesn't have regeneration like probes or drones. BUT it has direct manual healing(repair) available at any time, which is at least as good as regen, and is especially superb when doing bunker/scv rushes.

Bringing scv to 40 hp would make it very fair, especially as it can be repaired to 100% in few seconds. Or 45 hp max (still 5 mutalisk to 1-shot it). 60 is just waay over the top as long as they can be repaired.

On January 25 2017 06:59 ICanFlyLow wrote:


i prefer sc or starcraft, i didnt even know what BW meant when i first heard it

On January 25 2017 07:16 xboi209 wrote:

Unfortunately, "SC" or "Starcraft" refers to StarCraft 2 by default nowadays.

On January 25 2017 06:04 yuben wrote:
Remember when we used to laugh at SC2 players for making outrageous balance suggestions?

This is a compatibility patch...

On January 25 2017 08:29 mustaju wrote:
I don't see controversy in balance patches. If it turns out awful, people can play the earlier version with a rich legacy. If it turns out great, there could be an influx of interested players.

On January 25 2017 07:47 [[Starlight]] wrote:

With the SC2 scene starting to go downhill (pro teams disbanding, etc.) while BW is reviving, that's a lot less true than it was say five years ago. And certainly in Korea, BW never stopped being the default Starcraft.

To me (and I suspect many others), Starcraft 2 = Starcraft 2 or SC2, that's it, no other umbrella names for it really... and of course there are the major release references (WoL, HotS, LotV).

BroodWar = BroodWar, BW, or Starcraft. 'Starcraft 1' just sounds odd, and it's actually kind of annoying when certain casters like Tastosis use the term repeatedly, for whatever reason.

Original SC, without the BW expansion = Vanilla SC or Vanilla Starcraft. Which almost no one plays, so the terminology there isn't really a big deal.

On January 25 2017 08:09 quirinus wrote:


What?
If they reduced the latecly they'd say so, this is the unit turning speed, instead, I'm fairly sure.

On January 25 2017 09:47 xboi209 wrote:

Well, outside of BW dominated communities and even outside of Starcraft communities, I really doubt most people will think of BW instead of SC2 when someone says "Starcraft".

On January 25 2017 15:57 Jealous wrote:

"Outside of BW dominated communities."

On January 25 2017 16:53 Jealous wrote:

Yes, outside an entire nation, multiple servers and communities. Which is the point xboi was trying to make, I think.

You're looking for "i.e." btw.

On January 25 2017 16:53 Jealous wrote:

Welcome to TeamLiquid: Brood War, where every thread eventually devolves into one of three options:

1. You're bad, git gud.
2. BW > SC2.
3. Balance whine/patch/fight.

We started at #3 but we're headed toward #2 atm.

On January 25 2017 18:19 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
all i want is consume for queens.

On January 25 2017 18:39 toriak wrote:
usage of scouts and nukes in pro games from 0.1% to 2 -5 %.
@koget ''scouts are close to being used'' - when is that ?

On January 25 2017 19:04 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:

imo Scout is not a bad unit,i think everyone just ignored this unit.i mean i discovered last year there was an upgrade speed for scouts watching Lancerx stream... i did see Bisu beating fengzi with the same strat ,scout reaver,bisu using it like we zergs use muta.

On January 25 2017 23:38 BLinD-RawR wrote:
I think they should buff SCV HP to 80 and give them auto repair

On January 26 2017 01:50 ICanFlyLow wrote:
It's not a balance patch you morons its a compatability patch

On January 25 2017 18:41 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:

enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMvyZT0fhQ8 ,like seriously this game was great even if i,,,just watch the video

On January 26 2017 02:18 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Maybe we should just have the mods change this to the Balance Whine thread. I think SCII had a stickied one for WoL.

I don't care about balance or whatever because its mostly an issue of maps these days, but I'm sick of every thread turning into a balance whine thread.

On January 26 2017 02:26 Jae Zedong wrote:
Personally I think the one good thing that came out of SC2 is that it broke the glass ceiling for balance discussions. Back in 2009 even mentioning balance was like saying the earth was flat. The gospel was that "the game is perfectly balanced, git gud lololol" and noone would discuss it.

I'm happy we're finally at a point where we realize that Blizzard aren't infallible. And there's a difference between acknowledning balance issues (that objectively exist) and suggesting they should be "fixed". Because "fixing" something always leads to unintended consequences and I personally wouldn't trust Blizzard with that.

On January 26 2017 03:11 PiSan wrote:


The problem is precisely that Blizzard is not infallible. Look at how aggressively they morph the meta in Overwatch by patching for balance. Meanwhile, BroodWar hasn't seen a single balance patch through several generations of meta game. I'm not claiming that the game is perfectly balanced, but it does seem pretty damn good at the moment and there are sure to be unintended consequences of any changes regardless of their good intentions. The game as it is has a stunning diversity of viable strategy and playstyles. Even though it's not perfect, it's a difficult task to try and improve it without making it worse by accident.

Imagine if muta stacking wasn't possible, then ZvT would probably be nowhere near balanced. The relative balance of BW is a lucky accident that probably shouldn't be prodded too much.

On January 26 2017 03:55 shall_burn wrote:

Zergs would have simply found some other way to deal with terrans.
The same thing about balance. The developers made the game relatively balanced, the rest was up to players to exploit different stuff and to find effective strategies and counters.
It's not really an accident. It's the natural outcome, quite a determined one.

On January 26 2017 04:27 Xeln4g4 wrote:
Maybe automining and 5-6 scv start

On January 26 2017 03:27 Jae Zedong wrote:
The relative balance of BW is a lucky accident that probably shouldn't be prodded too much. Would be cool to see a UMS map that buffs all the underused units slightly though.

This is basically creationist thinking. "On the first day the gods created the perfect balance, perfectly predicting the meta 15 years in advance, hurr durr". That simply isn't the case. Brood War is the best game ever and has almost perfect balance, but that wasn't inevitable. A variety of factors, some random, conspired to make it so. Can't we just be happy with our little serendipity instead of lulling ourselves into the false belief that the same guys who flip flopped on the Bunker in SC2 a hundred times conceived the perfect balance half a generation ago?

On January 26 2017 05:39 Cele wrote:


there's no stigma about it. Perception just is that the game is balanced very well and balancing via maps, like Kespa did, makes a lot more sense then changing anything else. You see, the game ran on a fine balance all these years, you'd need to have pretty good arguments why there would be any indication for change.

And then there's people being sceptical about suggested balance changes from casual players. When you're not into competitive broodwar (like playing ICCup or fish) it's actually hard to make make correct assesments about balance. Not targeting that at you or anybody specific tho.

good example from my mind (and somewhere in this thread) is a post where the user argues that Scout's shouldn't be buffed because Protoss is to dominant on "air maps"

When i read that i couldn't help but think that the poster of that comes from a very casual PoV, since it's nobody really plays island maps in competitive 1v1 or 2v2 anymore. Since 2006 or something.

And while i think it's fine to look at the game from a casual PoV, that PoV shouldn't be the judgement point for balance in competitive games, especially when we talk about televised korean Starleagues on the highest level.

If anybody has enough understanding about the game to talk balance, it's those ex pro gamers anyway and nobody on Teamliquid.

On January 25 2017 17:48 Jealous wrote:

I quote: "Outside of BW dominated communities." You say: "Also known as an entire nation." That barely makes sense. Please revise.

I am failing to understand how you're failing to understand that OUTSIDE means NOT INCLUDING. Ask the average layman about StarCraft, and they will most likely think of StarCraft 2, OUTSIDE of Korea, TL:BW section, fish, ICCup, your friends, etc. How is this eluding you?

Yes, I know he is [articulate].

"On the first day the gods created the perfect balance, perfectly predicting the meta 15 years in advance, hurr durr"

On January 26 2017 01:39 sabas123 wrote:

Well it was Sziky at his peak form back then when he had an decent win rate vs ex pros,

On January 26 2017 02:40 neobowman wrote:


There seems to be a social stigma in the Brood War community about discussing balance changes. I think it's come half from acceptance that Blizz won't be balance changing and half from balance change threads usually devolving into poorly thought out arguments.

I don't think it should be something avoided. If people are rational and open to ideas then it can lead to a lot of good discussion.

On January 26 2017 07:44 Antisocialmunky wrote:For example: take the Scout range thing someone mentioned in this thread as an example. That doesn't change anything. Do you know what scouts do? They kill capital ships. Does anyone use capital ships vs P? No. Why? Because scouts DESTROY THEM HARD. You don't see scouts because they are REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. Therefore no one in their right mind builds capital ships because they are so good. So what do you do if you want to see scouts? Buff BCs so they can't get feedback'd or are otherwise viable in TvP, make maps that encourage Sair-Reaver so you see huge Devourer vs Scout battles in ZvP (Go watch the Stork vs Fake Yellow). Of course this also buffs Dark Archons so you might not see scouts because Dark Archons are even scarier vs BC's. This would of course require comp changes to include EMP and so forth.

On January 26 2017 07:58 parkufarku wrote:


Lmao, this is like when a Zerg / Protoss player says Tanks don't need a buff, they're great at what they are supposed to do - siege enemy bases from long distance and you Terrans complain and say more diversity and flexibility is great for game until it finally gets a buff. And now they wanna give a buff to one of the most badly designed and under-used unit in the game and you're like hell no? lmaooooo the bias is real.

On January 26 2017 14:07 ninazerg wrote:
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.

On January 25 2017 05:20 Foxxan wrote:

Look, if you want to talk about balance, then you NEED to bring in EVERYTHING. Thats called logic. Without logic your post loses value.

What you didnt bring up here is that scvs when building structures NEED TO STAY AT THAT BUILDING TILL ITS FINISHED.
This means two things.
1) SCVS more vulnerable to attacks.
2. THE scv CANT MINE MINERALS for the duration of the walk movement+structure building.

All of a sudden, it doesnt look UNFAIR anymore. So please, MORE LOGIC less emotions.

On January 21 2017 05:34 Foxxan wrote:
...
I dont follow bw to well lately, but would
personally like to see:
...
2. More dynamic pvp and zvz.
...