As we all know zergling, mutalisk scourge is mostly an air confrontation and is unfun without a grounded counter to mutas, so far I see no answer as to keeping the 3 armor/damage types or the gameplay intact while giving hydralisks the option to be a good specific counter to mutalisks.
The only solution is to introduce a very specific solution and that is to allow hydralisks to be a good counter to mutalisks by giving them regular (aka double) damage to very light armor types of which mutalisks now possess this "very light" armor type.
This would allow for more grounded-play in ZvZ and would make lurkers a viable defensive option to slow down the pace of ZvZ to a considerable rate without altering the fundamental gameplay or style of ZvZ.
None of this can break Zv.Z as mirror-matchups cannot be broken in terms of balance but merely broken in terms of level of depth or choices in options or fun value.
I know this is a very specific solution. But it seems to be the only one unless Pete Stillwell has a better solution.
This can be a good solution for the rock, paper, scissors scenario that exists at high level Zerg vs. Zerg play which unfortunately ends the fun. This would positively raise the skill ceiling for zerg vs. zerg play which would extend the rock, paper, scissors scenario so that it would take more time before ZvZ players would reach that unfun ceiling.
This is my thought.
What do you guys, especially at Blizzard think? (They deleted my post because as we all know they want to protect their reputation more than anything aka the starbow shutdown so maybe you guys could push this idea out there for the benefit of the game and science.
I'd compare ZvZ to car/motorcycle racing. For the driver it's all about milliseconds and millimeters: brake a tiny bit later, hit apex a tiny bit later, press accel a tiny bit more. For people who don't race, it looks just like cars going round and round, exciting when someone crashes or overtakes, but otherwise unspectacular. If you tried going fast on a race track yourself however, you will notice those little details and sometimes a tiny thing that most don't even notice, will make you go "holy shit wow!" So, to make watching ZvZ fun, there's one thing you need to do - play it yourself
I think it even states on TL strategy here that ZvZ is said to be the one broken MU in terms of fun or maybe that was some user's post on reddit. Regardless, once you fix this it will be near perfect. Perhaps the numbers of the game can be tweaked going into the future for better usage of less common units, all very robust but if not at the very least I think we should address this one concern that many people agree is legitimate .
ZvZ is probably the best mirror match-up. No one wants to see mass macro 1a2a3a hydra/lurk fights as opposed to the highly micro intensive low econ style it is now. It would ruin the match-up.
lurkers counter mass hydralisks defensively due to slow overlord speed however we are making hydralisks be more of a core option rather than the end-all-be-all.
On June 19 2017 12:50 kenf4444 wrote: However, slightly more grounded battles is not a bad thing.
Just so you're aware, Hydralisks do half damage to Mutalisks/Zerglings as is. Even with this, it is somewhat in the realm of viability, albeit gimmicky, to go Hydralisk ZvZ. SataNiK, Day9, and other Zerg players have done this and done it well. Day9 hit A- ICCup (old ranking system) exclusively using Hydralisks ZvZ. SataNiK beat Lowley with Hydralisks on Peaks of Baekdu in WCG. I can promise you a player can hit A on ICCup right now by only playing a Hydralisk-oriented ZvZ. Only when you encroach C and above ranks on Fish I would imagine it would become a lot harder.
Even then, it is still seen sometimes if you watch Afreeca streams. Rarely do you see pros play ZvZ on stream, and seeing a Hydralisk game on top of it is like finding a needle in a haystack, but it still happens. And they can win. I've personally witnessed Effort lose a ZvZ to Hydralisks like four or five months ago.
The whole point I'm trying to make is Hydralisks aren't as weak in the match-up as people believe, and giving them normal damage vs Muta/Ling (literally doubling their damage) will make it so you will not see any Muta/Ling... almost ever. Also I have played exclusively Hydra ZvZ since coming back to Brood War and I can attest that Hydra vs Hydra ZvZ is some of the stalest and most boring Brood War anyone can experience.
once again this is only towards mutalisks, not zerglings as you are well aware of you are putting words in my mouth. And it isn't going to solely be hydrasV.hydras like you claim it is, hydras will simply be more of a core option. Grounded fights utilize the actual map terrain.
Viable but gimmicky is not the same as a solid core option.
Rank has little to do with design decisions. Blizzard devs cannot beat Flash and David Kim is a little confused I mostly teach baduk so I know a little about design. Professors tend to whereas players can have a lot of talent and skill aka read ahead a lot of moves in a board game but may or may not necessarily understand how something is built.
On June 19 2017 13:22 kenf4444 wrote: once again this is only towards mutalisks, not zerglings as you are well aware of you are putting words in my mouth. And it isn't going to solely be hydrasV.hydras like you claim it is, hydras will simply be more of a core option. Grounded fights utilize the actual map terrain.
Viable but gimmicky is not the same as a solid core option.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just explaining increasing the damage Hydralisks do to either or will greatly change the match-up. I'm not shitting on your idea, but I am saying that doubling the damage Hydralisks do to Mutalisks will not ground the match-up or create more composition viability. Any experienced Zerg player will agree with this.
The weakness of Hydralisk ZvZ isn't Hydralisks themselves necessarily... it is that you need a bustling strong economy to make them. They work better in large numbers, whereas you can be effective with Mutalisks and Zerglings in lower counts. And when you turtle up, invest in 3-4 spore colonies per base, as well as sunkens to defend the initial Zerglings, your opponent can abuse the fact that you just threw 7-8 drones and 600+ minerals into static defenses. They have the freedom to take a third also, whereas the Hydralisk player doesn't. Despite this, when a Hydra ZvZ player moves out with 2-3 control groups full of Hydra, it is still a difficult endeavor to stop the attack (however if you do, you more or less just win the game).
I don't know how you're theory crafting this without testing it out yourself and then getting offended when people say it won't work. Make an UMS map where Hydras do double damage vs Mutalisk (or half Muta HP and Spore Colony damage for testing purposes) and get two decent Zerg players to volunteer, one who will go Hydralisks, the other going Mutalisk/Zergling, and watch what happens. There will literally be no incentive or reason to go Mutalisks anymore.
hmm, you have a point there so maybe we should try testing this as you put it mutalisks may never even be viable for a harass option but how do you know that for sure it might work.
I'm pretty sure Protoss players really would not appreciate having their observers take double damage just so ZvZ can be dumb in a different way. And there's nothing in SC/BW's engine that would allow for any unit to deal increase damage to mutalisks without also dealing the same damage to scourge, observers, and interceptors.
ZvZ is not RPS, i wished people stopped saying that.... and also stopped trying to completely change the matchup. ZvZ is fun for me, your version would destroy my fun.
PS: "research" (iirc comparing win% of non-mirror mus to mirror-mu of the "better" players, there was a big ass post about that with graphs and stuff) showed that PvP was more RPS than ZvZ
Some players that don't want to bother with muta micro only play with hatch 12 opening into full ling spore and tri hatch hydra. I believe you can reach a decent level on a foreign perspective by just doing that. It has its limit.
ZvZ was for many years (for me) a boring match up... then I started to play a little zvz myself and I quickly started to understand all the insane small decisions and timings that you need to have to play. Understanding lead to a real awe of people who can play it. Not it is the most interesting matchups imo.
Changing it into a more hydras-ground style would be terrible. Making changes to broodwar should not be done. I dont want more sc2, I just want Broodwar.
Why would ZvZ be more fun if hydras and sunk+lurk instead of lings and mutas? I do not think so.
ZvZ is not "rock-paper-scissors". I know beginners are having hard time vs mechanically better players on ZvZ, but making sunken+lurker viable would just slow down their death rather than making it more enjoyable for them.
Tsl2 zvz matches where so awesome to see its definitely not a build order win match up jaedong is amazing at that matchup. Your zvz is boring is just an opinion, i love it. Theres nothing wrong with a matchup having a unique playstyle especially when it involves fast paced micro heavy control
Oh, seriously? 18 years of professional gamers playing this game inside and out and here comes a random noob claiming he can make ZvZ more fun because he doesn't like muta/ling/scourge and we should buff hydras. Makes total sense, doesn't it? Why can't you just enjoy the game as it is? It doesn't need balance changes. You can go to sc2 for that and have more fun with ground based ZvZ there, I don't see the issue.
we could try ground-based ZvZ in a separate ptr build and see whether people like it and if it works, have them test it for another ten years or set up an opinion poll. but i do recall a handful of people have said air battles are somewhat uninteresting due to not utilizing map terrain. that is why i posted this. i may be a noob at starcraft in terms of zvz but i am not dumb but at least this promoted some healthy discussion all good for the game's future. remember that they have not ruled out anything that could be beneficial to the game. if u guys believe this to be harmful then i can agree that it's an imperfect solution. because its too specific.
Do we need a thread for every dumb balance change idea? There'll be hundreds by the time remastered's release date is announced, and Blizzard has explicitly said that there won't be gameplay changes regardless. I disagree that this thread is generating healthy discussion; it's one uninformed person defending their poorly thought out idea despite every other poster with more experience explaining why it wouldn't work, and still they insist that they know better.
well what about zvz air battles being a little gimpy and ending games in a gimpy fashion, that is unfun, a gimpy mistake turning into a loss. to me that can be improved upon. to capitalize on your points you can be the greatest player in the world and not have a clue as to what you are talking about. and ive been playing this game since it first came out.
On June 19 2017 17:30 Piste wrote: Why would ZvZ be more fun if hydras and sunk+lurk instead of lings and mutas? I do not think so.
ZvZ is not "rock-paper-scissors". I know beginners are having hard time vs mechanically better players on ZvZ, but making sunken+lurker viable would just slow down their death rather than making it more enjoyable for them.
I think the intention behind these proposed changes are that lurkers vs lurker could potentially be a fun micro vs micro battle and also very position dependant.
Hydra/lurk would also open up drops ALOT in the matchup, meaning defending like you propose might be suicide. Lurker drop initself is a dangerous tool, and especially in zvz.
I tried this myself in starbow, just a few games but i saw the potential. Adding drop early, hydra/lurk unit composition and start multitasking and do frontal attacks. Yeah it felt good. The change in that mod for zvz was that hydras did 2.5 extra damage vs mutas.
Also wouldnt lings/lurk work a bit? Not sure here.
ZvZ imo is a stale matchup where the only thing to mostly master is your micro. Matchups should have more bigger factors to get good at.
Hydra/lurk would open up more bases for both players while also enabling hive play. The matchup on paper would be more dynamic, potentially better micro vs micro.. or atleast in my eyes more fun micro vs micro while maybe more decisions to be made aswell with where to drop, where to attack and so on.
I don't get the point kenf4444. Some people don't like ZvZ. Some people love ZvZ. If it isn't for you, play/watch Terran. This game is so deep, and has so much to offer for everyone, why should every aspect of it be specifically made enjoyable for you?
lol its literally like watching chess and complaining how boring it is. you have to be quite good in BW (especially in zvz) to understand how much fun this low eco micro intense match up is.
i think foxxan presented a good point though because macro should be involved as well not just micro intensive matches, also its not just about fun value. its about gimpiness. if some scourge crashes into mutas and they all go poof and the game ends in a split second its gimpy. this may even be more so the case with low level games where its harder to control i hate having to repeat myself its in the comments above. also this would open up many strategic choices as well as hive play in zvz something zvz has been missing and never before seen. foxxan explained this in his post.
i have followed it closely but at this point you are nitpicking... and that one game is just one game. these changes would make hive play more possible overall.
No offense to the OP, but making suggestions about what a potential balance patch should look like necessitates a very high amount of understanding for the gameplay, the unit interactions and such. Also stating that ZvZ is unfun, where you don't play it competitive is a stretch.
The vast majority of Zerg players thinks that ZvZ is an interesting matchup and probably an even bigger majority of players thinks that there's no reason for any balance changes. Please consider how long the game has been played on the highest level (korean professional scene) and the game balance has been fine all these years.
On June 19 2017 21:06 kenf4444 wrote: i have followed it closely but at this point you are nitpicking... and that one game is just one game. these changes would make hive play more possible overall.
i guess such is the internet.
No, this is not nitpicking, this is a televised match of Broodwar involving hive play. As many people have pointed out, unless you play on the highest level, you can do whatever you want in a game of broodwar. You also don't realize that some of us love ZvZ as is. Because it is such a drastic contrast to the other matchups you get to play as Zerg.
You suggest changes to something people have been in love for, for over a decade, because you think, you might also be in love with it then. So from my standpoint, I feel like you want to take something away from me and I don't understand why you instead not just go and find something that you don't need to change to like?
hmm, cele that is a good final? point to be made, but still as foxxan has explained it is worth a consideration for testing for an extended version of sc:bw. People can still play the original and blizz should allow them that choice. As it opens up zvz in a big way.
@kenf4444 You REALLY CAN play hydra style in zvz at some maps and it will work fine. Amateur level of course. If you just dont know how - that doen't mean its impossible.
On June 19 2017 21:24 kenf4444 wrote: hmm, cele that is a good final? point to be made, but still as foxxan has explained it is worth a consideration for testing for an extended version of sc:bw. People can still play the original and blizz should allow them that choice. As it opens up zvz in a big way.
Is there any possibility to this?
You keep throwing around these matter-of-fact statements like "it opens up ZvZ in a big way" like they are self-evident. You have yet to provide any proof for this of your own; you keep falling back on one post made by a different person who played a different mini version of a different game. I can't believe you had the gall to say "sucks repeating myself" or something along those lines, implying that you are doing so because we simply don't get what you are saying and need it to be repeated like to a child. Hint: the opposite is true. Sometimes when everyone more skilled and knowledgeable is telling you that your idea is bad, its not them being stalwarts or closed-minded, its your idea being bad.
Your self-admitted ignorance on the topic is glaring. Hive tech ZvZ was fairly common for a decent stretch of time, and some Zergs like great seemed to be actively pushing to reach that point and succeeded on a relatively consistent basis.
As others have said, you can make a custom UMS and fund some top foreign players to play a tournament on it and then you can get feedback. But you won't, becsuse it is easier to put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la," than it is to actually do somethung. Until then, your theory holds no water. Blizzard shouldn't change the playing experience for the whole population for every low level player that has half-baked ideas about the game.
Also, had to lol at "ive been playing since the game came out" to "scourge do splash damage and poof mutalisks but I haven't played in 19 years so..."
On June 19 2017 21:24 kenf4444 wrote: hmm, cele that is a good final? point to be made, but still as foxxan has explained it is worth a consideration for testing for an extended version of sc:bw people can still play the original and blizz should allow them that choice. As it opens up zvz in a big way.
dividing up this game with a very small player base is not a great idea in general i feel. And ZvZ is not a restrictive matchup. While unit compositions are very limited to ling/muta in most games and hive tech is so seldom reached in high level games, players think the matchup is rewarding as all the unit interactions are intense and reward better micro abilities. Just open a game with a muta micro map and try it some. You'll notice it's hard and perhaps get an idea of how demanding this muta on muta + scourge fights are for both players.
To me, this is clearly a notion that stems from a pure spectators PoV. When you only see the MU on stream, it can appear bland and limited. It's always the same units, fights can be very fast and there seems to be an "RPS situation regarding build orders (Even tho that notion is fundamentally flawed in the first place).
Blizzard has clearly said that they intend to preserve BW in SC:R 100% as is gameplay wise with the possible exception of hotkey rebinds.And most if not all veterans wouldn't give SC:R a second look if otherwise.It would be silly to create two gameplay modes in order to test things. I mean if there's big interest for your suggestion or other suggestions of this kind, people are free and will probably create UMS maps to test those changes.
thank u cele for your kind and informative non-backlash response. i posted the 19 years thing as a general response, i do not have to explain my entire fabulous starcraft career.
On June 19 2017 21:46 kenf4444 wrote: thank u cele for your kind and informative non-backlash response. i posted the 19 years thing as a general response, i do not have to explain my entire fabulous starcraft career.
that would be a good idea starfruit.
you kinda don't have to and kinda have to. Of course everybody is welcome to have a discussion on these forums. But, not judging you personally just in general, for many the situation is like this:
If somebody comes in here to make post an idea on how the game in it's core should be changed and if that idea seems obscure to the majority of veterans and especially to high level players posting in this thread + Show Spoiler +
for instance; i saw a post by Bakuryu that was not very supportive to your idea, as well as vOddy
then the need arises to get an idea of the background of Person A proposing the change. Because no offence, if somebody has little to no competitive background in this game, it's like someone saying: " I think chess is fundamentally flawed. I watched this game of Carlsen vs Anand and from my PoV, the Bishops should move in a different way and be able to strike down two pawns in the same turn. I have been playing some Chess with my granddad on the kitchen table and im not entirely sure how the en-passant works". Person A in this scenario may ofc express their ideas but they aren't treated as very convincing by competitive players.
Im bringing this as an extreme example and im not suggesting that's you in the analogy. Im trying to highlight the necessity for the other people here to understand your gaming background to make correct assumptions about the validity of your argument and the notions that got you that idea in the first place.
noted. given i am not too good at sc and have mostly played ums in the past due to being a kid, but that does not mean i do not understand the competitive scene at all. but i have potential as i am an expert at board games although i realize that doesn't translate well over to sc potential because of apm.
On June 19 2017 20:37 kenf4444 wrote: i did not know starbow had hydras deal 2.5 xtra dam to mutas, is this specifically to mutas and how is it presented in that mod?
They did at first, then it got removed, instead giving Z a new unit with strong anti-air (Eruptor).
ic, a new unit would be an ideal idea but in brood war i think it would negatively affect wraiths or other light armor air units i forgot what armor type corsairs are.
Maybe make a new unit similar to eruptor that's specific to ZvZ only that only affects mutalisks and not scourge?
I'm not sure how starbow works.
This of course would be a huge endeavor and probably a tougher change to introduce a new unit with the same glitched pathfinding to a 19 yr old game.
I've seen the eruptor in starbow and it seems like it has a limited range. Maybe there is a similar possible implementation in brood war.