EPT[A] Starbow - Page 323
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
I have looked for a potential solution at the current balance / match-up dynamic problems, WITHOUT adding the Immortal and Marauder. I want to examine the possibilities before doing such a crucial change. Here is a short summary of the current problems in each match-up: >>>+ Show Spoiler + PvT - Terran has no good way to apply pressure in the early game, becasue once the Reaver comes into play, Bio is stone dead. Marines just seem too weak to even hurt Protoss going only Stalkers. - Strong Blink Stalkers + Warp in makes it hard for Terran to push out, since P can just get his army into the T base. - Mass Stalkers seems to dominate each game. - Predictable, because Terran "must" go for the same units in every game. (If they wanna win.) ZvP - Protoss has a hard time to secure a third base, due to the Gateway units being weak vs Zergs core army. ZvT - No apparent huge problems. There are surely imbalances, but players have different views on this. Some players says Terran can not push with bio vs Zerg early, cause it is so easy to stop it. TvT - Predictable because there is always Mech vs Mech. A Barrack has no purpose in this match-up. PvP - Seems to consist of mass Stalkers vs mass Stalkers. Its predictable and not exciting? Note: Ok, there are surely more aspects to the problems than my simplified summary. There are also many ways to solve the problems. Preferably so we get a good and exciting game. My suggestion how to "fix" this without the Immortal and Marauder: >>>+ Show Spoiler + - Marine start with range 5. (Instead of 4.) - No Range upgrade. Instead Combat shield which gives +10 HP. - Reaper gains a more useful upgrade for mid/late game utility. Maybe bring back the G-4 Charge bombs? - Banshee start with range 6 instead of 5. - Stalker damage is changed FROM 11 vs light, 13 vs all, 15 vs armored, TO 10 vs light, 12 vs armored, 14 vs all. - Stalker range upgrade costs 100/100 instead of 150/150. - Archon gains a great boost in stats. (Maybe not Armored anymore.) - Reaver damage is reduced TO 80 vs all, FROM 100 to all. - If possible, when the Reaver attacks a unit, some kind of marker will appear on it, so the enemy player knows this particular unit will soon be hit. It would allow for more micro and splitting. - Zerg can build unlimited Queens instead of only 1 per Hatchery. - Devourer gains the passive ability which allows it to destroy energy on each attack and convert it into life. Note: The Stalker is not nerfed. It is just a rearrangement of what type of units it is good against. What would this accomplish? + Show Spoiler + TvP: Marines would be stronger at applying pressure in the early game. They would be able to fight better vs Stalkers, even unupgraded! With the Combat shield upgrade will they survive one more attack from Stalkers and Zealots. Mass Stalkers vs Terran if he goes for a Bio + Tank push will not end pretty... P must mix in other early/mid game units, like Zealots or Sentinels. Banshee with range 6, and Stalkers with weaker damage vs armored, will make Banshee harassment more viable? Stalkers would deal less damage vs Siege tanks. (P needs Zealots, Warp Prism drop or Sentinels with Safeguard!) Reavers with weaker damage from start will still be strong. BUT they will not destroy entire groups of Marines and Hydras as easily! Instead will a few Marines and a few more Hydras barely survive the splash damage. UNTILL Protoss researches the extra damage upgrade for Reavers. (Which helps to delay the super power of the Reaver.) This would make the Reaver still strong vs Bio and Hydras as soon as the Reaver is built. BUT it will not be as insane, until Reaver damage is researched. PvZ: - With 14 dmg to normal armor, Stalkers would kill Hydras and Mutalisks with 1 shot less. But most importantly, as Zaphod pointed out, with the cheaper Stalker range upgrade will they be better at microing, especially vs un-upgraded Hydras. - Archons with better stats will make them stronger in all match-ups. (As an other late game unit for Protoss to punish enemy players for sticking to mass low-tech units.) TvZ: - Stronger Marines will also make Terran more able to push vs Zerg. (Some Z players says they do not fear early Bio pushes at all.) Once Zerg gets into higher tech units, like Speed Banelings, Lurkers, Dark Swarm, Ultralisks, Devourer with the new Contaminate ability, will mass Marines + Medics in itself not work anymore. Instead T must mix in Tanks, Spider mines, Vessels etc? - If Marine pushes are stronger from start, Zerg might need help vs this. Terran seems to already have strong early harassment options with Reaper + Vultures. It is hard to defend vs all possible harassment/pressure scenarios. With unlimited Queens again will Z be able to get a more versatile base defence. (But ofc not strong enough to stop harassment in itself!) Devourers new passive destroy-energy-ability will give Z another tool in the late game to fight vs mass Vessels. PvP: Since Stalkers become worse vs Zealots now, will Zealots play a bigger role in the army composition? Other thoughts: + Show Spoiler + With these stats, Stalkers will not be able to outrange Bunkers anymore. (I know you will cry now, Sumadin.) Instead can I buff the Sentinels attack range from 5 to 6. (Earlier they outranged bunkers too.) In fact, the Null Ward spell on the Sentinel will recieve a buff, as another tool for Protoss to use in the mid game in all match-ups. (Instead of reyling entirely on massing Stalkers, which will now be harder.) My suggested change will however not make much for TvT. I doubt Bio will be more viable now. Maybe will Banshees be too strong in TvT. If Protoss Warp in + Warp Prism is still too strong vs T in the midgame, then we can either delay Warp tech upgrade, add an upgrade to the Warp Prism which unlocks "Warp mode", or something else. Thoughts on this? Is this even enough to solve the problems? | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Also, the queen is huge. 1 extra queen for 150 for constant tech acceleration. Makes timings really brutal and fast. Well, to be fair, a lot of Z's get a macro hatch anyways. | ||
|
Weerwolf
75 Posts
- Stalker is a dragoon archetype with blink. Apparently, blink is not something that the makers of the mod want to give up, and I can understand why. It's a dynamic and interesting ability. The thing is that it causes problems on a heavy dragoon like unit in terms of balance. There is talk of immortal reintroduction, but this actually creates a whole new unit type which brings new problems/features all together, because it does not function exactly the same. You would still need a lot of stalkers against zerg to stop mutalisk harass, so the stalker itself cannot be too weak, but you need new units to combat the stalker so that you actually make the immortal, and these new units have to be balanced as wel and... well, you get the point I think. It is hardly a simple solution. The truly simpelest and probably most efficient solution would be to add the dragoon back in, because it functions roughly the same as the stalker. The immortal that can shoot up is a close second, because it does function differently (no missle attack that has to fly, instant acquisition of target). The small change suggestions: - Make the current stalker weaker slightly in damage (-2, maybe -3) and slightly lower hp/shields. - Dragoon unit to be the beefy combat unit. Because it is strong, but does not have hypermobility it will function about the same as a stalker against muta harrass and the like, but will require positional play. Because the dragoon will be the standard meaty unit, a protoss cannot make his whole army consist of blink stalkers. This makes defensive play harder because the bulk of the units will not have blink, and make offensive play not a cakewalk by just blinking in everywhere. The dragoon would have stalker like stats (current stalker, not proposed stalker), but its attack could be buffed a bit since it does not have blink. This would be the most clean and simple solution I think. Besides that, everybody loves dragoons  . | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
On July 08 2013 18:00 Kabel wrote: A patch without the Immortal and Marauder? I have looked for a potential solution at the current balance / match-up dynamic problems, WITHOUT adding the Immortal and Marauder. I want to examine the possibilities before doing such a crucial change. Here is a short summary of the current problems in each match-up: >>>+ Show Spoiler + PvT - Terran has no good way to apply pressure in the early game, becasue once the Reaver comes into play, Bio is stone dead. Marines just seem too weak to even hurt Protoss going only Stalkers. - Strong Blink Stalkers + Warp in makes it hard for Terran to push out, since P can just get his army into the T base. - Mass Stalkers seems to dominate each game. - Predictable, because Terran "must" go for the same units in every game. (If they wanna win.) ZvP - Protoss has a hard time to secure a third base, due to the Gateway units being weak vs Zergs core army. ZvT - No apparent huge problems. There are surely imbalances, but players have different views on this. Some players says Terran can not push with bio vs Zerg early, cause it is so easy to stop it. TvT - Predictable because there is always Mech vs Mech. A Barrack has no purpose in this match-up. PvP - Seems to consist of mass Stalkers vs mass Stalkers. Its predictable and not exciting? Note: Ok, there are surely more aspects to the problems than my simplified summary. There are also many ways to solve the problems. Preferably so we get a good and exciting game. My suggestion how to "fix" this without the Immortal and Marauder: >>>+ Show Spoiler + - Marine start with range 5. (Instead of 4.) - No Range upgrade. Instead Combat shield which gives +10 HP. - Reaper gains a more useful upgrade for mid/late game utility. Maybe bring back the G-4 Charge bombs? - Banshee start with range 6 instead of 5. - Stalker damage is changed FROM 11 vs light, 13 vs all, 15 vs armored, TO 10 vs light, 12 vs armored, 14 vs all. - Stalker range upgrade costs 100/100 instead of 150/150. - Archon gains a great boost in stats. (Maybe not Armored anymore.) - Reaver damage is reduced TO 80 vs all, FROM 100 to all. - If possible, when the Reaver attacks a unit, some kind of marker will appear on it, so the enemy player knows this particular unit will soon be hit. It would allow for more micro and splitting. - Zerg can build unlimited Queens instead of only 1 per Hatchery. - Devourer gains the passive ability which allows it to destroy energy on each attack and convert it into life. Note: The Stalker is not nerfed. It is just a rearrangement of what type of units it is good against. What would this accomplish? + Show Spoiler + TvP: Marines would be stronger at applying pressure in the early game. They would be able to fight better vs Stalkers, even unupgraded! With the Combat shield upgrade will they survive one more attack from Stalkers and Zealots. Mass Stalkers vs Terran if he goes for a Bio + Tank push will not end pretty... P must mix in other early/mid game units, like Zealots or Sentinels. Banshee with range 6, and Stalkers with weaker damage vs armored, will make Banshee harassment more viable? Stalkers would deal less damage vs Siege tanks. (P needs Zealots, Warp Prism drop or Sentinels with Safeguard!) Reavers with weaker damage from start will still be strong. BUT they will not destroy entire groups of Marines and Hydras as easily! Instead will a few Marines and a few more Hydras barely survive the splash damage. UNTILL Protoss researches the extra damage upgrade for Reavers. (Which helps to delay the super power of the Reaver.) This would make the Reaver still strong vs Bio and Hydras as soon as the Reaver is built. BUT it will not be as insane, until Reaver damage is researched. PvZ: - With 14 dmg to normal armor, Stalkers would kill Hydras and Mutalisks with 1 shot less. But most importantly, as Zaphod pointed out, with the cheaper Stalker range upgrade will they be better at microing, especially vs un-upgraded Hydras. - Archons with better stats will make them stronger in all match-ups. (As an other late game unit for Protoss to punish enemy players for sticking to mass low-tech units.) TvZ: - Stronger Marines will also make Terran more able to push vs Zerg. (Some Z players says they do not fear early Bio pushes at all.) Once Zerg gets into higher tech units, like Speed Banelings, Lurkers, Dark Swarm, Ultralisks, Devourer with the new Contaminate ability, will mass Marines + Medics in itself not work anymore. Instead T must mix in Tanks, Spider mines, Vessels etc? - If Marine pushes are stronger from start, Zerg might need help vs this. Terran seems to already have strong early harassment options with Reaper + Vultures. It is hard to defend vs all possible harassment/pressure scenarios. With unlimited Queens again will Z be able to get a more versatile base defence. (But ofc not strong enough to stop harassment in itself!) Devourers new passive destroy-energy-ability will give Z another tool in the late game to fight vs mass Vessels. PvP: Since Stalkers become worse vs Zealots now, will Zealots play a bigger role in the army composition? Other thoughts: + Show Spoiler + With these stats, Stalkers will not be able to outrange Bunkers anymore. (I know you will cry now, Sumadin.) Instead can I buff the Sentinels attack range from 5 to 6. (Earlier they outranged bunkers too.) In fact, the Null Ward spell on the Sentinel will recieve a buff, as another tool for Protoss to use in the mid game in all match-ups. (Instead of reyling entirely on massing Stalkers, which will now be harder.) My suggested change will however not make much for TvT. I doubt Bio will be more viable now. Maybe will Banshees be too strong in TvT. If Protoss Warp in + Warp Prism is still too strong vs T in the midgame, then we can either delay Warp tech upgrade, add an upgrade to the Warp Prism which unlocks "Warp mode", or something else. Thoughts on this? Is this even enough to solve the problems? Damm it! Those 10 seconds timing agression added so much meaning to the MU... While totally not ruining alot of things in other matchups... I will be hesistant to say that nothing have changed in TvT. With no range required it will be alot different to take an expansion and hold vs a 1 base mech push. With no need for an early techlab it will be easier to get enough marines to ward off an early Vulture allin. The tank related pushes will still be hard through. Hmm Banshees... Nah we got turrets, and vikings, both of which still outrange them. We will manage. I like the approach to test other things before doing something so big as adding marauders and immortals. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
Differences in TvP - Protoss gateway units are now even more cost ineffective in a straight up fight vs bio. While they were cost ineffective before, the protoss could use his (blink) stalkers to kite all day against the bio units, and when/if the bio units ended up at the protoss base, medis were out of energy/marines were dead. - Since bio has become more cost effective it is more likely to make some bio heavy timing attacks straight up ovepowered. Those could turn out to be difficult to balance. Was the maurauder instead implemented, bio would actually become less cost effective in a straight up fight against the correct protoss gateway unit composition, however, their mobility advantage would increase. - Doesn't reward terran for dropping against a protoss player (why not just attack straight at him rather than investing in dropships which blink stalkers are still pretty good against?). - Protoss now has an even easier time preventing vulture runby's (stalkers deal more damage to vultures and you still have a relatively high stalker count vs terran). To be fair, I don't think my suggested stats would completely eliminate the "surround-effect", however it would definitely be much harder for protoss to contain the mech'ing terran with slower immortals. Differences in ZvP - Lurkers will be extremely OP. This can likely be fixed by changing armor type (?). - Speedlings now pose a larger threat, and they were actually the primariy challenge for protoss to secure a pre 10 minute 3rd. - Overall gateway/warpgate buff vs zerg is smaller than my suggested stats. Differences in ZvT - Hydras are more useless than before vs bio - Mutas are worse/more useless vs non tank compositions than before. - AOE (banelings/lurkers) were a neccesity early on before, but due to cost efficiency increase of bio (combat shield), its now even more important. Had we instead added in the maurauder, terran players would be able to use the maurauder as meatshield which would make A-moving banelings a lot less efficient. At the same time it would also be an indirect buff to mutalisks (instead of a nerf). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
 Not sure about the Stalker/Archon changes, but I fear you are just running into the problem that archons will still just be too late to be good vs zerg early on. And their techcost will eat into your stalkercount/blink timing, so it's not that good vs mutas to begin with. Don't do the reaver marker thing. Scarabs are slow enough to allow for enough micro. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On July 08 2013 20:31 Big J wrote: Keep the combat shields out of the game for now - that might just get overboard. Leave the devourer as it is - the main problem would be that you don't reach it in time vs vessels, so it is only an option for hive countering vessels. At which point you should be able to do so with bloodbath... ahm plague. Don't do the reaver marker thing. Scarabs are slow enough to allow for enough micro. I disagree - Reavers are really not practical to micro against. After every single small engagement vs reavers, I am left frustrated, because I don't really know how exactly I could have microed better. It simply becomes apparent too late which target the reaver. Keep the combat shields out of the game for now - that might just get overboard. Indeed, combat shield does add a lot of problems, but without that buff to bio, I fear we will just see similar stuff as previously (as the 10 vs 11 damage vs light isn't a big enough change in it self). But that's kinda why, I don't see this solution as very clean, and it will be hard to get all of the matchups balanced in the "correct" way. | ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
I don't like idea of changing dmg of stalker in this way, but its good to see that reaver is finally nerfed (but I would prefer aoe nerf honestly). Don't forget to buff HTs to make them viable alternative. Also, keep in mind one of reasons archons are armored was thei eficiency vs hydras. Archon /zealot should be viable alternative to more stalker/reaver oriented army, and its not gonna be with tank zealot and tank Archon. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Differences in TvP - Protoss gateway units are now even more cost ineffective in a straight up fight vs bio. While they were cost ineffective before, the protoss could use his (blink) stalkers to kite all day against the bio units, and when/if the bio units ended up at the protoss base, medis were out of energy/marines were dead. - Since bio has become more cost effective it is more likely to make some bio heavy timing attacks straight up ovepowered. Those could turn out to be difficult to balance. Was the maurauder instead implemented, bio would actually become less cost effective in a straight up fight against the correct protoss gateway unit composition, however, their mobility advantage would increase. Protoss can still do the same thing vs Bio... But it will be harder, which means Protoss should get other units and NOT only Mass Stalkers vs Bio... So I dont see your point. It would be the same problem with the Marauder. We might end up making the "early heavy timing attacks straight up overpowered" regardless if I buff Marine or add some kind of Marauder. So I do not see your point here, since it is the same dilemma anyway. In both situations, Protoss would need to have the right unit composition. - Doesn't reward terran for dropping against a protoss player (why not just attack straight at him rather than investing in dropships which blink stalkers are still pretty good against?). That is why I consider the old G-4 Charge ability on Reapers, that Xiphias and December added. It would make Terran Bio much more mobile and allow for more harassment. - Speedlings now pose a larger threat, and they were actually the primariy challenge for protoss to secure a pre 10 minute 3rd. No difference at all. Why are they a larger threat all of a sudden? Still killed by 4 shots from Stalkers. - Overall gateway/warpgate buff vs zerg is smaller than my suggested stats. Yes, but we do not know how big the buff needs to be. You assume it needs a larger rework, hence your suggestion of very reworked stats on the Protoss units. I would prefer to take smaller steps in the balance. Differences in ZvT - Hydras are more useless than before vs bio - Mutas are worse/more useless vs non tank compositions than before. - AOE (banelings/lurkers) were a neccesity early on before, but due to cost efficiency increase of bio (combat shield), its now even more important. Had we instead added in the maurauder, terran players would be able to use the maurauder as meatshield which would make A-moving banelings a lot less efficient. At the same time it would also be an indirect buff to mutalisks (instead of a nerf). Yes, one intended consequense can be that Mutas are now worse. Would Terran build Marauders in the current TvZ in Starbow? They deal no extra damage vs anything of significance until the late game. Build them just to absorb damage from Banelings? Why not just build Vultures + Spider mines, which would do the same thing much cheaper? Marines are better vs all other Zerg units in the mid game, compared to the proposed Marauder. (Unless we rework the balance even more.) @Danko If you want to remove marine range upgrade then you can as well remove stalker and hydra ranged ups. Why? If we want Terran bio to be a stronger threat early in the game, the Marine need some kind of advantage. Now it would have a range advantage until Stalkers + Hydras get their own range upgrade, which would make pure Bio worse as the enemy races gets higher up i tech.. --- Look, all I am saying is to see if there is any kind of rebalance can be made on the current content, BEFORE I throw in new units. I don´t think it has been explored enough. If my suggestion is not good enough to fix the balance problems, is there anything else that can be changed in it? IF we come to the conclusion that the Marauder/Immortal is the only realistic solution, then ok.. I am willing to try it. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
It would be the same problem with the Marauder. We might end up making the "early heavy timing attacks straight up overpowered" regardless if I buff Marine or add some kind of Marauder. So I do not see your point here, since it is the same dilemma anyway. In both situations, Protoss would need to have the right unit composition. With maurauders in dropships, relying on the mobile stalkers to counter them will be much less efficient. The more we can reduce the stalker count, the less mobile protoss is. When protoss is less mobile, we can make their straight combat skills better (while keeping the balance), which makes them more cost effective. The problem is that I don't see any stats we can give to the marine/stalker/zealot etc. which will reward terran players for dropping compared to just straight up "A-move" all of your army. As long as the maurauder and the immortal isn't added into the game, "a-moving" is the superior alternative. Of course we could skip the combat shield, reduce stalkers damage vs light further (from 11 to 8-9), and buff zealots instead. Then protoss players are likely to have 60-80% zealots and just 20-40% stalkers vs terran bio, however what type of consequences will that have for ZvP? Would Terran build Marauders in the current TvZ in Starbow? They deal no extra damage vs anything of significance until the late game. Build them just to absorb damage from Banelings? Why not just build Vultures + Spider mines, which would do the same thing much cheaper? Marines are better vs all other Zerg units in the mid game, compared to the proposed Marauder. (Unless we rework the balance even more.) Doesn't lings drag spider mines into marines? In HOTS at least, we are seeing mauruaders used as meatshield (some times) vs banelings. I could imagine matrix + maurauder being a pretty decent combo. Yes, but we do not know how big the buff needs to be. You assume it needs a larger rework, hence your suggestion of very reworked stats on the Protoss units. I would prefer to take smaller steps in the balance. True, but adding the immortal gives us the opportunity to tweak various stats, without messing up the balance of everything. Let's imagine one potential uninteded consequence my suggestion; Stalkers turns out to be too good vs zerg early on as they do 15 damage vs hydras and lings. That problem is easily fixable; Nerf damage against normal to 14 instead, and give the immortal 11 damage vs normal (instead of 10). This way the game will still be balanced in the midgame in terms of cost efficiency vs a hydra/lurkers, but early stalker pressure will be slightly weaker. If on the other hand, 15 damage isn't enough, then we can specialize both units further. But without adding the immortal, it becomes very limited what type of stats we can give to the stalker. It seems to me like it needs stats within the 10-14 range vs everything. By not adding the maurauder and the immortal, it becomes really hard to balance stuff, as compensating the race in other ways is more likely to lead to uninteded consequences. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Especially if such balance idea looks better than any balance idea based on the existing units in the game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On July 08 2013 21:40 Kabel wrote: Yeah there might be better room for balancing the game with two additional units. But if they get implemented, I think we need to have a good overall picture over the unit stats. It will probably not be perfect as soon as it is implemented, but if the stats look good enough in theory, then it can be worth to try them in reality. Especially if such balance idea looks better than any balance idea based on the existing units in the game. At this point, I kinda look at Starbow in this way; What type of changes can we make so we as fast as possible can begin to "advertise" Starbow to a larger target group. I think immortal + the maurauder makes everything so much easier from a "matchup-design" and balance POV. I won't rule out the possibility that they are not needed to get to the desired state, but I think the Starbow project will be delayed if we need to change 10 variables (instead of 2-3) each time we come to the conlusion that unit X is OP. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
If you change marine range to 5 then you will force toss to either getting stalkers range or not getting stalkers at all. In pvz you already have to get stalkers range to use them as they are total trash without it (slower than most zerg units, beaten by hydras, useless without range vs muta and lurkers and unable to defend busts). I'm only not sure how much pvp would lose on that change, probably not much, as blink range stalkers are anyway core in every pvp. Also, if maruder is implemented then it must have good range other way of shooting back at stalkers be useful vs reaver and ht. Instead of introducing new unitsmaybedo something with reaoee/banshee/vulture? | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
On July 08 2013 18:00 Kabel wrote: A patch without the Immortal and Marauder? I have looked for a potential solution at the current balance / match-up dynamic problems, WITHOUT adding the Immortal and Marauder. I want to examine the possibilities before doing such a crucial change. Here is a short summary of the current problems in each match-up: >>>+ Show Spoiler + PvT - Terran has no good way to apply pressure in the early game, becasue once the Reaver comes into play, Bio is stone dead. Marines just seem too weak to even hurt Protoss going only Stalkers. - Strong Blink Stalkers + Warp in makes it hard for Terran to push out, since P can just get his army into the T base. - Mass Stalkers seems to dominate each game. - Predictable, because Terran "must" go for the same units in every game. (If they wanna win.) ZvP - Protoss has a hard time to secure a third base, due to the Gateway units being weak vs Zergs core army. ZvT - No apparent huge problems. There are surely imbalances, but players have different views on this. Some players says Terran can not push with bio vs Zerg early, cause it is so easy to stop it. TvT - Predictable because there is always Mech vs Mech. A Barrack has no purpose in this match-up. PvP - Seems to consist of mass Stalkers vs mass Stalkers. Its predictable and not exciting? Note: Ok, there are surely more aspects to the problems than my simplified summary. There are also many ways to solve the problems. Preferably so we get a good and exciting game. My suggestion how to "fix" this without the Immortal and Marauder: >>>+ Show Spoiler + - Marine start with range 5. (Instead of 4.) - No Range upgrade. Instead Combat shield which gives +10 HP. - Reaper gains a more useful upgrade for mid/late game utility. Maybe bring back the G-4 Charge bombs? - Banshee start with range 6 instead of 5. - Stalker damage is changed FROM 11 vs light, 13 vs all, 15 vs armored, TO 10 vs light, 12 vs armored, 14 vs all. - Stalker range upgrade costs 100/100 instead of 150/150. - Archon gains a great boost in stats. (Maybe not Armored anymore.) - Reaver damage is reduced TO 80 vs all, FROM 100 to all. - If possible, when the Reaver attacks a unit, some kind of marker will appear on it, so the enemy player knows this particular unit will soon be hit. It would allow for more micro and splitting. - Zerg can build unlimited Queens instead of only 1 per Hatchery. - Devourer gains the passive ability which allows it to destroy energy on each attack and convert it into life. Note: The Stalker is not nerfed. It is just a rearrangement of what type of units it is good against. What would this accomplish? + Show Spoiler + TvP: Marines would be stronger at applying pressure in the early game. They would be able to fight better vs Stalkers, even unupgraded! With the Combat shield upgrade will they survive one more attack from Stalkers and Zealots. Mass Stalkers vs Terran if he goes for a Bio + Tank push will not end pretty... P must mix in other early/mid game units, like Zealots or Sentinels. Banshee with range 6, and Stalkers with weaker damage vs armored, will make Banshee harassment more viable? Stalkers would deal less damage vs Siege tanks. (P needs Zealots, Warp Prism drop or Sentinels with Safeguard!) Reavers with weaker damage from start will still be strong. BUT they will not destroy entire groups of Marines and Hydras as easily! Instead will a few Marines and a few more Hydras barely survive the splash damage. UNTILL Protoss researches the extra damage upgrade for Reavers. (Which helps to delay the super power of the Reaver.) This would make the Reaver still strong vs Bio and Hydras as soon as the Reaver is built. BUT it will not be as insane, until Reaver damage is researched. PvZ: - With 14 dmg to normal armor, Stalkers would kill Hydras and Mutalisks with 1 shot less. But most importantly, as Zaphod pointed out, with the cheaper Stalker range upgrade will they be better at microing, especially vs un-upgraded Hydras. - Archons with better stats will make them stronger in all match-ups. (As an other late game unit for Protoss to punish enemy players for sticking to mass low-tech units.) TvZ: - Stronger Marines will also make Terran more able to push vs Zerg. (Some Z players says they do not fear early Bio pushes at all.) Once Zerg gets into higher tech units, like Speed Banelings, Lurkers, Dark Swarm, Ultralisks, Devourer with the new Contaminate ability, will mass Marines + Medics in itself not work anymore. Instead T must mix in Tanks, Spider mines, Vessels etc? - If Marine pushes are stronger from start, Zerg might need help vs this. Terran seems to already have strong early harassment options with Reaper + Vultures. It is hard to defend vs all possible harassment/pressure scenarios. With unlimited Queens again will Z be able to get a more versatile base defence. (But ofc not strong enough to stop harassment in itself!) Devourers new passive destroy-energy-ability will give Z another tool in the late game to fight vs mass Vessels. PvP: Since Stalkers become worse vs Zealots now, will Zealots play a bigger role in the army composition? Other thoughts: + Show Spoiler + With these stats, Stalkers will not be able to outrange Bunkers anymore. (I know you will cry now, Sumadin.) Instead can I buff the Sentinels attack range from 5 to 6. (Earlier they outranged bunkers too.) In fact, the Null Ward spell on the Sentinel will recieve a buff, as another tool for Protoss to use in the mid game in all match-ups. (Instead of reyling entirely on massing Stalkers, which will now be harder.) My suggested change will however not make much for TvT. I doubt Bio will be more viable now. Maybe will Banshees be too strong in TvT. If Protoss Warp in + Warp Prism is still too strong vs T in the midgame, then we can either delay Warp tech upgrade, add an upgrade to the Warp Prism which unlocks "Warp mode", or something else. Thoughts on this? Is this even enough to solve the problems? @ TvT: It think mech vs mech is much cooler than bio vs mech, mech vs mech can be a real chessgame, you'll never achieve that with bio vs mech. I don't get all this crap about 'no variation possible', you can open in many different ways but you will indeed always transition into mech, but not everyone plays the same mechstyle, we haven't even seen anyone try tankdrops, tvt is that unexplored. Ignore the haters, tvt is fine. @PvP: same story, stalker/reaver vs stalker/reaver isn't necessarily boring, it all depends on the compared skill between two players. With the buffed archon we might see more zealot/archon mixed in. @marine: I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but adding in zealots to hold early terran pushes actually sucks because of stim, kite all day. That's the reason i only make stalkers to hold pushes, not because the stalker is OP. As for combat shields, I guess you remember the game vs fen where he went for a bio/tank allin on 2 bases and i barely held it with pure stalker? Had he not been caught out of position then i would have lost my third without doubt and maybe even the game. Imagine his push with combat shields and nerfed stalkers against both marines and tanks... I think you all overestimate the power of the stalker, why do you make zealots early in sc2? Because there are forcefields available which allow my zealots to catch up and actually be usefull, starbow doesn't have that feature and thus are pretty useless from 6 - 12 mins because of micro. @marker for reaver: I believe this isn't necessary if this game would be played by pro's, but I think it's viable as a temporary treat to help players get better at microing versus reavers, to remove it later on (micro vs reavers is actually much like splitting marines vs an incomming baneling imo). On July 08 2013 20:15 Hider wrote: @ Kabels suggestions Differences in TvP - Protoss gateway units are now even more cost ineffective in a straight up fight vs bio. While they were cost ineffective before, the protoss could use his (blink) stalkers to kite all day against the bio units, and when/if the bio units ended up at the protoss base, medis were out of energy/marines were dead. - Since bio has become more cost effective it is more likely to make some bio heavy timing attacks straight up ovepowered. Those could turn out to be difficult to balance. Was the maurauder instead implemented, bio would actually become less cost effective in a straight up fight against the correct protoss gateway unit composition, however, their mobility advantage would increase. - Doesn't reward terran for dropping against a protoss player (why not just attack straight at him rather than investing in dropships which blink stalkers are still pretty good against?). Differences in ZvP - Lurkers will be extremely OP. This can likely be fixed by changing armor type (?). Nobody ever tried to put some matrixes on the front marines while moving across the map... pretty much makes kiting with a couple stalkers useless. No, actually adding the marauder would make for overpowered pushes even more, because zealots are (like i've said before) useless in earlygame vs T (unless for some crazy rush). You're still better off dropping because of reavers, reavers are immobile and cause the P to invest a lot of attention to chase your drops around with a warp prism (and not allowing it to be sniped). Lurkers are already OP vs stalkers, so much that you never want to engage more than 3-4 that are setup, you're already forced to use reavers to take em out, i don't see much difference. ---------------------------------------------- @stalker/immortal: You want mech to be stronger in pvt and stalkers better vs zerg earlygame, like big J has said, easy solution, make stalker anti-light and then everything is fixed? You're not fighting costeffective against lurkers with stalkers anyway, gotta use reavers. P would have no gateway unit that is 'good' vs tanks, which is desirable, means you either needs to be really economically ahead to go mass gateway units and else you need more techunits. Adding immortals wouldn't exactly fix anything about the MU because it would just make me get stalkers till the early midgame and then mass zealot/immortal, pretty much same as the current zealot/stalker but just without blink and blink isn't that strong in mid/endgame vs mech anyway, the fear of losing all your stalkers to spidermines is just too big (and ofcourse many more tanks in the game). The only real question is, do we make stalker armored or light? making them light would buff them vs hydra's and tanks, so i guess leave them with armored stats. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
http://www.twitch.tv/kanban85 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
I agree with solid in this vod. The whole Nerve Jammer vs dark swarm isn't very appealing to me. The problem with Nerve jammer is that it's so damn powerful given its just 2 clicks.. Then to "balance" it in the ZvT matchup, we have another ability (dark swarm) which requires 2 actions as well. Besides those two OP abilities, it's just too armies amoving each other. You could argue that I could target fire the Nerve Jammer, however the problem is that it has already done its damage by just lasting a couple of seconds (units clump up really badly which makes tanks much stronger). That's enough to win a fight. Secondly,, its a goddamn mess to target it when you have a really large armies which clump on top of the NJ's. I have nothing against the fact that a defender with nice micro and positioning can be really cost effective against an attacker - But nerve Jammer isn't really micro IMO (and dark swarm neither too some extent). Both are low APM/OP/predictable abilities. Nerve Jammer could perhaps be improved designwise by giving it like a 2 second delay. So SV casts NJ and after 2 seconds it activates. However, nothing will happen if the opponent reacts quickly and kills the NJ within 2 seconds. This will create a lot more uncertainty IMO, and it will be a much needed nerf to this ability. Regarding Dark Swarm - It feels impossible to miss anything tbh with a casting range of like 5. I wonder what would happen if it had a range of 2 or something really low to create more uncertainty. At last, yes, zerg is too a-movish at the moment. The only time where you really feel micro/control is rewarded is; 1) Against storm 2) Against dropplay (where you need to split your units correctly). 3) Lurkers 4) When opponent doesn't ultraturtle, and tries to play a somewhat straight up game, then he becomes vulnerable to dropplay which is quite fun and multitaskrewarding. 5) Playing against irradiate (where you need to split up your units). What are solutions to this problem? 1) More APM rewarding abilities instead of 1 click and strong effect (abduct for instnace is an example here, I feel it would be used more if viper was just a better tier 2 unit). As a specific suggestion,I would like a new ability for the ultra, I think its quite bad at the moment (at least its unintutive as I have no idea how to use it properly). 2) Opponent needs more AOE-damaging abilities which rewards micro for the zerg player. Marker on reavers targeted units feels like a good step here. But IMO terran definitely needs something as well here. Eveything against terran seems to be about flanking/good arc, which doesn't have a particularly high skillcap. Irradiate is really the only exception, but during battles, it doesn't seem practical to micro against irradiate. I would like to see terran have some kind of ability which rewarded micro to the same extent as micro'ing vs storm does or splitting vs banelings does. 3) Heavy turtleplay shouldn't be the optimal play for the opponent. Immortal/later reaver will likely solve a big part of the boredom I have felt as of late playing against toss. Against terran, I would like to see the 4 changes below, to make dropplay/muta's more exciting; 1) Nerf/redesgin turrets 2) Nerf to goliaths (they seem to kill both overlords and mutalisks too quickly. When I look at BW vods, they seem to take forever to kill anything. 3) Vikings start with an antiair seeker missile instead of a normal splash damage attack. Basically, I believe HOTS seeker missile is one of the most exciting things in the game - Everytime you see it in the game, casters goes crazy. At the moment we really need some more "crazy unpreditable stuff" in Starbow. And of course this will reward battle micro quite a bit as good players will pull back the targetted mutalisks. (note: The difference between this type of micro and micro'ing agianst irradiate is that over the course of a couple of seconds, irradiate will often times have done enough damage to make it not practical/worth the apm during a battle to pull the irradiated unit out, since it will die anyway quite quickly. With seeker missile you are much more rewarded for pulling back targetted units). 4) To differentiate seeker missile from irradiate and reward the terran player for not just relying on SV's instead of vikings vs mutalisks/air, we could consider to make irradiate only work on ground units - Other more intuitive changes would be preferred though. Please remember, that these suggestions aren't really about balance - It's about making zerg more demanding and more fun overall. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On July 09 2013 09:30 404AlphaSquad wrote: well, I kind of like that even when you are behind, you can come back with some good spells and positioning and micro. if you look at our games, it was how we engaged, placed the spells, and were positioned, flanked, outmultitasked what decided the course of the game. I like it that way! the power of the spell isnt the problem in my opinion we just have to find a solution to make it more exciting and to implement micro in it. a missile instead of instant cast, or make it an ability which is attached on the sv so that you have to get the sv in position first to use nerve jammer. the second idea i like most ! Honestly, I look at our games and think that it was nerve jammer/dark/swarm/timings/gameplan rather than mechanics that decided the game. I look at that type of game and think, my mechanics/EAPM doesn't matter. After almost every HOTS game I think; "Damn, if I just was 10% faster, I would be able to do x, y, z etc." The latter is IMO a much more satisfying feeling (I know some people disagree here, but at least it should be a combination of the two factors). The problem I have with Starbow is that, while each matchup gives a very good first impression, the more you figure it out, the more boring it becomes, the less mechanically demanding and the more turtl'ish it feels. Wouldn't it be more fun if we could design a matchup where turtling became less and less efficient as players figured out the matchup and improved their mechanics, instead of the other way around (which is how it feels like atm.)? But I guess this is mostly due to the current game design of Starbow, where players are rewarded for teching to extremely strong defensive units/static defenses on 2-3 bases. And in terms of micro abilities, I would argue that there have been a too negative attitude towards EAPM rewarding abilities, which almost have created a situation where the average diamond player can be almost as cost effective during battles as a GM player. (the few exception to that is probably marine/medi + reavers which are very microintensive and add new elements relative to their HOTS counterparts). | ||
| ||
