EPTSo scout>tank than stalker<tank
scout<vults than stalker>vults
scout<goliaths than stalker>goliaths
scout>vessels than stalker<vessels
seems fine to me
[A] Starbow - Page 394
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
So scout>tank than stalker<tank scout<vults than stalker>vults scout<goliaths than stalker>goliaths scout>vessels than stalker<vessels seems fine to me | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
On September 07 2013 03:43 Hider wrote: That's exactly the problem. If you go Robo (with sentinel) you can harass in the same way as if you go Stargate. Thus, it doesn't matter (as terarn) wheterh you scout robo tech or stargate tech. You will/can face the same type of harass (air-based). I believe harass should be different dependant on what type of tech you are getting. Each tech pattern should have its weakness's and strenghts, and if move Sentinel to Robo we risk undermining that concept. In that case we should probably nerf the Sentinel's direct damage so that it can have a better defined role as a support caster with Null Ward and Safeguard, which should require different responses than Stargate tech. No one is saying what? That Stalker's are the new Dragoon, or that Immortal is? Because everyone is treating the Stalker as though it's the Dragoon and it's just plain incorrect. There is no easy way here. You will have to spend a lot of time tweaking stats regardless of what solution is used. There will probably be more balance tweaks required in the future yes, but this solution cuts down on the number of them we will have to deal with imo. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On September 07 2013 03:52 404AlphaSquad wrote: I kind of like how mech and toss units interact by now. So scout>tank than stalker<tank scout<vults than stalker>vults scout<goliaths than stalker>goliaths scout>vessels than stalker<vessels seems fine to me No because you only get Goliaths vs Scouts. Vs stalkers you just gets tanks. So vs a Scout-based unit composition, terran is A) Relatively less mobile and B) Less cost efficient due to having much more Goliaths and SV's being countered. Further, remembmer that its not like Stalkers are good vs Goliaths. They trade evenly.... Once you can get out Scouts out (at some point in the midgame), you are always better off totally stopping stalker production. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
Edit: Scouts probably should not be beating them cost-effectively though. How is that even possible? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On September 07 2013 03:59 SmileZerg wrote: Stalkers don't need to be good vs Goliaths though, Immortals/Zealots are the counter to Goliaths. Yes they don't need to be. Stalkers I think are fine atm. They can keep their stats. Its just other units that are still imbalanced (scouts, dropships, banshee's perhaps, hydra offcreep HP regeneration). Edit: Scouts probably should not be beating them cost-effectively though. Scout don't do that. But it forces Goliaths to be produced, which sucks vs immortal + Zealot. Stalkers rewards the mech player for building tanks. So Stalkers really doesn't result in any indirect costs for the terran player. Playing against Scouts though have huge indirect costs for the terran player. Vs stalker + zealot + immortal. Terran can go: Vulture + tanks + SV's > Semi-rapes protoss. Vs. Zealot + immortal + Scout --> Terran goes Vultures + tanks + goliaths and trades much worse due to wasting ressources on Goliaths and not being able to EMP. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:03 Fishgle wrote: Umm if the wiki is correct... scout's tickle cannon does +5 to armored. maybe that should be removed? It has been removed. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
| ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
What's the trouble with Dropships exactly? On September 07 2013 04:01 Hider wrote: Scout don't do that. But it forces Goliaths to be produced, which sucks vs immortal + Zealot. Stalkers forces tanks on the other hand. So Stalkers really have no indirect costs. Playing against Scouts though have huge indirect costs for the terran player. Vs stalker + zealot + immortal. Terran can go: Vulture + tanks. Vs. Zealot + immortal + Scout --> Terran goes Vultures + tanks + goliaths and trades much worse due to wasting ressources on Goliaths. Oh okay, I follow. I'm not sure if I consider that a design problem though since it forces more diverse compositions, I'd say that's purely a balance issue which probably shouldn't be dealt with by making Scouts less viable. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
What's the trouble with Dropships exactly? Turboboost. Stalkers do crap damage to them. IF he drops tanks, the stalkers may have to run. You need tons of stalkers=they are crap in direct combat=resources to crap Most effective right now is scout kinda big time, though u need stargates for it. Right now you need gateway= zealot, robo=immortal, stargate=scout. @balance its a big mess and the mess is increasing @scout vs goliath What has changed excactly? Scout: +2 damage, 100minerals cheaper. Goliath: Worse to micro=delayed attack | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
Oh okay, I follow. I'm not sure if I consider that a design problem though since it forces more diverse compositions, I'd say that's purely a balance issue which probably shouldn't be dealt with by making Scouts less viable. Its the other way around. An OP scout makes Stalker useless in the matchup. If Scout was nerfed in the role the stalker has (as anti vulture + anti dropship/banshee play), then it would still see usage vs Medi's, SV's and BC's. By increasing the cost of the Scout it is much more expensive to get out to counter terran harass play, and thus it will mostly see usage as a response to terrans energy-based units. I suggest an anti-air based damage buff to keep it strong in its AA air role. What's the trouble with Dropships exactly? I think the combo of siege pick up and speed boost is imbalanced against stalkers. @scout vs goliath What has changed excactly? Scout: +2 damage, 100minerals cheaper. Goliath: Worse to micro=delayed attack Ignore Scout vs Goliaths. Its not about that dynamic in it self. Its about the fact that Scout is completely dominant to the Stalker and it makes the game unbalanceable as toss gets advantages relative to BW while it neutralizes the benefits terran has received in Sbow. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
There is a solution: remove anti ground weapon. Scout is a unit that should counter armored units air. Due to graviton beam of the corsair, there is a great synergy between these two units, that has been overlooked by many players, who buried the true potential of the scout. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:25 JohnnyZerg wrote: @Scout There is a solution: remove anti ground weapon. Scout is a unit that should counter armored units air. Due to graviton beam of the corsair, there is a great synergy between these two units, that has been overlooked by many players, who buried the true potential of the scout. It is a bit weird that protoss then have two air units wihtout anti-ground. Also I don't think corsair + Scout is that strong - especially without Scout's anti-ground damage. But besides, this is definitely a very effective suggestion that IMO would make balancing the game a lot simpler. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:25 JohnnyZerg wrote: @Scout There is a solution: remove anti ground weapon. Scout is a unit that should counter armored units air. Due to graviton beam of the corsair, there is a great synergy between these two units, that has been overlooked by many players, who buried the true potential of the scout. Unnecessary. Besides how do we justify taking away one of the aspects of a unit that is taken directly from BW? Removing AA attack from Immortal is different because it is an evolution of the Dragoon and the Stalker makes up for it. Removing AA attack from Banshee, again different because it is not the Wraith and has more powerful AtG. But we don't have a suitable replacement for the Scout, Blizzard never made one. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
Removing AA attack from Immortal is different because it is an evolution of the Dragoon and the Stalker makes up for it. The Sentinel makes up for it. Without the Sentinel I agree that the Scout should have an anti-ground-attack. But I think the game becomes easier to balance when units have clear weakness's. The fact that Goliaths now beats Scouts isn't a clear weakness, because without the presense of Scouts you wouldn't build Goliaths in the first place. Unnecessary. Besides how do we justify taking away one of the aspects of a unit that is taken directly from BW? Maybe unncesary, but we buffed it in other ways which has had gigantic consequences on gameplay. It makes a lot of sense if we nerf it in other ways. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:41 SmileZerg wrote: Unnecessary. Besides how do we justify taking away one of the aspects of a unit that is taken directly from BW? Removing AA attack from Immortal is different because it is an evolution of the Dragoon and the Stalker makes up for it. Removing AA attack from Banshee, again different because it is not the Wraith and has more powerful AtG. But we don't have a suitable replacement for the Scout. The Sentinel is a stargate unit with an Anti-Ground attack  but yea. i'm not sure how i feel about changing the scout. i'd prefer to see its cost increased and its spell require research or something | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:46 Hider wrote: The Sentinel makes up for it. Without the Sentinel I agree that the Scout should have an anti-ground-attack. But I think the game becomes easier to balance when units have clear weakness's. The fact that Goliaths now beats Scouts isn't a clear weakness, because without the presense of Scouts you wouldn't build Goliaths in the first place. Maybe unncesary, but we buffed it in other ways which has had gigantic consequences on gameplay. It makes a lot of sense if we nerf it in other ways. ...Given the Sentinel, and the fact that we have Corsair with Graviton Beam, maybe. But I still think the Sentinel belongs in the Robo. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Zealot_(StarCraft) | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On September 07 2013 07:42 Hider wrote: Leg enchancement in BW was 133 seconds. Currently it is like 65 seconds. Blink and range are really fast as well. http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Zealot_(StarCraft) http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Citadel_of_Adun Who is right? ^^. Damnit liquipedia, why are you so inconsistent. I'll be checking side by side BW to SBOW research time for everything tonight. It'll be a pain in the ass :D Edit: Some more inconsistencies at liquipedia + Show Spoiler + While I'm pretty sure the wikia version is correct I'm going to double check. This means I cannot rely on liquipedia for stats >.< | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
So I hope next patch will adress this and I think Foxxan has a point that there is a core problem with protoss. First of all, protoss is forced to mix in stalker and Immortals. Since Immortals are just Dragoons * 1.3, this means that the overall fighting force is worse vs tank heavy play than in BW. Secondly, protoss does suffer in prodction relative to BW as it needs to invest in the more expensive robo facility. In return it needs to rely heavily on Safeguard (to even it out), which does indeed create a bit weird gameplay. Sentinel was (I belive) intended as a voluntary support unit rather than a neccesity-unit. But relative to BW, I believe a protoss army without Sentinels in the midgame is roughly 25% worse. Sentinels does even it out so it becomes somewhat equal. I think we should try to strife for a solution closer to BW, which means protoss core army in the midgame should only be 5-10% worse than in BW, and then the Sentinel also just adds another 5-10%. . To obtain that, I see two different types of suggestions. 1) We buff Immortal vs armored units. This should have happened a long time ago I think. The immortal should never just have been a Dragoon * 1.3 in all stat values. Safeguard will be nerfed a bit more. This allows a core protoss army to combat better in terms of cost efficiency vs mech and Safeguard adds an extra 5-10% rather than an extra 25%. 2) We keep the current stat values of the Immortal, but put it at gateway which will reduce infastructure cost of protoss. Then Sentinel will go to Robo fac. This makes it possible for protoss to get more stuff out. At the moment there seems to be a bit of an issue in the midgame where terran actually has more stuff than protoss, which means protoss needs to rely too heeavily on spellcasters and can't army trade in a staight up fight. Relative to BW protoss will have similar production. Without Sentinels, protoss wil fare slightly worse vs tanks than in BW, while Vultures are slightly worse. With a nerfed Safeguard in the mix tanks are roughly as strong as in BW. The latter is probably the most clean solution and will resemble BW the most. Obviously there are stuff about it I am not that much a fan of, but it does make balancing both TvP and PvZ alot easier. In both solutions we can also consider to increase Vulture HP by 10 in order to take into account that Stalkers are stronger vs vultures. Also, planetary needs to go. Its kinda dumb at the moment how well terran can defend on some maps. | ||
| ||
