Agreed. ^
I think you have really nailed the heart of what it means to be a Terran unit. I commend you for an excellent write up (though some of the data could have been presented in a clearer way), and I would like to see these changes in action. I would at the very least like to see them tested.

Von

United States363 Posts

October 13 2012 21:49 GMT

#22

On October 14 2012 05:02 BadgKat wrote:
I want to play the game you design. It sounds more fun.

This.

Word.

ItWhoSpeaks really 'gets it', understands the game at a high level, analysis is spot on on all three write-ups.

Good work man. Much luck getting any or all of this to sink in at Blizz HQ.

Von

United States363 Posts

October 13 2012 21:53 GMT

#23

On October 14 2012 06:14 ledarsi wrote:
I nominate ItWhoSpeaks as lead designer of Starcraft. Not even joking- these three posts on how the game should have been made hit absolutely every point of interest. Blizzard, make it so. Fix your game.

This too lol.

mlspmatt

Canada404 Posts

October 13 2012 22:14 GMT

#24

Blizzard should hire you. Great Post

Tankz123

Denmark228 Posts

October 13 2012 22:20 GMT

#25

Again, please, compare the DPS, not the damage itself.

it doesnt matter if you say "holy crap ,zerglings do exact same damage!" - when one of them attack twice as fast.

Aveng3r

United States2411 Posts

October 13 2012 23:21 GMT

#26

a lot of these ideas are awesome. i especially like the one with the thor repairing itself (i understood that correctly, right?)

LOLItsRyann

England551 Posts

October 13 2012 23:43 GMT

#27

On October 14 2012 04:16 Incomplet wrote:

Show nested quote +

SIIIIIICK!!!! Vouch for this...this would be fricking awesome!!!

I was just about to say this!

A simple small change like this, is what could make things interesting, because right now, the time for Vikings to decelerate, stop, and transform, is hurting them a lot.

All in all, I'm really impressed by your threads, you've realy put a lot of thought into them and the community reflects it, especially with the test map! I really hope some of your ideas come into play, there are some good and some less good choices imo but well thought out ideas are always appreciated.

I really like the snipe change too, it keeps snipe being a cool one shot spell for smaller units, but nerfs what needed nerfing without changing any other aspect of the ghost.

Tppz!

Germany1449 Posts

October 13 2012 23:59 GMT

#28

On October 14 2012 06:14 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
On Turrets: a 25 energy turret would be pretty damn scary. I think letting the Turret scale with Ship Weapons would probably be a better fix.

Why would it be scary? Infested Terrans are way more powerful and dont take up as much place to spawn. Turrets right now are pretty bad. And I would scale them with Vehicle Upgrades since its less a flying unit then a vehicle.

Other than that: Awesome post! I dont agree too much on the tank thing but its very thoughtout and pretty scary how good all your suggestions/reviews are. keep going!

Fen1kz

Russian Federation216 Posts

October 14 2012 00:04 GMT

#29

^ this

seriously, it is a first guy who suggested remove strike cannons in his balance thread
and he doesnt want to add +5 sec to bunker..

lpunatic

235 Posts

October 14 2012 00:16 GMT

#30

I feel like Blizzard have a bit of a "sunk costs" mentality with regard to game balance - they've said that it's very close to 50/50/50 in all matchups, and I feel like they want to preserve some of this with regard to WOL units (though it also seems that they're more open to experimenting with HOTS units, which is good).

I think some of the ideas here are interesting, though. I would really like to see a slower mech style more common in lategame TvP; I think if it existed it might even help to bring out the strengths of bio play in the same scenario.

Buchan

Canada184 Posts

October 14 2012 00:33 GMT

#31

Please hire this guy as the lead multiplayer designer Blizzard. Let Dustin "platinum" Browder design single player.

sona

Canada52 Posts

October 14 2012 00:33 GMT

#32

A group of people should make their own beta to test all these out.

Zombo Joe

Canada850 Posts

October 14 2012 00:47 GMT

#33

On October 14 2012 09:33 Buchan wrote:
Please hire this guy as the lead multiplayer designer Blizzard. Let Dustin "platinum" Browder design single player.

That would be a compliment.

rysecake

United States2632 Posts

October 14 2012 01:06 GMT

#34

great points. put this up on the blizzard forum though, i don't think they reply to tl

BadAssJ

United States136 Posts

October 14 2012 01:22 GMT

#35

really random arcturus video

LockeTazeline

2390 Posts

October 14 2012 01:59 GMT

#36

These are such good suggestions, especially the moving viking. That would be so sick to watch as a spectator.

All in all, a great series. I hope Blizzard listens.

SigmaoctanusIV

United States3313 Posts

October 14 2012 02:55 GMT

#37

On October 14 2012 08:59 Tppz! wrote:

Show nested quote +

Turrets are scary because they last for 3 minutes being able to much down double would be damn scary they would need duration and damage decrease to work.

YyapSsap

New Zealand1511 Posts

October 14 2012 03:20 GMT

#38

On October 14 2012 10:59 LockeTazeline wrote:
These are such good suggestions, especially the moving viking. That would be so sick to watch as a spectator.

All in all, a great series. I hope Blizzard listens.

SC2 needs... MOVING SHOT!!!

Cant believe they took it out. LIke you glide in, fire your missiles/attacks off while gliding back. That made wraith micro so beautiful to watch.

And to the OP. Excellent as usual! Seriously, the game would be SO much more interesting with those changes. One more thing to add to the raven is how HSMs work. They are far too binary (either lots of explosions including the death of the ravens) or nothing. They should implement something like a damage over time, or deal damage after a timer HSM spell where both gives some sort of control to the opposing player to mitigate damage. Direct damage dealing abilities (especially AOE) should be avoided at all costs due to the binary nature of them.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

October 14 2012 03:38 GMT

#39

I entirely agree with a majority of the proposed changes. However, the proposed raven change seems a bit too strong to me. A 25 energy auto-turret would be absurdly strong. Lone raven harass would be extremely destructive, as a mineral line would be shredded by 8 turrets queue-dropped. This is not even comparable to the infested terran considering a turret can last 3 min (or 4 if upgraded), and has 125 health, and has a similar level of mobility to the infested terran.

Evangelist

1246 Posts

October 14 2012 03:56 GMT

#40

Concussive Shell enables early game Terran micro. It doesn't shut it down. Without Conc Shell, bio would be completely unable to contend with anything. I wish people would get this right.

I also find it faintly amusing (but entirely predictable) that there's a chorus of "LET HIM DESIGN THE GAME BLIZZARD" ongoing. You realize that in the grand scheme of things, these changes are incredibly minor iterations based off the designs already implemented in the game? Blizzard already did the hard work - the OP is just making a few extremely minor changes based off his own ideas, though his hit rate is a little higher than most.

About the only vaguely original idea here is the idea of vikings being able to dive bomb things which while cool isn't really game changing so long as vikings only do 12 damage a second or so for the supply and minerals they cost.