|
On November 05 2012 14:38 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 13:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 05 2012 13:32 Rabiator wrote:On November 05 2012 12:28 Wingblade wrote:On November 04 2012 08:06 anon734912 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote:
Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically. I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape. Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast. No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield. Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject. For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest. Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that. If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example. I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e). I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that....  . The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries. Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential. So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group.
Why do you spend so much time commenting on SC2 when you don't like it? It's incredibly obnoxious. Also Zerg larvae per hatchery are limited. How do you not know a simple fact like that before going on a rant about larvae mechanics you obviously didn't bother to research?
Also putting an emphasis on scouting raises the skill cap, since scouting isn't always easy. As the biggest BW apologist I've ever seen, I would have thought that anything that "lowers the skill cap" would be anathema to you.
|
On December 01 2012 01:24 The_Darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 14:38 Rabiator wrote:On November 05 2012 13:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 05 2012 13:32 Rabiator wrote:On November 05 2012 12:28 Wingblade wrote:On November 04 2012 08:06 anon734912 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:13 Gfire wrote:
Does anyone think it would work to make FFs unable to be placed on top of enemy units, and your own units have to move out of the way first? The same mechanic as placing a building, basically. I really like this idea. It would be impossible to use it to split your opponent's army, but a good player will be able to cast FFs in the gaps. It can still be used defensively and to sculpt the battlefield to your desired shape. Ideally, I'd like to see it take up 2x2 build square and require 1 empty square at the target point to be allowed to be cast. No. Are you trying to break PvZ and PvP? How does Protoss stop roaches if we can't split the roach group up? How do I stop 4gates if the opponent is running up against the last forcefield. Thats why the game needs drastic changes to its general mechanics. The problem isnt the Roach itself but rather the ability of Zerg to FLOOD the battlefield with them after a certain point. Thus the real culprit is their production speed boost ... larva inject. For a while now I have wondered why the three races have gotten more or less limited production speed boosts, because that weighs their respective units differently. In the case of Terrans for example the Siege Tank is hard to reproduce, because it cant be made with a reactor. This is one factor why mech isnt as viable as bio IMO. Zerg have gotten the most powerful production speed boost, because they can produce anything they want with the larvae they have and this is supposed to be balanced by the fact that they cant produce both drones and units in the beginning. Well it doesnt balance it in the slightest. Warp Gate and Inject Larvae have produced many problems in the past, just as mass-Marine production, but sadly people have laid the blame on the unit instead of the mass-production capability. The solution is quite easy: Just get rid of all production speed boosts and also economic speed boosts (whining about the MULE has been popular for a while, right?) and rebalance the game around that. If Blizzard was fixing the game from this end they could also fix the "infantry density problem" (a.k.a. the deathball) by making units spread out as a normal state and only clump up through micro, limit the unit selection to 12 and readjust AoE damage. This would also allow the more expensive Stalkers to survive longer against cheaper Marines and Roaches for example. I disagree with your theory on production speed boosts pertaining to Zerg specifically. Whether or not larvae inject provides additional larvae, the Zerg will have the ability to make multiple units at once from larvae that have already spawned. Sure ultras may have a 60s buildtime, but when you're making like 15 at once, you're still "flooding" the battle field. Larve inject merely accelerates the rate at which you can generate said larvae, which building additional hatcheries accomplishes the same thing, just not as well. If additional hatcheries would do the same thing as inject larvae, just at a toned down rate, than it implies that inject larvae would only need to be toned down to be balanced, or the entire concept of Zerg production is flawed rather than it's accelerated production (and we know it's not going to get changed no matter what so w/e). I don't like how inject larvae works either (4 fucking larvae?!). Since the beta I argued it should be 2 hatch, 3 lair, and 4 at hive and THEN you balance around that, but it's way too late balance wise to try to accomplish that.... . The difference between BW and SC2 is that hatcheries can produce up to THREE larvae and then stop, but Inject Larvae can "break this limit" and stockpile up to any amount per hatchery. The whole point is that a queen costs less than half the amount of a hatchery and allows this to happen and thus it speeds up the whole process without Zerg needing to build LOTS of hatcheries. Even fiddling around with the number of larva inject wont help fixing the issue, because it works the same way for all three races. With the MULE and some reactors Terrans can flood the map with Marines and at 7-8 Warp Gates a Protoss can flood the game with lots of their infantry. This is a bad thing, because it puts too much emphasis on scouting and being able to react to the aggression of your opponent. Now for progamers this is easy, but what about casuals? They will be swamped by this burst potential. So it is best if all of these burst productions are scrapped and the game would be reduced to smaller battles and less production. Expensive units would finally become more important and throwing away your units (because you can remax quicker than the opponent) would be a less acceptable tactic. In smaller battles units die a lot slower and microing the few units will become more important (and thus the battles become more interesting for the viewer and more skill based) compared to just moving blobs of unit clumps in one giant control group. Why do you spend so much time commenting on SC2 when you don't like it? It's incredibly obnoxious. Also Zerg larvae per hatchery are limited. How do you not know a simple fact like that before going on a rant about larvae mechanics you obviously didn't bother to research? Also putting an emphasis on scouting raises the skill cap, since scouting isn't always easy. As the biggest BW apologist I've ever seen, I would have thought that anything that "lowers the skill cap" would be anathema to you.
I spend so much time, because I have been a huge fan of BW and would like the sequel to be a game which I like to play and watch. There are severe "logic bugs" in the general gameplay which really really REALLY piss me off and I am not someone who simply walks away when encountering that. The game has soooo much potential, but it gets RUINED by an inept team of devs who fail to admit their own mistakes and who seem to have zero clue on unit balancing. Just look at the changes in Call to action #2 ... simply ridiculous.
Sure there is a limit on larvae, BUT in the late game there are sooo many hatcheries available that there is no restriction on the number of units which a Zerg can build AT ONE TIME. So it is practically unlimited even though it technically isnt. A zerg can reproduce EVERYTHING in ONE ROUND ... thats the whole point.
Burst production is BAD for the game since it fills the battlefield with too many units AND it is asymmetrical in that Terran and Protoss cant speed up all of their own productions and so the only sensible solution is to scrap all of them and go back to the speed of unit production in BW ...
|
i dont understand what sense does it make
: Terran
Marine model size increased 30%.
when you alredy said you want fungal to be removed ? it makes no sense at all . or probably make banelings hit fewer marines ? and make colossi hit fewer marines ? so you just saying buffing marines by making all aoe in the game affect only 66.6% of what it was affecting until now regarding marine balls . hope that wont happen .
|
With speaking in particular to fungal growth, a slow seems like the best way to go with it. Someone analogized the current fungal to wc3 aoe keeper of the grove root that also hits air. It's just silly.
|
On December 01 2012 02:26 Deathstar wrote:
With speaking in particular to fungal growth, a slow seems like the best way to go with it. Someone analogized the current fungal to wc3 aoe keeper of the grove root that also hits air. It's just silly.
It's also single target and does a buttload of damage with a single cast. Storm bolt is closer but it's also single target. Ensnare is single target and does no damage. O I KNOW TINKER ROCKETS!
|
The fungal was buffed shortly before WoL release, mainly to help zerg fend off the protoss death balls (that's where the + armored dmg came from).
The way I see it the overpowerful fungal was an emergency fix, because pvz was so broken and zerg needed a chance.
If forcefield is changed zerg won't need such a powerful fungal. Speed hydras and viper could also be changed to help fill the hole that less powerful fungal/infestor would leave
|
On December 01 2012 13:18 Freeborn wrote:
The fungal was buffed shortly before WoL release, mainly to help zerg fend off the protoss death balls (that's where the + armored dmg came from).
The way I see it the overpowerful fungal was an emergency fix, because pvz was so broken and zerg needed a chance.
If forcefield is changed zerg won't need such a powerful fungal. Speed hydras and viper could also be changed to help fill the hole that less powerful fungal/infestor would leave
Incorrect.
Fungal was changed in patch 1.3 with the +armor bonus and decreased stun duration. The patch went live in March of 2011.
|
On December 01 2012 13:22 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 13:18 Freeborn wrote:
The fungal was buffed shortly before WoL release, mainly to help zerg fend off the protoss death balls (that's where the + armored dmg came from).
The way I see it the overpowerful fungal was an emergency fix, because pvz was so broken and zerg needed a chance.
If forcefield is changed zerg won't need such a powerful fungal. Speed hydras and viper could also be changed to help fill the hole that less powerful fungal/infestor would leave Incorrect. Fungal was changed in patch 1.3 with the +armor bonus and decreased stun duration. The patch went live in March of 2011.
Wow sorry, you are right.
Well it was still sort of an emergency fix.
Protoss was dominating badly with their collossus deathballs, I think before that patch I also saw quite a few void rays added in there.
|
I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
|
On December 02 2012 05:51 kcdc wrote:
I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
i see what you did there
i agree 8s root was even better and i mean infested terrans weren't changed at all and suddenly are viable when Zerg was supposed to be up?
i mean most playstyles from Zerg players today were viable back then but nobody used them because somehow running roaches hydra corrupter vs. forcefields was somehow the "only" viable way to play.
Zerg with their skill and matchup knowledge today would do almost as good with patch versions from like 1-2 years ago.
At least in PvZ that is.
|
Forcefields should just have their time reduced. Fungal should slow, not root, and they already fixed Vortex in that it can't target air units. Seems pretty simple to me...
|
Would turning fungal into a slow really do all that much for Protoss? I know it would be easier to harass Zerg, since fungal would no longer guarantee a kill, but what about actual engagements?
I'm thinking Interceptors would actually still work if they moved slowly, instead of being rooted. Would that do anything about corruptorspam, though? There was one game (game 1 of some series) of ZvP on metropolis where the toss managed a full transition to carrier / templar, but then just died horribly in a fire due to corruptors murdering carriers, which couldn't kite since their AI has yet to be fixed.
I could definitely see IT spray getting weaker, since a non-stick fungal couldn't keep enemy units in range if they tried to run away. Forcing the zerg to shit out a few dozen marines, then waiting for them to expire before moving in again sounds nice. The thing is, though, he's still able to buy time for br00ds, and fungal growth still does an incredible amount of damage, especially vs Colossi / Stalker balls. It's not easy (or even possible in some cases) to spread out an army that bulky into a nice line to mitigate damage.
Maybe we could try out a fungal-slow change out on a mod map, if people were interested in seeing its effects in the ZvP matchup.
|
Norway28548 Posts
sad thing is both spells are broken due to smartcast
spawn IT as well. forcefield couldve been a spell that blocked off strategical routs and slightly reduced enemy firepower, but because it's so easily spammable, toss players get 6+ sentries and create entire walls, meaning that the rest of the army has to have its firepower reduced.
fungal and its same thing; it's mainly a problem because people can make 20 infestors and have them on 1 hotkey and never waste energy so it's always easy to fungal and kill threatening units. forcing you to select an individual infestor for each fungal wouldve greatly diminished its power, and while spawning IT's would still be pretty hardcore if you could throw 20 at the same time, that'd also mean you had no control over which infestors were then able to fungal.
the problem with both spells is rooted in smartcast/unlimited unit selection, and neither spell will be fixed (unless removed completely) unless the interface is altered. which it won't be. so oh well.
|
On December 02 2012 05:51 kcdc wrote:
I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait....
nah the old fungal was much weaker. It did less damage and over a longer period making it much worse in combat. It was better as a tactical spell delaying a push or countering air in combination with IT but much worse overall. Fungal now is so good because it has a huge effect in combat, you can quickly kill entire packs of units with chain fungeling etc.
Doing damage quickly is key in fights, the old fungal would root units which would then by killed by your other stuff while fungal didn't actually do that much damage yet, the current fungal adds great DPS to fights which is FAR more important then the longer root, if you want to root longer you just reapply fungal or even better you just kill the units..
IT hardly being used before is kind of weird though but it's mostly the result of mass infestors not being that good before. Fungal was more a tactical spell at first you didn't need many off, now you basically want as many infestors as you can afford which makes IT being used so much. At some points neural actually competed with IT too in that you would rather neural their colossi than lob some ITs.
And liquid'drone, suggesting removal of smart casting to fix these spells is such an ugly change. It would probably work but it would be a terrible change. "because unit x is massed too much we are removing an intuitive interface so it becomes harder to use in large amounts". It would just be utterly frustating, a case where the cure is worse than the disease. There are much better ways to change the dominance of these spells by just applying smart buffs/nerfs or map changes that make it less desireable to mass fungal/ff. For example more open maps to remove the viability of massive sentries (letting P take a third with the help of MsC), making fungal last longer again so massing infestors won't be as good etc. etc.
|
On December 04 2012 00:06 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 05:51 kcdc wrote:
I think the old fungal was actually stronger, but people (TLO aside) just didn't understand infestors yet. Can you imagine an 8 second root in today's metagame? Almost every tournament would have a ZvZ finals. Oh wait.... nah the old fungal was much weaker. It did less damage and over a longer period making it much worse in combat. It was better as a tactical spell delaying a push or countering air in combination with IT but much worse overall. Fungal now is so good because it has a huge effect in combat, you can quickly kill entire packs of units with chain fungeling etc. Doing damage quickly is key in fights, the old fungal would root units which would then by killed by your other stuff while fungal didn't actually do that much damage yet, the current fungal adds great DPS to fights which is FAR more important then the longer root, if you want to root longer you just reapply fungal or even better you just kill the units.. IT hardly being used before is kind of weird though but it's mostly the result of mass infestors not being that good before. Fungal was more a tactical spell at first you didn't need many off, now you basically want as many infestors as you can afford which makes IT being used so much. At some points neural actually competed with IT too in that you would rather neural their colossi than lob some ITs. And liquid'drone, suggesting removal of smart casting to fix these spells is such an ugly change. It would probably work but it would be a terrible change. "because unit x is massed too much we are removing an intuitive interface so it becomes harder to use in large amounts". It would just be utterly frustating, a case where the cure is worse than the disease. There are much better ways to change the dominance of these spells by just applying smart buffs/nerfs or map changes that make it less desireable to mass fungal/ff. For example more open maps to remove the viability of massive sentries (letting P take a third with the help of MsC), making fungal last longer again so massing infestors won't be as good etc. etc.
Very true. The old fungal sucked.
What is making fungal so good is the pretty good AoE Damage, that is unavoidable once it hits - that combined with the root that guarantees subsequent hits.
Making the speel either do damage OR root/disable/slow will fix this. But that will also break pvz if FF is not changed.
|
On October 24 2012 11:14 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 24 2012 10:46 kcdc wrote:
Certain types of Protoss offense are nerfed pretty hard by swapping out forcefield for fortify. Colossi, in particular, become weaker against both Terran and Zerg.
And I really don't think 100/25 would fuck ZvT vs mech. Mech isn't that scary until Terran has a large (140+) army with upgrades, at which point Z will be able to max out on roaches whether they cost 75/25 or 100/25. And don't forget that Z gets swarm hosts which I expect will prove powerful against mech since mech won't be fast enough to chase them down. (Sort of like lurkers slowing down a Terran push) Like all the changes, the 100/25 roach cost would need testing, but I really don't think it's unworkable.
As I see it, each race gets something they want:
Zerg never has to see an immortal-sentry all-in again. They get can pressure Protoss in the midgame without getting cut off by forcefields. Archon toilet is out of the game. Zerglings are more efficient against marines.
Terran gets the opportunity to move up a ramp against Protoss in the early game without having their retreat blocked. They also get the ability to micro more against infestors. Marines are a little less vulnerable to splash damage.
Protoss gets to build less sentries which means more other stuff. They get a defensive mechanic that is less dependent on tight chokes which means more flexibility for expansions. They also get to fight against slightly less cost-efficient roaches and some improved late-game options to deal with broodlords. Swarm hosts don't come out in time/large enough numbers to stop timing attacks. They are not in any way the equivalent of BL's, simply due to the much longer cooldown. If you want to stop Hellion/Thor timing attacks, you need mass roach, there is no other alternative, unless you can try to gimmicky ling/infestor surround with Neural. You highly underestimate how much of a sink in minerals roaches are. It would be an overwhelmingly negative effect. What attack timings are you thinking of? It seems like Zerg can currently max out on roaches in ZvT around 14 minutes. If they cost 25 minerals more, I suspect the max would be delayed by about 30 seconds. Would that be game-breaking? I'm not sure. But it's important to note that roach production in WoL is usually limited not by cost, but by the supply cap.
To expand on that point. You could try to balance them by upping the cost of individual roaches, but only /if/ they were reduced to 1 supply once more. You`d most likely have to do something with the hydralisk aswell.
|
My gut feeling dislikes this strongly. Invincible protoss structures = cannon rushes that you actually can't stop. proxy a pylon near a probe line and fortify it with your 4 gate or with a warp prism and suddenly no more probe line, all for some 25 minerals if you cancel after the effect ends. Yet if you make it uncastable on building structures, protoss has to finish their ffe wall w/ 3 pylons instead of 1 gateway.
I also can't see how your changes would change pvz from a 20 min snooze fest. now even the sentry allins are inviable, the stephano roach max, along with all other roach attacks/contains, are more expensive, and the only viable and logical thing to do is have everyone turtle to 4 bases, build the best t3 army imaginable, have a fight in the middle, all followed by a frantic remaxing where protoss is trying to put zealots on the tech and zerg is trying to run 100 lings into the protoss mining bases. Looks a lot like the current pvz to me; just now there's different imba mechanics that will be just as stale as ff, fungal, and vortex in about 2 weeks.
|
With the addition of Blinding Cloud in HoTS, I would actually like to see them experiment with restoring fungal growth back to its original status. Obviously, it would be OP to have it root for 8 seconds, but instead, they should just make it slow for 8 seconds. They could also play around with having it do no damage and instead being castable while burrowed. I think this change is necessary because if you thought fungal growth is bad now, imagine not having any of your units able to attack because of blinding cloud and being unable to move them out from underneath the blinding cloud.
With this change, Zerg could use burrowed infestors to stall pushes, divide armies, or create a good engagement by using fungal growth strategically. You could use them to fungal groups of tanks so that they are prevented from going into siege mode and use that time to attack. If an opponent is moving out for an attack and you are not ready, you can fungal growth a chunk of their army to slow them down. If they try to press the issue with half their army lagging behind, you can take advantage of the split army with your units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
