|
On April 06 2010 11:26 Floophead_III wrote:
Roach healing isn't what makes roaches broken. It's the fact that they beat everything but marauders and immortals.
I agree here, and that to me is the biggest crime of the roach.
Its "core ability", the thing that makes the roach...the roach is NOT its regen. I have seen many high level games where burrow isn't even researched, because the roach is that powerful without it. Players are not required to use the roach's regen to make the unit amazing, it already is.
|
switch hydra and roach (nerfing and buffing respectively to make them fit into their tier positions)
require an armory to build marauder
nerf zealots and make hard shell an upgrade at robo facility
and then start the REAL balancing of the game
oo i like it but i dont think blizzard will want to make that many changes.
|
Wow this thread has 30k views I think a lot of people lurking have strong opinions but haven't posted.
|
Maybe even increasing the Roach's armour to 4 and boosting its regeneration, but reduce hp to 50-55, that way it'll be ridiculously strong against things like Marines, Zerglings and Zealots, while still being countered by Immortals and even nerfed-to-1-supply Marauders, but also be one-shotted by Siege Tanks and be vulnerable to other high-damage attacks.
I really think Marauder hp needs to be reduced to Terran Infantry standards, even if it reduces its cost in resources and supply.
|
On April 06 2010 14:26 Fanatic-Templar wrote:
Maybe even increasing the Roach's armour to 4 and boosting its regeneration, but reduce hp to 50-55, that way it'll be ridiculously strong against things like Marines, Zerglings and Zealots, while still being countered by Immortals and even nerfed-to-1-supply Marauders, but also be one-shotted by Siege Tanks and be vulnerable to other high-damage attacks.
I really think Marauder hp needs to be reduced to Terran Infantry standards, even if it reduces its cost in resources and supply.
yea no.
 .
I feel like we have this huge group of people whining how somehow marauders being used every game, the antithesis of hardcounters, are whining about hardcounters, and another group of people whining that the game needs these incredibly absurd hardcounters like 4 armor roaches.
Roach needs a health nerf.
Immortals need a damage nerf.
Marauders need a damage nerf versus normal units and a health nerf.
I think marauders is the most problematic to balance. They need a role that is a)Effective against armor b)Not good core DPS, and require marines c)Help marines against melee by slowing.
|
The problem is NOTHING but the marauder counters roach. His change is correct and viable. Marauders will be the t1 counter, so you can make those if you want. It also will be possible to make tanks, thors, vikings, and even use ghost snipe. Roaches right now are just too massable and cost effective vs everything besides mara right now. Right now people have to make mara. With that change they can make mara, tanks, thors, vikings, or use ghosts with snipe. (leaving banshees/bcs out for obvious reasons). It's a change that promotes diversity. I don't see how people don't see that.
|
Honestly I feel that nerfing all three is indeed the correct thing to do, yet when one nerfs them one realizes how boring and dull the units truly are, I say nerf, but add utility or make all 3 of them more interesting in some way. (If you take out units like lurker and reaver that have cool mechanics, you DONT put in units that are generally more boring). Furthermore, I think its kind of stupid how both the immortal/stalker are split versions of a goon. And to top that all off, Archons aren't even useful while the immortal is just some conceptual piece of crap.
Also, I feel that blizzard is going to have a hard time adding units with the ensuing expansions. Thank god they said that they arent leaving "holes to be filled" in vanilla sc2, so that they can add units later on. Honestly right now, zerg's lurker allowed for WAY more interesting play than the roach. And even the reaver was cooler than the colossus. Blizzard is obviously having a tough time and no wonder they have been working on Sc2 so long. I even remember reading that Blizz stated they were having a tough time with the roach in particular.
|
On April 06 2010 14:26 Fanatic-Templar wrote:
I think marauders is the most problematic to balance. They need a role that is a)Effective against armor b)Not good core DPS, and require marines c)Help marines against melee by slowing.
I think a good nerf for marauders would be this:
75 min 50 gas
Concussive shells have to be researched, and even then they only slow by around 30%
100 hp base health, and be able to utilize the Combat Shield upgrade (+10 health)
|
in two years or so, when starcraft 2 is the dominant RTS that is perfectly balanced, we'll all look back and say: "do you remember back then in beta? when roaches and marauders would just kill everything?? can't even really imagine anymore how imbalanced the game was back then!!" and blizzard will agree: "yeah we did some experimenting in beta, but we then realized that a game that is just dominated by roach and mauder balls is just retarted. we were actually seriously drunk when we designed those units.."
|
Marauder: Change their base damage to 8+12 and reduce HP to 100.
Roach: Lower their HP to 115, increase supply to 2,
Immortal: Reduce bonus damage to Armored units. 20+20
THE MATH:
Formula: Current HP / (Immortal Damage - Armor) * (New Immortal Damage - Armor) = New HP
MaraHP = 125/(50-1)*(40-1)=99.xx==> 100 HP
RoachHP = 145/(50-2)*(40-2) = 114.79===> 115 HP
Since we are only changing HP, we must only verify that each unit is comparatively equal. Less HP means each unit will die faster, we check to make sure the ratio remains the same.
Roach vs Marauder: 125/15 = 8.333 ===> 100/15 = 6.666 == 8.333/6.666 = 1.25x faster killing
Marauder vs Roach: 145/18 = 8.055 ===> 115/18 = 6.388 == 8.055/6.388 = 1.26x faster killing
Net effect: Immortals kill Roaches just as fast. 1 Roach kills 1 Marauder faster, but 1 Marauder kills 1 roach almost just as much faster. BALANCE.
Rationalization:
Less HP for Marauders would make Immortals with lower bonus damage kill them equally as fast as right now. AND the decease in non-armored damage would make Marauders less effective versus light units that are supposed to counter Marauders.
Lower HP on Roaches would allow nerfed Immortals to kill them just as fast. Increased supply would make massing them a bit harder.
Lower Immortal bonus damage would make Immortals less of a hard counter to Terran mech, while the subsequent nerfs to it's fellow units HP would not change it's effectiveness vs Roaches and Marauders.
COMMENTS?!?
|
On April 06 2010 20:38 Daerthalus wrote:
Marauder: Change their base damage to 8+12 and reduce HP to 100.
Roach: Lower their HP to 115, increase supply to 2,
Immortal: Reduce bonus damage to Armored units. 20+20
THE MATH: (Based on Immortal 50 Damage ==> 40 Damage)
MaraHP = 125/(50-1)*(40-1)=99.xx==> 100 HP
RoachHP = 145/(50-2)*(40-2) = 114.79===> 115 HP
Roach vs Marauder: 125/15 = 8.333 ===> 100/15 = 6.666 == 1.25x faster killing
Marauder vs Roach: 145/18 = 8.055 ===> 115/18 = 6.388 == 1.26x faster killing
Net effect: Immortals kill Roaches just as fast. 1 Roach kills 1 Marauder faster, but 1 Marauder kills 1 roach almost just as much faster. BALANCE.
Rationalization:
Less HP for Marauders would make Immortals with lower bonus damage kill them equally as fast as right now. AND the decease in non-armored damage would make Marauders less effective versus light units that are supposed to counter Marauders.
Lower HP on Roaches would allow nerfed Immortals to kill them just as fast. Increased supply would make massing them a bit harder.
Lower Immortal bonus damage would make Immortals less of a hard counter to Terran mech, while the subsequent nerfs to it's fellow units HP would not change it's effectiveness vs Roaches and Marauders.
COMMENTS?!?
what about zealots vs roaches?
|
Obviously other units (zealot etc.) would become better versus roaches, but I went with the assumption that all 3 units are considered significantly better than other units. IE too good, and that an overall nerf would be desired.
Clearly a nerf to all 3 would keep the trinity in balance with eachother, and allow other units to stand a chance.
|
nice read and nice argueing. i agree roaches need a overwork as they do in my eyes influence the game most drastically because of the absence of proper scouting
|
imho thhe marauders are the problem not the roaches. ^^
|
Can't you counter mass marauders with storm or mutas?
|
Almost all of BW’s current balance problems can be pinpointed on the Lurker.
The problem of massed MnM bioballs, of terran mech underuse, the vast majority of SC balance and unit diversity gripes, the perception in increased "hardcounters" all more or less stem from this completely misguided unit.
Lurkers are a unit that costs 125 minerals, 125 gas, yet somehow do the most basic ranged DPS in the entirety of T2. They have 125 health, the highest per cost, and the highest period outside of toss. They also are a ranged unit, with a range of 6, though they cannot attack air. To top things off, they somehow only cost 2 supply. And if that wasn't enough, I almost forgot, they start off unupgraded with one armor(!). And to make things even more absurd, they move at fast speeds, faster then any basic unit except zerglings, and regenerate health when burrowed.
If someone told me a unit like this would stand a good chance at making it to retail before the onset of the SC beta, I would have told them they were insane. And retarded. On paper, the unit is simply absurd.
This isn't to say, within the context of the game, that this incredibly absurd, ridiculous unit is overpowered. I am not in fact, complaining that Zerg are OP
...
That fact is precisely whats wrong with the game. The Lurker SHOULD be overpowered.
That a unit as absurd as a lurker should be overpowered within a traditional SC framework. They are not. The reason they are not OP is problematic in itself. In order to ensure that the lurker is not OP, the Protoss and Terran recieved medics and dark templars.
Without these two units, terran would literally lose every game against the zerg, and the protoss would be at a ridiculous disadvantage.
They ensure that the Lurker is not overpowered by creating a equally overpowering counter. A overpowered counter. Or a hard counter. Moreover, these counters are both easily available. Especially the Terran Medic, which is extremely accessible, located at t1.5, or literally, a tier 1.1 unit, does 13.5 dps against the lurker, for a relatively costly price of 50 minerals and 25 gas, or ~20 dps. To put this in perspective, the use of a medic in SC1 would do more damage then any other unit save a siegetank (including the battlecruiser).
While most T1 units do very good damage for their cost, this is usually balanced because they are easy to kill. 10 marines, 500 minerals, will outdps 500 minerals worth of carriers by 3x, but marines die easily to splash. The Medics do not.
Once again, in a vacuum, the medic is overpowered, like the lurker. But because of the lurker. Specifically, they are overpowered against Lurkers, and as a result, against armor in general.
This is discussed extensively in another thread on TL:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118413
Finally, the protoss have the dark templar. The dark templar singel handedly makes TvP mech unviable. Sure, they can EMP, but it is not nearly a reliable as simply going bioball, or more recently, just massing medics. The dark templar, by any measure, is an overpowered unit. it is also the single largest "counter" in SC, doing 40 damage versus its correlating type, armored, the only unit in existence to carry more then a 50% bonus. Against armored, they do 35 DPS.
That is the single highest DPS in the entire game, save battlecruisers, in SC1.
What we have is an effective arms race, caused by the lurker. While SC1 damage is generally higher, it is usually by a magnitude of 30%-40%. Not 200%. The Medic has too much health for its DPS potential (and too much health in relation to the theme of terrans), and the dark templar does simply too much damage versus armored, among other things.
The lurkers role is screwed up. It originally gained 15 health every second, unburrowed, in its reveal in ‘98. Now it has been nerfed to gaining 1 health, upgraded, burrowed. Its role, initially creative, has been nerfed out of existence.
Zerg were not design to host a 125hp 1 armor 20 damage unit for 125 minerals and 125 gas. SC is not designed around such a unit. Originally thought of as a T3 unit with a crazy unique playstyle, it has proved imbalancable to the overall framework of the game. Even it its repeatedly nerfed state
The answer to almost all of BW’s current gameplay concerns stem from the existence of the lurker. Remove it, or drastically rework it into something else, one more akin to the role of the Hydra (though I understand that it should not be another Hydra), rebalance the game accordingly, and most of the current gameplay problems in BW will no longer exist. Mech will be viable. Bioplay will be more diversified. PvZ will be more dynamic.
|
I R soo confused.
Discussing BW imbalance in a SC2 thread?
Lurkers in SC2?
Medics doing DPS?
Dark templars doing bonus vs Armor
|
In reference to by above post suggesting nerfs to all 3 Trinity units.
Immortal to 20+20 Damage
Marauders to 100 HP, 8+12 Damage
Roaches to 115 HP, Maybe 2 Supply I dunno!?!
Some one asked about Zealots and using the above nerfs, clearly the balance between other units and the trinity would change.
So for the sake of dicussion here's is some analysis or T1 vs Roach.
Z vs Roach analysis.
1 Roach 74 min / 25 gas, 145 HP, 2 Armor, 16 Damage
1 Zealot 100 min / 0 gas, 100 HP / 50 Shield, 1 Armor, 8x2 Damage.
**Assumed zealot has 0 shield armor**
Roach vs Zealot: 100/(16-1)+50/(16)= 9.792
Zealot vs Roach: 145/(2*(8-2)) = 12.083 ==> 115 / 12 = 9.583
Considering the extra range the Roach has over the Zealot I believe cost of cost the roach still wins.
**Note: I'd consider relenting on the increase of roach supply to 2, if T1 units turn out to be significantly better vs roaches than previously**
Here is Zergling vs Roach
1 Roach 74 min / 25 gas, 145 HP, 2 Armor, 16 Damage
1 Zergling 25 min / 0 gas, 35 HP, 0 Armor, 5 Damage
Roach vs Zergling: 35/16 = 2.1875
Zergling vs Roach: 145/(5-2) = 48.333 ==> 115/3 = 38.333
Assuming 4 lings = 1 roach for cost
R vs Zx4: 8.75
Zx4 vs R: 12.083 ==> 9.583
Cost for cost Roach wins, even moreso if you figure I assumed all 4 lings die at the same time which wouldn't occur, since every 2.1875 attacks 1 ling would die.
Here is Marine vs Roach
1 Roach 74 min / 25 gas, 145 HP, 2 Armor, 16 Damage
1 Marine 50 min / 0 gas, 45 HP, 0 Armor, 6 Damage
R v M: 45 / 16 = 2.8125
M v R: 145/(6-2) = 36.25 ==> 115/4 = 28.75
Assuming 2 Marines = 1 Roach for cost:
R v Mx2: 5.623
Mx2 v R: 18.125 ==> 14.375
Clearly Roaches beat Marines cost for cost even with a roach nerf. It would be even worse if i hadn't assumed the 2 marines die at the same time, since the roach would kill 1 then the other.
|
range 3 is what makes them weak, also, health regeneration has already been nerfed to 50%...
|
Make the Roach a unique unit and not a Hydra clone. Lower hp but make the regen and armor high. Give it an identity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
