EPTSorry for double post if it occurs, but when the hell did I say that? People are making up quotes. I never ever ever ever ever said they need a decrease to attack damage, nor did I throw around the word imba.
The Roach is whats wrong with SC2. - Page 23
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
Sorry for double post if it occurs, but when the hell did I say that? People are making up quotes. I never ever ever ever ever said they need a decrease to attack damage, nor did I throw around the word imba. | ||
|
Black Octopi
187 Posts
On April 07 2010 00:31 Floophead_III wrote: Marines would do 1 damage that's how. Not to mention roaches should not just be "immune to lings".Uh.... did you even read? Hydras do 12 damage a shot. Right now they do 10 damage to a roach, which means they need 15 shots to kill one. I'm suggesting making roaches basically immune to lings by upping the armor, but dropping the hp to somewhere around 50. Hydras will then do 9 damage a shot. That's 8 hits to kill a roach. How the hell is this not better? | ||
|
WorkersOfTheWorld
United States619 Posts
On April 07 2010 00:05 Floophead_III wrote: Alright, I made my own thread, but Plexa assured me I am in fact not special and should post within the confines of this one, so here we go: *changes from the original post are in italics The Balance Changes: This is what I was just discussing with my friend: Nerf roach hp to something like 50 hp. Buff their armor to 3. Perhaps rebalance their cost a bit (2 food?), and maybe even reduce their damage slightly. Basically, you'll want T2 units to kill these guys, or really good focus fire, but once T2 is out, they're not terribly strong. Change the marauder to a support unit role. Reduce HP, Increase gas cost (perhaps 50/50 like the reaper?), and make it a flat 10 damage attack. The idea is that they'll be a great asset to your army, but in a straight up fight they lose to basically everything. More like the sentry of terrans. With stim they'll be much stronger, but not broken good. (They will do the same dps to non armored units, so use that as a reference). Decrease immortal damage to 20 (+10). Hardened shields is an amazing idea, and having a unit specifically designed to be a frontline tank vs heavy hitters is amazing. However, when you can walk up to a tank or bunker and decimate it instantly, something is wrong. It turns from less of an antiarmor unit to a tanking frontline unit designed to break fortified positions or absorb those first hits. Lets now look at how this affects each matchup: Roaches: -They will make Hydras > Roach in ZvZ, so once T2 kicks in it'll be about hydras, but then you have banelings which counter hydras, roaches which counter banelings, mutas which counter everything but hydra, and suddenly it's a dynamic matchup! Lings will be useful only as harass/rush units, but that's fine because they're so stupid fast anyways =P -They will forces T2 out of terran. With the mara nerf they will still be the t1 counter, but they won't do very well vs crawlers. Roaches will be one of those units that force micro. Target roach with heavy hitters (maras/tanks/thors) and use marines to mop up the rest. It'd also make the answer to mech more complicated than "lots of roaches." -They will make roaches even more of a tank vs sentry/zealot, but even weaker vs stalkers. With the immortal nerf, you'll need stalkers to fight roaches, but that'll make for a better dynamic, because stalkers fall to hydra/lings pretty easily, but sentry/zealot does well vs that. Immortals will be more of a crawler tank/anti ultra unit. It also makes roaches affected by storm, so that even with the storm nerf it's still viable in PvZ. We can't forget that roaches still will have burrowwalk, so they'll still be very creative ways to use them!!! Marauders: -They will make mech much more viable in TvT, since they will not decimate tanks/vikings/thors completely. We'll still see them, and they still will hit hard and be really useful as support. This will open up the game for more positional tank play, and more use of vikings on the ground. TvT already is a very exciting matchup, but the marauder is just too strong right now. -They will make TvP not a mara spamfest. Maras would still be just as effective earlygame vs zealots in terms of kiting, and amazing at picking off units. However, stalkers would beat maras in a straight up fight, and maras themselves would not be massable. You'd want a few for the slow buff and decent range which allows you to use micro really effectively, but you'd want to get out tanks with marine support to deal with T1, and hellions to deal with zealots. With the immortal change, this would be viable. -They will make TvZ more about static defense for zerg. The reasoning behind this is maras make crawlers completely garbage right now, but if they weren't so powerful zerg could actually use their static defense to hold expansions instead of masses of units. With the roach nerf, roaches won't be nearly as strong past earlygame, so once maras are on the field you'll want to throw up some crawlers and get to T2. Maras will still counter roaches, but they'd be much weaker outside of that niche. You'd really want some dropships or tanks as terran to break zerg (sound familiar?) Basically, marauders become the sentries of terran, but still function well as a t1.5 counter to roaches! Immortals We've already gone over immortals fairly extensively but lets revisit: -They will not affect PvP much. Immortals already are not heavily used except vs stalker heavy armies. They'd still be strong in that regard, but collosi, dt, chargelot, and good force fields/guardian do fine anyways, so you really don't need immortals. I'd see them being a strong counter to archons or DTs though. -They will be more of a tanking unit in PvT. Immortals will be great for absorbing those first hits from sieged tanks, tanking a PF, or tanking thors. They still will be strong damage. However you don't need them to be massive damage dealers since now stalkers can be more viable given the marauder nerf! -As discussed before, they will be more of an anticrawler/anti ultra unit in PvZ. With the new roach being fairly weak vs stalkers, we'll see immortals become much less of an antiroach unit and more specialized. They still will be useful, but to break turtling zergs without having to go all the way to collosus range (which btw is at risk for infestors too). Lategame you'll want them in the front to tank ultra hits while stalkers/collosi/archons hit from the back. Basically, we're turning a powerhouse into more of a frontline tank. To conclude: These changes will make EVERY matchup more interesting and dynamic. Perhaps it will slightly imbalance things for other units, but that's something which can be fixed fairly easily, and it's a small cost for a massive improvement in gameplay. I've put a lot of thought into these changes. I hope you guys can all do the same. Given feedback from people, I tweaked up some numbers. Just to respond to the immortal part. I really don't think an immortal with those stats would be used, even against tanks. Speedlots as well as blink stalkers are an in-hand counter to tanks and one emp negates the power of hardened shield (Which is not active once shields are depleted). I'm sure it doesn't need the current 50+ to armored, but if there is a significant nerf to it's damage as anti-mech, then it certainly needs something. I'd say make it slower, make hardened shield stay active without shield energy. That way it's actually worth building vs. terran mech late-game (rather than just zerging with stalkers and zeals or flanking with air, all of which seem more viable than the proposed immo). | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On April 06 2010 23:59 HowardRoark wrote: The problem is not the balance - Blizzard will be able to balance the game as perfect as humanly possible, that is for certain. The problem IS that the game in the current state is not good enough, because of these things mentioned. Exactly! Crunching little numbers so that Unit A does more DMG and Unit B does less is so stupid and unnecessary right now, when they should be making bigger changes with units, the hard-counter-system and high-ground-advantage. If 1 big change like the ones mentioned before are made, every Unit would have to be balanced once more anyways because it would change how the game is palyed. And because Blizz does all those little changes I don't really think we're gonna see anything more than that - I don't think they're that stupid to change all this little stuff and basically "ruin" their "so-called" balance by making one major change to the way the game works and is played. I guess until the release and beyond that until maybe an expansion is released, we'll see nothing more than just playing with the numbers a bit, I personally don't expect anythin more just to be prepared to be disappointed... -.-° Or does sm1 really believe that Blizzard makes a bigger change, like: - Implementing a new Unit - Taking a Unit out of the game that doesn't work - Adding Skills/passive abilities to a Unit or doing other major changes to a Unit - Doing sth about the hard-counter-system - Doing sth about the highground-advantage - Changing sth about the Macro-abilities - Changing sth about the controllability of the Units, like better control over Hellions - Changing sth about the AI ? I personally don't... | ||
|
suejak
Japan545 Posts
On April 07 2010 00:35 Floophead_III wrote: Sorry for double post if it occurs, but when the hell did I say that? People are making up quotes. I never ever ever ever ever said they need a decrease to attack damage, nor did I throw around the word imba. LOL, I quoted the wrong person. Sorry. It's fixed now. | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On April 07 2010 00:41 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 07 2010 00:05 Floophead_III wrote: Alright, I made my own thread, but Plexa assured me I am in fact not special and should post within the confines of this one, so here we go: *changes from the original post are in italics The Balance Changes: This is what I was just discussing with my friend: Nerf roach hp to something like 50 hp. Buff their armor to 3. Perhaps rebalance their cost a bit (2 food?), and maybe even reduce their damage slightly. Basically, you'll want T2 units to kill these guys, or really good focus fire, but once T2 is out, they're not terribly strong. Change the marauder to a support unit role. Reduce HP, Increase gas cost (perhaps 50/50 like the reaper?), and make it a flat 10 damage attack. The idea is that they'll be a great asset to your army, but in a straight up fight they lose to basically everything. More like the sentry of terrans. With stim they'll be much stronger, but not broken good. (They will do the same dps to non armored units, so use that as a reference). Decrease immortal damage to 20 (+10). Hardened shields is an amazing idea, and having a unit specifically designed to be a frontline tank vs heavy hitters is amazing. However, when you can walk up to a tank or bunker and decimate it instantly, something is wrong. It turns from less of an antiarmor unit to a tanking frontline unit designed to break fortified positions or absorb those first hits. Lets now look at how this affects each matchup: Roaches: -They will make Hydras > Roach in ZvZ, so once T2 kicks in it'll be about hydras, but then you have banelings which counter hydras, roaches which counter banelings, mutas which counter everything but hydra, and suddenly it's a dynamic matchup! Lings will be useful only as harass/rush units, but that's fine because they're so stupid fast anyways =P -They will forces T2 out of terran. With the mara nerf they will still be the t1 counter, but they won't do very well vs crawlers. Roaches will be one of those units that force micro. Target roach with heavy hitters (maras/tanks/thors) and use marines to mop up the rest. It'd also make the answer to mech more complicated than "lots of roaches." -They will make roaches even more of a tank vs sentry/zealot, but even weaker vs stalkers. With the immortal nerf, you'll need stalkers to fight roaches, but that'll make for a better dynamic, because stalkers fall to hydra/lings pretty easily, but sentry/zealot does well vs that. Immortals will be more of a crawler tank/anti ultra unit. It also makes roaches affected by storm, so that even with the storm nerf it's still viable in PvZ. We can't forget that roaches still will have burrowwalk, so they'll still be very creative ways to use them!!! Marauders: -They will make mech much more viable in TvT, since they will not decimate tanks/vikings/thors completely. We'll still see them, and they still will hit hard and be really useful as support. This will open up the game for more positional tank play, and more use of vikings on the ground. TvT already is a very exciting matchup, but the marauder is just too strong right now. -They will make TvP not a mara spamfest. Maras would still be just as effective earlygame vs zealots in terms of kiting, and amazing at picking off units. However, stalkers would beat maras in a straight up fight, and maras themselves would not be massable. You'd want a few for the slow buff and decent range which allows you to use micro really effectively, but you'd want to get out tanks with marine support to deal with T1, and hellions to deal with zealots. With the immortal change, this would be viable. -They will make TvZ more about static defense for zerg. The reasoning behind this is maras make crawlers completely garbage right now, but if they weren't so powerful zerg could actually use their static defense to hold expansions instead of masses of units. With the roach nerf, roaches won't be nearly as strong past earlygame, so once maras are on the field you'll want to throw up some crawlers and get to T2. Maras will still counter roaches, but they'd be much weaker outside of that niche. You'd really want some dropships or tanks as terran to break zerg (sound familiar?) Basically, marauders become the sentries of terran, but still function well as a t1.5 counter to roaches! Immortals We've already gone over immortals fairly extensively but lets revisit: -They will not affect PvP much. Immortals already are not heavily used except vs stalker heavy armies. They'd still be strong in that regard, but collosi, dt, chargelot, and good force fields/guardian do fine anyways, so you really don't need immortals. I'd see them being a strong counter to archons or DTs though. -They will be more of a tanking unit in PvT. Immortals will be great for absorbing those first hits from sieged tanks, tanking a PF, or tanking thors. They still will be strong damage. However you don't need them to be massive damage dealers since now stalkers can be more viable given the marauder nerf! -As discussed before, they will be more of an anticrawler/anti ultra unit in PvZ. With the new roach being fairly weak vs stalkers, we'll see immortals become much less of an antiroach unit and more specialized. They still will be useful, but to break turtling zergs without having to go all the way to collosus range (which btw is at risk for infestors too). Lategame you'll want them in the front to tank ultra hits while stalkers/collosi/archons hit from the back. Basically, we're turning a powerhouse into more of a frontline tank. To conclude: These changes will make EVERY matchup more interesting and dynamic. Perhaps it will slightly imbalance things for other units, but that's something which can be fixed fairly easily, and it's a small cost for a massive improvement in gameplay. I've put a lot of thought into these changes. I hope you guys can all do the same. Given feedback from people, I tweaked up some numbers. Just to respond to the immortal part. I really don't think an immortal with those stats would be used, even against tanks. Speedlots as well as blink stalkers are an in-hand counter to tanks and one emp negates the power of hardened shield (Which is not active once shields are depleted). I'm sure it doesn't need the current 50+ to armored, but if there is a significant nerf to it's damage as anti-mech, then it certainly needs something. I'd say make it slower, make hardened shield stay active without shield energy. That way it's actually worth building vs. terran mech late-game (rather than just zerging with stalkers and zeals or flanking with air, all of which seem more viable than the proposed immo). It'd still 6 shot a tank (5 shot with +1 weapons). I'd use it just for that alone. It'd also be a way to break PFs with minimal forces. Ever tried it with gateway units? Don't. | ||
|
Odds
Canada1188 Posts
Thank you for stating what I couldn't myself put into words- this is exactly what's wrong with SC2. | ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
On April 07 2010 00:43 kickinhead wrote: + Show Spoiler + Exactly! Crunching little numbers so that Unit A does more DMG and Unit B does less is so stupid and unnecessary right now, when they should be making bigger changes with units, the hard-counter-system and high-ground-advantage. If 1 big change like the ones mentioned before are made, every Unit would have to be balanced once more anyways because it would change how the game is palyed. And because Blizz does all those little changes I don't really think we're gonna see anything more than that - I don't think they're that stupid to change all this little stuff and basically "ruin" their "so-called" balance by making one major change to the way the game works and is played. I guess until the release and beyond that until maybe an expansion is released, we'll see nothing more than just playing with the numbers a bit, I personally don't expect anythin more just to be prepared to be disappointed... -.-° Or does sm1 really believe that Blizzard makes a bigger change, like: - Implementing a new Unit - Taking a Unit out of the game that doesn't work - Adding Skills/passive abilities to a Unit or doing other major changes to a Unit - Doing sth about the hard-counter-system - Doing sth about the highground-advantage - Changing sth about the Macro-abilities - Changing sth about the controllability of the Units, like better control over Hellions - Changing sth about the AI ? I personally don't... And this is the problem, because you're right. I really doubt Blizzard is going to make any move to really fix the issues. They're going to make minor tweaks, and we'll be stuck with a balanced, but intrinsically boring game (both to play and to watch). They'll wait for the first, or even second, expansion to fix the issues and add new units. Which makes sense from a "we want to sell more copies" perspective, but not from a "we want this to be the next big ESport" perspective. The problem is, it's totally possible to have both, just not in the current state. The result of this will be a mass migration from SCBW to SC2 initially as people try it out in the esports scene. It will quickly die, and possibly SCBW with it. The best we can hope for is that SCBW retains it's good position in the esports world after SC2 flops. Then, after the expansions fix the boringness problem, we might see SC2 overtake SCBW a couple years from now. The worst would be SC2's failure wiping SCBW out of the esports scene completely, and then we're left with nothing. I doubt that would happen, but you never know. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
The immortal doesn't make mech a impossible choice, it's just that the marauder being slightly OP makes bio better then mech for T. A hellion buff and/or marauder nerf can easily change this back. For the rest the roach is not a problem at all, it just gives the zerg a armored unit in their arsenal. Armored units have hard counters so they need to have good basic stats, if anything the roach makes zerg more interesting by being different. The nice thing about zerg lies in their swift unit changes making scouting very important, zerg can swiftly switch from roach to hydra for example making immortals very weak. Zerglings get countered by the same units as hydra's in this game so there really is a need for the roach. The problem if any is perhaps the roach in ZvZ. Roach might need a unit that actually counters armored units but wouldn't be overpowered in the other MU's. | ||
|
Chen
United States6344 Posts
On April 07 2010 01:17 Markwerf wrote: The roach does force some design but doesn't make the game unbalanceable. The roach is a armored unit that counters unit's that DON'T do well vs armored. Since terrans have the marauder and protoss the immortal it is fine imo. The immortal doesn't make mech a impossible choice, it's just that the marauder being slightly OP makes bio better then mech for T. A hellion buff and/or marauder nerf can easily change this back. For the rest the roach is not a problem at all, it just gives the zerg a armored unit in their arsenal. Armored units have hard counters so they need to have good basic stats, if anything the roach makes zerg more interesting by being different. The nice thing about zerg lies in their swift unit changes making scouting very important, zerg can swiftly switch from roach to hydra for example making immortals very weak. Zerglings get countered by the same units as hydra's in this game so there really is a need for the roach. The problem if any is perhaps the roach in ZvZ. Roach might need a unit that actually counters armored units but wouldn't be overpowered in the other MU's. ...... did you read the OP? please do next time he never says that the game is unbalanced. just that the immortal/marauder/roach are too strong relative to all other units BECAUSE they have to do well vs each other, forcing us to center all builds around them, making the game very boring and stale. btw, units that dont do well vs armored is basically all non marauder for terran and all non-immortal/collosi for toss. when 1 unit without much support beats all but 1/2 units from another race, you dont see any problem? | ||
|
Black Octopi
187 Posts
On April 07 2010 01:17 Markwerf wrote: /facepalm The roach does force some design but doesn't make the game unbalanceable. The roach is a armored unit that counters unit's that DON'T do well vs armored. Since terrans have the marauder and protoss the immortal it is fine imo. Go back and read the opening! don't just read the title. This is not about just the roach. | ||
|
micropede
United States47 Posts
| ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On April 07 2010 00:40 Black Octopi wrote: TAD[Life] said it the page before, probably miss quoting. Marines would do 1 damage that's how. Not to mention roaches should not just be "immune to lings". Marines would do 3 damage, and the whole purpose of the unit in ZvT would be a counter to mass marine that isn't banelings. In larger fights you'd want to keep your marines from targeting the roaches and keep your maras on the roaches. As for lings, they already suck horribly vs roaches, but here's some math for you: Lings do 3 damage a hit right now, which means they need (not counting regen) 145/3 or almost 50 hits to kill a roach. With my proposed change, lings will do 2 damage a hit, which means (again not counting regen) 50/2 or 25 hits to kill a roach! That's twice as effective!!! I originally said 4 armor, this would of course amount to 50 hits to kill a roach again, which ironically is the SAME number of hits as what we have now. I'll do some math with marines too since you seem to be so numerically impaired: Marines right now do 4 damage a hit to roaches. That means 145/4 = about 37 hits to kill a roach. With the change to 3 armor marines will do 3 damage a hit, so 50/3 = 17 hits to kill a roach! With 4 armor the damage goes to 2 per hit so we're looking at 50/2 = 25 hits, which is still much better than it is now. Lets try one more case of lings and marines, with my originally proposed 80 hp/4 armor roach. Marines = 80/2 = 40 hits to kill one, only 3 more than it is now. Lings = 80/1 = 80 hits to kill one which is a lot more than it is now. That was a little much, but perhaps 4 armor/50-60 hp or 3 armor and 80 hp makes more sense. Keep in mind the real reason roaches demolish zealots is because they are microable, not because of numbers, therefore numbers don't even matter when it comes to roach vs zealot. | ||
|
Xanrae
Belgium53 Posts
Imagine the protoss had the mothership at tier 1.5 and it costs 100/50 and has the original black hole and planet cracker. However, to keep things balanced, terrans get an infantry unit carrying a nuclear rocket that does 500 damage to air in tier 1.5 (let's call it the cobra) and zerg get the vacuumlisk in tier 2 which destroys all air units on the screen in one shot. Statistics reveal that the races have an equal win percentage. The game is now balanced! Congratulations! Oh, what's this, you wanted to use other air units...? | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
On April 06 2010 21:06 Emon_ wrote: Almost all of BW’s current balance problems can be pinpointed on the Lurker. + Show Spoiler + 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. It would actually be quite good if you could make this argument work to put into perspective the roach/marauder/immortal debate relative to a possible lurker/medic/DT trinity in SC. Unfortunately, I don't think you can. Without even looking at the numbers, if you considered lurker/medic/DT as the defining relationship of 'hard counters' in SC, they're already a lot more varied and interesting. Lurkers are a burrowed ranged siege, medics do no damage at all but heal and DTs are cloaked, high damage, low health harassers. Roach/marauder/immortals are essentially high hp, high damage units with a few twists. Bear in mind that the question isn't whether they are balanced BETWEEN races but whether they are balanced WITHIN races. Put another way, is it viable to build a Zerg/Terran/Protoss army WITHOUT the roach/marauder/immortal? In BW, armies without lurkers/medics/DTs are pretty common. | ||
|
Daerthalus
Canada73 Posts
/troll!! | ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
On April 07 2010 01:58 Xanrae wrote: + Show Spoiler + To those who didn't read the OP: Imagine the protoss had the mothership at tier 1.5 and it costs 100/50 and has the original black hole and planet cracker. However, to keep things balanced, terrans get an infantry unit carrying a nuclear rocket that does 500 damage to air in tier 1.5 (let's call it the cobra) and zerg get the vacuumlisk in tier 2 which destroys all air units on the screen in one shot. Statistics reveal that the races have an equal win percentage. The game is now balanced! Congratulations! Oh, what's this, you wanted to use other air units...? You know, this is actually a fantastic illustration of the current situation. The units are balanced in relation to each other, but by their existence invalidate a large number of other units/strategies. It sounds ludicrous on the face of it, but if you look at it objectively, it's no more ludicrous than proposing a 145 hp, 2 armor, ranged unit w/ 16 damage and decent attack speed that costs 75/25/1 and is available in T1.5. Or either of the other two units for that matter. Any one of them would have been thought a laughable suggestion not long ago. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On April 07 2010 02:25 BillyMole wrote: You know, this is actually a fantastic illustration of the current situation. The units are balanced in relation to each other, but by their existence invalidate a large number of other units/strategies. It sounds ludicrous on the face of it, but if you look at it objectively, it's no more ludicrous than proposing a 145 hp, 2 armor, ranged unit w/ 16 damage and decent attack speed that costs 75/25/1 and is available in T1.5. Or either of the other two units for that matter. Any one of them would have been thought a laughable suggestion not long ago. Why do people always talk about Roaches attack speed/damage as "decent" or even "high." They have a 2 second attack delay, the longest of any ground unit save colossi or siege tanks (which of course do splash damage and have huge range). They do about the same DPS as a marine, for 3x the effective cost. The damage that roaches do is quite low for their cost. It's the armor/HP combo that makes them a great deal. | ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
| ||
