|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 07 2010 02:06 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +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=118413Finally, 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. I'll answer your Protoss point - yes it is 100% viable to build an army without immortals and win.
|
I agree with that line of thinking. No unit should invalidate so many of other units in all 3 match ups.
The Maraunder, roach and to a less extent the Immortal have that effect.
The Immortal doesn't realy over invalidate it's own units, but it does significantly weaken an entire Terran tech tree path.
The Marauder makes building marines vs ground units pointless.
The Roach has a similar effect with regard to zerglings.
|
I'd agree that the Immortal is in the best shape of the 3. It doesn't really screw other Protoss over much, and against Zerg the only thing it invalidates is the self-invalidating Ultralisk (though if we fixed the 3, the need for huge +armored attacks would go away, which would probably bring the Ultra back into viability). The only thing it truly invalidates is Terran Mech (which without spider mines and Goliaths, is kind of self-invalidating as well). Probably the only thing the Immortal needs is a bit of a damage reduction.
Can't make the same statement for the other two units though. They invalidate pretty much everything the other races have on the ground except for 1-2 units.
|
With regard to the comments about ESports.
I definitely agree people don't want to what you mass roaches while I mass Marauders or Immortals.
What gives SC2 the potential to be a very good E-Sport is the inherent weaknesses of each unit. From a viewing perspective I think people would enjoy seeing, different builds, and quick adaptation based on scouted information. Yes the cheese rushes need to exist to keep people on their toes, but every game shouldn't come down to the same unit comp vs same unit comp.
Here's an example of what of a game should look like:
Start; Pick an initial strategy. IE Banshee rush, 2 Gate proxy, 1 gate-robo, Marauder FE or w/e.
1 - Scout opponent's strategy
2 - Adapt or completely change initial strategy
3 - Opponent see what you're doing, and adapts.
4 - Repeat 1 - 3
5 - Win: either b.c you adapted better, caught your opponent off guard or microed/macroed better.
With this model there would more than likely be multiple possible openings and assuming good scouting on both end the units each player builds would vary through out the match.
IE: Zerg goes Roach vs Protoss, Protoss counters with Immortals, Zerg counters with lings, Protoss builds more Zealots, Zerg was feinting roach rush but really was going for muta-lings. Protoss is harassed by mutas and builds some Cannons + stalker/sentrys. Zerg meanwhile expands (again!), ... and so forth.
Seems it would be entertaining to watch.
|
On April 07 2010 02:51 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 02:06 theSAiNT wrote: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=118413Finally, 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. I'll answer your Protoss point - yes it is 100% viable to build an army without immortals and win.
Yes, but would you rather struggle with stalker micro and forcefields or just make 3 immortals and attack move to victory? I can win TvP without marauders. I often do. However I probably could've just marauder spammed and won more easily.
|
On April 07 2010 02:51 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 02:06 theSAiNT wrote: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=118413Finally, 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. I'll answer your Protoss point - yes it is 100% viable to build an army without immortals and win.
This further supports my claim earlier in this thread that the Protoss are the most well "polished" of all three races. It has the good option of building Immortals when the other two races build Marauders and Roaches. It is a good choice. However, the other two races aren't in nearly as polished of a state, as Roaches and Marauders are essential in nearly all matchups, regardless of what the opponents build.
Once again, P is fine, Z and T need something different. Z and T shouldn't have 120+ hp "protoss-like" monsters to be able to compete with Protoss. They need to do something different, ie: more quantity for zerg, more set-up quality for terran.
|
On April 07 2010 02:56 Daerthalus wrote:
The Roach has a similar effect with regard to zerglings.
No, zerglings are still recommended against Marauders. There are unit matchups where zerglings are still better than Roaches
|
On April 07 2010 03:43 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 02:51 Plexa wrote:On April 07 2010 02:06 theSAiNT wrote: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=118413Finally, 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. I'll answer your Protoss point - yes it is 100% viable to build an army without immortals and win. Yes, but would you rather struggle with stalker micro and forcefields or just make 3 immortals and attack move to victory? I can win TvP without marauders. I often do. However I probably could've just marauder spammed and won more easily.
Immortals are weak against non armored stuff like zerglings, hydras, marines, zealots, emp...
Thats why protoss has diverse armies.. There are no units that are answer to everything so you have to mix it up.
|
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:
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?!?
/cookie.
It isn't going to be an 100% solution, but this kind of logic, now that we've identified the problem, is a hell of a lot more productive then "lets give roaches 4 armor becuz its cool" and "HARDCUNVTERS!"
what about zealots vs roaches?
Kite. Focus fire. Encourages micro too.
also lol@the person who compared Dark Templar, medics and Lurkers. lols.
In case you haven't noticed, all those units have definitive hardcounters except the zerg unit, which doesn't need one because in fact, it does not invalidate bioplay or mechplay.
|
im on the same boat as people saying there is something wrong with the game because of the big 3 marauder, roach and immortal with the roach and immortal being the primary problem
these 3 units shift and destabilize the transitioning of tiers in the game. why go marines in the beginning when marauders are so much better? why build factory tanks when marauders are so much better? the problem with massing marauders was unintentionally encouraged with the last patch by nerfing marines and reactors. reducing scv hp and reactor cost was more than enough. why increase marine build time?
similary why build zerglings when marauders are so much better, and then later on because of the other big 2, why build ultralisk when roaches are so much better and the other 2 marauder and immortal just rape it because when your first ultra comes out, there is an entire large force of immortals and marauders. the unit just got hard countered before it was even built.
then the immortal is a reactionary unit thats meant to deal with this mess but it creates a mess of its own. by making the factory worthless, you just encourage people to mass more marauders because they are just more versatile and mobile than then the factory units.
|
On April 07 2010 04:08 iounas wrote:
Immortals are weak against non armored stuff like zerglings, hydras, marines, zealots, emp...
Thats why protoss has diverse armies.. There are no units that are answer to everything so you have to mix it up.
And more importantly, the immortal also has the other weakness of being t2 instead of t1.5 (1.1 really lol, tech lab buildtimes are ridiculously fast), and are less cost effective.
The immortal is by far the least problematic of the units. Even though it has a huge detrimental effect right now, it makes mech play invalid, it isn't nearly as bad as the other two. However, even though its current effects are relatively limited atm, it still represents a flaw in the game dynamic that impedes the development of the game beyond terran mech.
For instance, Ultralisks are unusable precisely because of Immortals. Without immortals, Ultas could potentially see use in PvZ.
Even then, its limited, but the fundamental imbalance of a 41 dps unit without the kind of vulnerabilities or tech requirements expected of 41 dps units is going to really manifests itself even more as Blizzard adds in ~4 more expansion units, which I'm sure is going to include at least one armored ground unit.
|
Giving roaches 4 armor and low hp doesn't end up changing how marines/lings do vs them as compared to now. I did the math, it can work out to be the same or even easier. However, it makes them vulnerable to more than just marauders/immortals. The net effect actually INCREASES the diversity of counters, while it retains its role as a little tank. It also makes it much more micro intensive vs zealots, which is a good thing cause it raises the skill level required to make them work well.
The problems with roaches are they're so damn good vs everything except immortals and marauders. If you make them not so good vs a lot of other stuff, you won't need immortals and marauders to be so ridiculous.
|
On April 07 2010 04:20 Floophead_III wrote:
Perhaps you didn't read my previous post. Giving roaches 4 armor and low hp doesn't end up changing how marines/lings do vs them as compared to now. I did the math, it can work out to be the same or even easier. However, it makes them vulnerable to more than just marauders/immortals. The net effect actually INCREASES the diversity of counters, while it retains its role as a little tank. It also makes it much more micro intensive vs zealots, which is a good thing cause it raises the skill level required to make them work well.
The problems with roaches are they're so damn good vs everything except immortals and marauders. If you make them not so good vs a lot of other stuff, you won't need immortals and marauders to be so ridiculous.
In order to just make it equal against marines, you'd have to make them have half as much hp. 65 HP (accounting for regen bonus due to lower HP). In order to have the same effect as say, a 115 hp roach, something I think is pretty reasonable, you would need a 45 hp roach. That's absurdly low and useless.
You'd need a 30 hp roach to buff zerglings against them lols.
|
I think if immortals had their bonus damage reduced enough to need one more shot versus tanks or if they had less hp (same shields) that lead them to die to some critical upgrade or number of attacks quicker they would be almost perfectly balanced.
As far as roaches go I think an increased resource cost or a very slight buff somewhere and then increased population cost (from one up to 2) would almost entirely do the trick. I don't think the unit itself is too strong on it's own, but I think it is too easy to mass. Most of my roach problems come from either super early groups of 6-8 or later oceans of roaches.
Maras I think could be balanced in the same way that I propose balancing immortals. Slight reduction on damage and bring the hp down so some critical upgrade or number of attacks brings them down a little earlier.
This is a little off topic, but I also think some of the issue with PvT/Z is the strength of Zealots and their charge upgrade. Zealots seem pretty solid early but, the charge upgrade I think is just a little too weak more often than not. I personally think flat leg speed increase would be better, making the zealot just plain more maneuverable. Late game zealots for protoss are almost always an assured 100 minerals per unit lost per battle. If you are in a losing fight you will likely never save a single zealot who engaged at any point from death when you retreat, and this seems especially true vs masses of roaches and maras. The charge idea is sweet but, needs to be tweaked I think to help give zealots greater use, especially against tier 1.5 masses. Feel free to PM me about this for discussion rather than soiling this thread any further than I have.
|
@Half: Stalkers. Thors. Vikings. Hydras. Even banelings would be ok. And yah tanks would be fantastic. They'd also die to PFs a lot faster.
Edit: I also forgot the obvious. Cannons and crawlers.
|
this is a joke, roaches maybe slightly imbalanced but the stand point it makes other races go hard counters to them BUT it is very easy for terran to get marauders which RAPE roaches with micro because of their extra dmg to roaches and their ability to slow units, and protoss RAPE roaches with like 1-2 immortals and 1-2 sentries in their early push.
|
Put another way, is it viable to build a Zerg/Terran/Protoss army WITHOUT the roach/marauder/immortal?
Sm1 asked this question and IMHO, especially in PvZ and PvT, it's much harder to use the Immortal right compared to the other MU's. Yes I am a Protoss-palyer and you can call me a whiner, but just read what I wanna tell you. ^^'
- Immortals are a much bigger investment than Roaches and Marauders, you have to go in your tech-tree into a certain direction that makes it harder to get to HT's/DT's or a Stargate and they are very expensive as well.
- Immortals get out later than the other 2 Units of the "Triangle of Doom" or however you wanna call them. So if you think your opponent goes roaches/marauders, you have to plan out your build further ahead, which could hurt if the opponent goes for sth completely different.
- Immortals are way easier to counter, because they are just not worth the amount of money you spend on them when they're not facing mass-roaches or mass-marauders. Also, the Terran just has to build a few Ghost, Stim his Marauders so you can't retreat and kick in a EMP et voilà - Marauders do +10 DMG to the Unit that is supposed to counter them.
So I guess it's not only viable to not go for Immortals, but at least in TvP, Immortals get raped by a good Terran, so i'd go for Mass-Sentrys and Zealots and Collossi... In PvZ, I'd also recommend Mass Sentrys and Zealots, because Speedlings backstabbing your Immos equals "GG". I just hate those heavy, slow totally unversatile Units like Roach and Immortal sooo much.
And it's just frustrating to be forced to play a Unit that you don't want to play... I even gone about 200 games with Protoss without using the Collossi, but with Immo being so easily countered by Terrans/Zerg and DT's and HT's being basically nerfed to death (yeah yeah - overexaggeration I know, but they got nerfed a bit too much...), I rly don't have another chance. ^^'
|
On April 07 2010 04:49 Limenade wrote:
this is a joke, roaches maybe slightly imbalanced but the stand point it makes other races go hard counters to them BUT it is very easy for terran to get marauders which RAPE roaches with micro because of their extra dmg to roaches and their ability to slow units, and protoss RAPE roaches with like 1-2 immortals and 1-2 sentries in their early push.
Can you at least read the first post before you... you know... post?
|
On April 07 2010 04:49 Limenade wrote:
this is a joke, roaches maybe slightly imbalanced but the stand point it makes other races go hard counters to them BUT it is very easy for terran to get marauders which RAPE roaches with micro because of their extra dmg to roaches and their ability to slow units, and protoss RAPE roaches with like 1-2 immortals and 1-2 sentries in their early push.
the point OP is trying to make is that if roaches were not the way they are now then there is no point in spamming maurauders. For example, would you send 12 maurauders against 24 speedlings? The nature of the roach forces maurauders, and considering they're suppose to be the hard counter to roach they better damn well kill them fast
|
On April 07 2010 04:49 Limenade wrote:
this is a joke, roaches maybe slightly imbalanced but the stand point it makes other races go hard counters to them BUT it is very easy for terran to get marauders which RAPE roaches with micro because of their extra dmg to roaches and their ability to slow units, and protoss RAPE roaches with like 1-2 immortals and 1-2 sentries in their early push.
troll post right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
