EPTOrganic caprice sounds much better.
TvZ Balance Suggestions - Page 33
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zack1900
United States211 Posts
Organic caprice sounds much better. | ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
On August 04 2010 09:42 Drowsy wrote: Did anyone else watch Idra vs Silver on lost temple? http://sc2rep.net/replays/starcraft-2-replay-z-idra-vs-t-silver-lost-temple-08-03-2010 Are we really cool with this? I mean, ignoring Idra's bm/chat, is this really okay? Just removing or drastically modifying a few maps would probably go a long way in fixing this matchup, as I feel this game illustrates. The adjustments Zerg has to make to stop these types of things are just so drastic that they kind of screw him against most of the other things terran can do, and scouting them in the first place demands some sacrifice early on when 100 minerals is the difference between living and losing, if your overlord sac even works. hi, i am cool with this, this replays just shows that LT is a bad map, just like ....kulas for example as u can do cheesy things as terran and get away with it. on a more normal map like meta u cant do stuff like that and its a lot better for zerg, or in that matter take desert oasis for a good zerg map ^^ the whining part of the game is just said, idra should be smart enough to realise that its not the players fault for certain stuff so being bm towards them is just sad. | ||
|
GreatestThreat
United States631 Posts
On August 04 2010 11:20 kidcrash wrote: I think that the issue is less of terran being too strong but more that zerg is too weak. Throwing too many nerfs at terran might ruin TvP if not carefully thought out. Here are my balance suggestions: 1. Give infestors an upgrade for increased energy regeneration while burrowed. The upgrade could either be at lair tech or hive tech depending on how fast the regeneration was. When you move your infestor while burrowed, it will activate a cool down on the ability which ends when your infestor becomes stationary again. This is just weird. Infestors are alright as is, methinks. 2. Increase the attack speed increase for zergling adrenaline glands upgrade from a 20% increase to a 25% increase. Not a bad idea, it's not an overly drastic increase but it might make players opt more to get the upgrade. 3. Not a zerg buff but I strongly think that viking range needs a nerf. I was thinking drop the range down from 9 to 7 and then add an upgrade in either the fusion core or the starport tech lab for +2 range. This would make mutalisk harass more effective. The upgrade should cost 150/150. Also not a terribly bad idea, until you consider that the Starport Tech Lab already has, what, 5 upgrades? Not necessary but also potentially not too game breaking if it were implemented. 4. Change roach supply from 2 back to 1 and lower their HP from 145 to 120. To compensate with the drop in roach HP, marauder Hp should be dropped to 100 (to lessen their overlapping role with the tank) and concussive shells should be brought back to 100/100 cost (because 50 minerals for an upgrade is almost insignificant). ...Okay you just completely lost all my respect. Reset Roach supply to 1, take away the health that is the only reason they are worth anything, nerf marauders in the process and then mess around with the costs of an upgrade that Blizzard ALREADY tried at 100/100? What the hell? | ||
|
tfmdjeff
United States170 Posts
On August 03 2010 04:04 Zoltan wrote: Marauder: Concussion shell cooldown? That would mean it would probably get one of those stupid atuocast buttons that would never cast when you need it- really increasing micro difficulty for terran infantry. Maybe if while giving it a cooldown you make the ability last significantly longer, and increase the slow%, than that would be OK. INCREASING MICRO DIFFICULTY? God forbid terran require ANY skill to play! That is just SO unfair! Now instead of pressing T and a-moving, I'll have to press T, a-move, AND press a button to fire concussive shells! My APM would have to go up to something like 20, and as far as I know that's physically impossible! Seriously, bro, your entire post was ridiculous. You're so terran bias it isn't even funny. But as for the OP, i like some of the ideas. I agree that vikings need a shorter range as do thors, which are really ridiculous atm. It's like Blizzard noticed how immobile mech was, thought that was a problem, and said "oh, well then we'll just compensate for that by giving them all such a large range they don't even need to move" Making concussive shells castable would certainly, GOD FORBID, make bio harder to play. Don't like the mule idea, I really have no problem with mules as they are. And as for supply depots, maybe give them their own set of energy so they can raise and lower. But yeah. Terran still needs some changes. I think that while the race isn't exactly OP, it's way too easy. I'm being hard on them today because i lost to a couple terrans today who had absolutely no right to win the games. And then, finally, in my last game before i gave up for the day, I was just moments away from beating one and got dropped. It's like they programmed bnet so that just in case you find a way to beat terran you sure as hell aren't going to be allowed to get away with it. So yeah, I hate terran today and they do need some work. | ||
|
DTown
United States428 Posts
Fungal growth prevents tanks from Sieging/Unsieging for the duration of the spell. Your welcome. | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
From my journey through random, I, too, have noticed that terrans just have too many damn nifty little advantages compared to other races. If I can beat better zergs than me while off-racing with terran, the game is fucking broken. All the terrans who say otherwise need to take a journey into random and see how it feels from the other two races' perspectives. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On August 04 2010 14:04 DTown wrote: So I just finished playing my last game of the night, and was thinking about the whole TvZ balance situation, and an idea came to me. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have saved this matchup from its precarious and dubious position. You can thank me later. Fungal growth prevents tanks from Sieging/Unsieging for the duration of the spell. Your welcome. Heh that would be neat, it should also apply to vikings as well. This is one of those things that'd really make Zerg cool to play rather than a position army -> 1a sorta thing. It wouldn't be a crazy big change to the matchup, but it would help at least. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 04 2010 14:09 Logo wrote: Heh that would be neat, it should also apply to vikings as well. This is one of those things that'd really make Zerg cool to play rather than a position army -> 1a sorta thing. It wouldn't be a crazy big change to the matchup, but it would help at least. How would it not be a crazy big change? Locking a Terran out of Siege Mode for 8 seconds seems like a pretty big change to me. And of course, putting a counter to the Siege Tank on the Infestor does nothing to address the early-game issues in TvZ. | ||
|
roymarthyup
1442 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 04 2010 14:32 roymarthyup wrote: if spawn larva was autocast, how much more of a fighting chance would it give zerg against terran? It wouldn't affect high-level balance in the slightest (which is the issue that needs to be addressed), because most good players are good about hitting spawn larva. It would make Zerg easier overall, but it wouldn't fix any imbalance. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On August 04 2010 14:38 TheYango wrote: It wouldn't affect high-level balance in the slightest (which is the issue that needs to be addressed), because most good players are good about hitting spawn larva. It would make Zerg easier overall, but it wouldn't fix any imbalance. thats not true at all, ive never seen anyone keep queens low at 1/hatchery throughout a long game im a macro focused player and mine regularly build up over 75 even in games that arent *that* demanding not that i support that change at all, it would be horrible, but no one is anywhere near perfect with larvae inject. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On August 04 2010 12:04 {ToT}ColmA wrote: hi, i am cool with this, this replays just shows that LT is a bad map, just like ....kulas for example as u can do cheesy things as terran and get away with it. on a more normal map like meta u cant do stuff like that and its a lot better for zerg, or in that matter take desert oasis for a good zerg map ^^ the whining part of the game is just said, idra should be smart enough to realise that its not the players fault for certain stuff so being bm towards them is just sad. That's exactly what I mean though. A lot of the maps are like this and it's terrible for zerg. There's too many ways to exploit a natural expansion on the current map pool. Before making any balance changes, they ought to re-evaluate the map pool and/or make changes to existing maps. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 04 2010 14:47 IdrA wrote: thats not true at all, ive never seen anyone keep queens low at 1/hatchery throughout a long game im a macro focused player and mine regularly build up over 75 even in games that arent *that* demanding not that i support that change at all, it would be horrible, but no one is anywhere near perfect with larvae inject. Hmm, my mistake then. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On August 04 2010 07:04 cuppatea wrote: Recent tournaments (from phase 2 onwards): IEM qualifyer - Won by Silver (Terran), who 2-0'd Idra along the way. IOL LAN - Top 4 all Terran (Sjow, Morrow, Jinro, Merz). Craftcup #10 - 6 Terran in the top 8, won by Strelok (T) over Jimpo (T) in the final. GosuCoaching #6 - Won by Drewbie (T), with Silver (T) 3rd/4th. Go4SC2 #25 - 2 Terran in the top 3 (Cloud 1st/2nd, final hasn't been played yet afaik, Tarson 3rd). Go4SC2 #24 - 2 Terran in the top 3 (Salens 2nd, Lucifron 3rd). Go4SC2 #23 - Strelok (T) 1st, Goody (T) 4th. Go4SC2 #22 - Morrow (T) 1st, And3ad (T) 2nd. Zotac #16 - 3 Terran in the top 4, Demuslim (T) over Jimpo (T) in the final. WTA #1 - ThesTc (T) 1st, Hannibal (T) 3rd. Chinese Domination Challenge - Won by Loner (T), without dropping a map. KOTB - QXC (T) and IntoTheRainbow (T) 3rd/4th. The only tournaments since phase 2 I can recall that weren't won by Terran were Go4SC2 #24, which had 2 Terran in the top 3 and KOTB, which had 2 Terran in the top 4. It's not as if there are just 1 or 2 supremely skilled Terrans dominating these tournaments either, there have been dozens of different T players progressing to the latter stages of competitions recently. Just look at the GosuGamer rankings, which are based on recent results and have 23 Terran in the top 40, compared to 9 Protoss and 8 Zerg. A list of tournaments is probative, but it's not dispositive by any means. You can toss out the two tournaments won by other players, because those don't support the point you're trying to make. In fact, one could argue that the PvZ outcome of the KOTB tournament is more dispositive than the others because the relative skill level of the participants was higher, on the whole. Aren't the Go4SC2 tournies EU-only? And aren't they open registration with a pretty small prize pool? Weren't some of the wins very close i.e. 3-2? That doesn't indicate dominance or imbalance by strictly top-notch players - you have to look at each individual game and the participants involved, then ask yourself "Were these players of equal skill? Did they play equally well? Was there some fundamental imbalance that favored one race over the other, that couldn't be overcome by better play?" This sort of thing happens all the time in WoW, where I used to play with the best players in the world. People cry and scream about how one particular composition is unstoppable and needs drastic nerfs, and then one month later someone comes along with a new strategy and now they're the dominant force that needs nerfing. Sometimes there's imbalance, but just as often it's a failure to devise new strategies and adapt to a changing strategic scene. If one high-level player beats another high-level player in a close series, or even a shutout, that means nothing in and of itself. You need more convincing proof to make a serious argument - something like a step-by-step analysis of a replay where you show two top-tier players competing against one another, each playing perfectly without serious mistakes, and one side losing simply because of the inordinate power of the other side's units or abilities (and that implies a decisive loss, not a close one that could have been decided by luck.) I could do this for you in WoW. I could watch a WLD play a TSG and explain how, if the TSG plays correctly, the match is unwinnable simply because WoW PvP is not balanced the same way SC2 is. If you can make the same sort of argument in a replay between top-level players, where the loser doesn't make the mistakes that Idra did in the Idra/Silver game, then I think you'd have a very persuasive case. As it is, you have evidence that T has been doing well in a number of recent tournaments, but there's no demonstration of any imbalance in that data. EDIT: To clarify, everyone has an obvious right to engage in this sort of discussion. But if you want to make a serious contribution, as the OP obviously did, you need to establish the underlying point in a way that Blizzard will respect, and you can't do that with superficial analysis and a bit of personal experience, as some of the posters are trying to do here (not necessarily you in particular.) | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10598 Posts
You can do this for WoW if you want, but i also can do this for Command and Conquer which is about as good at a competetive level as WoW. Utter crap. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
i wouldnt like to comment on the unit's changening, nobody could be convinced that it should or shouldnt be nerfed one note though, i usually check the APM of my opponents after the game, Zergs are usually over 100, myself included, Protosses around there, sometimes higher, many times lower, and Terrans most of the times 40-70, somtimes ofc over 100, there are fast terran players. Just putting it out there. | ||
|
cuppatea
United Kingdom1401 Posts
On August 04 2010 19:20 PanzerKing wrote: A list of tournaments is probative, but it's not dispositive by any means. You can toss out the two tournaments won by other players, because those don't support the point you're trying to make. In fact, one could argue that the PvZ outcome of the KOTB tournament is more dispositive than the others because the relative skill level of the participants was higher, on the whole. Aren't the Go4SC2 tournies EU-only? And aren't they open registration with a pretty small prize pool? Weren't some of the wins very close i.e. 3-2? That doesn't indicate dominance or imbalance by strictly top-notch players - you have to look at each individual game and the participants involved, then ask yourself "Were these players of equal skill? Did they play equally well? Was there some fundamental imbalance that favored one race over the other, that couldn't be overcome by better play?" This sort of thing happens all the time in WoW, where I used to play with the best players in the world. People cry and scream about how one particular composition is unstoppable and needs drastic nerfs, and then one month later someone comes along with a new strategy and now they're the dominant force that needs nerfing. Sometimes there's imbalance, but just as often it's a failure to devise new strategies and adapt to a changing strategic scene. If one high-level player beats another high-level player in a close series, or even a shutout, that means nothing in and of itself. You need more convincing proof to make a serious argument - something like a step-by-step analysis of a replay where you show two top-tier players competing against one another, each playing perfectly without serious mistakes, and one side losing simply because of the inordinate power of the other side's units or abilities (and that implies a decisive loss, not a close one that could have been decided by luck.) I could do this for you in WoW. I could watch a WLD play a TSG and explain how, if the TSG plays correctly, the match is unwinnable simply because WoW PvP is not balanced the same way SC2 is. If you can make the same sort of argument in a replay between top-level players, where the loser doesn't make the mistakes that Idra did in the Idra/Silver game, then I think you'd have a very persuasive case. As it is, you have evidence that T has been doing well in a number of recent tournaments, but there's no demonstration of any imbalance in that data. EDIT: To clarify, everyone has an obvious right to engage in this sort of discussion. But if you want to make a serious contribution, as the OP obviously did, you need to establish the underlying point in a way that Blizzard will respect, and you can't do that with superficial analysis and a bit of personal experience, as some of the posters are trying to do here (not necessarily you in particular.) You asked for evidence of Terran domination at the highest level and I provided it... | ||
|
Cashout
115 Posts
On August 04 2010 19:38 Geo.Rion wrote: one note though, i usually check the APM of my opponents after the game, Zergs are usually over 100, myself included, Protosses around there, sometimes higher, many times lower, and Terrans most of the times 40-70, somtimes ofc over 100, there are fast terran players. Just putting it out there. so ? i usually have 20 apm higher with zerg but its still easiest race to play for me for me . | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On August 04 2010 19:54 Cashout wrote: so ? i usually have 20 apm higher with zerg but its still easiest race to play for me for me . i wanted to suggest that slightly slower or less skilled players get really high rating in diamond L due to | ||
|
NeoLearner
Belgium1847 Posts
On August 04 2010 19:38 Geo.Rion wrote: ...The Bunker's salvage is an ability i do not understand why is in the game, ot why anyone thought that it should be introduced... I guess it's part of the: "Let's make all the races more mobile" theme. Warp-in, creep-speed bonus, spine/spore crawlers... On the subject of bunkers, I seem to remember an interview with Dustin Browder in June where he talked about salvage and how broken he thought it was: Dustin Browder: Right, and that's well, if - I mean, I got lists of things right now that I could point to...y'know, like, y'know Bunkers right now, Salvage for 100% of the cost. 100%. Don't tell me that's not broken. That's the most broken thing I've ever heard of! And yet, we're not seeing it in games. Like, we're not seeing it be that decisive. But I believe that it should be. So I think that's just a lack of play time. Source: http://sc2pod.com/wiki/User:Tiger0211/Dustin_Browder_Interview_Transcription If we start seeing a lot of bunker abuse, I imagine they'll be very quick to (try to) patch it out. EDIT(s): Trying to get the layout readable. | ||
| ||
