|
On August 07 2010 05:41 DTown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 05:37 leeznon wrote:
I think mules should be 25 energy like chrono boost and inject larvae. (decrease MULE time)
I think bunkers should cost 50% to salvage.
I think tanks range or power needs to be decreased, or tanks move to tier 3 cause 50 damage is insane.
I think Thor and turret range needs to decrease.
I think overlords should have to ability to drop right away, no upgrade.
This would make TvZ more equal. Besides the massive amount of terrible involved in your post, inject larvae does not cost 25 energy, it costs 50. edit: realized my post was not constructive enough, since I just attacked him without providing rationale. The reason why everything you said was utterly retarded is because any of those suggestions aside from the salvage correction would break the balance so horribly it is hardly funny. (Ok, it would be funny, just to see a few terran tears as well. Hell we could probably bathe in them).
.................
................
Really?
It's 25 energy. Queens can inject larvae immediately on spawning.
I wouldn't make a point of it, but if you're going to be so aggressive in your tone you should at least be factually correct.
|
The changes are interesting. As far as Queen larva spawning, frankly, I would like it if you spawn a queen (regardless of number) from a hatch, you get +1 normal larva and -1 ability spawned larva for that hatch. Would allow Zerg not to be punished so much for missing a Spawn Larva.
I do think Mules are too easy though and they are massive Gold harvesters if you save up the energy. Queens are fekking annoying to micro, so I would like the same punishment for Terran should they miss out.
|
So many of the these suggestions seem really extreme and most of them have little to no explanation as to the numbers or the logic behind. It's like people just make up numbers and expect that to work out perfectly. Blizzard's balance sometimes goes out to the thousands decimal place. They put a lot of work into trying to tweak things just right. Seems like most people want to take a hammer to something that requires scalpel. Having said that I have a couple suggestions.
1. Right now the rate at which MULE's harvest is about equal to the rate of 3 (2.93) scv's. Giving Terran a pretty huge econ boost in the early and mid game, especially if they are able to do a FE build. 2 OC's being able to call down 2 mules is just adding 6 more scv's on top of all the works Terran already has. Now given the other races abilities to increase their worker production through either Queen vomit or chrono boost Terran def needs a way to make up for this, the problem comes from the fact that Terran's version is stepped whereas the other races increase at a certain rate. Allowing Terran resource counts to surge forward giving them a huge boost of resources vs the other races resources increasing gradually.
What I'm thinking about is decreasing the scv equivalence of the MULES down to do 2 scv's instead of 3. Decreasing the surge of resources for Terran but still giving them an economic boost.
2. Stim Speed. It's pretty easy to outrun a group of banelings with stimmed marine and mauraders. I'd like to see the ease of that reduced, not removed. Decreasing the speed boost from 3.375 to the 3.1ish area, this still gives the Marines a slight edge over the increased speed of banelings at 2.95 but makes the micro more important where any wasted movement will be punished.
3. Turrets. Turret dps is at 27.9 vs the other fixed AA defenses Spore crawlers @ 17.44 and cannons @ 16 dps. It feels like this should be brought down a little bit, how far I'm not sure but that's a pretty large difference in dps between the fixed defenses. Especially with Thor's available to deal with mass muta.
4. Corruptors. I'd like to see Corruptor range increased to 7. This puts them at +1 range over voids, increases their effectiveness vs Collossus and makes Viking kitting a little more dangerous.
edit: Added my other points, accidently hit post the first time. 
|
On August 07 2010 05:01 kajeus wrote:
Of all players on Korean servers: 8.56% Random, 39.21% Protoss, 34.51% Terran, 17.73% Zerg
Diamond league as a whole, worldwide: 9.74% Random, 36.11% Protoss, 29.87% Terran, 24.28% Zerg.
LOOK at that gigantic gap. Zergs are perhaps OVER-represented in diamond, and terrans are perhaps UNDER-represented in diamond in Korea. Now, % for each race of only Korean diamond players would be ideal, but oh well. We don't have that data.
What do I care about the race preference of Koreans? Comparing it to the preference of diamond league players doesn't provide any insight for two reasons:
a) most new SC2 players (which are included in your first data set) start playing as Terran as they are most human like and already known from the campaign. This explains the big drop of terran players from all leagues (influenced by bronze to platin) to diamond league
b) the blizzard league system is a joke. Skill difference across them is so high, taking "being in diamond league" as a sign for skill is very misleading. Hell, even I'm in diamond league, I've played the game for 5 days only playing zerg and have an average APM of 50.
However, alternatively, look at the percentage that plays zerg in each region: 20.35% NA, 21.13% Europe, 17.73% Korea, 24.20% Taiwan, 20.46% SE Asia, 21.71% Russia, 17.53% Latin America.
Now imagine any reasonable weighted average of those numbers. Around 21% maybe? Less? HOWEVER, what percentage of all diamond players are zerg? 24.28%!! That is not only CLOSE to what would be expected, but ABOVE what would be expected.
As I said, the vast majority of diamond players still suck.
Moreover, terrans are 36% of the top 50 in Korea (34.51% of all Koreans play terran). Zergs are 24% of the top 50 -- way MORE than the percentage who play the race in all of Korea (17.73%), and hence way MORE than would be expected to have fallen into the top 50 through random distribution.
the percentage of players who play zerg in all of Korea is not interesting. As I stated before, it includes total beginners who tend to chose Terran as their starting race. Also, bad players don't lose because of imbalances but because of their own mistakes.
Essentially what you're saying is this:
Of those players where balance matters the most, i.e. the top 50, the Terran fraction is considerably overrepresented. Terran > Zerg. q.e.d.
The only way to look at this is by looking at the best 50/100/500 whatever. Taking all players into account doesn't lead to any useful conclusions, becaue imbalances play only a little role who wins or loses in bronze leagues.
Congruent with your top 50 in Korea, check out the top 50 of the world with more than 100 games played (I want to make sure that their rank is deserved):
Zerg: 20%
Terran: 42%
Protoss: 32%
Random: 6%
|
First off... I'll put this out here. To the SC community, I'm a noob. I'm of no particularly high skill or any shining example of knowledge.
I think a LOT of the community have stopped being players and starting acting as backseat developpers. Instead of suggesting strategies, counter play or pointing out strong or weak play, a ton of people are just suggesting changes that should be brought up to the races.
This in turn ended up bleeding into players morale with regards to the match ups instead of the play or even sometimes the maps.
I've seen people quit games early that clearly could have gone longer.
I've seen people theaten to quit the game(let's try not to laugh at someone threatening Blizzard of quitting "after" paying),
I've seen people who cast their own games (some even featured) be BM to the other guy at the end of the game (and I've seen this for PvZ, TvP and TvZ) stating that the other guys play is OP/BS/Ridiculous... etc... (I watch a LOT of TL streams, still love it, but that stuff makes watching streams unpleasant, useless, and frustrating)
BW has been out for over a decade and even with all the stats on everything from team to map or player information, we STILL see surprising games, impressive play and incredible upsets, and I think a metric TON of us have completely destroyed fantasy and liquidbet records to show for it.
SC2 has been out for just over a week, little more if you count the BETA (but over the beta, the game has changed quite a bit) and people already claim in absolutes, that the build they were doing was the "safest" and that the opponents play is always allin and requires no skill. Even if there is some truth to these statements, I'm almost sorry for some of these players since they have essentially stopped trying to innovate, choosing instead to hope that the opposing matchup gets "nerfed".
I'm quoting a bit day[9] on this... but I fully understand how frustrating it can be when you have practiced hours on top of hours with a full plan for a 45 minute game, to then lose in 8 minutes because of a strong early push that had hints of being a bit allin. To me it's the equivalent of if I practiced for days with a GM of chess. Had strategems and ideas going well into the late game... just to end up against an opponent who does a weak early play that I never practiced and lose. I get to thinking that the guy would never have beaten me in a straight up game that went to late game. However, as a player I should replay the game and see what my mistakes were... Not go out and blame him for say playing the white pieces. (BTW Chess, in the absolute sense, is imbalanced)
Sc2 will never be perfectly balanced, much less with 2 major expansions that will add new layers of depth to the game (maps/units). BW never was, much less on all maps, and it still was an awesome game. Be fun if players stopped acting like devs, and started acting like players... Plotting strategies, cool play, posting replays and streams to awesome games.... and just overall had fun. Anyways, my 2 cents, feel free to flame me and say I know nothing and that I'm horrible and keep suggesting that they nerf or buff X...
|
On August 07 2010 06:43 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 05:01 kajeus wrote:
Of all players on Korean servers: 8.56% Random, 39.21% Protoss, 34.51% Terran, 17.73% Zerg
Diamond league as a whole, worldwide: 9.74% Random, 36.11% Protoss, 29.87% Terran, 24.28% Zerg.
LOOK at that gigantic gap. Zergs are perhaps OVER-represented in diamond, and terrans are perhaps UNDER-represented in diamond in Korea. Now, % for each race of only Korean diamond players would be ideal, but oh well. We don't have that data.
What do I care about the race preference of Koreans? Comparing it to the preference of diamond league players doesn't provide any insight for two reasons: a) most new SC2 players (which are included in your first data set) start playing as Terran as they are most human like and already known from the campaign. This explains the big drop of terran players from all leagues (influenced by bronze to platin) to diamond league b) the blizzard league system is a joke. Skill difference across them is so high, taking "being in diamond league" as a sign for skill is very misleading. Hell, even I'm in diamond league, I've played the game for 5 days only playing zerg and have an average APM of 50.
If you're in diamond, you're in the top 5% of players worldwide. Congratulations.
Your point abou "race preference in Korea" is a little mysterious to me, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to my core argument, so I'mma ignore that for now. 
As I said, the vast majority of diamond players still suck.
Top 5%, man. 
Essentially what you're saying is this:
Of those players where balance matters the most, i.e. the top 50, the Terran fraction is considerably overrepresented. Terran > Zerg. q.e.d.
The terran fraction is NOT considerably overrepresented! Terrans are 36% of the top 50 in Korea, but 34.51% of all Koreans play terran! Zergs are 24% of the top 50 -- way MORE than the percentage who play the race in all of Korea. So you're gonna have to make your point a little better. You're saying that terrans are worse, on average, and zergs are better, correct? So your hypothesis is that more "good terrans" are in the top 50 than "good zergs" are in the top 50? I'm just looking for some clarification on what exactly you're arguing.
The only way to look at this is by looking at the best 50/100/500 whatever. Taking all players into account doesn't lead to any useful conclusions, becaue imbalances play only a little role who wins or loses in bronze leagues.
Congruent with your top 50 in Korea, check out the top 50 of the world with more than 100 games played (I want to make sure that their rank is deserved):
Zerg: 20%
Terran: 42%
Protoss: 32%
Random: 6%
Ok, and 20.54% of people worldwide play zerg. I think I'm starting to understand what you're trying to say, but it's just not true. At the very least, if 20% of all players play zerg, then it's unreasonable to expect more than 20% of the top 50 in the world to be zerg players, because there are simply FEWER of them. Indeed, these results are ASTOUNDING in how perfectly they conform to expectations. Are you arguing that this 20% thing is just a coincidence?
If you have 50% red jelly beans in a jar, 30% yellow jelly beans, and 20% white jelly beans, then take a large random handful of jelly beans, it is completely unreasonable to expect an even 33% split across all colours. Do you disagree with that?
What sort of distribution would you expect from the top 50?
|
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Portal:Leagues
So out of 25 tourney's on this page 16 wins go to Zerg, 6 go to the Protoss, and 3 go to the terran... and Terran needs to be fixed?
Oh sorry, I guess all the Zerg players are just better than everyone else, forgot about that...
|
you can just state that and say there is nothing wrong in the balance (may it be maps or the race i dont care). the german eps has only one zerg(darkforce) out of 15 players so far...what does that tell you?
and regarding tournament wins...if i recall it correctly there was a beta and many balance changes. the early cups dimaga won with using bling busts and nobody had an answer for it.
|
I like the marauder change, not really a terrible nerf and would help a bit. The range on thors and vikings are a little ridiculous haha, T doesn't really need the 2 longest anti-air in the game, one great vs armor and one great vs light
|
IMO, looking at an imbalanced matchup and saying "Nerfs are needed" is the wrong way to go about things. We should be looking for ways to buff Zerg, it's better to make things useful then make things crappy.
Perhaps weakening Roaches a bit and dropping them to 1 food? Or 3 for 2 food? Zerg need a bit more of the swarmy feel back.
The viking and thor ranges are a bit absurd, but Thor range is needed because Vikings aren't a great counter to Mutas and Thors are so goddamn slow that they need big range to be able to engage enemy fliers.
I also think the Orbital Command has enough energy tension as it is, having to pay to lower depots would be a bit ridiculous. Toss macro mechanics have no energy tension at all and the Zerg one has minimal energy tension due to the fact that creep tumors are self-propagating. Better to make Zerg stronger then add more tension to an already extremely stressed building.
|
On August 07 2010 07:39 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
you can just state that and say there is nothing wrong in the balance (may it be maps or the race i dont care). the german eps has only one zerg(darkforce) out of 15 players so far...what does that tell you?
and regarding tournament wins...if i recall it correctly there was a beta and many balance changes. the early cups dimaga won with using bling busts and nobody had an answer for it.
Well, given that I have no idea what the German eps is and it's a single data-point... not a lot?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On August 07 2010 07:48 Keap wrote:
I like the marauder change, not really a terrible nerf and would help a bit. The range on thors and vikings are a little ridiculous haha, T doesn't really need the 2 longest anti-air in the game, one great vs armor and one great vs light
Considering vikings are so weak and die incredibly fast to anything and are really slow, they need that slight bit of range to allow them to atleast get one shot off, I mean, they don't even fly fast enough to out micro anything, well maybe a void ray, but the other air to air can easily catch them. Also without that range, collosus with range upgrade would be too hard to deal with due to stalkers being able to just kill you before you get close enough to kill it (on lower range)
Mutas if not clumped rape small thor numbers, it's not as if the range makes any difference as you can get close enough to the thor to attack anyways (taking about one attack if that) so I can't understand the complaining as alot of muta fire takes down a thor pretty quickly, so it's just quickly swoop in and attack and then the thor is dead already.
One thing that could be suggested is to swap the viking and thors damage bonus, I'm not sure how much that would change things though.
|
Re: Mechanics. (This is specifically about TvZ, does not take into considering P implications)
Your Mule suggest makes an incorrect assumption: That the Mules and Spawn Larvae are essentially similar mechanics, to be used whenever possible, I.E. on cool down.
However they are vastly different. For Zerg there is no choice. You throw down one creep tumor at the beginning and spend the rest of your energy on SL. If you want Transfusions or more Tumors you can simply create another queen.
For Terran however, Mule usage is all about choice. One of the things that differentiates a Great Terran player from a good Terran player is how he uses his OC energy, especially early-mid game. Knowing when you need a mule, and when you can scan is critical. It gets even harder if you accidentally supply block yourself early game and you have to decide between resources, scouting, or unit production.
Applying the Mule change would drastically change the dynamic of this relationship. It would actually make playing Terran eazier. You essentially keep a bank of 50 energy at all times, and just use mules when you are at 65+ energy. When you scan let your energy build up to 65 again and keep pumping mules. The choice becomes Scans vs. Supply, which becomes an easy choice if you don't mess up.
Both mechanics are difficult in different ways. Zerg have to pay more attention to their base, but they don't have to think about it. Terran has much more to think about but pays less attention to his base.
On the SD depot change. No. I would rather SDs just be constantly underground than have them use OC energy (or any energy). I would never use this ability. Ever. I would just hide all my SDs in the side of my base and use rax/bunkers to wall in.
On the bunker construction change: I don't get the SCV invulnerabilty complaint. People say it's imbalanced, but stopping construction on a Protoss or Zerg building is impossible without killing the building. Seems hypocritical.
Re: Unit Balance Changes [The unit balance changes i still have problems with but they are not nearly as bad changes as the changes above, some of them are pretty solid]
Viking/Thor Range: I could see it happening but its balanced by A) Vikings are only a good counter to Broodlords, and they need that range to not get owned by corruptors. and B) Thors are really slow. I could see getting a thor range redux but they could just get microed to death by any air unit then. =/.
Shells change: If you apply the CD then it makes kiting impossible, which is the main purpose behind the shells upgrade, along with slowing units coming toward you (in a big battle, or coming up your ramp, etc.) The whole catching units retreating is nice but i don't get the upgrade for that.
Medivac Change: This whole argument just breaks down. I don't necessarily have a problem with the change but you then go on to suggest that the biggest problem is not the healing but the mobility it gives terran. You give no suggestion on how to fix that. The mobiltiy argument is over half of that section. You also suggest that you can (at least partially) deal with the healing.
You have some solid ideas but most of it just seems like you didn't come at it from a terrans perspective, at all. Because of this by the end of your post it just sounds like a crapton of QQ.
Edit: Formatting so it isn't as much of a wall of text xD
|
Mid-level Gold Protoss player here, so you know where I'm coming from.
This whole argument just breaks down. I don't necessarily have a problem with the change but you then go on to suggest that the biggest problem is not the healing but the mobility it gives terran. You give no suggestion on how to fix that. The mobiltiy argument is over half of that section. You also suggest that you can (at least partially) deal with the healing.
I can't speak for LaLush but i believe he doesn't suggest a remedy for the mobility because there's no elegant solution. I think it's fair that units can only unload 1 at a time from a medivac, however I also understand how annoying it can be to have 2 siege tanks dropped up on a cliff behind your natural's mineral line *cough*KR*cough*. Not to mention site to the high-ground. Though this may make the medivac a little too useful, I still believe it's a somewhat fair unit just because it helps remedy terran's typically immobile forces.
I do however agree that reducing the healing reduction rate would be quite acceptable. Consider the three races typical tier 1.5 armies after losing 75% total hp/shields and retreating from a losing battle. Also assume armies of equal resource and supply cost:
Zerg: If they have burrow and claws, roaches can heal very well. Zergling are cheap and not worth spending APM or energy healing, their life regen is fair enough. If the Zerg player skips roaches and is able to quickly tech-up to hydras by the time other player is still at 1.5, they can't heal all that well, nor should they being the glass cannons that they are. Sure you can heal with a Queen, but transfuse isn't really worth it unless you have the excess queens/energy; definitely not worth it if it's on a unit such as hydra or ling. The typical Zerg thing to do is pump out more units anyway, which is part of their unique 'swarm' style of play.
Protoss: Units are in the yellow/orange and their shields begin recharging. Zealots are 100/50, Stalkers are 80/80, Sentries are 40/40, meaning that they will never be able to recover more than 50% of their total health (including shields). Only thing to do is to reinforce with more units, albeit easy to warp in at a proxy pylon, it's expensive and leaves the weakened units in the army to be FFed as good players will. Depending on the composition, ~500 to 700 shield points get replenished.
Terran: Assume 3 medivacs at ~50% energy at the time of the retreat. With MMM unit composition, they retreat and the medivacs begin to heal them. At 1 energy per 3 HP, each medivac can heal 300 health, totaling 900 HP restored on the bio ball. Even with medivacs at ~25% energy, that's 450 HP restored. The cost of this? Just some time and energy. 100 seconds later, after Zerg player has healed passively a bit or the Protoss' sheilds are back up, the marines and marauders are back up to their full HP and the medivacs are back up to a healthy amount of energy.
Now let's say that reinforcements have come in for each race. The Terran are at an advantage, having units with 100% health, while the Protoss have half 100%, half at ~60% health, and Zerg could still be weakened as well.
The armies reengage, and the medivacs are able to heal actively at a full 4 range away from their targets at the front line, healing at the rate of 13.5 HP/s. Even with FF from ranged units, a marauder being healed could go through about 1.5 times it's max health (perhaps more depending on situation) and be very well off. The more medivacs, the more difficult it is to break the bio ball. Its also difficult to snipe the medivacs, hydra's would have to move quite a ways before being able to reach the medivacs, and off creep they move sloooooow, not to mention ones getting slowed by marauders.. Even then, the Terran can stim and move back out of range in half a second. Stalkers with blink work well at getting the medivacs, but then they blink right into firing range of a couple dozen marines and marauders, perhaps with stim. They can't blink away because of the cooldown.
This makes the MMM so difficult to crack, especially in early/mid game. Colossus/Templar are too far up tech tree and too expensive to get enough quickly. Immortals work well on marauders, but get FFed by stimming marines, same for Voids. Zerg with baneling/infestor work well, but that's about all they can do. Corruptors get FFed by marines and mutas don't do enough damage to be effective.
For these reasons, the rate of healing is pretty pivotal in terms of how difficult the MMM is to break. Decreasing the medivac to 1 energy per 2 HP would mean 100 energy from a medivac could heal 200 HP each at a rate of ~9 HP/s, a much more fair quantity and manageable quantity.
I'm no expert and I'm sure Blizzard's done their math, but to me it just seems to add up in the Terran's favor.
|
Reguarding OP
Supply Depots
I feel that the upgrade/orbital command ability to raise and lower would be inellegant.
Perhaps make the raise/lower ability take time, or have a cooldown. Not much, about 10-15 game seconds, just enough to punish a player who doesn't react in time and reward a more skilled player with better micro and game sense
Mules
It's easy to say Mules are IMBA because they give such an economic boost to Terran players or to throw down 4 Mules after taking a Gold expansion. However, it is the responsibility of the opponent to prevent the other player from expanding. Reducing the Mule lifespan or energy cost would make them cheap and less dynamic for repairing units/structures.
However, 30 minerals per trip is a little much. By reducing it to about 20-25 minerals per trip, they would be a little less of an economic super-boost. Perhaps it would incline some players to get fewer mules, freeing up energy for scans later and lead to more dynamic play. I haven't concidered all reprocussions of this though, so let me know what you think.
Bunkers
I feel that Bunkers have too much health. 400 HP for a bunker vs photon canon's 150/150 and spine crawler's 300 seems a little peculiar. Though spines have 1 more armor, still doesn't completely even out, as bunkers can attack both air and ground depending on units in them. Also they can have much higher DPS (4 stimmed marines) than other races static defenses and are much more useful for keeping units alive longer than other races. Also, they can be repaired at a very quick rate, while Protoss cannot and Zerg have to spend precious Queen energy. Perhaps 300 - 320 would be more fair, and it would be more managable in early game for players who get reaper/bunker rushed at their mineral line to defend.
Viking/Thor
I like them mostly the way the are. I would like to see the fire rate of Vikings in assault mode decrease. An attack speed of 1 for a unit that does 12 dps on the ground but can also fly? That's comparable to a Stalker, who does 10 (+4 vs armored) damage, but has an attack speed of 1.44, giving it 6.94 (9.72) dps. Note that Vikings only cost 25 more gas and minerals than Stalkers and take the same supply. I'd like to see Viking's ground attack speed around 1.2-1.3. Also note that it takes Vikings 2 seconds to lift off/land. A faster attack speed for the Viking than the comparable Stalker is valid due to this, and the fact that it costs slightly more.
Thor's attack speed is 3, which is very managable for a group of mutas to micro around creatively. Not to mension thors move so slowly, so bouncing back and forth between bases is very managable as long as there aren't too many missile turrets. +6 (x4) against light is a little excessive though, perhaps +3 or +4 would be a little less devistating. Mutas aren't very effective against most Terran as it is. 10 is pretty far, 9 would be more reasonable but at that point it's very difficult to tell how much of a difference it would make in a larger battle.
Marauders
I think the slow is fair, just because both zealot legs and stalker blink directly counteract it, though they both are slightly higher tier. 50/50 is very cheap however, and taking only 60 seconds is quite fast. Zealot legs and Blink are 200/200 and 150/150 and take 140 and 110 respectively. Not to mension a whole new tech structure in order to research them. I'd like to see Concussive Shells at 100/100 and 70-80 time. Since it's a passive ability with no cooldown, it's also just that much more effective than comparable legs and blink.
As for the Zerg, i guess the have Roach burrow and claws? Not the best and also more expensive and time consuming at 150/150 and 110 seconds. They do have speedlings though, which in mass are a good counter to the marauders. Perhaps the Zerg could us a slight buff here but I cannot say for certain.
Source: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/
|
On the bunker construction change: I don't get the SCV invulnerabilty complaint. People say it's imbalanced, but stopping construction on a Protoss or Zerg building is impossible without killing the building. Seems hypocritical.
It's called racial differences.
|
Oh man terran is so strong DDDDD:
man get out of here. the only reason zerg is shit is cus its being played by shit players.
I can agree that along with toss, terran is one of the easier races to play, with zerg being the hardest, but if you lose all the time as zerg, why dont you stop QQ and main toss.
Problem solved
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Zealot legs and Blink are 200/200 and 150/150 and take 140 and 110 respectively
Those are straight upgrades though (where as concussive shell was on the unit already to actually make it a useful way of dealing with chargelots), and also you can chronoboost them to go less than that can't you?
|
+ Show Spoiler +MULE revision Balances gold expansions. In the game's curent state, terrans are ridiculously well rewarded when taking gold expos. It ruins alot of games, especially (in my opinion) in TvT.
Especially in TvT it doesn't makes the least difference, there's no logic in what you're saying.
+ Show Spoiler +Lowering/Lifting Supply Depots revision Suggestion: Make the possibility of lowering/lifting individual supply depots into an Orbital Command ability. Proposed energy cost: 15-25 (i like 25).
I suggest it costs 1 larva to move an overlord for about 10seconds to compensate for this change.
+ Show Spoiler +Bunker revision Suggestion: This section is twofold. First about bunker salvage, then about bunker construction. Bunker Salvage (four independent solutions)- Increase the time it takes to salvage a bunker.
- Return only 50% of the minerals from salvage.
- Turn salvage into an Orbital Command ability.
- Remove salvage from the game.
To compensate, spine/spore crawlers can no longer move around and cannons need 2 powerfields to function.
+ Show Spoiler +Marauder Suggestion: Give marauders' concussive shells a cooldown timer (like the stalker blink). Reasoning: It seems sensible enough. Gives the other races a chance to escape. Every shot won't be a slowing one.
Make every zerg and protoss unit move slower when they engage a running terran army. Seems sensible enough, gives terran a chance to escape.
+ Show Spoiler +Medivac Suggestion: Lower the heal rate. 13.5hp/sec is really high. Reasoning: There's a reason why Organic Carapace isn't in the game anymore (OP). Even when it was in the game, it only provided for 10hp/sec regeneration for unburrowed roaches as opposed to 13.5hp/sec for Medivacs. Right now burrowed roaches without tunneling claws heal 5hp/sec. With tunneling claws it's 10hp/sec.
Give medivacs energyfree cloak and rockets to shoot at stuff to bring them more in line with roaches please(Comparing roaches to medivacs is just incredibly silly).
Disclaimer: I do not expect or think it realistic for all these changes to be implemented. Especially not the last three. The first three ones are the ones I'd like considered the most. Amongst the last three, if I had to choose one, it'd be Viking/Thor range.
Thanks for reading.
I think my balance changes are quite better than yours.
|
How can you compare Roach to Medivac
Just that makes your whole post invalid
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/9/9f/Medivac.png/180px-Medivac.png)
