EPTBalance Suggestions - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 09:49 KenShi wrote: Population doesn't matter. At all. I just mentioned it in my post. =]What are you talking about? I dont know what ladder your on, but pretty much all ladders are 40% terran 40% protoss and 20% zerg. Tourney results are so variable it doesnt matter? What kind of arguement is that? I guess we should just disallow the facts that Terran are winning and placing incredibly high compared to Zerg and even Protoss in the highest caliber of games..... No people are not playing Terran because its what the campaign is based off of its because its very easy to play and is right now flat out better then zerg. If you think that a fresh RTS player is going to play the campaign and his first instinct is to pick up a new race with a wierd larvae mechanic, you've got another thing coming. Trust me, I've brought many a friend into SC2, and the last thing they want to do is play zerg fully. A new player doesn't know what's better. They've only played the campaign, if all of that. They're going to gravitate to what they know, and what they know from the campaign is Terran, and to a lesser extent Protoss. I've also got long time friends who play zerg, and the number one thing they complain about is Void rays. But this is all anecdotal and unimportant. As for tournament results, the game changes so constantly. There's no set tournaments or leagues to look at. You could say, "Well look at the ITL, two terrans are in the finals." and then you could say, "Look at Day9's KotB. A zerg WON, and a Terran wasn't even in the finals." That's what I was trying to say. It varies immensely. The ladder rankings I was referring to were the top players in the world, in ladder, not whatever the hell you were talking about. They can be foundhereDid you even read the change for dark swarm? I pretty much made it into an incredibly nerfed dark swarm so that its viable for a tier 2 unit in this game. I cant call ravens anti air? I guess i couldn't call irradiate anti air in broodwar, i guess storm isnt anti air, heck i guess i cant call something that does a large amount of damage with AoE anti air. I dont even know what your getting at in the last part of your paragraph because it makes no sense what so ever as you didnt complete your thought~ I saw what you said. Seems OP, in my opinion. Infestors are just too easy to get. You misinterpreted my post, sorry if it was confusing. Ravens arren't dedicated anti air. When I think of a raven, or a templar, or an infestor, I think of a support unit. If my opponent's going void rays or mutalisks, I'm not going to make one of those, unless I've already been making them. The last bit was talking about the Terran anti-air options and what they mean in a game. So, you brought up a point in your first paragraph. and is right now flat out better then zerg. Sure. But look at the maps. There are literally no maps that are great for zerg right now. There are a few that are close, like Scrap Station and Lost Temple, but nothing like the BW maps like Fighting Spirit and so on. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 12 2010 09:49 KenShi wrote: What are you talking about? I dont know what ladder your on, but pretty much all ladders are 40% terran 40% protoss and 20% zerg. Tourney results are so variable it doesnt matter? What kind of arguement is that? I guess we should just disallow the facts that Terran are winning and placing incredibly high compared to Zerg and even Protoss in the highest caliber of games..... No people are not playing Terran because its what the campaign is based off of its because its very easy to play and is right now flat out better then zerg. Did you even read the change for dark swarm? I pretty much made it into an incredibly nerfed dark swarm so that its viable for a tier 2 unit in this game. I cant call ravens anti air? I guess i couldn't call irradiate anti air in broodwar, i guess storm isnt anti air, heck i guess i cant call something that does a large amount of damage with AoE anti air. I dont even know what your getting at in the last part of your paragraph because it makes no sense what so ever as you didnt complete your thought~ The problem is that you're trying to attack too many issues at once--early, mid, and late game issues, when the earlier phases of the game have drastically rippling effects into the later stages of the game. An example of this is the tech lab nerf--if you reduce the viability of early reapers, you might make hatch before pool builds viable (IMO a good thing). Once you do that, zerg's early second gas drastically improves their ability to tech quickly and their ability to spread out tech to defend multiple threats. You affect the midgame drastically with a change that only affects a minute or two of the early game. Because of this, you need to start with early game changes and carefully move toward later and later stages. Because if you don't carefully monitor how early changes ripple out to the later game, more often than not you're going to over-nerf things. You can't just throw all of these changes in together and hope for the end result to be better than things are now. | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
The Mothership could also use a buff, its speed and acceleration should be increased. Other than that I would like it if the Tunneling Claws upgrade of the roach would disappear and be inherent to the unit. 3 upgrades for one single unit (roach) is just too much, bad game design imo, not to mention that we might see a 4th one with the upcoming expansions... | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On August 12 2010 09:51 Bair wrote:Mule - I like this. If I have to hit my queen every 40 seconds, and toss has to actually boost every 20 seconds, why shouldn't terran have a time requirement. True, they are more micro oriented, but so much of this micro (i.e. stims) is nothing more than a button press. Well P doesn't have to chrono boost every 20 seconds, they can just as easily save up 100 and boost upgrades, probes, and warpgates at the same time. But I agree with the general notion that the terran macro mechanic requires the least amount of effort; Lalush noted the same issue with the whole MULE system. However I don't so much mind the idea of terran requiring less macro--in BW zerg had an easier time with macro. 1sz 2sz 3sd rather than trying to macro from 4-5 rax and a cc. This may not be a perfect analogy but it proves the point well enough. I think the bigger issue with MULEs is that it allows terran to make fewer workers in the late game compared with P and Z, meaning that they potentially have the ability to field a larger supply army. Still though, most of these suggestions--and most of these balance suggestion threads (with the exception of a very select few)--are silly. I think many would agree that some balance changes need to happen especially with Terran, but large scale game changes at this point are ridiculous. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 10:10 TheToast wrote: Yep, if you increase the MULE work, you have to do the same with Chrono Boost.Well P doesn't have to chrono boost every 20 seconds, they can just as easily save up 100 and boost upgrades, probes, and warpgates at the same time. But I agree with the general notion that the terran macro mechanic requires the least amount of effort; Lalush noted the same issue with the whole MULE system. However I don't so much mind the idea of terran requiring less macro--in BW zerg had an easier time with macro. 1sz 2sz 3sd rather than trying to macro from 4-5 rax and a cc. This may not be a perfect analogy but it proves the point well enough. I think the bigger issue with MULEs is that it allows terran to make fewer workers in the late game compared with P and Z, meaning that they potentially have the ability to field a larger supply army. It could also be argued that Zerg have the easiest time burning extra workers into static defence that can be moved anywhere there's creep. Also, mech doesn't often use more than two orbital commands, and uses mostly scans as opposed to MULES. The limiting factor in mech play is always gas, and even pros often float tons of minerals. Still though, most of these suggestions--and most of these balance suggestion threads (with the exception of a very select few)--are silly. I think many would agree that some balance changes need to happen especially with Terran, but large scale game changes at this point are ridiculous. | ||
|
Pinworm45
Canada11 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 10:33 Pinworm45 wrote: I'm just confused as to why people keep saying that changing mules to have a cooldown would mean Chronoboost would need one too. Uh, why is that exactly? Before you said "to keep it fair", you are aware that Zerg is currently the only race that has a cooldown on it? If you're going to put a cooldown on one of them - by far the most important one, too - why exactly is it suddenly unfair to put it on 2 instead of 1? Well the idea is for "Balance" as per the thread title. Chrono Boost is one of the most powerful abilities, compared to MULES which only increase income. Chrono Boost can increase income, or upgrades, or unit production. And unlike MULES which require an upgraded CC, Chrono Boost is available from the start of the game. | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On August 12 2010 10:18 MythicalMage wrote:.I disagree with that. The changes need to happen with zerg. Terran is super close to dying, there's no set builds for protoss, and TvZ barely works. The most stable build, mech, gives up almost map control and agression. The issue is balancing it with ZvP. No set builds for protoss? 4-gate, 2-gate, 2-gate robo, 2-gate stargate; These may not be the builds we are all using in 3 years but they are pretty darn standard right now. And I really don't think Terran is "super close to dying" that's being a bit melodramatic. Early marauder pushes have been, in fact, extremely difficult for p and z to deal with. Check Husky's demonstration on P dealing with marauders if you don't believe me. The issues with TvZ I would argue have much more to do with map balance issues, Raelcun made some extremely convincing points to this effect as well in a thread he posted last week. As he noted issues like choke and ramp sizes as well as Xel'Naga towers are the things really screwing up this matchup. And I stand by what I said, massive game changes at this point are ridiculous and silly. Re-modeling a game's mechanics in such a massive way is not only completely without president but it's frankly stupid. Why don't we just ask Blizzard to scrap the whole thing and make Starcraft 3? It has been 2 weeks, TWO weeks since release. Give the game some time to let strategies grow and take root. Yes, the game may not play exactly as we want it to, but if it did most of us would be playing BW in 3D. But that's half the fun of a new game, figuring out new strategies and how to counter other strategies that seem unbeatable. Everyone thought Savior's 3 hatch build was imba until Bisu came along and proved otherwise. Before when I said balance changes I meant subtle things like lowing the target priority of medivacs, changing marauder hit points: small little things that can smooth out certain matchups. (I am just using these as examples, not saying they would be good or bad changes...) | ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
| ||
|
KenShi
Korea (South)28 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:07 Floophead_III wrote: While I appreciate that you gave reasons for your balance changes, they do not reflect the actual problems in the metagame right now and are not educated changes. I'm sorry but this thread should be closed now. Everyone and their grandmother has an idea for balance. Only a few people good ones. Tell me why instead of flaming me. I could tell you that you are a stupid asshole, but again i have nothing to back that up~ | ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:21 KenShi wrote: Tell me why instead of flaming me. I could tell you that you are a stupid asshole, but again i have nothing to back that up~ (oh wait) Because he's right? Don't act so hurt over it. You don't know what you're talking about. | ||
|
KenShi
Korea (South)28 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:25 oxxo wrote: Because he's right? Don't act so hurt over it. You don't know what you're talking about. Tell me why hes right. You cant say a statement and proclaim something if you dont have reasoning to back it up. So frustrating....... | ||
|
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
Bunkers now only salvage 75 minerals: Makes them still viable, but punishes terran slightly for making them. This is one of those "what about X situation" types of situations. Lets say a protoss 2gate proxies the terran and he is forced to build a bunker early on. I think that it would be a little harsh to punish the terran for being forced ot make it for defense. Banelings do 25% less AoE damage: Doesn’t punish marines as much and allows for micro opportunities for Terran. Banelings still will decimate marines, but Terran can now prevent as much losses if microed correctly. I think the baneling splash is fine the way it is, because it forces terrans to have to pay more attention to their ground army, kind of like lurkers in SC1. Lurkers forced terrans in SC1 to have to micromanage their marines so that they won't die, and i feel that baneligns would serve the same purpose. Feedback now has 11 range, but no longer deals damage: Now lets the other races actually make spell casters without being punished extremely. With the 11 range HT vs. Ghosts fights should be extremely dynamic and the better micro players should usually win. In TvP, all it can take is 1 cloaked ghost to EMP all the templars and eliminate the threat of feedback all together. Also, If you're gonna make a spell not have deal any damage, but get rid of energy, then why limit it to 1 unit and make the spell have an AoE, like emp (of course change the cost accordingly) | ||
|
Reason.SC2
Canada1047 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:07 TheToast wrote: No set builds for protoss? 4-gate, 2-gate, 2-gate robo, 2-gate stargate; These may not be the builds we are all using in 3 years but they are pretty darn standard right now. And I really don't think Terran is "super close to dying" that's being a bit melodramatic. Early marauder pushes have been, in fact, extremely difficult for p and z to deal with. Check Husky's demonstration on P dealing with marauders if you don't believe me. The issues with TvZ I would argue have much more to do with map balance issues, Raelcun made some extremely convincing points to this effect as well in a thread he posted last week. As he noted issues like choke and ramp sizes as well as Xel'Naga towers are the things really screwing up this matchup. And I stand by what I said, massive game changes at this point are ridiculous and silly. Re-modeling a game's mechanics in such a massive way is not only completely without president but it's frankly stupid. Why don't we just ask Blizzard to scrap the whole thing and make Starcraft 3? It has been 2 weeks, TWO weeks since release. Give the game some time to let strategies grow and take root. Yes, the game may not play exactly as we want it to, but if it did most of us would be playing BW in 3D. But that's half the fun of a new game, figuring out new strategies and how to counter other strategies that seem unbeatable. Everyone thought Savior's 3 hatch build was imba until Bisu came along and proved otherwise. Before when I said balance changes I meant subtle things like lowing the target priority of medivacs, changing marauder hit points: small little things that can smooth out certain matchups. (I am just using these as examples, not saying they would be good or bad changes...) I meant there's no real standard for Terran versus Protoss. XD. There's like a hundred builds, and no one really knows what's best. Husky's video is garbage. He showed unrealistic numbers of marauders versus unrealistic numbers of other units whilst forgetting the best composition: zealot sentry. Hell, almost any unit composition would work. Marauder pushes are ok versus Protoss, but I've never seen one work against zerg recently. Mainly because infantry versus zerg is asking to die to muta baneling zergling. Anyhow, I agree with everything else you said. =] | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:34 Reason.SC2 wrote: 2 roaches spawning out of 1 larvae would make zerg OP since your early game larvae management would be so much easier... removes the "do I make a roach or a drone?" mechanic that makes zerg unique Not only that, but late game when larvae become a limiting factor, you can make two units from one larvae prioritizes roaches above all else. Seems like a bad move. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:52 Peterblue wrote: Does anyone else think that currently turrets are too strong vs. Mutalisks, which could be causing the strength in Mech builds(allowing them to push out much earlier because 2-3 turrets/expo can handle all Mutas)? The only unit that turrets can hit, really, is mutalisks. They offer some drop protection, but you can brute force drop your way in with enough overlords. And they still die to BL's. So, I think they're fine. | ||
| ||
