|
Hello, welcome to this gigantic thread of suggestions for improvement of the game design for Starcraft 2. Every single change here fills certain roles that helps improve the game. These roles include finding a more niche role, finding a broader role to get rid of the hard counter system evident in certain units, making the game more enjoyable to play, making it so the races are more similar in apm requirements and finally balancing the game. I will propose changes and explain my reasoning for each change to make sure everyone knows where I’m coming from.
For people wondering why I should be listened to because you think the quality of writing isn’t enough well I am high platinum player on the NA server and a mid diamond player on Korea while playing random and playing probably half the amount of my opponents. I also constantly watch pro games so I have strong knowledge of the game and how it works. I have also played multiple games for the last 8 years and if you can name a game I could propose a change that it would make it better. Anyway on with the thread~
TERRAN:
Tech Lab build time increased by 10 seconds: Slows down Terran tech by a slight margin so that Zerg can have more time to adequately respond to whatever build Terran throws at them. Also slows down some of the reaper and marauder timings that Terran can throw out Toss.
Mule now has a 30 second cool down: Punishes terran for having 200/200 energy. More of a macro mechanic and less of a “cool I can throw down 4 mules”! Also makes the gold expansions less ridiculous for Terran.
Marauders concussive shell is now a spell with a 5 second cool down that you can make an auto cast spell: Makes it possible to micro against marauders, while creating micro opportunities for Terran. Makes it so terran can’t punish aggressive play as easily while making even more opportunities for better play for good micro players.
Hellion’s Infernal Pre-Igniter now does 5+ damage to everything instead of 10+ damage to light: Instead of hellion’s just absolutely demolishing light units and sucking against everything else, this change would make it a viable unit for fighting regular army’s while still being proficient against light. Making it less of a true hard counter by broadening its role.
Thor’s Anti Air is no longer area of effect, but the missiles now do 25 damage: A completely ridiculous unit that punishes all units. A 400 HP unit with that amount of damage and that build time should not have AoE damage. Still makes it a viable unit for Anti air, but less of a hard counter and makes Mutalisks actually viable.
Turrets now deal 2 less damage, health is decreased by 50 HP, and build time is increased by 10 seconds: Terran now has to have adequate anti air and can be punished for skimping on air defense. Turrets are currently ridiculous in every way especially against Mutalisks and are currently an I Win button against air.
Raven’s Hunter Seeker Missile no longer requires a fusion core, the research time is decreased by 30 seconds, damage is increased by 50, AoE is reduced by 15%, and now costs 75 energy: Makes it viable to get and is similar to Irradiate, provides terran with a counter to Mutalisks and provides AoE damage. Opponents to Terran can also micro against it unlike irradiate so creates even more micro. Makes Raven’s even more of a viable unit.
Raven’s Auto Turret is now 25 energy while dealing 1 less damage: Makes it still viable to make auto turrets and again more versatility and viability for Ravens.
Viking’s now have 8 ranges while the attack animation time is decreased: Makes it so that Vikings can’t punish air as hard in there ball. To make up for this you can now micro them more effectively so players still can micro them effectively. Better players can now stand out even more in the micro department.
Sensor Towers have 25% smaller range: Just a small change so that they aren’t as good. Nothing much~
Bunkers now only salvage 75 minerals: Makes them still viable, but punishes terran slightly for making them.
ZERG:
Roaches are now 1.5 supply and spawn in 2’s, with the cost being 150 minerals 50 gas, while the build time is now 35 seconds: Makes roaches more viable late game and in general more interesting units. Roaches now threaten more early game as well.
Infestor now has a dark swarm esque spell that makes ranged units do 50% less damage while attacking the units inside the cloud, the spell has a 125 energy cost. : Helps Zerg bust defensive positions and punishes non mobile units. It won’t be as game changing as dark swarm as there is no consume and because ranged units still can deal damage through the cloud. Just adds more dynamics to the ZvT matchup.
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.
Corruptor’s corruption spell now is a small AoE spell: Increases there viability and makes it less of a WC3 spell, while not making it gamebreaking.
Certain zerg units now move 25% faster off creep, while on creep speed is the same: Allows for micro opportunities off creep while still maintaining the creep dynamic. Allow units like hydras, roaches, and ultralisks to be effective even if there off creep. Lets Zerg be more aggressive early game while still maintaining the creep dynamic.
PROTOSS:
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.
Archon now deals 10 more damage on ground and 5 more damage to air: Increases the viability in Templar tech and makes archon have more of a role instead of being just a recycled unit. Makes them more viable while compared to colossus and robo tech in general.
Charge build time is now 110 seconds compared to 140: Increases the viability of templar tech and lets there be more timings to incorporate charge in the mid and early game. Helps Protoss punish certain builds without having to go robo tech and increases the dynamics of certain matchups and especially in PvT.
|
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss.
|
On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss.
couldn't agree more
|
Not only do I really dislike some of your balance changes, but I really dislike everyone posting their own balance suggestions in these forums. Post it as a blog, that's what I did during the beta (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=129312), although it never got any views, because it wasn't a serious proposal but rather "how I would like to view the game."
However, I'm fearful of these threads I feel a million of these threads would pop up if people got the idea they are allowed (are they??). Things like Thor AOE dmg removal isn't practical (it was like that in beta). But as said, I disagree with like 80% so I don't want to make a long post describing why I disagree.
|
Patch 1.1.0 changes:
TERRAN:
-Removed every unit from the game, except the Marine.
-Marines now cost 300 minerals and 200 gas.
-Barracks takes 1200 seconds (was 60).
ZERG:
-Added Lurkers, Brutalisks, and the Queen of Blades into the game.
-Zerglings now cost 0 supply.
PROTOSS:
-Carriers now can build 50 interceptors.
-Mothership replaced with Purifier.
-Building DTs now causes you to automatically win the game.
|
i think you made a mistake with the title, this thread should be called "how to turn sc2 into a really broken and crap game".
|
XEL'NAGA:
-Added race to the game.
-Xel'Naga only have one unit, the Ultrazealisk. It costs 100 minerals, has no special unit type, has 450 hp / 650 shields, and its attack is an area-of-effect attack that deals 75 damage. Takes 30 seconds to build.
|
You should mail this to blizzard.
|
|
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Feedback needs to really do damage, but if it had 11 range it would mean that BC's would never, ever be able to Yamato anything and ghosts would never be able to EMP anything either. As all you'd need to do, is have an observer nearby and you could feedback well out of the EMP range.
You're saying Ravens need more versatility, but the thing is, they already have enough as it is and people are complaining that Terran are too versatile as it is. Vikings need the range to deal with the Broodlords/Collosus, without it, Terran wouldn't have a decent way of actually killing them. Thors also die pretty quick to Mutalisks as it is, if they just spread out their mutas, making the AOE do nothing and Thors in a single shot don't really do all that much damage, it's the splash that really hurts. Vikings also get owned pretty hard by Void Rays and it's already hard enough to try and out micro voidrays as you're far too slow, if they had a lower range, it would basically mean Vikings (one of the only decent counters to mass void ray, pointless)
Roaches could do with 1.5 supply, but wouldn't that make massive all in roach builds really hard to deal with? Also late game it would mean you would kill a 200 army of a zerg and within seconds they could almost have 200 supply worth of roaches again out of their like 6 hatcheries instantly while Protoss and Terran are still trying to rebuild their units.
Ultralisks seem pretty damn fast off creep whenever they're destroying anything I have as Terran, please don't make them faster. Hydras are the only ones who seem slower off of creep, but you shouldn't really be trying to fight off of creep, that's why the creep mechanic was added. I mean speedlings are super, super fast on creep, Hydras are much faster too.
I like the Corruption idea, it'd kind of be a reverse Dark Swarm forcing the Terran to unsiege or the Protoss to move his units, giving the zerg a chance to attack a meching Terran (much to my disliking), but it gives more chances to attack unless the other player thinks they can handle it.
Sensor towers seem fine, especially as they cost so much. Bunkers losing 25 minerals I can deal with, it's just sometimes, especially against a 4 gate push, if you don't get bunkers you lose, so you really need to atleast get alot of your minerals back, as once you've defended, you don't want empty bunkers just sat there, that's why they added the mechanic as the bunker itself can't really do anything. It'd also mean blocking an expansion with an empty bunker would still be viable, but you'd lose something for it.
Mules shouldn't have a cooldown, you shouldn't punish a Terran for not using Mules, especially when it's late game especially in TvT when you're both on like 5 bases all saturated there's just no reason to spend your energy during some points of the game, even on scans as you can generally see most of the map with scouting units.
As much as I don't want to say this, I don't get the Turrets are too powerful argument. Even with 3 turrets, if the mutas focus fire them, they die so fast when I use them. I'm not sure why my game seems to be different from everyone elses, but they cost 100 minerals which is such a horrible cost to have to spend as it is while trying to get units, especially when I'm forced to make like 8 turrets in my nat and main (both counted). That's 800 minerals won't go into my army, and I swear either my game is different to everyone elses, but my turrets die so fast unless I have like 10 SCVs trying to repair it. You could also bring in an overseer and contaminate (or whatever it is) each of the turrets and just kill them off that way, like some people used to with Corrupters back in beta.
|
UNDEAD:
-Ghouls cost 60 minerals (was 50 gold).
-Ghouls can no longer devour zerglings.
-Death and Decay duration decreased to 20 seconds (was 30). No longer affects flying units.
-Fixed a bug where using a Neural Parasite on a Necromancer would cause it to grow to three times its normal size.
-Protoss can no longer feedback units with Mana, only units with Energy.
|
I wonder what would have happened if the community that we have now existed when Brood War was released. What is a game without useful skills toi have but a miserable pile of zerglings?
|
Wow, these are completely overboard and unrealistic. You can't just throw out tons of balance changes like this and expect the game to work. This is literally the worst balance suggestion thread I've ever seen on here.
|
I think that although some of these points could be put into effect, others of them are VERY, VERY bad, in particular the alteration of the hellion. Some of these could be put into effect, but by adding them all at once you would ruin the game.
|
Yeah the Undead changes were especially bad.
|
So, I'll go through the list with an eye towards not breaking the game. Everything needs to be tested, of course, and I'll only comment on the ones I find objectionable.Mule now has a 30 second cool down: Punishes terran for having 200/200 energy. More of a macro mechanic and less of a “cool I can throw down 4 mules”! Also makes the gold expansions less ridiculous for Terran.
If you did that, you'd have to do the same to the Chrono Boost mechanic.Thor’s Anti Air is no longer area of effect, but the missiles now do 25 damage: A completely ridiculous unit that punishes all units. A 400 HP unit with that amount of damage and that build time should not have AoE damage. Still makes it a viable unit for Anti air, but less of a hard counter and makes Mutalisks actually viable. I approve of this, though I'd be worried for a couple reasons. 1) Mutas CAN beat thors rather easily if spread out. 2) Might nullify viking usage, making mech a tad stronger and harder to surprise.Turrets now deal 2 less damage, health is decreased by 50 HP, and build time is increased by 10 seconds: Terran now has to have adequate anti air and can be punished for skimping on air defense. Turrets are currently ridiculous in every way especially against Mutalisks and are currently an I Win button against air.
You have to understand that turrets are the only static defense for terrans that's affordable, excluding bunkers since they need barracks units to be manned. You'd likely have to hurt spore crawlers, and possibly cannons to even this out. Worth trying/testing though, if they were still making changes.Raven’s Hunter Seeker Missile no longer requires a fusion core, the research time is decreased by 30 seconds, damage is increased by 50, AoE is reduced by 15%, and now costs 75 energy: Makes it viable to get and is similar to Irradiate, provides terran with a counter to Mutalisks and provides AoE damage. Opponents to Terran can also micro against it unlike irradiate so creates even more micro. Makes Raven’s even more of a viable unit.
I LOVE this change, but they already don't require a fusion core, and the splash is already negligible.Sensor Towers have 25% smaller range: Just a small change so that they aren’t as good. Nothing much~ I'd argue that 25% is a bit more than a "small change." And Sensor towers can bite you in the ass, when what you think is a troop movement turns out to be a worker transfer or vice versa. Lots of options for your opponent to trick you. Bunkers now only salvage 75 minerals: Makes them still viable, but punishes terran slightly for making them.
Losing 25 may be a bit too harsh. To me, it feels like bunkers are just like spinecrawlers; you can move them around without investing more. I'd like to see an increase in build time, or, more directly, an increase in salvage time.Roaches are now 1.5 supply and spawn in 2’s, with the cost being 150 minerals 50 gas, while the build time is now 35 seconds: Makes roaches more viable late game and in general more interesting units. Roaches now threaten more early game as well. The only issue would be late game, as it effectively nullifies the larvae mechanic limiting unit production. It's something you'd have to closely monitor.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. Banelings were a problem when? If anything I'd like to see an increase in health, especially if you lower the splash.Corruptor’s corruption spell now is a small AoE spell: Increases there viability and makes it less of a WC3 spell, while not making it gamebreaking. WC3 was all about auras and such. But other than that, seems like a good change. Perhaps have it nullify static defenses like the old corruptionCertain zerg units now move 25% faster off creep, while on creep speed is the same: Allows for micro opportunities off creep while still maintaining the creep dynamic. Allow units like hydras, roaches, and ultralisks to be effective even if there off creep. Lets Zerg be more aggressive early game while still maintaining the creep dynamic. That seems a rather roundabout fix. I'd rather creep just spread faster/cost less energy.
Everything else seems great. Good thoughts on everything!
|
On August 12 2010 07:38 iEchoic wrote:
Wow, these are completely overboard and unrealistic. You can't just throw out tons of balance changes like this and expect the game to work. This is literally the worst balance suggestion thread I've ever seen on here.
That can be said of any thread with more than one post. Take LaLush's TvZ balance thread. If you applied all, hell if you applied half of those, the game would be in chaos.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 12 2010 07:59 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 07:38 iEchoic wrote:
Wow, these are completely overboard and unrealistic. You can't just throw out tons of balance changes like this and expect the game to work. This is literally the worst balance suggestion thread I've ever seen on here. That can be said of any thread with more than one post. Take LaLush's TvZ balance thread. If you applied all, hell if you applied half of those, the game would be in chaos.
The difference is that Lalush makes it explicit that he doesn't expect them all to be lumped together and used.
|
On August 12 2010 07:59 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 07:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 12 2010 07:38 iEchoic wrote:
Wow, these are completely overboard and unrealistic. You can't just throw out tons of balance changes like this and expect the game to work. This is literally the worst balance suggestion thread I've ever seen on here. That can be said of any thread with more than one post. Take LaLush's TvZ balance thread. If you applied all, hell if you applied half of those, the game would be in chaos. The difference is that Lalush makes it explicit that he doesn't expect them all to be lumped together and used.
That's fair enough. It's all truly conjecture. No one really knows what Blizzard will do next, if anything.
|
I can support small changes to tweak the game and to refine balance, but I just laugh at suggestions that completely alter the way the game is played and basically mean you have to start over from a balance perspective.
Pretty much the only changes I liked were the 10 second increase to tech lab and the cooldown on the mule.
Also, mutas are viable, even if he has thors. They happen to be quite slow while your mutas are fast.
|
On August 12 2010 07:34 Qikz wrote:
Mules shouldn't have a cooldown, you shouldn't punish a Terran for not using Mules, especially when it's late game especially in TvT when you're both on like 5 bases all saturated there's just no reason to spend your energy during some points of the game, even on scans as you can generally see most of the map with scouting units.
lolol. Really? Shouldn't punish a Terran for not using mules? That's such a bad argument. Then you use lategame TvT as a reason? Bahahaha Terrans just argue against anything that would make them harder to play at low levels but of similar power at higher levels.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
Edit: Reopened after some internal discussion.
edit2: I think literally every suggestion is bad except the roach one but cool to come up with it, really like it.
|
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2.
|
Agree with most of the changes. Wouldn't mind worse turrets if they cost 75minerals. Other than that i just feel like the reduced splash on Seeker Missile is pretty uncalled for.
I would be really psyched to test the game with these changes. Is it possible for anyone to make a custom map with these changes implemented?
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2.
The major thing that "worked in BW" and doesn't apply to SC2 is the ability for zerg to go hatch-first, which is what the entire zerg economic model in SC1 was based on. Given the drastic impact that any changes that allow this would have on the mid-game, it would be best to wait on mid-game changes until the early-game is sorted out. More than likely is that once zergs can 13hatch or 14hatch safely, a lot of their problems go away, and the changes needed to balance what's left should be relatively minor.
Designing Zerg to be at a disadvantage early, and then be comparatively powerful later on when playing catch-up is bad design.
|
Pretty much a whole bunch of needless and bad suggestions except MAYBE the roach ones.
|
On August 12 2010 09:02 oxxo wrote:
Pretty much a whole bunch of needless and bad suggestions except MAYBE the roach ones.
Tell me why
|
I'm glad op doesn't work for blizzard.
|
On August 12 2010 09:04 Kilseo wrote:
I'm glad op doesn't work for blizzard.
Im glad that pretty much every single post that disagrees with me is posting 1 sentance garbage like this with nothing supporting there opinion. Tell me why you wouldn't want me to work for blizzard.
|
On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2.
You just do massive nerfs across the board for T and don't really take into account how any of it would affect TvP/ZvP.
I mean really, a Dark Swarm-esque ability would break the game at so many levels. That ability was by far the most game-changing ability out there and the game has been balanced without it in mind. Not only that, any nerf to Thor AoE damage makes Marines the only practical anti-Mutalisk unit, which can give Z the free win with Muta/Bling almost every game.
|
On August 12 2010 09:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2. You just do massive nerfs across the board for T and don't really take into account how any of it would affect TvP/ZvP. I mean really, a Dark Swarm-esque ability would break the game at so many levels. That ability was by far the most game-changing ability out there and the game has been balanced without it in mind. Not only that, any nerf to Thor AoE damage makes Marines the only practical anti-Mutalisk unit, which can give Z the free win with Muta/Bling almost every game.
Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME.
Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical.....
|
I don't like very many of these changes. If I'm going to change anything about Terran it will start with stim(difference between a fight with and without using it is just way too huge) and EMP(vs Protoss).
For Zerg the Infestor already has enough useful abilities, don't want to give them another ability. If you were going to give this ability to something I'd say give it to Overseer.
I'd be down with making the Protoss charge/blink upgrades faster or cheaper.
It is too early to really worry about balance though, at the pro level all the races are being very competitive in the tourney's. This patch would bring way too many changes at once, with an RTS you want to make frequent small changes and not a bunch of big changes all at once.
|
On August 12 2010 09:18 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2. You just do massive nerfs across the board for T and don't really take into account how any of it would affect TvP/ZvP. I mean really, a Dark Swarm-esque ability would break the game at so many levels. That ability was by far the most game-changing ability out there and the game has been balanced without it in mind. Not only that, any nerf to Thor AoE damage makes Marines the only practical anti-Mutalisk unit, which can give Z the free win with Muta/Bling almost every game. Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME. Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical.....
The ladder? You mean how there is ONE Terran in the top five, along with two zergs? Or do you mean anecdotal experiences? Tourney results are so variable as to not even matter. Population is also a stupid number, considering the campaign is Terran. If I just picked up the game, I'm definitely going to play the race I spent the entire campaign playing, or maybe the race the side campaign focused on. I'm certainly not going to try the race that has super wierd mechanics. And yes Dark Swarm would break the game. Hell, IdrA called it game breaking in BW. Then again, he was Terran in BW. Infestors are not defilers. Infestors are Tier 2. Zerg has limited issue with Protoss; arguaply ZvP is the most balanced matchup right now.
Calling Ravens anti air is like calling infestors or Templar anti air. But yes Thors, marines, vikings and turrets are viable, but in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS. Marines provide a mobile ground anti air, vikings a mobile aerial anti air. Thors provide a slow crawling anti mutalisk, that supports other anti air. Turrets are the critical part of mech anti air, and, obviously, can't move.
|
Since this is no longer beta, I'd like to see small, surgical balance changes such as the following, rather than large sweeping changes:
- Burrow automatically researched up reaching lair (similar to overlord generate creep)
- Reduce cost of lair from 150/100 to 100/100
- Reduce spine crawler build-time by 15 seconds
- Allow roach speed upgrade to be researched at hatchery tech level
|
You're also forgetting the biggest balance consideration: the maps. The reason tournaments are skewed is that, with a few small exceptions, they use the Blizzard map pool, which is terrible. Once we get better maps, we can talk more about balance.
|
Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME.
You did (arguably) two buffs to Terrans, neither of which would make much of a difference. A lot of your nerfs were also just randomly nerfing stuff that doesn't need it at all and doesn't even have a big effect on the game. I mean really, nerfing Auto Turrets?
Also, it's pretty obvious that this would still be an incredibly powerful Dark Swarm. The game was balanced with any type of Dark Swarm in mind, and then to just throw in a 50% reduction. Would completely change both match ups so radically that it would be like a whole new beta phase.
Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical.....
Vikings are a joke against Mutalisks. Removing Thor AoE would make them a joke as well. They hit for a bunch? Doesn't matter with an incredibly slow attack speed against one target with the possibility of overkill. Turrets aren't practical either seeing as they're stationary. Oh, yay, I can turtle up my base. Too bad I can't actually ever be aggressive against mass Muta/Bling.
|
On August 12 2010 09:35 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:18 KenShi wrote:On August 12 2010 09:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2. You just do massive nerfs across the board for T and don't really take into account how any of it would affect TvP/ZvP. I mean really, a Dark Swarm-esque ability would break the game at so many levels. That ability was by far the most game-changing ability out there and the game has been balanced without it in mind. Not only that, any nerf to Thor AoE damage makes Marines the only practical anti-Mutalisk unit, which can give Z the free win with Muta/Bling almost every game. Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME. Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical..... The ladder? You mean how there is ONE Terran in the top five, along with two zergs? Or do you mean anecdotal experiences? Tourney results are so variable as to not even matter. Population is also a stupid number, considering the campaign is Terran. If I just picked up the game, I'm definitely going to play the race I spent the entire campaign playing, or maybe the race the side campaign focused on. I'm certainly not going to try the race that has super wierd mechanics. And yes Dark Swarm would break the game. Hell, IdrA called it game breaking in BW. Then again, he was Terran in BW. Infestors are not defilers. Infestors are Tier 2. Zerg has limited issue with Protoss; arguaply ZvP is the most balanced matchup right now. Calling Ravens anti air is like calling infestors or Templar anti air. But yes Thors, marines, vikings and turrets are viable, but in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS. Marines provide a mobile ground anti air, vikings a mobile aerial anti air. Thors provide a slow crawling anti mutalisk, that supports other anti air. Turrets are the critical part of mech anti air, and, obviously, can't move.
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~
|
On August 12 2010 09:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME.
You did (arguably) two buffs to Terrans. Also, it's pretty obvious that this would still be an incredibly powerful Dark Swarm. Show nested quote +
Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical.....
Vikings are a joke against Mutalisks. Removing Thor AoE would make them a joke as well. They hit for a bunch? Doesn't matter with an incredibly slow attack speed against one target with the possibility of overkill. Turrets aren't practical either seeing as they're stationary. Oh, yay, I can turtle up my base. Too bad I can't actually ever be aggressive against mass Muta/Bling.
It depends about what we're talking about. Agressive bio or bio mech? Yes that's an issue. Pure mech? No, you're creeping slowly with lots of turrets. Thors can already be taken down by as few as four mutas properly spread/microed. At some point people will figure that out. But yeah Thors fire four missiles at a time, relatively slowly. If you made the change, you'd have to have them fire one after another relatively quickly. And vikings are OK against mutalisks, more as a support to marines/thors/turrets than anything until late game.
|
Tech Lab - 10 seconds? I would be game. I may be a zerg player, but it would mean less of a headache over the reaper/marauder proxy.
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.
Conc Shell - Just leave it as is. All you are doing is slightly hurting the better microers (will just manually cast it to kite) while greatly hurting the lesser players.
Hellion - No. This change is not needed. You would be hurting harass and buffing a unit that does not need buffing for normal combat. You want a versatile anti-ground unit, try marauder or marine.
Thor - Dear god no. Thors dealing 200 damage per shot? This means they could 1 shot brood lords with upgrades. Thor is an awesome anti ground unit with decent anti air. This change would most likely turn a great number of T games into mass thors.
Turrets - Why does this need to change? Even without turrets, muta harass is easy to deal with. Void rays would not take as much damage while charging, and phoenixes would have an easier time harassing, but aside from that, nothing would change.
Raven - Buffing/nerfing one spell on an easily sniped, expensive, high priority target unit will not make it better.
Auto Turret - Meh. Have not played around with this long enough to comment.
Viking - How would this change anything? IIRC, 8 range is still longer than any other air unit (air to air that is) in the game. This is just an undeeded change imo.
Sensor Tower - Why do they need to be not as good? This is just a security blanket for terran as it is. Making it worse would take even that away.
Bunkers - I do not see much salvage outside bunker rushes, which I have not seen properly executed. So meh, this one does not matter to me.
Roaches - Zerg cannot be a threat early game, even with this change. All this does is lower the supply slightly, lower the larva cost, and mess up timings in ZvZ. No thanks.
Infestor - Not needed. This big "omg mech is OP" thing comes from a map pool of small maps. On an overseer this might be nice, but infestor already has 3 good abilities. No need to make the energy starvation worse.
Banelings - Just means I need to make more banelings against marines. Again, no thanks. With lag the way it is, either you are able to escape banelings completely, or not at all. This just makes me build more of an already fairly expensive unit. And it messes up ZvZ's current state (though i can be argued this is a good thing).
Corruptor - I would not mind this at all.
Creep - Leave as is. No need to mess with this. It is not like it is hard to spread creep at an insane rate as it is.
Feedback - I have yet to see a toss feedback any of my units. No comment.
Archon - Dear fucking god no. Zerg already have problems dealing with a non-light non-armored splash damage dealing mini-tank. No need to make archons even more effective.
Charge - Meh, I would have to see this in play. I do not care about charge either way since it just means zealots get in range of my roaches more quickly.
All in all, a few good ideas, but mostly not needed.
|
The number of players who play Zerg has nothing to do with balance. You would have to make Zerg grossly overpowered to get them up to the same % as Protoss and Terran. If that is your measuring stick for deciding who needs buffs you are looking in the wrong place.
|
United States47024 Posts
It's worth noting that the 10 second tech lab build time is functionally identical for early game situations to the 5 second barracks/reaper/bunker build time nerf that was done at the beginning of phase 2, except that it has spillover into other situations that don't need nerfing.
|
On August 12 2010 09:49 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:35 MythicalMage wrote:On August 12 2010 09:18 KenShi wrote:On August 12 2010 09:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2. You just do massive nerfs across the board for T and don't really take into account how any of it would affect TvP/ZvP. I mean really, a Dark Swarm-esque ability would break the game at so many levels. That ability was by far the most game-changing ability out there and the game has been balanced without it in mind. Not only that, any nerf to Thor AoE damage makes Marines the only practical anti-Mutalisk unit, which can give Z the free win with Muta/Bling almost every game. Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME. Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical..... The ladder? You mean how there is ONE Terran in the top five, along with two zergs? Or do you mean anecdotal experiences? Tourney results are so variable as to not even matter. Population is also a stupid number, considering the campaign is Terran. If I just picked up the game, I'm definitely going to play the race I spent the entire campaign playing, or maybe the race the side campaign focused on. I'm certainly not going to try the race that has super wierd mechanics. And yes Dark Swarm would break the game. Hell, IdrA called it game breaking in BW. Then again, he was Terran in BW. Infestors are not defilers. Infestors are Tier 2. Zerg has limited issue with Protoss; arguaply ZvP is the most balanced matchup right now. Calling Ravens anti air is like calling infestors or Templar anti air. But yes Thors, marines, vikings and turrets are viable, but in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS. Marines provide a mobile ground anti air, vikings a mobile aerial anti air. Thors provide a slow crawling anti mutalisk, that supports other anti air. Turrets are the critical part of mech anti air, and, obviously, can't move. 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. Population doesn't matter. At all. I just mentioned it in my post. =]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 foundhere
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~
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.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 12 2010 09:49 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:35 MythicalMage wrote:On August 12 2010 09:18 KenShi wrote:On August 12 2010 09:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 12 2010 08:40 KenShi wrote:
To those saying its too overboard, I really dont know where your coming from. Look at tournament results and the amount of players playing zerg. Theres obviously something wrong with the game not just in a balance standpoint, but micro and macro are pretty much lost for Terran and with these changes I've applied it would dramatically increase the skill gap for Terrans and in general in TvZ . I pretty much just made TvZ in Sc2 more like TvZ in BW. There really is nothing major in here instead of taking what worked in BW and applying it to SC2. You just do massive nerfs across the board for T and don't really take into account how any of it would affect TvP/ZvP. I mean really, a Dark Swarm-esque ability would break the game at so many levels. That ability was by far the most game-changing ability out there and the game has been balanced without it in mind. Not only that, any nerf to Thor AoE damage makes Marines the only practical anti-Mutalisk unit, which can give Z the free win with Muta/Bling almost every game. Massive nerfs? Pretty much an overstatement in every regard. Looking at Terran tourny results and ladder info it pretty much is making them where they should be? I also buffed certain things for Terran and nerfed things that are used against in Terran MU's. An INCREDIBLY nerfed darkswarm abillity would not be groundbreaking at all. It helps zerg to punish turtling Terran and Robo heavy builds from Protoss. Also you have to remember there is NO CONSUME. Also marines only practical anti air unit? What are you talking about? Thor,marine,viking,turret, and again a buffed Raven. Just because it doesn't completely dominate mutalisks doesn't mean its not practical..... The ladder? You mean how there is ONE Terran in the top five, along with two zergs? Or do you mean anecdotal experiences? Tourney results are so variable as to not even matter. Population is also a stupid number, considering the campaign is Terran. If I just picked up the game, I'm definitely going to play the race I spent the entire campaign playing, or maybe the race the side campaign focused on. I'm certainly not going to try the race that has super wierd mechanics. And yes Dark Swarm would break the game. Hell, IdrA called it game breaking in BW. Then again, he was Terran in BW. Infestors are not defilers. Infestors are Tier 2. Zerg has limited issue with Protoss; arguaply ZvP is the most balanced matchup right now. Calling Ravens anti air is like calling infestors or Templar anti air. But yes Thors, marines, vikings and turrets are viable, but in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS. Marines provide a mobile ground anti air, vikings a mobile aerial anti air. Thors provide a slow crawling anti mutalisk, that supports other anti air. Turrets are the critical part of mech anti air, and, obviously, can't move. 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.
|
Something needs to be done about HSM, right now this spell is totally useless.
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...
|
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.
|
On August 12 2010 10:10 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yep, if you increase the MULE work, you have to do the same with Chrono Boost.
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.
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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...)
|
What I don't get is that some people say 2 roaches in one egg would be imba. It would not, zerg can at least pressure now, and not have to get raped in the ass by reapers and helions and zealots early one
|
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~
|
On August 12 2010 11:21 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +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~ (oh wait)
Because he's right? Don't act so hurt over it. You don't know what you're talking about.
|
On August 12 2010 11:25 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 11:21 KenShi wrote: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~ (oh wait) 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.......
|
Ehh I'm not too crazy about some of the ideas you offer, and ill list 1 from each race, just for example purposes:
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)
|
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
|
On August 12 2010 11:07 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +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...)
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. =]
|
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.
|
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)?
|
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.
|
I think the fact that mutalisks are the only air unit that gets in range of turrets is a much bigger issue. Turrets, spore crawlers, and cannons should have 8 range vs air by default. I never understood this from day 1 of beta.
|
On August 12 2010 12:57 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's what I meant, though. I feel that they may be too strong against Mutas, but that that is the only thing they are useful for. They feel designed specifically to shut down Mutas with the 12+(12 Light), which means that for like 400 minerals you can shut down a harass of like 600/600.
|
i think every single one of these have been suggested already, or sg really similar. Did you make a selection?
|
On August 12 2010 13:39 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 12:57 MythicalMage wrote: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. That's what I meant, though. I feel that they may be too strong against Mutas, but that that is the only thing they are useful for. They feel designed specifically to shut down Mutas with the 12+(12 Light), which means that for like 400 minerals you can shut down a harass of like 600/600.
6 Mutas can kill a turret pretty easily. Zerg players have an irrational fear of anything that shoots their mutas. I will win games against good zerg players because packs of 10-15 mutas will run away from my army with one Thor in it and no other AA. For how much Zerg players complain, they still have a LOT of learning to do.
Once you get enough mutas, it takes a lot of turrets to cover your base(s).
|
On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss.
i agree
|
On August 12 2010 13:44 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 13:39 Peterblue wrote:On August 12 2010 12:57 MythicalMage wrote: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. That's what I meant, though. I feel that they may be too strong against Mutas, but that that is the only thing they are useful for. They feel designed specifically to shut down Mutas with the 12+(12 Light), which means that for like 400 minerals you can shut down a harass of like 600/600. 6 Mutas can kill a turret pretty easily. Zerg players have an irrational fear of anything that shoots their mutas. I will win games against good zerg players because packs of 10-15 mutas will run away from my army with one Thor in it and no other AA. For how much Zerg players complain, they still have a LOT of learning to do. Once you get enough mutas, it takes a lot of turrets to cover your base(s).
6 Mutas kill a turret pretty easily, but will come out with pretty heavy losses against 2 turrets. Keep in mind that's 600/600 investment nullified by 200 minerals worth of defence. They should make turrets worse against mutas and slightly better against everything else.
|
At a certain point, you're going to have to stop trying to "improve" the game and start actually playing it the way it is. >:[
|
lol terran players are so cheap
|
Some of these are bad suggestions, the rest are horrid.
The only thing I agree with is giving mules a cooldown and marauder concussive cooldown, but thats just because I thought that before I even read this thread.
|
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)?
Having watched a good bit of korean zerg replays I think turrets need a buff if anything. US players are just terrible at using Mutalisks.
|
On August 12 2010 14:18 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 13:44 iEchoic wrote:On August 12 2010 13:39 Peterblue wrote:On August 12 2010 12:57 MythicalMage wrote: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. That's what I meant, though. I feel that they may be too strong against Mutas, but that that is the only thing they are useful for. They feel designed specifically to shut down Mutas with the 12+(12 Light), which means that for like 400 minerals you can shut down a harass of like 600/600. 6 Mutas can kill a turret pretty easily. Zerg players have an irrational fear of anything that shoots their mutas. I will win games against good zerg players because packs of 10-15 mutas will run away from my army with one Thor in it and no other AA. For how much Zerg players complain, they still have a LOT of learning to do. Once you get enough mutas, it takes a lot of turrets to cover your base(s). 6 Mutas kill a turret pretty easily, but will come out with pretty heavy losses against 2 turrets. Keep in mind that's 600/600 investment nullified by 200 minerals worth of defence. They should make turrets worse against mutas and slightly better against everything else.
You need to cover your entire base for turrets to work. You can't just place two turrets and expect mutas to run into it. To cover your entire base with a set of two turrets, you'd need about 5 sets of 200 turrets for 1000 minerals.
|
I could of sworn someone posted the DPS for a missile turret recently and the results were absolutely ridiculous. Mutalisk harass against terran is an absolute joke and you are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise. Missile turrets need a 20% reduction in attack speed or possibly a 35% reduction with a 25 mineral decrease.
Then, I'm also thinking viking needs a range reduction of -2 with an upgrade giving them +2 range somewhere for 150/150 to force terran to commit to anti air.
As far as thors go, the unit itself is fine, however the zerg counter for it, neural parasite, got nerfed into oblivion. Increase neural parasite duration to around 20- 24 seconds along with my 2 other balance suggestions and I strongly believe zvt would become balanced. The reason being is there really aren't very many timing windows where zerg can choose to be the aggressor and dictate the pace of the game. My suggestions would create a strong timing window where mutas will force terran to play defensively or pay the price for skimping on air defense.
|
I play random diamond
Terran :
Scan - can t see the hide units
Mule - OP sugestion
in the command center ( dont know in english ) the "add supply" from 50E to 25E
Medivac - can heal one unit per one unit
Marrauder - (i love OP sugestion)
Steam pack - is T3 ability (or remove it, its problem when your opponent have 50% more army than you and you win because steam pack +medivac with absolute easy micro) , and need build some specific building.
New upgrade in Ghost academy > ressearch EMP 200/200
EMP can't see hide units
(well, zerg and protoss have 2 detection why terran have 4? so remove absurde detection by scan and emp, more viable for zerg to upgrade underground.)
Tank - nerf attak speed, very little
Protoss :
Sentry - force field need research upgrade 50/50 in the core
Charge speed - from 200/200 to 100/100
Archon - ( OP sugestion )
mothership - Teleportation units from 100E to 50
Zerg :
Corruptor - add +1 attak Vs light air
Overlord - add 10% move speed
changeling - can be move by opponent
Ultralisk - add +1 range
Zergling - add +2 attak versus armored
Queen - can move faster on non creep
Baneling need buff Vs bio but dont know how modify the ZvZ match up
|
Really, the only thing I think needs to change is EMP, it's impossible to micro against and destroys the entire protoss army. Like everything. Maybe only take out half shields? Right now it takes out shields, energy and cloak...if you have ghosts, you beat protoss. It's as easy as that. Thoughts?
I know terran players will say spread out your forces, but the ghost is an INCREDIBLY good unit. it can emp the collosus and snipe the HT even if they are on opposite sides of the line, essentially nullifying any protoss army whatsoever...
|
Very few of these suggestions are actually usable - but I'm sure after four pages of thread, you realize that.
That said, there are a few things I would like to see from your post. Marauders having a cooldown on conc shells is a big one. EMP obviously should have a cast time (even though you didn't name that one). I'd like to see vikings with 7 range, then an upgrade (possibly 150/150, 110 seconds?) that gives an additional 2 range. Finally, I like the bunker change. Using a bunker or four to protect an FE and then removing them later on in the game for NO LOSS is a bit too much. Just a 25 mineral loss per bunker seems reasonable.
Hydras are the only Zerg unit immedeiately coming to mind as needing a boost to off creep speed. Perhaps as an upgrade, like it was in brood war? I like the idea of corruption being AoE - sort of a reverse dark swarm. This is enough to bust a defensive position, you don't need a dark swarm-type spell in addition. This also gives the busting its own unique flavor, rather than reapeating SC1 zerg. Finally, I'd like to see 1.5 food roaches that spawn in two's as a hive tech upgrade. Spawning in twos makes the production capacity of roaches in the early game something that no other race could keep pace with. Late game however, 2 food roaches just take up too much army space, so this could keep them effective.
Toss I don't see too much to change. If EMP had a cast time, possibly lower the range on feedback. If Corrupt was a LARGE area, possibly stronger cannons. As it is, toss has multiple viable strategies, while nothing being overly strong, providing that the opponent is prepared for it (having anti air for void rays?)
|
I really like the cool down for mules actually. Maybe not 30 seconds but up to 10 seconds would be great.
|
Only change I can get behind is thor nerf.
Why are they good against every zerg ground unit and then rip air up as well?
|
On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss.
Pretty much, looks like he basically shortened that other guys post.
|
On August 13 2010 07:11 GodIsNotHere wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss. Pretty much, looks like he basically shortened that other guys post.
Uh not really. If you read the post at all you would have noticed that~ I've been gone for the last 2 days so i couldnt read all of your posts, but if you give me an actual arguement against my changes i can actually explain my reasoning instead of just stupid posts like this.
|
what do you guys think of moving the emp to raven, and maybe toning down some bonus damage on the Terran
|
On August 14 2010 01:11 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 07:11 GodIsNotHere wrote:On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss. Pretty much, looks like he basically shortened that other guys post. Uh not really. If you read the post at all you would have noticed that~ I've been gone for the last 2 days so i couldnt read all of your posts, but if you give me an actual arguement against my changes i can actually explain my reasoning instead of just stupid posts like this.
please explain why 2 roaches for 1 larva is necessary and how implementing such an idea wouldn't drastically upset the current balance of larva management.
|
On August 14 2010 01:38 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 01:11 KenShi wrote:On August 13 2010 07:11 GodIsNotHere wrote:On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss. Pretty much, looks like he basically shortened that other guys post. Uh not really. If you read the post at all you would have noticed that~ I've been gone for the last 2 days so i couldnt read all of your posts, but if you give me an actual arguement against my changes i can actually explain my reasoning instead of just stupid posts like this. please explain why 2 roaches for 1 larva is necessary and how implementing such an idea wouldn't drastically upset the current balance of larva management.
Honestly that change I didn't spend that much thought on so i can see the faults in the change espically for the larva management part of. To be honest though 2 supply roaches are terrible and 1 supply roaches are too good. Pretty much i just thought of 1.5 roaches and thats how i got the idea. Too be honest roaches in general are a terribly designed unit so anything could be better then what they are now~
|
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one.
|
This is pretty much nerf terran, buff zerg, and get rid of the good counter to infestors for protoss..
Since I play Protoss, I thought it would be weird to comment on the terran stuff (Thors MELT to void rays...since their ROF is so slow AoE damage is acceptable). But feedback doing damage is AWESOME. I like it a lot...and I haven't ever heard someone say that it's OP, so I think you're just mad it can kill an Infestor in one hit =P. Against terran, I've never heard someone rage about feedback...the only unit it can kill in one hit is the raven, which I guess is a big deal, but if the raven has full mana I don't think the terran would mind that much, as he probably isn't that good anyway.
charge's build time is fine in my opinion, if it came earlier it would be a lot more difficult for marauder balls to put on early pressure, as chargelots counter marauders quite well, and I think it would be really OP. And Archons are joke units anyway unless you're going against bio, but if they have only a bio ball when you can get archons, storm is a lot better...
OP: I bet you play zerg, and it probably felt really good to write this, but whining about terrans having easier macro is just the state of the race. Zerg micro is a joke, without infesstors, but their macro is really hard, I get that, but the mule thing just make me think that you don't think it's fair that terran have it so easy while you have to vomit larve every 30 seconds or so. If you can't keep up, and think terran's OP, change races. Btw, Original Poster and Over Powered both being OP is reallly confusing on a starcraft forum. just sayin.
|
On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one.
As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic.
TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~
|
On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~
The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously.
|
please explain why having 200/200 energy MULEs and using them at once is a problem yet having 2000/2000 resources and warping 20 stalkers in at once isn't.
|
On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously.
No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly.
|
On August 14 2010 02:05 mahnini wrote:
please explain why having 200/200 energy MULEs and using them at once is a problem yet having 2000/2000 resources and warping 20 stalkers in at once isn't.
Because ones a macro mechanic thats supposed to increase macro while the other one is macroing in general.
|
On August 14 2010 02:07 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously. No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly.
You're speaking from what? Certainly not experience. So according to you, you can support the same number of buildings constantly producing units with or without muling? Well, I guess macro ISN'T a skill I need to have.
|
On August 14 2010 02:05 mahnini wrote:
please explain why having 200/200 energy MULEs and using them at once is a problem yet having 2000/2000 resources and warping 20 stalkers in at once isn't.
To be fair, 2000/2000 isn't enough to afford 20 Stalkers, and having 20 Warp Gates ready to do this will happen in 1 out of probably a million games, and will probably never happen at high level because that would either require 1) upwards of 6 functioning and mining bases to support that level of production or 2) absolutely terrible macro.
|
On August 14 2010 02:16 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 02:07 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously. No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly. You're speaking from what? Certainly not experience. So according to you, you can support the same number of buildings constantly producing units with or without muling? Well, I guess macro ISN'T a skill I need to have.
What the hell are you talking about? Yes you can support generally the same amount of units without muling. Obviously muling helps, but first off it doesn't fufill its role of being a mechanic that takes more apm. Second off it doesnt punish Terrans enough if they don't do it constantly enough. It's supposed to be an APM sink, but if it doesnt fufill its only role then why is it in there? Theres a reason once it hits mid game that Terrans have about 150 energy on there CC's and thats because it really doesnt matter enough to waste APM on that abillity. Pretty much right now its a bonus not a fundamental skill that terrans need to have~
|
On August 14 2010 02:28 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 02:16 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 02:07 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously. No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly. You're speaking from what? Certainly not experience. So according to you, you can support the same number of buildings constantly producing units with or without muling? Well, I guess macro ISN'T a skill I need to have. What the hell are you talking about? Yes you can support generally the same amount of units without muling. Obviously muling helps, but first off it doesn't fufill its role of being a mechanic that takes more apm. Second off it doesnt punish Terrans enough if they don't do it constantly enough. It's supposed to be an APM sink, but if it doesnt fufill its only role then why is it in there? Theres a reason once it hits mid game that Terrans have about 150 energy on there CC's and thats because it really doesnt matter enough to waste APM on that abillity. Pretty much right now its a bonus not a fundamental skill that terrans need to have~
This is one thing that is true that really needs to be pointed out. In the mid/late game, MULE's are almost useless and more of a waste because Scans are more valuable. Once you get your mineral lines fully saturated, then MULE's are basically unnecessary. MULE's main edge is the early game where T can't match P or Z worker production, but once you catch up, MULE's are an edge above the other two races in terms of mineral income.
|
On August 14 2010 02:28 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 02:16 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 02:07 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously. No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly. You're speaking from what? Certainly not experience. So according to you, you can support the same number of buildings constantly producing units with or without muling? Well, I guess macro ISN'T a skill I need to have. What the hell are you talking about? Yes you can support generally the same amount of units without muling. Obviously muling helps, but first off it doesn't fufill its role of being a mechanic that takes more apm. Second off it doesnt punish Terrans enough if they don't do it constantly enough. It's supposed to be an APM sink, but if it doesnt fufill its only role then why is it in there? Theres a reason once it hits mid game that Terrans have about 150 energy on there CC's and thats because it really doesnt matter enough to waste APM on that abillity. Pretty much right now its a bonus not a fundamental skill that terrans need to have~
Muling is like taking an expansion. With it you can support more unit production, and without it you can support less. So yes, it does affect things drastically if you don't MULE, and if you MULE in a spike. Otherwise, Pros would just MULE when they had the time. The reason Terrrans save up energy, and I'd like replays or at least the general build the Terran was going, is for scans. Late game Terrans going anything other than pure bio don't need minerals any more, or rather don't need many minerals, so they save up for scans. It is a fundamental skill if you want to have enough stuff to win.
|
On August 14 2010 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 02:28 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 02:16 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 02:07 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously. No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly. You're speaking from what? Certainly not experience. So according to you, you can support the same number of buildings constantly producing units with or without muling? Well, I guess macro ISN'T a skill I need to have. What the hell are you talking about? Yes you can support generally the same amount of units without muling. Obviously muling helps, but first off it doesn't fufill its role of being a mechanic that takes more apm. Second off it doesnt punish Terrans enough if they don't do it constantly enough. It's supposed to be an APM sink, but if it doesnt fufill its only role then why is it in there? Theres a reason once it hits mid game that Terrans have about 150 energy on there CC's and thats because it really doesnt matter enough to waste APM on that abillity. Pretty much right now its a bonus not a fundamental skill that terrans need to have~ This is one thing that is true that really needs to be pointed out. In the mid/late game, MULE's are almost useless and more of a waste because Scans are more valuable. Once you get your mineral lines fully saturated, then MULE's are basically unnecessary. MULE's main edge is the early game where T can't match P or Z worker production, but once you catch up, MULE's are an edge above the other two races in terms of mineral income.
Ish, but yeah that's generally true.
Actually, what would be nice would be an improved MULE, perhaps that could mine gas or perhaps that was just better overall, but had some punishment for using more than one at once. A cooldown is a bit much as it punishes worrying about burrowed/cloaked units (He moves one group of burrowed roaches, so you save up until you have turrets for example), but I dunno. Terran is really wierd as their main form of detection in the field, so to speak, early to mid game is the scan which is tied to their macro mechanic, the MULE.
|
On August 14 2010 02:34 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 02:28 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 02:16 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 02:07 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:59 MythicalMage wrote:On August 14 2010 01:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 01:47 MythicalMage wrote:
Please explain why you would make the Terran macro mechanic more punishing without changing the Protoss one. As the Protoss one is 50x deeper in terms of builds and timings then the Terran Macro mechanic. The Protoss mechanic also punishes you for using it in rapid succession as in general that could be better used on key structures and in general better timings. However the terran macro mechanic isn't useful in specific timings and in general it doesnt punish you at all for not using it. Its more of a bonus then a macro mechanic. TLDR: The protoss mechanic already punishes you for not using it wisely while the terran one doesnt~ The Terran does, and it's obvious you haven't played Terran. So, when I hit up a mule regularly, I am getting a steady controllable income that makes for controlled unit production. When I spam up a bunch, I have a big dip, and then a huge spike of income which leads to non optimal unit production, and generally floating resources as you can't spend the "spike" fast enough. It punishes you, just not as obviously. No it doesn't punish you. Its blindfully easy to do and whether you mule or not it really isnt effective UNLESS ITS 20-40 SUPPLY IN THE EARLY GAME. Once you reach midgame or lategame it really doesnt matter if you mule constantly or not as again you have enough income to not make it matter and then you can just cast down 8 mules and boom, you have the same amount of money you would have had as if you did it constantly~ It really does not punish you at all if you dont mule regularly. You're speaking from what? Certainly not experience. So according to you, you can support the same number of buildings constantly producing units with or without muling? Well, I guess macro ISN'T a skill I need to have. What the hell are you talking about? Yes you can support generally the same amount of units without muling. Obviously muling helps, but first off it doesn't fufill its role of being a mechanic that takes more apm. Second off it doesnt punish Terrans enough if they don't do it constantly enough. It's supposed to be an APM sink, but if it doesnt fufill its only role then why is it in there? Theres a reason once it hits mid game that Terrans have about 150 energy on there CC's and thats because it really doesnt matter enough to waste APM on that abillity. Pretty much right now its a bonus not a fundamental skill that terrans need to have~ Muling is like taking an expansion. With it you can support more unit production, and without it you can support less. So yes, it does affect things drastically if you don't MULE, and if you MULE in a spike. Otherwise, Pros would just MULE when they had the time. The reason Terrrans save up energy, and I'd like replays or at least the general build the Terran was going, is for scans. Late game Terrans going anything other than pure bio don't need minerals any more, or rather don't need many minerals, so they save up for scans. It is a fundamental skill if you want to have enough stuff to win.
No offence, but please just admit that your wrong. I get where your coming from, but you cannot compare the macro mechanics for Protoss and Zerg to Terran. Pros have 150+ energy as Terran because they forget to do it because honestly it isnt important. They dont "save up" energy on purpose they just forget to do it and then there like "huzzah" 12 mules~ Also mules in the mid/late game dont effect how much stuff you have. They dont gain gas and having an extra rax producing marines in the lategame doesnt mean much. I'm not saying its useless im saying it doesn't create extra APM and urgency for Macroing as Terran.
EDIT: for your above post unless i totally read it wrong i didn't put a cooldown on Scans only on mules
|
So like it depends on the player, obviously, but into the midgame, I'd say MULEing consistently is super important for steady unit production. In late game, you're likely floating resources anyway, so it isn't as big of a deal. AND for mech play, you want it for scans. But yeah, as a macro mechanic, it fails as it loses utility. That's what I was trying to say: Give it a reason for existing in late game. As a Terran player, I can attest that if I forget to MULE even two times, I notice it in the ability to make units in the early game. Mid to late game, it becomes a bit fuzzy.
|
So... a lot of Zerg players think that Terran is imba, but I don't think IdrA himself would condone these changes. I think even he would think that these changes are ridiculous.
Mutas are still a counter vs thors, you just have to have a little better micro and better spread.
Hellions weren't ment to be a good general unit, they were built (I'm assuming) with the intent of harass and micro intensive play, they counter plenty of unit comps as long as the unit comp of your army and control of your units are decent.
Turrets, Spore crawlers, cannons... all intent on making it very risky to do harass, the amount of damage they do to air is all intentional, you nerf the turrets like that then a group of 6 or so mutas can come in, rape your mineral line, then leave with very minimal losses since the space is too cramped by the base to put too much static defense.
I don't know how you can justify the nerf too the auto turrets,
Sensor towers are fine as is, since it tells you (the opponent) the range of what they cover, so good players will make it a priority to knock those out if the secrecy of troop movement is important to their composition.
Roaches being a 1.5 unit would end all ZvP games in the first 6 minutes.
Infestors spells are fine as is, they have plenty of very versitile spells, they don't need an additional.
That fast of a charge would make 1 base templar zlot very Very op because of the timings, if you do this then you just need 2 HT's and a big zlot ball and you rape the marine marauder ball of the terran, since this early in the game, it is so tiny, and if they go in with the feedback, makes med evacs pointless, and removes any possibility of damaging a unit with a HT, makes it a significantly weaker unit in regards to defending drops.
|
On August 14 2010 02:47 Fractle wrote:
So... a lot of Zerg players think that Terran is imba, but I don't think IdrA himself would condone these changes. I think even he would think that these changes are ridiculous.
Mutas are still a counter vs thors, you just have to have a little better micro and better spread.
Hellions weren't ment to be a good general unit, they were built (I'm assuming) with the intent of harass and micro intensive play, they counter plenty of unit comps as long as the unit comp of your army and control of your units are decent.
Turrets, Spore crawlers, cannons... all intent on making it very risky to do harass, the amount of damage they do to air is all intentional, you nerf the turrets like that then a group of 6 or so mutas can come in, rape your mineral line, then leave with very minimal losses since the space is too cramped by the base to put too much static defense.
I don't know how you can justify the nerf too the auto turrets,
Sensor towers are fine as is, since it tells you (the opponent) the range of what they cover, so good players will make it a priority to knock those out if the secrecy of troop movement is important to their composition.
Roaches being a 1.5 unit would end all ZvP games in the first 6 minutes.
Infestors spells are fine as is, they have plenty of very versitile spells, they don't need an additional.
That fast of a charge would make 1 base templar zlot very Very op because of the timings, if you do this then you just need 2 HT's and a big zlot ball and you rape the marine marauder ball of the terran, since this early in the game, it is so tiny, and if they go in with the feedback, makes med evacs pointless, and removes any possibility of damaging a unit with a HT, makes it a significantly weaker unit in regards to defending drops.
I think IdrA would like these changes and alot of Zerg players would. Heck i think Protoss and Terran players would enjoy these changes~
Muta's dont counter Thors at all, this whole "spread them out thing is a joke in so many different ways. First off if you have a large amount of mutas its impossible to spread them in pretty much 90% of engagements with the 10 range of the thor. Second off you still get splash damage on about 3 of the mutas even if you have a single thor. If you have more then 4+ thors it doesnt even matter if you spread them or not cause there still gonna get oblitterated. Also while your spreading there marines tear up your mutas enough so that it doesnt matter. Pretty much it doesnt matter in 95% of scenarios.
Uh thats the point? There a complete hard counter unit that sucks balls against every other units. No they dont counter several different unit compositions they super hard counter light units and again suck balls against every other units.
Uh again thats the point?
Uh read the post?
Uh again thats the point? There range is too long as it covers too much space to avoid the range of the tower?
Uh not really? Considering it didn't work like that with 1 supply roaches i dont get where your coming from?
I guess fungal growth and a terrible mind control spell is a great spellcasting unit with diversity?
Uh you kinda adressed the problems in your response? Archons shouldn't be a joke unit and zealots with charge should soft counter a 1.5 unit ball as the protoss has the tech advantage?
Also its extremely obvious you have never played BW.
|
On August 14 2010 01:38 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 01:11 KenShi wrote:On August 13 2010 07:11 GodIsNotHere wrote:On August 12 2010 07:18 ig0tfish wrote:
ITT: Nerf Terran to oblivion and buff zerg and protoss. Pretty much, looks like he basically shortened that other guys post. Uh not really. If you read the post at all you would have noticed that~ I've been gone for the last 2 days so i couldnt read all of your posts, but if you give me an actual arguement against my changes i can actually explain my reasoning instead of just stupid posts like this. please explain why 2 roaches for 1 larva is necessary and how implementing such an idea wouldn't drastically upset the current balance of larva management.
What if roahces morphed from zerglings costing 1 supply? I agree the 2 roaches from 1 larva is a bit nuts, but zerg larva management is balanced at best with perfect spawn larva management. Pure speedlings are able to fend off 4gate at your expo, and taking the time to get roaches if they morphed from lings could help a protoss who knows what hes doing (as opposed to zerg just cranking roaches on 1.5 supply to amove a heavy zlot/sentry 4gate). ZvT will actually have a point to early agression aside from bling bust since you can hace a roach at the terran wall before a hellion pops, and still expand normally. Early game is a lot more open for zerg.
Unless we just put roaches 1 larva 1.5 supply (which is much less creative), we can do it this way :D
otherwise those changes are whack to say the least.
|
I like the suggestion about cooldown for mules, although it doesnt necessarily need to be as high as 30 seconds.
|
On August 14 2010 03:02 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 02:47 Fractle wrote:
So... a lot of Zerg players think that Terran is imba, but I don't think IdrA himself would condone these changes. I think even he would think that these changes are ridiculous.
Mutas are still a counter vs thors, you just have to have a little better micro and better spread.
Hellions weren't ment to be a good general unit, they were built (I'm assuming) with the intent of harass and micro intensive play, they counter plenty of unit comps as long as the unit comp of your army and control of your units are decent.
Turrets, Spore crawlers, cannons... all intent on making it very risky to do harass, the amount of damage they do to air is all intentional, you nerf the turrets like that then a group of 6 or so mutas can come in, rape your mineral line, then leave with very minimal losses since the space is too cramped by the base to put too much static defense.
I don't know how you can justify the nerf too the auto turrets,
Sensor towers are fine as is, since it tells you (the opponent) the range of what they cover, so good players will make it a priority to knock those out if the secrecy of troop movement is important to their composition.
Roaches being a 1.5 unit would end all ZvP games in the first 6 minutes.
Infestors spells are fine as is, they have plenty of very versitile spells, they don't need an additional.
That fast of a charge would make 1 base templar zlot very Very op because of the timings, if you do this then you just need 2 HT's and a big zlot ball and you rape the marine marauder ball of the terran, since this early in the game, it is so tiny, and if they go in with the feedback, makes med evacs pointless, and removes any possibility of damaging a unit with a HT, makes it a significantly weaker unit in regards to defending drops. I think IdrA would like these changes and alot of Zerg players would. Heck i think Protoss and Terran players would enjoy these changes~ No. IdrA might until people stopped playing the game and paying him money.
Muta's dont counter Thors at all, this whole "spread them out thing is a joke in so many different ways. First off if you have a large amount of mutas its impossible to spread them in pretty much 90% of engagements with the 10 range of the thor. Second off you still get splash damage on about 3 of the mutas even if you have a single thor. If you have more then 4+ thors it doesnt even matter if you spread them or not cause there still gonna get oblitterated. Also while your spreading there marines tear up your mutas enough so that it doesnt matter. Pretty much it doesnt matter in 95% of scenarios. So as few as FOUR mutalisks can kill a single thor. With spreading, you can achieve success against Thors to varying degrees of success as proven here.
Uh thats the point? There a complete hard counter unit that sucks balls against every other units. No they dont counter several different unit compositions they super hard counter light units and again suck balls against every other units. I dunno your point there, but hellions are super important the way they are, if you've ever seen a meching Terrran, you know they're perfect, just like Vultures.
I guess fungal growth and a terrible mind control spell is a great spellcasting unit with diversity? Have you seen anyone use infestors well? Infestors are, bar none, the best unit Zerg has. Period.
Uh you kinda adressed the problems in your response? Archons shouldn't be a joke unit and zealots with charge should soft counter a 1.5 unit ball as the protoss has the tech advantage? The issue is the timings, which you seem to know nothing about. Sure it should counter them, and it does, the issue is the speed. Archons have a place versus Zerg, and seem kinda pointless anywhere else.
Also its extremely obvious you have never played BW.
Two things. 1)What does it matter? and 2)What makes you say that?
|
On August 14 2010 03:12 Ovi wrote:
I like the suggestion about cooldown for mules, although it doesnt necessarily need to be as high as 30 seconds.
Yeah, I think as little as five seconds would really impact Terran play.
|
Wow someone doesn't like Terran. 2 changes I would make to the game as it is:
Void Rays:
Uncharged damage stays the same at 5 but charged goes to 5 (+20 armoured). This would effectively allow the units meant to counter void rays do it a bit better because currently if a void ray gets charge up it can kill the marines sent to counter it fairly quickly but stays equally strong vs armoured.
Archons:
Increase range to 3 so they can more effectively deal damage.
Ultralisks:
Some sort of pathing upgrade or size decrease so they can deal damage.
|
I think the OP exemplifies why we should get out of the beta balancing mindset and just play the game. I see one or two possible changes from the OP's list, and that includes marauder slow cooldown and bunker salvage returning 75 minerals. Those at least make sense. The rest really feel unnecessary and to me feel ridiculous.
In my opinion, the game is not broken on any level. There isn't a match up that's unfair or imbalanced. If your opponent is better than you, you'll lose. It's not because his or her race is stronger than yours, it's because you got outplayed. Too often I'm playing Zergs that scream "wow you're Terran? I've lost already." I beat them, then go on to my next game and get my ass handed to me by another Zerg. People of TL, please stop trying to balance a finished game. Wait for Heart of the Swarm and whatever new units Blizzard puts in to add your 2 cents. Play the game and improve, trying to twist the game so it's easier to win doesn't improve your skill level, it just ruins the experience.
|
Terran:
-Every time you move a marine or marauder, there is a 10% chance that it will trip and fall, stunning it for 2 seconds
-You now have the option of sieging a tank without lowering the chocs. Whenever the tank fires, it will be pushed back. It can fall down cliffs, and will be destroyed it if falls into nothing.
-Lowering supply depots, putting a unit on top of it, and then raising the supply depot will cause that unit to become an air unit for 1 second.
-Hellions and tanks are able to run over light units, dealing damage and stunning them as well.
-The guy operating the SCV is now equiped with dual elites. They deal 5 damage per shot and fire at 3 rounds per second, but they will always miss. Upon issuing the SCV to attack an enemy, he will complain about you not buying a Desert Eagle instead.
Zerg:
-Any unit underneath an overlord while the overlord is spreading creep will have their movement slowed by 80%
-The player may purchase a pack of Halls to make Kerrigan's voice a bit less annoying.
-Zerg now has a unit called Infested Rick Astley. Infested Rick Astley has 4 abilities - Give you up, let you down, run around, and desert you. Unfortunately, Infested Rick Astley cannot use any of his abilities.
Protoss:
-Archons may be mined for vespene gas. When they are depleted, they will just end up as a high templar.
-Immortals are renamed to Will Die Eventuallies to make their name more accurate
-High Templars talk funny and see rainbows and unicorns everywhere
-Stalkers will have their cost changed from 125 mins 50 gas to 500 mins 50 gas. This is to pay for their sexual abuse charges.
-A turbine may be hooked up to the dark shrine. The dark shrine's rotating animation will now generate electricity.
|
Heres an idea:
-transfuse is AOE while queen is on creep
-transfuse damage adjusted
-corrupters have AOE spell
this would allow zerg to repel a push slightly easier. You'd still have to scout it so that you don't blow all your energy on inject larva, and you might have to build an extra queen ahead of time so that you have 100 energy.
buffing corrupters slightly would smooth out the transition into hive tech.
|
Protoss: Colossus now has the blink ability
|
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good.
|
On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good.
Here's an idea:
The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it.
The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg.
|
On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg.
You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old?
|
On August 14 2010 23:29 Vokasak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg. You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old?
The game is 2 months old~ And no it isn't arrogant to define the game as imbalanced when every single thing that you could find supports the notion that it is imbalanced. Tournament results, ladder rankings, heck the amount of people playing each race supports the fact. People got to realize this game is evolving 10x more rapidly then BW as people are more experianced and in general better at Starcraft
|
On August 14 2010 23:32 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 23:29 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg. You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old? The game is 2 months old~ And no it isn't arrogant to define the game as imbalanced when every single thing that you could find supports the notion that it is imbalanced. Tournament results, ladder rankings, heck the amount of people playing each race supports the fact. People got to realize this game is evolving 10x more rapidly then BW as people are more experianced and in general better at Starcraft
Tournament results? King of the Beta finals -- no Terrans to be found
Ladder rankings? Top two players are both Protoss. Three in the top five are Protoss.
Amount of people playing Terran? Irrelevent, see WoW balance.
I'm sure the game is evolving faster than BW did, but only because BW evolved so very slowly. We're good, but we're not that good. There's no way we've solved SC2 in a month and a half, and it's arrogant to think otherwise.
|
On August 14 2010 23:37 Vokasak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 23:32 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 23:29 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg. You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old? The game is 2 months old~ And no it isn't arrogant to define the game as imbalanced when every single thing that you could find supports the notion that it is imbalanced. Tournament results, ladder rankings, heck the amount of people playing each race supports the fact. People got to realize this game is evolving 10x more rapidly then BW as people are more experianced and in general better at Starcraft Tournament results? King of the Beta finals -- no Terrans to be found Ladder rankings? Top two players are both Protoss. Three in the top five are Protoss. Amount of people playing Terran? Irrelevent, see WoW balance. I'm sure the game is evolving faster than BW did, but only because BW evolved so very slowly. We're good, but we're not that good. There's no way we've solved SC2 in a month and a half, and it's arrogant to think otherwise.
Hey boo boo there is more tournaments other then King of the Beta~ Also cooincidently for the tournament that the best terran played a Protoss and IdrA just wrecked a worse player (he also got the luckiest map spawns possible)
Ladder rankings? That says something aswell right? If you look at the ladders its 40% protoss 40% terran 15% zerg 5% random.
How is it irrevelant? You cant compare WoW to SC. Theres a reason people played Toss in BW as it was about 10x easier to get wins with compared to zerg and Terran. Same with SC2, but instead its Terran and Protoss while Zerg is harder to play and worse in general.
Yes we are that good and yes starcraft 2 is that shallow of a game~
|
^ pointless arguments are pointless, impossible to tell either way.
On August 12 2010 07:28 digiwaffles wrote:
Patch 1.1.0 changes:
TERRAN:
-Removed every unit from the game, except the Marine.
-Marines now cost 300 minerals and 200 gas.
-Barracks takes 1200 seconds (was 60).
ZERG:
-Added Lurkers, Brutalisks, and the Queen of Blades into the game.
-Zerglings now cost 0 supply.
PROTOSS:
-Carriers now can build 50 interceptors.
-Mothership replaced with Purifier.
-Building DTs now causes you to automatically win the game.
Best post ever, also, should-be-locked-thread should be locked.
|
On August 14 2010 23:53 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 23:37 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:32 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 23:29 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg. You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old? The game is 2 months old~ And no it isn't arrogant to define the game as imbalanced when every single thing that you could find supports the notion that it is imbalanced. Tournament results, ladder rankings, heck the amount of people playing each race supports the fact. People got to realize this game is evolving 10x more rapidly then BW as people are more experianced and in general better at Starcraft Tournament results? King of the Beta finals -- no Terrans to be found Ladder rankings? Top two players are both Protoss. Three in the top five are Protoss. Amount of people playing Terran? Irrelevent, see WoW balance. I'm sure the game is evolving faster than BW did, but only because BW evolved so very slowly. We're good, but we're not that good. There's no way we've solved SC2 in a month and a half, and it's arrogant to think otherwise. Hey boo boo there is more tournaments other then King of the Beta~ Also cooincidently for the tournament that the best terran played a Protoss and IdrA just wrecked a worse player (he also got the luckiest map spawns possible) Ladder rankings? That says something aswell right? If you look at the ladders its 40% protoss 40% terran 15% zerg 5% random. How is it irrevelant? You cant compare WoW to SC. Theres a reason people played Toss in BW as it was about 10x easier to get wins with compared to zerg and Terran. Same with SC2, but instead its Terran and Protoss while Zerg is harder to play and worse in general. Yes we are that good and yes starcraft 2 is that shallow of a game~
IdrA got lucky map spawns and played a weaker player, therefore TERRAN IS IMBALANCED. What?
It's irrelevant because you're assuming that people are only playing to get easy wins and will switch their race and learn a new one from scratch at the drop of a hat to exploit any percieved imbalances, and because you assume that all players have all the information there is to have on the game, and are therefore perfectly informed decisions. Neither of those is remotely true, especially the latter.
If you really believe that it's that shallow of a game, then you should just crawl under a rock and play Brood War for the next ten years, and don't spend any more time thinking about this horrible, shallow, imbalanced game.
|
On August 15 2010 00:11 Vokasak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2010 23:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 23:37 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:32 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 23:29 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg. You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old? The game is 2 months old~ And no it isn't arrogant to define the game as imbalanced when every single thing that you could find supports the notion that it is imbalanced. Tournament results, ladder rankings, heck the amount of people playing each race supports the fact. People got to realize this game is evolving 10x more rapidly then BW as people are more experianced and in general better at Starcraft Tournament results? King of the Beta finals -- no Terrans to be found Ladder rankings? Top two players are both Protoss. Three in the top five are Protoss. Amount of people playing Terran? Irrelevent, see WoW balance. I'm sure the game is evolving faster than BW did, but only because BW evolved so very slowly. We're good, but we're not that good. There's no way we've solved SC2 in a month and a half, and it's arrogant to think otherwise. Hey boo boo there is more tournaments other then King of the Beta~ Also cooincidently for the tournament that the best terran played a Protoss and IdrA just wrecked a worse player (he also got the luckiest map spawns possible) Ladder rankings? That says something aswell right? If you look at the ladders its 40% protoss 40% terran 15% zerg 5% random. How is it irrevelant? You cant compare WoW to SC. Theres a reason people played Toss in BW as it was about 10x easier to get wins with compared to zerg and Terran. Same with SC2, but instead its Terran and Protoss while Zerg is harder to play and worse in general. Yes we are that good and yes starcraft 2 is that shallow of a game~ IdrA got lucky map spawns and played a weaker player, therefore TERRAN IS IMBALANCED. What? It's irrelevant because you're assuming that people are only playing to get easy wins and will switch their race and learn a new one from scratch at the drop of a hat to exploit any percieved imbalances, and because you assume that all players have all the information there is to have on the game, and are therefore perfectly informed decisions. Neither of those is remotely true, especially the latter. If you really believe that it's that shallow of a game, then you should just crawl under a rock and play Brood War for the next ten years, and don't spend any more time thinking about this horrible, shallow, imbalanced game.
I'm done arguing with you. You are completely arrogant and pretty much stupid as proven in other threads. You completely avoid every single one of points and then make excuses for why things are how they are~
|
On August 15 2010 00:34 KenShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 00:11 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:53 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 23:37 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:32 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 23:29 Vokasak wrote:On August 14 2010 23:21 KenShi wrote:On August 14 2010 03:44 MythicalMage wrote:
Here's an idea:
The game is already balanced and we don't know it yet.
Blizzard certainly balances based on numbers more than anything else, and the most we can ask for is a 50/50 in all matchups. Hell, BW wasn't that good. Here's an idea: The game is not balanced and were to arrogant to admit it. The game in its current form is not balanced at all. TvZ is broken, PvT lategame is stupid (again because of feedback which deals damage to ALL of Terran Air), and PvZ is pretty meh to say the least. If you honestly think this game is balanced right now you have to get your head out of your ass and take a look at tourny results and the number of players who are zerg. You're calling him arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to render such definitive judgement on the matchups when the game is not even a month old? The game is 2 months old~ And no it isn't arrogant to define the game as imbalanced when every single thing that you could find supports the notion that it is imbalanced. Tournament results, ladder rankings, heck the amount of people playing each race supports the fact. People got to realize this game is evolving 10x more rapidly then BW as people are more experianced and in general better at Starcraft Tournament results? King of the Beta finals -- no Terrans to be found Ladder rankings? Top two players are both Protoss. Three in the top five are Protoss. Amount of people playing Terran? Irrelevent, see WoW balance. I'm sure the game is evolving faster than BW did, but only because BW evolved so very slowly. We're good, but we're not that good. There's no way we've solved SC2 in a month and a half, and it's arrogant to think otherwise. Hey boo boo there is more tournaments other then King of the Beta~ Also cooincidently for the tournament that the best terran played a Protoss and IdrA just wrecked a worse player (he also got the luckiest map spawns possible) Ladder rankings? That says something aswell right? If you look at the ladders its 40% protoss 40% terran 15% zerg 5% random. How is it irrevelant? You cant compare WoW to SC. Theres a reason people played Toss in BW as it was about 10x easier to get wins with compared to zerg and Terran. Same with SC2, but instead its Terran and Protoss while Zerg is harder to play and worse in general. Yes we are that good and yes starcraft 2 is that shallow of a game~ IdrA got lucky map spawns and played a weaker player, therefore TERRAN IS IMBALANCED. What? It's irrelevant because you're assuming that people are only playing to get easy wins and will switch their race and learn a new one from scratch at the drop of a hat to exploit any percieved imbalances, and because you assume that all players have all the information there is to have on the game, and are therefore perfectly informed decisions. Neither of those is remotely true, especially the latter. If you really believe that it's that shallow of a game, then you should just crawl under a rock and play Brood War for the next ten years, and don't spend any more time thinking about this horrible, shallow, imbalanced game. I'm done arguing with you. You are completely arrogant and pretty much stupid as proven in other threads. You completely avoid every single one of points and then make excuses for why things are how they are~
pot kettle black
|
Terran:
No change.
Zerg:
actually build the counter to units :O
protoss:
stop complaining
what about those patches?
|
hm i also came up with the roach thing myself, but the be balanced, you would need to also spend 2 larvae for the 2 roaches. I also think think, that they should be 1.5 food (with their 1 armor), but with the larvae mechanic it would be way to easy to mass a sh!tload of roaches early on. (on 2 bases you can have like ... 14 larvae? 14*2roaches - BÄM you have 28 roaches instantly :/. Would give you a very deadly early game push.)
So either they somehow need 2 larvae, or buff the roaches a little bit (like 2 armor) for 2 food, or nerf it somehow for 1 food (like a little less damage or something like that :X).
but to be honest I'm in no position to make ANY Balance suggestions.
Blizz can change the roach or leave it be, i won't complain :X
|
On August 12 2010 09:36 Jyvblamo wrote:
Since this is no longer beta, I'd like to see small, surgical balance changes such as the following, rather than large sweeping changes:
- Burrow automatically researched up reaching lair (similar to overlord generate creep)
- Reduce cost of lair from 150/100 to 100/100
- Reduce spine crawler build-time by 15 seconds
- Allow roach speed upgrade to be researched at hatchery tech level
I like this one. It shouldn't be huge, but will help zerg early game where they have the most problems.
I don't get the bunker change. If you want to use them to full effect they cost 300 minerals at the lowest. A bunker is nothing except shield for your units. If anything I would like to see them build faster (and maybe cost more to compensate) so they could realistically be used on the front line. (People are all about their buildings why shouldn't future people be?) I've been trying to find excuses for front line bunkers, but even with upgrades the don't seem to be worth wile.
|
Bunkers already come at a cost in build time. In the time an SCV builds a bunker he could have harvested something like 25 minerals. I don't really think they need the extra drawback.
|
New zerg unit added: the crydralisk
50/50 cost
80 hp
2.2 speed
Spellcaster that spams the Teamliquid.net forums with threads about how to buff zerg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
