EPTI'm trying to understand what you were going for...
The Actual Issues Affecting Gameplay - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Solid2TheSnake
United States11 Posts
I'm trying to understand what you were going for... | ||
|
Defeat
United States476 Posts
On September 02 2010 10:17 Cloak wrote:I feel that forcefields can be micro'd out of and that's just whining. I agree. Examples are: terrans can use dropships to pick up units and put them on either side and zerg can burrow around them. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
Chalaza
Canada46 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:45 Zoroth wrote: Uhm, I think the OP needs to revisit a number of these things and try actually seeing things in action, because the way you present these things makes it look like you haven't done any of that at all. Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist. Have you discussed these things with pro players and tried to figure out why Blizzard have these things implemented? Cause most of this has already been addressed. Just a little hint - things aren't necessarily always as they immediately seem. There might be a little deeper thought behind Blizzard's decisions than what you seem to assume. The Art of War is a great book to read, I recommend it to anyone regardless. It's even a suitable book for skimming, so you don't need to read it word-by-word. you keep talking about "things" but i have no clue what you're talking about, most of the things the OP is talking about is very true and is an issue | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On September 11 2010 17:26 Solid2TheSnake wrote: So from what I understood about your "Creep" section, while its meant to make Zerg more mobile it actually hinders mobility? Are you getting this from the fact that it takes so long to spread asking "Why would units ever want to be OFF the creep?" leading to a more "turtled" Zerg player? I'm trying to understand what you were going for... It's more the fact that Zerg-Units are too slow off-creep that makes Zerg a more defensive race. Blizzard counted on the fact that the offensiv usage of creep would make Zerg a very fast race, but it's just too easy to deny creep-spread as T or P and Zerg-Units like Queen, Roach, Hydra, Ultra etc. are just too slow off-creep. It takes just 1 scan or an observer to easily push the Zergs creep back, but it takes high APM and good Multitasking to actually spread it over the Map. | ||
|
ZaaaaaM
Netherlands1828 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:22 0neder wrote: I agree. I would rank them: #1 Maps (need to be more open space in middle, larger) #2 Seige Tank Overkill (this is what made BW positioning and unit control so dynamic) #3 High Ground Mechanic #4 Marauder Strength/tech (I think Terran need another tech building or two in general, it's too easy for them to tech) This, I really think the maps are simply terrible, scrap station is the only zerg map at the moment while still being too small. I've played a few games on the iccup maps, it sure feels like a totally different game at the start. | ||
|
c0rn1
Germany146 Posts
Yes, it's 50:25 for 1 tech lab on 1 barracks. but let's see how this adds up? Let's say, T want to go 3rax into 6rax with expo. offers you the following units: > Marines > Marauders > Reapers Total investment = 6*150 + 6*50/25 = 1200m150g Now Protoss: 6 gate Cybernetics > Zealots > Stalker > Sentry Total investment: 6*150 + 150 = 1050 (with Warpgate 1100/50g) Lets check on Zerg: 3 Basic Units > Zergling > Roach > Hydra Lets add 1 extra Hatchery into the price pool and 2 Queens Total Investment: 300 + 2*150(Queens) + 200 (pool)+ 150 (roach warren) + 150/100 (Lair) + 100/100 (hydra den) = 1200m300g Conclusion: All 3 races have similar costs to reach 3 basic units. Of course if you count only 1 rax with 1 tech lab it seems supposedly the cheapest on paper but the game doesn't end with 1 rax + lab. the 6 production building scenario is what is the most average I think if you go pure basic units. The protoss are the most efficient. The Terran can lift off their buildings and move them around and the Zerg get an extra hatchery most likely at their expansion and have extra income. The current state according to that fact seems appropriate and pretty well balanced in my eyes. Terran does NOT need an extra tech building because it would throw them off the balance. And when some people say "Its too easy for them to tech" then I have to disagree. The Cybernetics core only has 50s build time and it counts for EVERY warpgate. A Techlab has 25s delay and has to be done at EVERY barracks. 6*25 = 150s without unit production out of that particular barracks in my example up there which is close to 260s for the Z to build his 3 buildings to open up 3 basic units including the additional hatchery. But he can still produce the units he has the building already for so it is about even. cheers | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On September 11 2010 18:46 c0rn1 wrote: Sorry, but I think the OP is not right in the case according to the tech lab. Yes, it's 50:25 for 1 tech lab on 1 barracks. but let's see how this adds up? Let's say, T want to go 3rax into 6rax with expo. offers you the following units: > Marines > Marauders > Reapers Total investment = 6*150 + 6*50/25 = 1200m150g Now Protoss: 6 gate Cybernetics > Zealots > Stalker > Sentry Total investment: 6*150 + 150 = 1050 (with Warpgate 1100/50g) Lets check on Zerg: 3 Basic Units > Zergling > Roach > Hydra Lets add 1 extra Hatchery into the price pool and 2 Queens Total Investment: 300 + 2*150(Queens) + 200 (pool)+ 150 (roach warren) + 150/100 (Lair) + 100/100 (hydra den) = 1200m300g Conclusion: All 3 races have similar costs to reach 3 basic units. Of course if you count only 1 rax with 1 tech lab it seems supposedly the cheapest on paper but the game doesn't end with 1 rax + lab. the 6 production building scenario is what is the most average I think if you go pure basic units. The protoss are the most efficient. The Terran can lift off their buildings and move them around and the Zerg get an extra hatchery most likely at their expansion and have extra income. The current state according to that fact seems appropriate and pretty well balanced in my eyes. Terran does NOT need an extra tech building because it would throw them off the balance. And when some people say "Its too easy for them to tech" then I have to disagree. The Cybernetics core only has 50s build time and it counts for EVERY warpgate. A Techlab has 25s delay and has to be done at EVERY barracks. 6*25 = 150s without unit production out of that particular barracks in my example up there which is close to 260s for the Z to build his 3 buildings to open up 3 basic units including the additional hatchery. But he can still produce the units he has the building already for so it is about even. cheers The whole debate about the TechLab has nothing to do with how expensive it is when you have to mass certain Units, but how easy the Terran can switch Tech's and how difficult it is to scout a Terran and interpret what he's is doing. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
Tech labs aren't that much of a problem, but they probably can be switched around too quickly. Maybe make it have a 6 second reconnecting time when you land a building on a tech lab? I think it'd mostly be all right after they made it so that Marauders don't deal bonus dmg vs buildings. | ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
On September 03 2010 06:43 EnderCN wrote: No I didn't. I showed just the opposite. If a Protoss player wants to get out a colossus and he only has gateway and cybernetics core built he has to build a robo facility and a robo bay. If a Terran payer wants to get out a thor and he has barracks and tech lab built he has to build a factory and an armory and then either build a tech lab as well or swap out a pre-existing tech lab. The tech lab is an EXTRA step. If they completely removed the tech lab and just let Terran build all of their units without it they still would need the same number of buildings as a protoss for everything except the Barracks. I get what you are saying somewhat though i guess, if they removed the tech lab completely Terran might tech too fast because they wouldn't have that cyber core building they need between T1 and T2. That at least makes some sense. Tech labs as a whole are a disadvantage but the way the system works might make Terran transitions to T2 and T3 a little faster than they should be. You can't use a tech lab as an armory or fusion core, it is absolutely no different... This is not a hard concept. The tech lab is an extra layer of tech that Terran has to put on buildings to do what other races can do normally. I have a hard time believing tech labs are a disadvantage. They are quite cheap and allow multiple techs to be researched simultaneously and pre-building tech labs for higher tier structures is very powerful. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
For example, a 3-1-1 build with 2 tech labs and 1 reactor on the barracks and a reactor on the starport can make a decent MMM army for some kind of midgame agression. This same build can, without any extra investment save maybe an upgrade or two, switch to dual-pumping Hellions, making Banshees, adding Ravens, or even making tanks. Adding one building could make it a pure Marine/Tank mix with Vikings, or dual port banshees with Hellions, Marines and a Raven for PDD. The same sort of thing isn't true for the other races. Every tech building worth of stuff can be responded to with the right unit mix, and until late game zerg, there really isn't an example of being able to switch directly to a composition that requires you to do more to counter it.To get air that forces some AA, Protoss and Zerg construct structures that open Phoenix/VR or Muta/Corruptor. Obviously these are good units, but once an opponent has sufficient AA capabilities they really don't stack up to the Terran's ability to use their Starports to make Banshees, Ravens or Medivacs, all of which can hold their own in a regular composition. Other races' air is generally not cost-effective if you just throw it in to a big army, unless you tech to "Capital units" like broodlords or carriers. I wouldn't say it makes the game imbalanced, but it really closes down on the options available to other races early on. It's a case of "Oh, the Terran has a starport, now I need to make sure that I have extra Observers, enough Stalkers to deal with potential harassment, a strong enough ground force to deal with their now improved ability to make an MM ball, some stuff at all my mineral lines and better map control to avoid losing to drops, and a plan to get up HTs soon to provide an actual viable counter to the air." On the other hand, a Terran player can respond to Protoss air by making a few turrets and ensuring that he doesn't neglect Marine production. | ||
|
Exa
10 Posts
so i lose a LOT of points when i lose and gain 5 when i win...is this happening to anyone else? | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On September 12 2010 02:23 Exa wrote: every 2v2 i play the load screen will have the "favoured" "slightly favoured" "even" assessment at the top, but no matter what i always end up with "you were slightly favoured" when i win/ lose. so i lose a LOT of points when i lose and gain 5 when i win...is this happening to anyone else? Your displayed points are probably ahead of how good the system has determined that you are, and as such, you'll be getting this because your displayed ranking is always above your opponents' hidden rankings. Once you lose enough points it should put your back. This kind of thing happens more in 2v2 because of the teammate factor. | ||
|
gozima
Canada602 Posts
Queen rushes too strong. Nerf. Spine Crawler rushes too strong. Nerf. Roaches too strong. Nerf. Infestors too strong. Nerf. Broodlords too Strong. Nerf. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
Terran just has too many powerful options that take little gas, and lack punishment for failure. They get to 20 food and they can wall, scan, mm, reaper, mule, pf expo, or tech to anything they want safely like mech play, mmm harass, banshee, raven. It's impossible to prepare for and Toss has to spend a lot of gas to get something that flies to scout. Then you see there buildings and if you scout 1/1/1, you'll just see that you can't attack into there wall and they could literally be producing any unit from there arsenal with no way to know what composition will exist 1 minute from now. Playing against MM early game is very hard for Toss, 1 mistake and terran wins. I miss reavers ;( and I would actually like to see colossus weakened but easier to get out. The first one with range takes 700 gas to get out (robo 100, support 200, range 200 colossus 200) and your opponent has a 3 minute window to scout it and knows exactaly what your doing. Storm isn't very strong and if you spend the resources on it early and don't have perfect storms, your dead. Anyone who disagrees I have a challenge for you. Go play 1v1 blistering sands as protoss vs terran very hard ai. If you win then Play 10 games on insane and see how many you win. Hint: the terran is going to mm push either early with a bunch of marines (you'll get punished if you econ too hard) or it will do a maurader marine stim concussive timing push that is obscene. If you block the ramp they clear the destructible rocks. Once in a while the ai will just do something retarded with its units, so occasionally you'll get a free win. But just give it a try and you'll see what I mean. Even when you break the terrans pushes your not ahead at all. If you expo or tech your dead, you won't have enough units to stop it. The AI doesn't know how to kite very good. So after a few games of this you'll see what I'm saying. Imagine playing a diamond player who 4 raxes you like this, has great micro/kiting and gets to med evacs and starts doing drops. Than Imagine the online situation of builds, where you have to get robo and obs out or you'll die to banshee rush. It almost seems like the build you need to survive mm and the build you need to stop banshee rushes are mutually exclusive. It is not always easy to be able to tell what the terrans doing so soon after they wall in. Also, if your gateway units get caught in the open by mm concussive stim your in trouble, and with how exposed most naturals are you will see this is problematic. | ||
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
On September 12 2010 03:04 Reborn8u wrote: I agree with everything 100% Terran just has too many powerful options that take little gas, and lack punishment for failure. They get to 20 food and they can wall, scan, mm, reaper, mule, pf expo, or tech to anything they want safely like mech play, mmm harass, banshee, raven. It's impossible to prepare for and Toss has to spend a lot of gas to get something that flies to scout. Then you see there buildings and if you scout 1/1/1, you'll just see that you can't attack into there wall and they could literally be producing any unit from there arsenal with no way to know what composition will exist 1 minute from now. Playing against MM early game is very hard for Toss, 1 mistake and terran wins. I miss reavers ;( and I would actually like to see colossus weakened but easier to get out. The first one with range takes 700 gas to get out (robo 100, support 200, range 200 colossus 200) and your opponent has a 3 minute window to scout it and knows exactaly what your doing. Storm isn't very strong and if you spend the resources on it early and don't have perfect storms, your dead. Anyone who disagrees I have a challenge for you. Go play 1v1 blistering sands as protoss vs terran very hard ai. If you win then Play 10 games on insane and see how many you win. Hint: the terran is going to mm push either early with a bunch of marines (you'll get punished if you econ too hard) or it will do a maurader marine stim concussive timing push that is obscene. If you block the ramp they clear the destructible rocks. Once in a while the ai will just do something retarded with its units, so occasionally you'll get a free win. But just give it a try and you'll see what I mean. Even when you break the terrans pushes your not ahead at all. If you expo or tech your dead, you won't have enough units to stop it. The AI doesn't know how to kite very good. So after a few games of this you'll see what I'm saying. Imagine playing a diamond player who 4 raxes you like this, has great micro/kiting and gets to med evacs and starts doing drops. Yea thats a problem, you can't scout tell if the terran is going orbital command or PF, and when you do, its usually too late. Basically if you commited to an attack, and the opponent went for dual-PF's ( one at natrual, one at the third) you are fucked. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
Your point 1 is very good but it seems like it would be horribly strong in certain situations. With a small number of queens with this new regenerative mechanic and transfuse would make attacking zerg with a slightly larger group of air units almost impossible. Correct me if I am wrong I do not know this for a fact I did not start playing BW until about 5 years in. Apparently from people who did play it way back in the day they told me during sc original that blizzard did experiment with a mechanic where zerg healed faster on creep. (This could of been the alpha the beta or shortly after the release of the game or not at all I don't know) But if this did occur it was obviously canceled for a good reason. IMHO the thing that would help the creep mechanic the best is that non zerg units would move normal speed (there creep boasted speed this could be adjusted for units like the queen) regardless of whether they were on creep or not but terran and protoss whether allies or not would receive a movement penalty for being on creep. Of course not all units would receive the same penalty just like with the current mechanic hydras' and queens' speed benefit alot more than say roaches or infestors. My analysis of point 2 is long please read the whole thing before commenting or at least the last two paragraphs where I compare sc2 and bw I am only adding this in to compare the two Your point 2 is very good however I thought I would reference BW for a better comparison as to what we are looking at. Keep in mind I agree with you however I think a different perspective is needed. In BW to build my tier 1.5 infantry units it required an academy. So you would build a barracks and only be able to produce marines while you waited on your academy to finish so you could produce firebats and medics. Then after your factory was finished you would have to wait till your armory was done before you could produce goliaths however, you could still build vultures. You needed a machine shop (add-on) on your factory to make the vultures really useful and to be able to build tanks. After your factory was done you could start on the production of the starport when your starport was done you could produce wraiths you had to wait till your control tower (add-on)was complete before you could make dropships (or any other starport unit for that matter) while your control tower was being added on you could make a science facility which would enable the production of your mobile detection (the highest tier mobile detection in the game the reason the terrans have the comsat station in BW and OC in sc2) Once your science facility is done you could choose to build ghosts or battlecruisers. (In single player if I wanted both then I would just build one facility and move it back and forth from add-on to add-on at the beginning of each production cycle.) Now SC2 technology. In SC2 I build a barracks I can only build marines. I need to add on a tech lab in order to begin building my other tier 1.5 units. Then my last tier 1.5 unit, the ghost, requires the ghost academy to be built and the tech lab (these can be built simultaneously). After your barracks finishes you can begin the construction of a factory. This allows you to produce only hellions. You need to add a tech lab onto the factory before you can make tanks (or thors) and then an armory to make thors. After your factory is done you can make a starport. Which enables you to begin producing medivacs and vikings. You add a tech lab onto your port then you can make ravens and banshees as well. Then you make a fusion core and can make battlecruisers. BW compared to SC2 The barracks tech lab is basically the same thing as the academy of BW. Yes the tech lab builds faster than the academy however, if I am building an academy I can build marines at the same time. If I am building a tech lab I can't build a marine at the same time. This is not a humongous disadvantage of the tech lab but a disadvantage nonetheless. The factory is effectively identical you can produce a vulture/hellion right away then you make an add-on to make tanks then build an armory to make goliaths/thors. Yes you can add the tech lab onto the rax so you can have it ready for your factory right away. But this will make you have less marines for defense and your factory will now be at your choke making it an easier target. The starport is probably where one of the two major problems with tech lab arises. As unlike BW when your port finishes you can produce 2 units then adding on a techlab will allow you to produce 2 units as well. The fusion core buildtime compares decently well with the science facility with a physics lab add on. So going battlecrusisers is the same. The factory with a tech lab basically only opens one unit (and upgrades) which makes it basically identical to the machine shop as well as the barracks tech lab identical to the academy. As already mentioned yes you can build your tech lab for your factory in advance but you will have less marines if you do this and honestly this doesn't save you much time. If I want to go siege tanks I will want marines to accompany my tanks and that means a reactor is a better addon to my barracks which takes light years to build so I will want to get it going asap. The starport is where the versatility of tech lab comes into play as if you are going infantry with raven banshee medivac support as you don't want to build tanks/thors as they are slow then you don't have to worry about building a tech lab reactor to your port your factory can make your "control tower"(tech lab/reactor) for you. Meaning as opposed to having to wait to complete an addon to open up technology you instantly have 4 units that you can pick from. _______________________________ Lastly BW has existed for 10 YEARS do zerg when they see control tower from terran think O god he might have researched cloak so might want to make sure I leave an overlord in each expansion probably not because chances of that succeeding without optical flare are low. A protoss scouting an academy with his observer in BW do they think man he might start building medics and marines against me, probably not because goons obliterate terran infantry. Chances are its there so he can get ghosts later or get his comsat up. You need to remember as this game evolves certain BOs are most likely going to become dominate and that's what you will see in all tournaments. Everything else I believe other people of posted here have given enough insight so I will not comment on them for now maybe I will as I continue reading the replies. | ||
|
STS17
United States1817 Posts
| ||
|
OHtRUe
United States283 Posts
On September 12 2010 06:44 STS17 wrote: Here's an idea. Everytime someone has a brilliant idea on how to balance the game they should open the map editor and make the changes they see fit. Then post the map here and have some high level players play on that map, then see how it works. Too bad battle.net 2.0 doesnt even allow that to be possible  , oh boy oh boy. I don't want to "bump" this thread, but i still feel like its completely relevant and it should get more exposure. Honestly people are still not understanding that the problem doesn't come from how much damage units do or 5 second build times, but the fact that the game is broken. You can't balance a game if the design of it is terrible. Unfortunately blizzard doesn't understand this concept....... | ||
| ||
