|
it would be a good idea to have a separate team experimenting with complete redesign of the multiplayer balance, from the ground up
lol. Why? Can you provide an substantial, analytical reason for a multi-million proposition? All I've seen in this thread are anecdotes and exceedingly obvious observations of the game.
Game needs completely overhaul for protoss because
---
Protoss have to use pylons in order to build buildings. HUGE disadvantage.
They have too many tech paths, all the other races only have 1 tech path protoss has 3.
They have no cost effective ranged unit
They have absolutely no t1 scouting
Transports are not cost effective or viable at all
Collosus are too easily hardcountered by air units
All there ground units are too slow.
They cannot maintain air superiority.
Lack of utility t1 upgrades.
Hardest race to defend expansions
-----
Was that a valid argument at all? No, and thats exactly what you are doing, you are stating obvious elements of game design and implying they mean anything, when in reality, they do not.
|
Hopefully blizzard will take notice of this and start working on re-balancing.
Maybe then I can finally start playing sc2 again; I don't want to play t/p.
Lol, nvm, it's blizzard. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Hm, maybe I can try to hit c- this season..
|
On September 24 2010 07:39 Headshot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 07:38 Dommk wrote:
Lead balance designer is David Kim, highest rated Random player on NA. I'm pretty sure David Kim came out and said that he's not Dayvie.
and yet dayvie is the only random player anywhere near the top, as well as that nobody knows who he is if he isn't david kim, no tourny play etc.
Then there's the rumour his account had more bonus pool then possible due to being created before release. (somebody mathed it out, can't remember how they did it.
|
On September 24 2010 08:01 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Key factors why Zerg is underpowered:
- Zerg cannot wall-in (even if you wasted resources for a row of spines the lack of ranged damage dealers to back up your wall makes it totally unviable.)
- Zerg can't fight in chokes (again the lack of ranged damage dealers means chokes are zergs natural enemy, and without something like the defiler to help with that it amplifys the problem.)
- Creep is a disadvantage (fighting off creep is a big disadvantage to Zerg, it also takes significant time and APM to spread creep, yet it can be destroyed very easily by the opponent. It is also a limiter on where you can build and also makes you very easily scouted)
- Zerg AA is weak (Hydras come late leaving Z open to abuse. Hydras are slow off creep and are made of paper. Spore crawlers are not effective and uproot takes too long and is a poor tradeoff, would rather a permanant spore with better range/dmg.)
- Zerg has less combat units, thus less options (Foregoing all workers, overlord/overseer/nydus for Z and observer / warp prism for P, because they are non combat and cant deal damage. The number combat units per race - T 12, P 12, Z 9 [10 if queen is counted])
- Zerg units lack utility without upgrades (e.g. zergling without speed upgrade, roach without speed or burrow, bane without speed, hydra without range, ultra without carapace. In contrast, marine/marauder/reaper/ghost/hellion/medivac/ still good with no upgrades, upgrades are just icing on the cake for terran)
- Zerg t3 takes too long to reach (From the instant you make your first Spawning Pool, it takes 410 seconds minimum before you can start making an Ultralisk, assuming you go Straight for it, or 480 for Broodlords. Compared to the 235 for a Battlecruiser, or 260 for Carriers/Mothership, that's obscene. source)
- Zerg does not have a unit that can deal damage from stealth (burrow)
- Zerg does not have a unit that can use the cliff jump mechanic
- Spawn larva is a blessing and a curse (Being able to bank larvae is great, but at the cost of having more APM required, requires queens which consume 2 supply ea. It is really more of a necessity than anything else, having units that are disposable and swarmy. Overall the mechanic is a disadvantage, macro is much easier from warpgates or rax/factories etc.)
- Zerg scouting can easily be denied
- Zerg units do not work well in 'critical mass', or as a ball. (Compared to T and P armies, Zerg has a weak army in critical mass, both T and P can get huge momentum going once they reach their critical mass. Zergs suffers from lack of good ranged damage and weak units. Choked terrain compounds this problem.)
- Zerg can be punished for mistakes very easily. (Mainly due to lack of ability to wall-in or to use chokes defensively)
- Corrupters and Infestors are less than good. (Even though fungal is decent, they're just not good units overall.)
Not how game balance works. You just stated why zerg was different. Would "Protoss is weak because they have no t1 scout" be a valid proof of the claim? No. They just shows how protoss is different. It is a statement of a (Incredibly obvious) fact. You need to highlight the relationships that show why these are problematic. Maybe blizzard intended zerg to have those defining characteristics. Are you saying that every race is intended to be equally good at everything? How the fuck did nobody notice that "Zerg does not have a unit that deals damage by stealth"? Do you think that was an accident? Not, it was a design. You need to open your mind on how game balance works to make proper commentary. Highlight relationships that support a conclusion, not facts. Here is an example. For instance "Zerg is underpowered because they cannot adequately prepare to the multitude of terran openers, which allow terran to start midgame with a econ advantage that zerg cannot recover from" would be a better valid statement, instead of "Zerg is underpowered because poor t1 scouting". One implies that the only way to fix this is to buff zerg T1 scouting. The other highligts a multifaceted relationship. Which could fixed in a multitude of ways, ranging from buffing zerg midgame advantage, nerfing terran econ, lowering viable terran openers, increasing zerg defense flexibility, or indeed, buffing zerg t1 scouting. Each which would shift the game towards a different direction.
If the difference leads to imbalance it should be changed.
|
On September 24 2010 08:06 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +No one is (can) giving you any suggestions for how to fix things with the current units, but you don't see why they need a larger overhaul?
Not that they necessarily do, I'm just not following the logic of that post Adding units is something that can only really be done in an expansion. It would totally change the flow of all Zerg matchups, and require an almost total re balancing of the game. People right now are demanding massive changes to Zerg early/mid game, and they're demanding them now, before the expansion. They're saying that some massive overhaul is necessary for Zerg to be balanced. I'm saying that no one seems to have any idea what such a massive overhaul, one that is capable of being given in patches and so does not involve actually adding units, would look like, and how exactly it would address the problems Zergs have. I'm also saying that I see no reason why such a massive overhaul is necessary for Zerg to be balanced. Does that make more sense?
Because the expansion is 18 months away and I don't want to put up with this for another 18 months? All the play issues aside, it'll be pitiful not to have Z in a tournament because no one wants to handicap themselves.
Like I said in my last post, it ultimately comes down to what you value more. I personally don't think that the SC2 pro scene will do too well if no one plays Z, so if Blizzard cares about that at all, they'd better decide something quick. For the actual gameplay, it will be by far better to gradually change things and take the time to observe the effects, but guess what, the two seems to be conflicting with each other. At this point, I'd rather the game having balance issues for longer than the pro scene potentially die out. We should recall how BW Proleague even forced teams to play all races because diversity is huge to the audience, it won't be different here.
|
You CANT have a bad army at critical mass... becouse it wouldnt be critical mass then..
now tell me.... wich is the race, that has cheaper expansions ? and heavy gas units to combine!?
and.. in TvZ .. what happens if both 200 armies wipe out each other ? zerg just rebuilds in one cycle..
terran.. well, gg..
|
On September 24 2010 08:13 Carras wrote:
You CANT have a bad army at critical mass... becouse it wouldnt be critical mass then..
now tell me.... wich is the race, that has cheaper expansions ? and heavy gas units to combine!?
and.. in TvZ .. what happens if both 200 armies wipe out each other ? zerg just rebuilds in one cycle..
terran.. well, gg..
When will a 200/200 T vs 200/200 Z army cancel eachother out?
|
+1 armor to roaches
shorten the rooting time for spine crawlers
remove time limit for neural parasite
shorten hive upgrade time
I'd be really happy with those four things; I think they would help with the Zerg's opening options considerably, as well as help them actually make it to tier 3 once in awhile.
|
On September 24 2010 08:14 zarepath wrote:
+1 armor to roaches
shorten the rooting time for spine crawlers
remove time limit for neural parasite
shorten hive upgrade time
I'd be really happy with those four things; I think they would help with the Zerg's opening options considerably, as well as help them actually make it to tier 3 once in awhile.
this isn't the appropriate place to suggest balance changes so please refrain from doing so.
|
On September 24 2010 08:13 Carras wrote:
You CANT have a bad army at critical mass... becouse it wouldnt be critical mass then..
now tell me.... wich is the race, that has cheaper expansions ? and heavy gas units to combine!?
and.. in TvZ .. what happens if both 200 armies wipe out each other ? zerg just rebuilds in one cycle..
terran.. well, gg..
That's how people argued in 1998 when starcraft was imbalanced. Zerg is op because they can build in no time. lol
Seriously, I'm not playing this shitty game until in 5 years. Until then, I stick to brood war. I suggest you guys to do this as well.
|
On September 24 2010 02:13 Odds wrote:
This is really sad- FruitSeller is one of my favorite players to watch. Hopefully Blizzard is paying attention.
The sad thing is that Blizzard said they aren't balancing the game around tournaments.
|
On September 24 2010 08:14 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 08:13 Carras wrote:
You CANT have a bad army at critical mass... becouse it wouldnt be critical mass then..
now tell me.... wich is the race, that has cheaper expansions ? and heavy gas units to combine!?
and.. in TvZ .. what happens if both 200 armies wipe out each other ? zerg just rebuilds in one cycle..
terran.. well, gg.. When will a 200/200 T vs 200/200 Z army cancel eachother out?
They wont, the reason for that is because Zerg can produce an assload of units much faster than Terran can.
|
On September 24 2010 08:03 Flummie wrote:
Maybe a reeeeallllly stupid question but where does it say that cool,checkprime and zenio are switching races? All i read is a lot of swear about how bad the race is and that's perfectly fine by me when there is a lot of cash at stake. But are these race-switching stories just made up? I cannot see those claims anywhere or I must be blind.
Thread title: "내가gsl2회때 저그하나봐라 ㅅㅂ"
= "do you think ill play zerg in gsl2? Fuck you."
|
For the stalker nerfs argument i'd say buff the fungal growth instead to make it so that stalkers can't blink while under its effect, more elegant and interesting solution imo.
|
I dont even understand the goals they had in mind with this last patch. Lets assume that the zealot and reaper build time nerf was 5 real seconds (not in game time). Off 4 rax or 4 warpgate then if youre going to push with 12 zealots or reapers then its only going to mean the push is 15 seconds later. In reality its about 8 or 9 seconds later. The difference isnt even enough time to have an extra unit. I had to wait till I played against the same strategies before I wanted to actually comment on these changes but as I speculated it has no real effect at all outside very early cheeses/rush and barely any then.
The problem is the zerg units not a 20 second timing window. They made no change this last patch besides the tank and it took them 2 months. Most people would be fine with small changes here and there, but this last patch hasn't changed a thing. If you put a lot of time into this game is really infuriating when they make no effort to even make small changes to actual game play. Im sorry but delaying a zealot heavy 4warpgate rush or reapers group by 9 seconds makes no real difference in the game. If that 9 seconds was enough to do something critical id be happy. Please fix, thanks.
|
z is a sick race, its not that its a weak race its just that its been stereotyped as the weakest race so no one is willing to play it.. that being said(i know that this getting old) but T is seriously too strong, i can feel it while im playing
imo these are the main changes that need to happen:
1) concusive shell need a cooldown(this is more TvP related)
2) mules need to have a shorter life spawn
3) banshee attack needs to be weakened
4) medivak drops need to be weakened(by either reducing the number of units that it can carry or by nerfing the marauder damage vs armored units/buildings)
|
On September 24 2010 08:16 Pulimuli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 08:14 Seam wrote:On September 24 2010 08:13 Carras wrote:
You CANT have a bad army at critical mass... becouse it wouldnt be critical mass then..
now tell me.... wich is the race, that has cheaper expansions ? and heavy gas units to combine!?
and.. in TvZ .. what happens if both 200 armies wipe out each other ? zerg just rebuilds in one cycle..
terran.. well, gg.. When will a 200/200 T vs 200/200 Z army cancel eachother out? They wont, the reason for that is because Zerg can produce an assload of units much faster than Terran can.
Exactly, that's kinda what I meant.
He was using them killing eachother off as an example.
|
On September 24 2010 08:12 CruelZeratul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 08:01 Half wrote:
Key factors why Zerg is underpowered:
- Zerg cannot wall-in (even if you wasted resources for a row of spines the lack of ranged damage dealers to back up your wall makes it totally unviable.)
- Zerg can't fight in chokes (again the lack of ranged damage dealers means chokes are zergs natural enemy, and without something like the defiler to help with that it amplifys the problem.)
- Creep is a disadvantage (fighting off creep is a big disadvantage to Zerg, it also takes significant time and APM to spread creep, yet it can be destroyed very easily by the opponent. It is also a limiter on where you can build and also makes you very easily scouted)
- Zerg AA is weak (Hydras come late leaving Z open to abuse. Hydras are slow off creep and are made of paper. Spore crawlers are not effective and uproot takes too long and is a poor tradeoff, would rather a permanant spore with better range/dmg.)
- Zerg has less combat units, thus less options (Foregoing all workers, overlord/overseer/nydus for Z and observer / warp prism for P, because they are non combat and cant deal damage. The number combat units per race - T 12, P 12, Z 9 [10 if queen is counted])
- Zerg units lack utility without upgrades (e.g. zergling without speed upgrade, roach without speed or burrow, bane without speed, hydra without range, ultra without carapace. In contrast, marine/marauder/reaper/ghost/hellion/medivac/ still good with no upgrades, upgrades are just icing on the cake for terran)
- Zerg t3 takes too long to reach (From the instant you make your first Spawning Pool, it takes 410 seconds minimum before you can start making an Ultralisk, assuming you go Straight for it, or 480 for Broodlords. Compared to the 235 for a Battlecruiser, or 260 for Carriers/Mothership, that's obscene. source)
- Zerg does not have a unit that can deal damage from stealth (burrow)
- Zerg does not have a unit that can use the cliff jump mechanic
- Spawn larva is a blessing and a curse (Being able to bank larvae is great, but at the cost of having more APM required, requires queens which consume 2 supply ea. It is really more of a necessity than anything else, having units that are disposable and swarmy. Overall the mechanic is a disadvantage, macro is much easier from warpgates or rax/factories etc.)
- Zerg scouting can easily be denied
- Zerg units do not work well in 'critical mass', or as a ball. (Compared to T and P armies, Zerg has a weak army in critical mass, both T and P can get huge momentum going once they reach their critical mass. Zergs suffers from lack of good ranged damage and weak units. Choked terrain compounds this problem.)
- Zerg can be punished for mistakes very easily. (Mainly due to lack of ability to wall-in or to use chokes defensively)
- Corrupters and Infestors are less than good. (Even though fungal is decent, they're just not good units overall.)
Not how game balance works. You just stated why zerg was different. Would "Protoss is weak because they have no t1 scout" be a valid proof of the claim? No. They just shows how protoss is different. It is a statement of a (Incredibly obvious) fact. You need to highlight the relationships that show why these are problematic. Maybe blizzard intended zerg to have those defining characteristics. Are you saying that every race is intended to be equally good at everything? How the fuck did nobody notice that "Zerg does not have a unit that deals damage by stealth"? Do you think that was an accident? Not, it was a design. You need to open your mind on how game balance works to make proper commentary. Highlight relationships that support a conclusion, not facts. Here is an example. For instance "Zerg is underpowered because they cannot adequately prepare to the multitude of terran openers, which allow terran to start midgame with a econ advantage that zerg cannot recover from" would be a better valid statement, instead of "Zerg is underpowered because poor t1 scouting". One implies that the only way to fix this is to buff zerg T1 scouting. The other highligts a multifaceted relationship. Which could fixed in a multitude of ways, ranging from buffing zerg midgame advantage, nerfing terran econ, lowering viable terran openers, increasing zerg defense flexibility, or indeed, buffing zerg t1 scouting. Each which would shift the game towards a different direction. If the difference leads to imbalance it should be changed.
Lol. All differences lead to imbalance.
Slow protoss t1 movement speed means speedlings are too powerful.
See? You seem to want a homogenized game. Differences are by definition imbalance, whats crucial is that compounded, one race is not any more or less imbalanced then the other.
|
All I can say besides ranting about this and that is that is that it feels like Zerg isnt complete yet. When I look at the possibilities and the gimmicks T has (Ghosts, healing dropships, Reapers, invisible banshees, ... ) and compare it to what Z has ( Infestors, Banelings???? ) it is a huge difference.
P doesnt have that many options either but they are balanced through stats like the dmg and range of their units. But still it also feels as if P needs a little downturn in the stats and more possibilities to gain an advantage without pushing with all forces.
Zerg on the other hand doesn't have too many possibilities to make some fancy plays and the ones Z has are quite expensive or at least very risky. What distinguishes Z from P is that P is able to attack someone because of their high range and because they also have (imo) stronger, more cost effective units than Z. Z isn't able to attack unless it has a much bigger army which can only result through harass ( the possibilities for harass are very little as some of the other posters already wrote) or through outmacroing. And since outmacroing is the only real possibility there have to be mechanics which support this playstyle. And these mechanics are not strong enough yet. It should be harder to take down an Z expansion since expansions are the only real way a Z can win a game at the moment.
TL;DR:
T has a lot of different possibilities to get an advantage. P and Z don't have this many options but P units are stronger/more cost-effective than Z-units thats why Z is so bad at the moment.
==> P and Z need more versatility and P needs a nerf in stats like range and dmg.
|
On September 24 2010 08:16 Pulimuli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 08:14 Seam wrote:On September 24 2010 08:13 Carras wrote:
You CANT have a bad army at critical mass... becouse it wouldnt be critical mass then..
now tell me.... wich is the race, that has cheaper expansions ? and heavy gas units to combine!?
and.. in TvZ .. what happens if both 200 armies wipe out each other ? zerg just rebuilds in one cycle..
terran.. well, gg.. When will a 200/200 T vs 200/200 Z army cancel eachother out? They wont, the reason for that is because Zerg can produce an assload of units much faster than Terran can.
This would be a valid point if there weren't so many situations where the Zerg gets wiped out and Terran still has 3/4 of their army still standing... Even if the Terran gets his army destroyed, there are also a lot of situations where Zerg can't even go back on the offensive due to a variety of things such as PF, Tanks, etc. The fast repop argument really needs to stop being thrown around because it's only a half truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
