|
On October 17 2011 02:18 nvrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 01:29 Toadvine wrote:On October 17 2011 00:46 Resistentialism wrote:On October 16 2011 20:05 Sir Christoffee wrote:
To compare, lets look at some changes (or a relative lack off?) to Zerg. Lings pretty much stayed the same so woot. Though for some reason, burrow was pushed back to lair. My only theory to this that at some stage they decided the combo of fast regeneration on tier one roaches made an early roach push with burrow too powerful, otherwise I am not aware why.
I think the former provides the reasoning for the latter. There is one big change for zerglings from BW to sc2, which is that they can deny scouting workers regardless of how good your opponent is at keeping their scout moving. If you can't keep the scout worker alive after zerglings come out, you can't keep tabs on the hatchery to see if burrow is being researched. Actually ling dps took a huge nerf, as did the bonus from adrenal glands. In BW a ling with no upgrades would win against a Marine with no upgrades, you need two in SC2; three lings would kill a Zealot in BW, you need four in SC2, etc. True, however imagine BW lings with SC2 pathing...nothing would stand in their way.
I don't think it's about the pathing. For one, the clumping of ranged units serves to counteract the auto-surrounds and group pathing. Furthermore, metabolic boost got a buff. Speedlings in SC2 are much faster relative to everything else, than they were in BW. As one can see in SC2BW, lings are just fine with the new engine and old stats.
On October 17 2011 03:02 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 01:29 Toadvine wrote:On October 17 2011 00:46 Resistentialism wrote:On October 16 2011 20:05 Sir Christoffee wrote:
To compare, lets look at some changes (or a relative lack off?) to Zerg. Lings pretty much stayed the same so woot. Though for some reason, burrow was pushed back to lair. My only theory to this that at some stage they decided the combo of fast regeneration on tier one roaches made an early roach push with burrow too powerful, otherwise I am not aware why.
I think the former provides the reasoning for the latter. There is one big change for zerglings from BW to sc2, which is that they can deny scouting workers regardless of how good your opponent is at keeping their scout moving. If you can't keep the scout worker alive after zerglings come out, you can't keep tabs on the hatchery to see if burrow is being researched. Actually ling dps took a huge nerf, as did the bonus from adrenal glands. In BW a ling with no upgrades would win against a Marine with no upgrades, you need two in SC2; three lings would kill a Zealot in BW, you need four in SC2, etc. The difference is in this game you can mass lings so much easier than in BW. SC2 has larva inject whereas in BW you had to build a million macro hatches if you wanted a lot of lings. Giving them BW dps in this game where they can be massed so easily means mass lings would destroy every non aoe army one sided-ly.
Yeah, I think that's the reason too. It's also the reason Roaches have to cost 2 supply, and a host of other Zerg annoyances. In some sense, Spawn Larvae holds Zerg back just as much as Warpgates hold Protoss back.
|
On October 17 2011 02:48 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 16:19 shadowboxer wrote:On October 16 2011 15:52 kofman wrote:On October 15 2011 19:32 Brotocol wrote:On October 15 2011 19:25 Toadvine wrote:On October 15 2011 18:43 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2011 15:42 kofman wrote:
TvZ is balanced, the only reason why people are suddenly complaining about it is the GSL graph. However, if you actually play the MU, I think you would find that its probably the best MU in the game, both in terms of balance and gameplay. One mistake for either side could cost you the game; having a bad engagement as zerg, or getting caught unseiged as terran. It's pretty ridiculous how much people read into just a number. Remember, Nestea lost to the the best player in the world, MVP, 3-2. It could have gone either way. This. Blizzard did a poll a while back about people's favorite matchups to watch. All the mirror match-ups were in last, with PvP at 1%. TvP was the least favorite of the other match-ups, then PvZ, and ZvT was easily on top with like 33% of the total vote. Metagames shift. Look at winrates for Brood War in TvZ, and you'll see massive "imbalances" in the direction of one race, then the other for long periods of time. But between when Terran was winning constantly and when Zerg was winning constantly, the game wasn't patched to fix balance. People just figured out new strategies and the other race needed a while to figure out a response. Indeed, there were long periods of time in BW, where Terran was dominating TvZ, and long periods of time where Zerg was winning more. Now, show me a period of time where either Protoss or Zerg dominated Terran in SC2. The only time Protoss was notably ahead in PvT (at like 55% or somesuch), they instantly got KA removed, which was a huge gamechanging nerf. What's even funnier, judging by current Terran play, KA could easily be reintroduced back into the game without making PvT imbalanced. So yeah, David Kim (and the legion of Terran players whining about KA on forums) clearly don't believe in the BW doctrine of "letting it work itself out".I'd actually prefer to have Protoss and Zerg staight-up buffed for the time being. And even though I do believe Terran is by far the best-designed race, I don't necessarily think they should be looked up to as an good example to follow. Some aspects of Terran - like Salvage or MULEs - are just stupid, and would make the game worse even if it was balanced. @bolded part: exactly! That's where most of the whining comes from imo. Only with Terran does Blizzard err on the side of "letting it work itself out." Meanwhile, benign rushes like blink rush (which is a huge risk) get nerfed to the ground. I keep saying it, because I find it ridiculous. 30 seconds is way, way too huge a nerf. That's half a minute nerf on a build that wasn't even a problem! Have you seen the list of Protoss nerfs since beta? They're huge. You've got values like "30 seconds" being thrown around. Protoss as a race was practically butchered, with entire things being removed straight up (Flux Vanes, KA). And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz. Even the absolute earliest beta complaint from Protoss was deemed metagame. Gateway units get creamed by rax units. The complaints fell on deaf ears. This resulted in using FF to survive on 1 base and get colossus asap. The very foundations of Protoss play are based on this lopsided consideration from Blizzard. LOL, you are complaining about the toss nerfs, while terran has definetly been nerfed the most: - bunker build time increase -reaper build time increase - seige tank damage nerf - rax build time increase - stim research time increase - hellion nerf - ghost nerf - bunker salvage decrease Terran's been nerfed the most and they're STILL the strongest race of the three. That says a lot. This could be evidence that Terran players are just stronger than players of the other races.
Actually it can't, but it can be evidence that they haven't been nerfed enough.
Take two units that are equal in all areas (health, range, speed, attack speed, etc.) except one deals 10 damage per shot and the other deals 4 per shot. The one dealing 10 damage will win every time.
Then the one dealing 10 damage gets nerfed once to deal only 8 damage.
It still wins.
Then it gets nerfed again to deal only 6 damage. Holy crap, it got nerfed twice! Isn't that enough already?
No, it needs to get nerfed a third time to make the two units equal- 4 damage per shot for each unit. Or the weaker unit could get buffed so that both units deal 6 damage per shot.
Regardless of the number of nerfs, Terran is still clearly stronger. The quality of the nerfs obviously wasn't severe enough.
|
On October 17 2011 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:48 kofman wrote:On October 16 2011 16:19 shadowboxer wrote:On October 16 2011 15:52 kofman wrote:On October 15 2011 19:32 Brotocol wrote:On October 15 2011 19:25 Toadvine wrote:On October 15 2011 18:43 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2011 15:42 kofman wrote:
TvZ is balanced, the only reason why people are suddenly complaining about it is the GSL graph. However, if you actually play the MU, I think you would find that its probably the best MU in the game, both in terms of balance and gameplay. One mistake for either side could cost you the game; having a bad engagement as zerg, or getting caught unseiged as terran. It's pretty ridiculous how much people read into just a number. Remember, Nestea lost to the the best player in the world, MVP, 3-2. It could have gone either way. This. Blizzard did a poll a while back about people's favorite matchups to watch. All the mirror match-ups were in last, with PvP at 1%. TvP was the least favorite of the other match-ups, then PvZ, and ZvT was easily on top with like 33% of the total vote. Metagames shift. Look at winrates for Brood War in TvZ, and you'll see massive "imbalances" in the direction of one race, then the other for long periods of time. But between when Terran was winning constantly and when Zerg was winning constantly, the game wasn't patched to fix balance. People just figured out new strategies and the other race needed a while to figure out a response. Indeed, there were long periods of time in BW, where Terran was dominating TvZ, and long periods of time where Zerg was winning more. Now, show me a period of time where either Protoss or Zerg dominated Terran in SC2. The only time Protoss was notably ahead in PvT (at like 55% or somesuch), they instantly got KA removed, which was a huge gamechanging nerf. What's even funnier, judging by current Terran play, KA could easily be reintroduced back into the game without making PvT imbalanced. So yeah, David Kim (and the legion of Terran players whining about KA on forums) clearly don't believe in the BW doctrine of "letting it work itself out".I'd actually prefer to have Protoss and Zerg staight-up buffed for the time being. And even though I do believe Terran is by far the best-designed race, I don't necessarily think they should be looked up to as an good example to follow. Some aspects of Terran - like Salvage or MULEs - are just stupid, and would make the game worse even if it was balanced. @bolded part: exactly! That's where most of the whining comes from imo. Only with Terran does Blizzard err on the side of "letting it work itself out." Meanwhile, benign rushes like blink rush (which is a huge risk) get nerfed to the ground. I keep saying it, because I find it ridiculous. 30 seconds is way, way too huge a nerf. That's half a minute nerf on a build that wasn't even a problem! Have you seen the list of Protoss nerfs since beta? They're huge. You've got values like "30 seconds" being thrown around. Protoss as a race was practically butchered, with entire things being removed straight up (Flux Vanes, KA). And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz. Even the absolute earliest beta complaint from Protoss was deemed metagame. Gateway units get creamed by rax units. The complaints fell on deaf ears. This resulted in using FF to survive on 1 base and get colossus asap. The very foundations of Protoss play are based on this lopsided consideration from Blizzard. LOL, you are complaining about the toss nerfs, while terran has definetly been nerfed the most: - bunker build time increase -reaper build time increase - seige tank damage nerf - rax build time increase - stim research time increase - hellion nerf - ghost nerf - bunker salvage decrease Terran's been nerfed the most and they're STILL the strongest race of the three. That says a lot. This could be evidence that Terran players are just stronger than players of the other races. Actually it can't, but it can be evidence that they haven't been nerfed enough. Take two units that are equal in all areas (health, range, speed, attack speed, etc.) except one deals 10 damage per shot and the other deals 4 per shot. The one dealing 10 damage will win every time. Then the one dealing 10 damage gets nerfed once to deal only 8 damage. It still wins. Then it gets nerfed again to deal only 6 damage. Holy crap, it got nerfed twice! Isn't that enough already? No, it needs to get nerfed a third time to make the two units equal- 4 damage per shot for each unit. Or the weaker unit could get buffed so that both units deal 6 damage per shot. Regardless of the number of nerfs, Terran is still clearly stronger. The quality of the nerfs obviously wasn't severe enough.
this logic seems so obvious to me, I dont understand how terran players can argue it
I have seen to many arguments from terran players that really don't have a leg to stand on.
As SeaSwift put it, they are just grasping at straws
looking at the evidence, there is no way you can conclude with 100% certainty that terran is balanced
In fact, if my life depended on it and I had to pick: Terran is = or < protoss OR Terran is > protoss I would absoluteley say that terran is > Protoss.
I am not qualified to comment on the TvZ matchup. I have noticed that Infestors and Mutalisks are awesome against terran though.. I'd almost suggest that they are overpowered if the terran doesnt do something sneaky (or lame.. such as bunker rush into hellions into banshees). I do feel that ghosts are OP in every match up though.
Personally I dont think the game should be balanced around one racing having units that are too cost effective against the other races.
To use protoss as an example, I would much prefer a buff to gateway units and a nerf to colossus than being so dependant on colossus.
In the current state of the game, while it is nice that the immortal was buffed, I would never build 6 immortals instead of 4 colossus.
|
On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels.
This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra.
Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran.
As for a problem I see:
Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger
Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures
Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins
|
On October 17 2011 05:35 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels. This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra. Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran. As for a problem I see: Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins
How do sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers?
Do bunkers not give additional range and give the units inside a couple hundred life buffer when there is a FF on top of them?
|
On October 17 2011 05:35 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels. This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra. Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran. As for a problem I see: Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins
It's such a weird thing to me, the failure of Terran in Diamond and Masters. I mean, you can probably win more than 50% of your games with 1 base all-ins and gimmicky crap in TvT. Hell, you can easily clock a good winrate in TvP with just 1/1/1. Terran advantages translate awesomely into the Bo1 aspect of the ladder. For the life of me, I can't understand why they fail so much. It's not like you need insane multitasking to win with Terran at a Masters level. Maybe it's because TvZ is actually difficult without good mechanics and marine micro? Zerg is the most popular race at that level after all.
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran?
|
How do sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers?
Pushes away SCVs and prevents repair
|
Problem:
Mass SCV repair is able to give insane amounts of life to different buildings (specifically the planetary fortress)
Solution:
1 SCV should repair a building at a speed equal to the time it would take to build it
(example. If it takes 60 seconds to repair a building, and it is at 50% life. 1 scv should take 30 seconds to repair it)
Each additional SCV should repair at 75% the speed of the last one attached.
Side Effects: You cant put a disgusting amount of SCV on a PF or Thor and repair indefinitely
|
On October 17 2011 05:44 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:35 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels. This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra. Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran. As for a problem I see: Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins How do sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers? Do bunkers not give additional range and give the units inside a couple hundred life buffer when there is a FF on top of them?
It's not about range, it's about firepower and sturdiness. I can't repair them and any units surrounding the bunkers get pushed away. Bunkers end up being more of a liability, as they give a clear target to FF without the need for the bio-sentry dance.
On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran?
Hongun is arguably only in Code S because of Protoss all-ins against Terran. He wins even when Terran knows they're coming...
|
On October 17 2011 05:56 Charon1979 wrote:Pushes away SCVs and prevents repair
Oh, so you meant that it nullify's the defensive advantage of SCVs then?
You're right.. we shoudl take more micro out of the game. Protoss should not be rewarded for good use of sentries.
Protoss should need to make 8 sentries for defensive purposes, but not be able to use them offensively because their ground units are too strong?
Edit:
How about you get the bunker upgrade and building armor upgrade if you are worried about defending?
I beleive the +2 building armor would reduce zealot attack damage to buildings by 33%
We need to invest significant amounts of money into defending ourselves vs terran drops and pushes, why shouldnt you?
Putting some depots infront of the bunkers would add an extra 400 life buffer
Protoss would not be able to poke because of the +1 range on the maruders in the bunker
|
I think feedback needs to be an AoE spell
|
On October 17 2011 06:06 FreeZe sc2 wrote:
I think feedback needs to be an AoE spell
I play protoss, but I disagree with this
if this was the case, feedback would need to increase in cost
Personally I feel that the problem with EMP is that it shouldnt even be on the ghost.
I think they need to completely re-work the raven and give it EMP that is totally buffed (increase AOE, and full sheild/energy depletion)
|
On October 17 2011 06:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran? Hongun is arguably only in Code S because of Protoss all-ins against Terran. He wins even when Terran knows they're coming...
I see your HongUnPrime, and raise you a PuMa.
Honestly though, like 1/3rd of the Terrans in Code S are only capable of 1 base all-ining in TvP. And HongUn doesn't even do all-ins with mass Sentries, he's more of a "2-3Gate VR, and maybe win, if not do as much damage as possible, and transition" guy.
He's also in the Up/Down matches, not in Code S.
|
On October 17 2011 06:18 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:06 FreeZe sc2 wrote:
I think feedback needs to be an AoE spell I play protoss, but I disagree with this if this was the case, feedback would need to increase in cost Personally I feel that the problem with EMP is that it shouldnt even be on the ghost. I think they need to completely re-work the raven and give it EMP that is totally buffed (increase AOE, and full sheild/energy depletion)
This is an idea I could get behind, but I think a slight increase in raven speed or decrease in build time would be essential for that so that they justify their cost. Right now, ravens are just too easily isolated and limited due to tech requirements to justify their cost. Imagine if HTs came out of templar archives instead of gateways. Zerg and Protoss have easy ways to mass all their casters assuming the resources are there, while Terran has one that sits in the highest tech requiring the most costly and time consuming upgrades to be effective. Putting more essential spells in this caster without compensating some of their shortfalls is no different than indirectly removing the spell from the game.
|
On October 17 2011 06:24 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:03 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran? Hongun is arguably only in Code S because of Protoss all-ins against Terran. He wins even when Terran knows they're coming... I see your HongUnPrime, and raise you a PuMa. Honestly though, like 1/3rd of the Terrans in Code S are only capable of 1 base all-ining in TvP. And HongUn doesn't even do all-ins with mass Sentries, he's more of a "2-3Gate VR, and maybe win, if not do as much damage as possible, and transition" guy. He's also in the Up/Down matches, not in Code S.
You said all-in. MC does sentry all-ins quite a bit, and is quite successful with them. If he didn't go making things hard for himself by willingly putting himself into the hardest group in Code S, we'd likely see him in GSL still.
|
On October 17 2011 06:35 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:24 Toadvine wrote:On October 17 2011 06:03 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran? Hongun is arguably only in Code S because of Protoss all-ins against Terran. He wins even when Terran knows they're coming... I see your HongUnPrime, and raise you a PuMa. Honestly though, like 1/3rd of the Terrans in Code S are only capable of 1 base all-ining in TvP. And HongUn doesn't even do all-ins with mass Sentries, he's more of a "2-3Gate VR, and maybe win, if not do as much damage as possible, and transition" guy. He's also in the Up/Down matches, not in Code S. You said all-in. MC does sentry all-ins quite a bit, and is quite successful with them. If he didn't go making things hard for himself by willingly putting himself into the hardest group in Code S, we'd likely see him in GSL still.
MC does sentry TIMING PUSHES quite a bit. All-in is like a 4gate or an Xgate with no economy. MC consistently makes scary pushes, but doesn't very often actually all-in. There is normally at least some economy behind it.
|
On October 17 2011 06:30 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:18 Roxy wrote:On October 17 2011 06:06 FreeZe sc2 wrote:
I think feedback needs to be an AoE spell I play protoss, but I disagree with this if this was the case, feedback would need to increase in cost Personally I feel that the problem with EMP is that it shouldnt even be on the ghost. I think they need to completely re-work the raven and give it EMP that is totally buffed (increase AOE, and full sheild/energy depletion) This is an idea I could get behind, but I think a slight increase in raven speed or decrease in build time would be essential for that so that they justify their cost. Right now, ravens are just too easily isolated and limited due to tech requirements to justify their cost. Imagine if HTs came out of templar archives instead of gateways. Zerg and Protoss have easy ways to mass all their casters assuming the resources are there, while Terran has one that sits in the highest tech requiring the most costly and time consuming upgrades to be effective. Putting more essential spells in this caster without compensating some of their shortfalls is no different than indirectly removing the spell from the game.
I'm not expert on the TvZ matchup, but how would you feel about irradiate coming back instead of the seeker missle?
I suppose the seeker missile could be reworked to be more accessible (currently cost prohibitive). I beleive the spell itself is really entertianing against the mutalisks and has potential for epic micro. Like you mentioned (and I agree) the Raven is cost prohibitive.
Do you think if the Raven was faster (and I think it should be), would be a little OP.. kindof how the infestor is good in all circumstances if it had PDD, Irradiate, and a pumped up EMP? (assume removal of turret and seeker?)
From what I have seen about the TvZ matchup, terran doesnt have enough ways to deal with the mutalisk. I think leaving 8 marines, 4 turrets and a thor in every base is a little unreasonable (the same as how I feel leaving an HT, archon, 3 stalekrs,a nd 2 zealots in your base to prevent terran drops is unreasonable)
On the other hand, I have seen marines and ghost armies demolish zerg armies that they probably should have lost against (more persurant to marines scaling so well IMO)
|
On October 17 2011 06:53 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:30 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 06:18 Roxy wrote:On October 17 2011 06:06 FreeZe sc2 wrote:
I think feedback needs to be an AoE spell I play protoss, but I disagree with this if this was the case, feedback would need to increase in cost Personally I feel that the problem with EMP is that it shouldnt even be on the ghost. I think they need to completely re-work the raven and give it EMP that is totally buffed (increase AOE, and full sheild/energy depletion) This is an idea I could get behind, but I think a slight increase in raven speed or decrease in build time would be essential for that so that they justify their cost. Right now, ravens are just too easily isolated and limited due to tech requirements to justify their cost. Imagine if HTs came out of templar archives instead of gateways. Zerg and Protoss have easy ways to mass all their casters assuming the resources are there, while Terran has one that sits in the highest tech requiring the most costly and time consuming upgrades to be effective. Putting more essential spells in this caster without compensating some of their shortfalls is no different than indirectly removing the spell from the game. I'm not expert on the TvZ matchup, but how would you feel about irradiate coming back instead of the seeker missle? I suppose the seeker missile could be reworked to be more accessible (currently cost prohibitive). I beleive the spell itself is really entertianing against the mutalisks and has potential for epic micro. Like you mentioned (and I agree) the Raven is cost prohibitive. Do you think if the Raven was faster (and I think it should be), would be a little OP.. kindof how the infestor is good in all circumstances if it had PDD, Irradiate, and a pumped up EMP? (assume removal of turret and seeker?)
By a little faster, I'm talking like the viking (2.75), and that's only because the only air as slow as the raven are a lot beefier. I also wouldn't be opposed to it simply getting more health, up to 200. I think seeker missile is fine if it were just a guaranteed hit after 10-15s or something. Still leave dodging aspect by blink, dying, burrow, or cloak but the skill to avoiding it would be tied to how fast you can pick out the unit it's targeting. In some regards, it would even out the micro intensities needed in the late game without doing that HUGE guaranteed AoE that irradiate would do.
Even with these changes, we wouldn't likely see the same issues we had with infestors since you simply can't afford to pump out 7 ravens at a time like you can with infestors. Both because of the 200 gas cost as well as the infrastructure needed. Also, if you think about the options for sniping ravens for the other 2 races (mutas, blink stalkers, and phoenixes), it already leaves them slight more vulnerable than infestors.
|
On October 16 2011 05:19 neoghaleon55 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 17:36 positron. wrote:On October 15 2011 17:06 neoghaleon55 wrote:
I'm no game designer but maybe....just maybe....requiring 100 gas to make an orbital would solve everything....
That is exactly why you are not and will never be a game designer. 100 gas for OC? where would you get that amount of gas in the early game? There is no CB and no larva for Terran. It would mean they will be behind in worker count until that first 100 gas. How about you cool it with the personal attacks and try to adhere to some teamliquid standards. 100 gas isn't very much, where do zergling speed come from? 100 gas Where do lair come from? 100 gas. It's just one way to slow down terran tech and income. OC requiring 100 gas would punish early aggression that fails instead of the bullcrap that is 1/1/1 or the 11/11 which has relatively small to zero drawbacks.
What? How about you adhere to the guideline and at least put some thinking before posting? 100 gas early game is not much? Why bring zergling's speed and Lair in here? That doesn't interfere with the making drone of the Zergs while slowing down the OC will put Terran behind in mining ability. People think they just come in here and propose their "bright" ideas and everybody is supposed to clap along with that?
|
On October 15 2011 19:34 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 17:36 positron. wrote:On October 15 2011 17:06 neoghaleon55 wrote:
I'm no game designer but maybe....just maybe....requiring 100 gas to make an orbital would solve everything....
That is exactly why you are not and will never be a game designer. 100 gas for OC? where would you get that amount of gas in the early game? There is no CB and no larva for Terran. It would mean they will be behind in worker count until that first 100 gas. In all honesty, do terrans NEED mules as early as 15 supply? When all 3 races hit approximatly 20 supply, terran takes the economy lead by a large stretch and is able to maintain it all game. If terran economy was cut in half, you could still survive any sub-8 minute timing attack using marines, bunkers, scv's and stutter step micro. That is not the case for zerg, who would just outright die. Mules need to be in the game to balance out the lack of chrono boost, larvae inject and scv building time, but 270 minerals per mule? I personally think that if that value was halved, terrans would still win an awful lot. It would be far from game breaking.
Then adjust the effectiveness of the MULE itself rather than require 100 gas for OC. You make it sound like it is a given that Terran always have the econ lead all game. People who lead in that department are just better at building workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
