EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 190
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Instigata
United States546 Posts
| ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On April 02 2012 13:36 Instigata wrote: Just wondering what you all consider needed nerfs and buffs. What criteria are needed? Seems Terrans are complaining now and most of the response is that everything is fine but before the zerg/toss buffs and Terran nerfs, same whining and same response was everything is fine and it just needs to be figured out. There were patches though, does that then deem imbalance? So if there are Terran buffs or zerg/protoss nerfs next patch then that means there was legit Terran problems? All those complaints are just Terrans blowing off steam. Statistically, the race is still doing very well. GSL code S is still predominately Terran. Another Terran just won MLG. The month by month TLPD shows no sign of terran winrate decay. The real problem with Terran is that historically, they were so strong that when legitimate concerns arise today, nobody bothers to listen. The mindset seems to be, if you're losing as Terran, you must be just bad. I'm most concerned about the fact that most professional Terran players tend to have some sort of wrist injury. Yes, the micro is very rewarding...but it seems rather dangerous. I wonder if broodwar terrans have the same problems. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
I think HT's need to be left alone, but either colossus or archons need adjusted and I am leaning towards archons. They take no bonus damage and have a huge health pool and a massive bonus against bio units (basically a massive bonus against terran and zerg). On top of this, they get +3 damage for EACH upgrade. So late game you have archons dealing 44 dmg splash each attack (23.4 AE dps, factoring in opponent having +3armor), Colossus dealing 21.8 line AE dps, and high templar dealing 20 AE dps. 65DPS in an area is really really really high. Just 65 dps is the equivalent of more than 9 unstimmed marines, except thats done in an area thats hitting a lot of units at once. I think that archons should maybe be +2 damage per upgrade and like 5-8 damage bonus against light. Maybe even more would need to be done, but just a thought. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
I'm getting quite sick of hearing Terrans complain about late game TvZ. Terran has more aggressive tools early-mid game and have better timing due to zerg's relatively weak early game because of the larva mechanic. Terran usually get to act as aggressor first, which is a huge advantage and where most TvZ are won statistically. There's no reason in the world that Terrans is disadvantaged by late game. If you enter late game in TvZ with an army that can't stop infestor broods, I think you should have died 10 minutes ago but since Zerg has no siege weapon until late game...they have to let you live for a bit longer. Completely ridiculous complaints. I can't wait for my damn swarm host. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9342 Posts
On April 03 2012 19:24 neoghaleon55 wrote: You know, I'm getting quite sick of hearing Terrans complain about late game TvZ. Terran has more aggressive tools early-mid game and have better timing due to zerg's relatively weak early game because of the larva mechanic. Terran usually get to act as aggressor first, which is a huge advantage and where most TvZ are won statistically. There's no reason in the world that Terrans is disadvantaged by late game. If you enter late game in TvZ with an army that can't stop infestor broods, I think you should have died 10 minutes ago but since Zerg has no siege weapon until late game...they have to let you live for a bit longer. Completely ridiculous complaints. I can't wait for my damn swarm host. I can tell you this: IDra completely disagree with your logic. Accordign to him no race is suppoed to be much stronger late game than the other. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 03 2012 22:16 Hider wrote: I can tell you this: IDra completely disagree with your logic. Accordign to him no race is suppoed to be much stronger late game than the other. I don't know how you got that from what he said. He was saying that terrans arent dealing with infestors broodlord well because they plan on winning in the midgame without a plan to deal with lategame Zerg. Zerg has trouble being the aggressor until lategame. In no way was he saying that Zerg lategame > Terran lategame. | ||
|
wheelchairs
United States145 Posts
Good balance propositions in this thread are few and far between, spead over 200 pages, littered with fighting, whining, badmouthing, and endless posts trying to prove others wrong. Many posters in this forum exaggerate strengths of units/abilities beyond being realistic. Others continue to badger previous posters for the stupidity of their balance ideas without providing any intelligent discussion or counter-opinions. Many posters take balance suggestions personally like its an attack on their favorite race, immediately debunking thoughts without really considering all of the in-game implications. Most of all, just flat out too many (seemingly) lower level players suggesting ridiculous additions/changes to the game that help only in derailing this thread. Solution: Put as much thought into your posts as possible. Test your proposed imbalances in game, along with trying ways to deal with them. Explain what situations in game make you see this particular factor as imbalanced. Use examples of your imbalance seen in pro games, not a description of a scenario from your ladder game that no one saw. Provide insights to other players' proposed imbalances without telling them "you are wrong, zealots are not too strong bronzie, L2p" Side Effects: This thread wouldn't be 190 pages long, I could read it without completely losing faith in half of the sc2 community players, everyone would be happier, we would have a much better chance at coming to concrete balance proposals that actually matter, would actually work, and could even be looked at by blizzard as possible food for thought. We would all have much more fun discussing and reading in this thread. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
Solution: I'm not entirely sure what a good solution to this would be. There are a variety of suggestions I've seen, but I have no idea if any of them would work: 1) Make broodlings ignore collision. 2) Make Fungal Growth slow (or just damage) air units rather than freeze them; make fungal growth just damage (and not freeze) massive units 3) Somehow reduce the effectiveness of mass BL compositions. I wasn't joking when I implied that there is no easy fix. All I can say is that there is definitely a problem. I'm all for good control improving one's composition, but when the advantage is so severe that equally good control from the opposing player is insufficient for closing the gap, there's a problem. Side Effects: Personally, I think that making broodlings ignore collision wouldn't have too much of an effect on anything except late game scenarios, and it would be be helpful in the sense that spreading BLs would still be viable, but if an opposing players army decided to move forward anyway, it would be able to do so uninhibited and the BLs/Infestors would (ideally) be forced to retreat or gear up for a fight in which both sides stand to actually lose something. Right now, a maxed Protoss army can get rolled over by Bl/Infestor/Corruptor + a few Roaches without killing more than 3 or 4 Broods and a couple of Roaches. **I have considered the notion of a base trade, which is a popular suggestion I hear from Zerg players. Unfortunately, the current metagame has Zerg players littering the map with Spine Crawlers, which delay any Protoss trade significantly so as to make the gambit not worthwhile. | ||
|
reqc1992
19 Posts
| ||
|
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
| ||
|
Dskreet
United States13 Posts
Solution: Remove auto-cast form chargelots, but make chargelots path as normal during a charge, they simply preform actions faster. e.g., chargelots are right clicked on position 1 and then shift a-moved to position 2 and then c is pressed. The zealots charge to position 1 and then charge to attack units at position 2. Expected outcome: Chargelots become stronger in midgame in the hands of a very high APM protoss. Zealots could be split so that half the zealots charge behind the bioball and cut them off, making some very cool and interesting zealot micro. Protoss becomes weaker in bronze-masters because 2 additional commands are needed for the same level of effectiveness as they currently have, the zealots need to be control clicked and then c needs to be pressed for charge. Possible side effects: Zergs get mad because mass chargelots start surrounding and killing mass roach? Chargelots start being used pvp? I don’t personally make zealots pvz after the 10 min mark except to harass expansions or if they are going muta-ling so I think zergs would be fine with this. I proposed this a while ago and I got some favorable replies but then it kind of died, maybe it will get more traction if I throw it out there again. | ||
|
Bellazuk
Canada146 Posts
| ||
|
wheelchairs
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Bellazuk
Canada146 Posts
| ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
Problem: Terran has too many low-risk/high reward openings: 2rax, bitbybit, double reactor factory/marauderhellion/2port/ etc. David Kim gave an interview last year where he said the many openings of Terran has even without need for scouting or before scouting actually is available is problematic. This leads to coinflip builds or scenarios that cannot be scouted to reacted to. Solution: Make command orbitals cost 100 gas. Consider that if a Terran does a 2rax bunker, he will have to make a choice of whether or not to to sacrifice his orbital time or to make a later push. This change makes early game Terran risk/reward ratio more in line with one another. Early game Terran economy would not be as strong to support all the coinflip openings and will be more comparable to protoss and zerg's early game. Side Effect: Mass orbitals would be a lot less cost effective. No longer will 2 mules buy back the price of one orbital command. | ||
|
Fencar
United States2694 Posts
On April 04 2012 05:45 neoghaleon55 wrote: Problem: Terran has too many low-risk/high reward openings: 2rax, bitbybit, double reactor factory/marauderhellion/2port/ etc. David Kim gave an interview last year where he said the many openings of Terran has even without need for scouting or before scouting actually is available is problematic. This leads to coinflip builds or scenarios that cannot be scouted to reacted to. Solution: Make command orbitals cost 100 gas. Consider that if a Terran does a 2rax bunker, he will have to make a choice of whether or not to to sacrifice his orbital time or to make a later push. This change makes early game Terran risk/reward ratio more in line with one another. Early game Terran economy would not be as strong to support all the coinflip openings and will be more comparable to protoss and zerg's early game. Side Effect: Mass orbitals would be a lot less cost effective. No longer will 2 mules buy back the price of one orbital command. So, you're proposing to nerf the early game, and as a side effect, the late game as well? I don't think this will go through at all, to be honest. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On April 04 2012 05:52 Fencer710 wrote: So, you're proposing to nerf the early game, and as a side effect, the late game as well? I don't think this will go through at all, to be honest. How many people actually use mass orbital? The last time we saw someone do it professionally is Makaprime...and he lost to Sjow... Furthermore, the ability to play late game with a 50 supply army advantage due to not needing workers is just not balanced. | ||
|
denzelz
United States604 Posts
On April 04 2012 00:25 Shiori wrote: Problem: Lategame BL/Infestor (and to some extent lategame BL/Infestor/Ultralisk vs Terran) against Protoss presents the Protoss player with the following scenario: land a Vortex or lose the game. While this seems to have been sufficient to keep Protoss players in the game for awhile, it now seems that Zerg players at the highest level (Stephano, DRG) have become comfortable splitting their Broodlords. In my humble opinion, this presents Protoss with an unwinnable scenario (or at least something very close). I want to stress that I'm not mindlessly QQing here: there is no serious way for Protoss players to effectively deal with well-spread BLs, because even in the best of cases a Vortex will only hit 1/4 of the BLs, leaving many more to wreak havoc on one's base/army. This issue is only exacerbated by the tendency of Infestors to fungal Archons and delay them from getting into the Vortex. Solution: I'm not entirely sure what a good solution to this would be. There are a variety of suggestions I've seen, but I have no idea if any of them would work: 1) Make broodlings ignore collision. 2) Make Fungal Growth slow (or just damage) air units rather than freeze them; make fungal growth just damage (and not freeze) massive units 3) Somehow reduce the effectiveness of mass BL compositions. I wasn't joking when I implied that there is no easy fix. All I can say is that there is definitely a problem. I'm all for good control improving one's composition, but when the advantage is so severe that equally good control from the opposing player is insufficient for closing the gap, there's a problem. Side Effects: Personally, I think that making broodlings ignore collision wouldn't have too much of an effect on anything except late game scenarios, and it would be be helpful in the sense that spreading BLs would still be viable, but if an opposing players army decided to move forward anyway, it would be able to do so uninhibited and the BLs/Infestors would (ideally) be forced to retreat or gear up for a fight in which both sides stand to actually lose something. Right now, a maxed Protoss army can get rolled over by Bl/Infestor/Corruptor + a few Roaches without killing more than 3 or 4 Broods and a couple of Roaches. **I have considered the notion of a base trade, which is a popular suggestion I hear from Zerg players. Unfortunately, the current metagame has Zerg players littering the map with Spine Crawlers, which delay any Protoss trade significantly so as to make the gambit not worthwhile. There is a way to counter BLs. It's called +3/+3 Blink Stalkers and/or Phoenix/VR. If you are losing to Zerg late game, it's the problem with your composition. Are you on 4 bases when you get your late game army or just struggling with three? That's the bigger indicator than unit imbalance. | ||
|
uncleheinz
18 Posts
| ||
|
uncleheinz
18 Posts
On April 04 2012 06:01 denzelz wrote: There is a way to counter BLs. It's called +3/+3 Blink Stalkers and/or Phoenix/VR. If you are losing to Zerg late game, it's the problem with your composition. Are you on 4 bases when you get your late game army or just struggling with three? That's the bigger indicator than unit imbalance. You do realize that broodlords are always accompanied by infestors? Sure mass broodlord would be incredibly easy to beat but the infestor changes everything. How are you supposed to snipe broodlords when your units are trapped in place, and taking insane amounts of DPS from the fungals and the broods that are impossible to hit? Also, the only real useful air unit that is good against broodlord infestor is the mothership, for vortex only. Corrupters and fungal are just to cost effective against voids and phoenixes. Broodlord infestor is an incredibly powerful combination that has no actual counter, unless you include mobiilty and a lucky vortex to be a counter. | ||
| ||
