|
On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, etc? I doubt they win by accident.
Because when they scout 2 Marines at the front and can't get an OL sacrifice in, they prepare for everything.
A Spore in each mineral line, sim city and a spine at the front, an extra Queen or two, whatever it takes to be prepared for whatever is behind that wall. This works on maps like Crevasse, Terminus and other huge GSL maps, but not so much on close positions Shattered Temple or XNC. If the moment the Terran comes down the ramp is the moment you find out his comp in those situations, you are dead.
I do think Zergs need to get better about getting a quick Lair for OV speed though. It's possible to get good scouting at around 8 minutes this way. Before that though, no chance.
|
On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, etc? I doubt they win by accident.
Because they are good? Guess the only race NesTea has ever lost to in the GSL...don't you arguments based on player skill. Zerg scouting IS broken and we need ovy speed at hatchery tech.
|
On August 19 2011 02:54 Shiladie wrote:
I'd like to say that overall the balance of the game favors cheese and all-ins too much, and would benefit greatly from increased scouting ability and defensive advantage.
I believe the reason there is such a massive terran dominance in korea is that the korean style of play is to take a cheese/all-in/timing build and perfect it to an absolute science. Terran has the best ability to defend against these kinds of aggression, and thus is able to play a more stable game overall.
That, on top of the fact terran has the most options in their cheese/all-in/timing builds that requires precise scouting and reactions to counter.
You can see the low defensive advantage for zerg and protoss by looking at their mirror matchups. Until infestors come out zvz is dominated by early all-in play, where if you miss the point that your opponent stops droning/pulls his drones from gas to mass speedlings, you can easily be caught off guard and lose without a fight. PvP is similar, where before colossus it's a game of stalker numbers and stalker micro.
I would say that the game would be a LOT better if every race were given better early game scouting, in the window after your scouting worker/overlord is chased out, and before obs/overseer. On top of that additional defensive advantage all round, make it an investment, but reactive, so if you scout the cheese/all-in/timing build you have the option of trading longer term econ/army for a solid defence that can be up in time. This will make the game a lot more like BW, where pressure builds were king, forcing the opponent to over-commit to defence early on to secure an econ lead going into mid/late game.
This will then raise the skill-cap immensely, as it will reduce the effectiveness of the pure all-ins where a player can have 100% of the game mapped out and increase the effectiveness of a reactive style of play.
I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this, as I know David Kim has made a brief comment along the same lines. I have hope that in HotS we see the game shift towards this and away from where the game is currently headed.
I'd have to agree with this. I think the main issues at the moment are Warp Gate, Spawn Larva, and switchable add-ons. Warp Gate allows for too-perfect reactive play from Protoss in the early game, meaning Protoss gateway units have to be unrefined and weak. The inherently broken (underpowered or overpowered, never in between) Colossus and Sentry just worsen the problem. Spawn Larva allows Zerg to make absurd amounts of Drones, forcing their opponents to always put pressure on or lose. Because of the mobility of Zerg units, this pressure almost always has to either deal a significant amount of damage or be annihilated by a superior Zerg force. Situations like these encourage all-in play to punish a greedy Zerg, and allow for all-in play in return from the Zerg if they decide to suddenly switch production to military. Finally, add-on switching allows Terran to hit their entire tech tree ridiculously fast, meaning that the many powerful units at their disposal can be obtained far too quickly and cycled between too quickly, allowing things like the 1-1-1 all-in. No race is definitively broken, but these mechanics skew the game towards all-in aggressive play.
My personal solution would be to make Warp Gate require Templar Archives to research, reduce Spawn Larva to 2 (Hive upgrade to 4), make a new add-on to account for certain Terran units and add "adoption times" for add-ons (takes a certain amount of time to link onto a new add-on, but no extra cost), and of course rebalance units so that these drastic changes wouldn't make the game unplayable. Hopefully HotS will take the opportunity of a new expansion to fix a lot of the overarching problems in WoL that can't be fixed with a simple patch.
|
On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, etc? I doubt they win by accident.
Zerg scouting is fine because of one thing: Terran and protoss don't take their natural early as a standard play. Just seeing their natural timing gives a lot of info. Yeah its tough against terran cause they kill ovies quickly and they can build the command center in their main, but its not terrible. We cant all have scans and floating buildings.
|
This Thread need to be partitioned by sc league. I only read page 27 but its clear who is in what league.
No amry should be able to win an engagement guaranteed at any point in the game even if it doesn't result in winning the game.
Protoss army is not as mobile as terran, thinking that is just silly.
As for the arguments saying that a death ball killed off has just as much remacro potential as terran or zerg is also silly. Most protoss dont stock 5k mineral/gas with 20 available chrono and 6 robo bays to get that back in under 2 min.
|
On August 19 2011 03:23 DragonDefonce wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, etc? I doubt they win by accident. Zerg scouting is fine because of one thing: Terran and protoss don't take their natural early as a standard play. Just seeing their natural timing gives a lot of info. Yeah its tough against terran cause they kill ovies quickly and they can build the command center in their main, but its not terrible. We cant all have scans and floating buildings.
2 Port Banshee, BFH, BFH Drops, Doom Drops, Tank Timings, Stim Timings. All stuff you need to prepare for vs 1 base terran.
|
On August 19 2011 03:24 Parodoxx wrote:
This Thread need to be partitioned by sc league. I only read page 27 but its clear who is in what league.
No amry should be able to win an engagement guaranteed at any point in the game even if it doesn't result in winning the game.
Protoss army is not as mobile as terran, thinking that is just silly.
As for the arguments saying that a death ball killed off has just as much remacro potential as terran or zerg is also silly. Most protoss dont stock 5k mineral/gas with 20 available chrono and 6 robo bays to get that back in under 2 min.
20 Warpagates can reinforce pretty fast...
|
If anything, I feel that as a zerg, going against terran's siege tank+marine+medivac is a bit too map dependant. In some maps, it is a lot more difficult to break through and the 3rd is too hard to defend.
|
On August 19 2011 03:16 AustinCM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, etc? I doubt they win by accident. Because they are good? Guess the only race NesTea has ever lost to in the GSL...don't you arguments based on player skill. Zerg scouting IS broken and we need ovy speed at hatchery tech.
Find out why Nestea and DRG (his GSL losses were purely because he himself did something funky) don't seem to have difficulties tearing through Protoss and Terran players before addressing what you view to be a problem. "Because they are good" isn't a valid reason.
|
On August 17 2011 02:05 galivet wrote:
If I had to suggest balance changes, they would be these:
- No unit does bonus damage against shields. Meaning, marauders don't do bonus damage against stalkers until the stalker shields are fully depleted. This compensates for the shield mechanic's current uselessness (it's like zerg regen, except you can only regen half your HP and only when not in battle).
- Scan only detects burrowed units (including creep tumors) but does not detect cloaked units. Terran can use turrets, ravens, and EMP for decloaking and save scan for scouting.
- Decrease immortal build time by 30%.
- Decrease templar archives build time by 50%.
Er, sorry to say but these are pretty abysmal suggestions. Your first point may hold *some* credibility, but it seems as though you only considered this one instance. There are a lot of other 'bonus versus X' unit attacks that may skew this idea. The scan not detecting cloaked units will make DT openings and Banshee openings absurdly strong, to the point where an unprepared player wouldn't just be at a disadvantage, they would auto-lose, because there is NO way to try to come back from that.
I don't think you realize how much the 30% and 50% would actually amount to. That change would be DRASTIC. Immortals would become incredibly easy to mass, even as an expensive unit, and it would shut down Terran's containing ability ENTIRELY and make fast Roach tech switches or fast roach pushes miserably bad.
Seriously, if you're even going to THINK about proposing a balance change, stop. Really think. People make terrible suggestions because they think "wow this race has something strong against this other race," provide something that will change it, but give NO consideration to any of the other matchups or uses of that unit. It's very narrow-minded thinking.
|
On August 19 2011 02:24 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 02:06 DragonDefonce wrote:On August 17 2011 05:57 Bluerain wrote:On August 17 2011 04:24 DragonDefonce wrote:On August 17 2011 03:41 BUfels wrote:On August 17 2011 03:13 xlava wrote:On August 17 2011 03:10 Aletheia27 wrote:
With regard to infestors being overpowered, I feel like the argument goes along the same lines as how forcefields were considered overpowered for toss players. I think people just haven't learened to adapt to them yet and adjust their play. Just my 2 cents. Kind of. Except that Zerg doesn't depend on infestors for surviving. Without sentries Protoss dies to every early game aggression. Zerg can live without infestors. Forcefields aren't overpowered, they're a necessity. Yes, they definitely do. You can't beat turtle protoss 200/200 deathball without them. The deathball is already good enough(and turtle protoss is getting popular again), it does not need a buff. Neither zerg nor terran is supposed to beat toss in 200/200 fight. Like ever. Zerg loses the initial fight but takes out as much of the deathball as it can and win by resupplying. If zerg is even with protoss in a 200/200 fight, something is wrong. And the current state of the game is so that with hive tech and infestors, zerg can beat protoss deathball. If you break even in a max army fight as protoss, you are as good as dead. And this "turtle toss" doesn't work on a fundamental level because of broodlords. The only thing more ridiculous than turtling against broodlords would be to turtle against tanks this would be true if ur macro sux and the protoss army is so good that ppl who have bad macro can still win just by turtling to a 200 max army. so many times i play a masters toss who floats 2k minerals but still only have 7-8 gates LOL? if ur actually good u can remax just as fast with mass gateways. so NO 200 army shuld be even across all races if composition is good. the reason protoss usually wins is cus zerg is going a tier 2 army comp of roach corruptor in order to get ahead in bases and get map control. if the zerg has tier 3 units, it should be even or ahead of toss since zerg tier 3 is more inaccessible. Let me rephrase myself since it seems I wasn't being very clear. Terran or Zerg army SHOULD NOT BE ABLE to straight up beat Protoss in 200/200 fight (with the exception of Terran mech). The problem with the game at the current state is that they are perfectly capable of doing so. Umm... Protoss can reproduce units much faster than terran can. How would terran ever stand a chance in a maxed out game if they always lost the engagements too? Even the zerg part is arguable. There's no such thing as a "straight up 200/200" fight, because unit compositions and player micro are always a huge factor.
Cause gateway units without HT with 75 mana or colossus is shit.
And obviously by straight up 200/200 fight I mean between players playing at comparable level of micro, and unit composition that is largely accepted to be effective and is reasonable to be produced, not something like 30 hts 10 zealots and rest stalkers. Please don't bring up obvious implied factors.
|
On August 19 2011 03:27 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:16 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, etc? I doubt they win by accident. Because they are good? Guess the only race NesTea has ever lost to in the GSL...don't you arguments based on player skill. Zerg scouting IS broken and we need ovy speed at hatchery tech. Find out why Nestea and DRG (his GSL losses were purely because he himself did something funky) don't seem to have difficulties tearing through Protoss and Terran players before addressing what you view to be a problem. "Because they are good" isn't a valid reason.
I am here to talk about the early scouting.
Zerg's early scouting is extremely difficult. Against protoss, it is easier because the tech path is more predictable.
But against a terran, it is extremely hard.
One benefit that Nestea and DRG has is that they don't play in the close spawn position maps, making things like scv+marine all-in a lot easier to deal with.
|
On August 19 2011 03:24 AustinCM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:23 DragonDefonce wrote:On August 19 2011 03:12 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 03:09 AustinCM wrote:On August 19 2011 03:05 darkness wrote:On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Mana just 2-0'd Puma the winner of the NASL in a convincing manner. Protoss OP now right? I have yet to read a half decent point be made except split your units.
One game means nothing. Not saying something is imba though. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
For example, zerg doesn't have any early game scouting but protoss and terran told us to shut up and sac 2 overlords and use a drone and mineral walk. That being said zerg doesn't have observers and the only person a toss can blame for not getting a robo is their self. Zerg's scouting is fine, I don't see why you complain. You can scout with (speed)lings, overseers, overlords (including sacrificing), drone sent on mineral walk, changelings. On August 19 2011 02:24 Seek wrote:
Zerg has no harrass except roach rushes, we QQ about it and instead of anything changing we decide collectively that if we cant harass we'll just expand like bosses and win the economic game - Infestor burrow -> infested terrans - Overlord drop (lings and/or other units) - Mutalisks - Baneling drop on mineral line What are you? Gold? Zerg scouting is DEFINITELY not fine. Play early game vs terran then tell me it's fine. All you can do is poke at their front with a speedling and all that will show is 2 supply depots a barracks and 2 marines. When you try to sac an ovy any competant terran player will quickly spot it with a patrolling marine and kill it before it can see anything of value. If it's not fine, why are there so many good zergs who perform well such as Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, etc? I doubt they win by accident. Zerg scouting is fine because of one thing: Terran and protoss don't take their natural early as a standard play. Just seeing their natural timing gives a lot of info. Yeah its tough against terran cause they kill ovies quickly and they can build the command center in their main, but its not terrible. We cant all have scans and floating buildings. 2 Port Banshee, BFH, BFH Drops, Doom Drops, Tank Timings, Stim Timings. All stuff you need to prepare for vs 1 base terran.
2 Port Banshee is all in, and its not that hard to stop if you make a third queen, spread ovies to see it coming, and make sure to build a spore crawler instead of skipping out on it against 1 base terran.
Hellions can be scouted.
Terran doom drops dont work
1 base tank timing doesnt work
1 base stimmed marines, just see terran move out and build spines and get banes.
Honestly terran 1 base against zerg is pretty trash.
|
On August 19 2011 03:26 ETisME wrote:
If anything, I feel that as a zerg, going against terran's siege tank+marine+medivac is a bit too map dependant. In some maps, it is a lot more difficult to break through and the 3rd is too hard to defend.
Maps favoring certain races is not a new thing. Especially ladder maps cause most of them are pretty shitty.
|
On August 19 2011 03:28 ShamTao wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 02:05 galivet wrote:
If I had to suggest balance changes, they would be these:
- No unit does bonus damage against shields. Meaning, marauders don't do bonus damage against stalkers until the stalker shields are fully depleted. This compensates for the shield mechanic's current uselessness (it's like zerg regen, except you can only regen half your HP and only when not in battle).
- Scan only detects burrowed units (including creep tumors) but does not detect cloaked units. Terran can use turrets, ravens, and EMP for decloaking and save scan for scouting.
- Decrease immortal build time by 30%.
- Decrease templar archives build time by 50%. Er, sorry to say but these are pretty abysmal suggestions. Your first point may hold *some* credibility, but it seems as though you only considered this one instance. There are a lot of other 'bonus versus X' unit attacks that may skew this idea. The scan not detecting cloaked units will make DT openings and Banshee openings absurdly strong, to the point where an unprepared player wouldn't just be at a disadvantage, they would auto-lose, because there is NO way to try to come back from that. I don't think you realize how much the 30% and 50% would actually amount to. That change would be DRASTIC. Immortals would become incredibly easy to mass, even as an expensive unit, and it would shut down Terran's containing ability ENTIRELY and make fast Roach tech switches or fast roach pushes miserably bad. Seriously, if you're even going to THINK about proposing a balance change, stop. Really think. People make terrible suggestions because they think "wow this race has something strong against this other race," provide something that will change it, but give NO consideration to any of the other matchups or uses of that unit. It's very narrow-minded thinking.
Well immortal build time actually used to be 40 instead of 55, which is almost exactly a 30% decrease. Not saying that I think it should definitely be reverted, but back then immortals were not ruining the game. I think the answer is to look at all the patches that have made balance changes and see what ended up really being necessary, and find out which nerfs/buffs could be reverted.
A big problem is that the game was patched a huge amount in its infant stages, when NO ONE knew how to play, and now entire strategies have been nerfed into oblivion or made superfluous. There are obviously still huge changes that need to be made to the game in HotS, as Blizzard has mentioned. But until then maybe the best thing is to see what changes can be reverted in order to make the game more tolerable for everyone NOW, until HotS comes out in 9 or so months.
|
On August 19 2011 03:40 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:28 ShamTao wrote:On August 17 2011 02:05 galivet wrote:
If I had to suggest balance changes, they would be these:
- No unit does bonus damage against shields. Meaning, marauders don't do bonus damage against stalkers until the stalker shields are fully depleted. This compensates for the shield mechanic's current uselessness (it's like zerg regen, except you can only regen half your HP and only when not in battle).
- Scan only detects burrowed units (including creep tumors) but does not detect cloaked units. Terran can use turrets, ravens, and EMP for decloaking and save scan for scouting.
- Decrease immortal build time by 30%.
- Decrease templar archives build time by 50%. Er, sorry to say but these are pretty abysmal suggestions. Your first point may hold *some* credibility, but it seems as though you only considered this one instance. There are a lot of other 'bonus versus X' unit attacks that may skew this idea. The scan not detecting cloaked units will make DT openings and Banshee openings absurdly strong, to the point where an unprepared player wouldn't just be at a disadvantage, they would auto-lose, because there is NO way to try to come back from that. I don't think you realize how much the 30% and 50% would actually amount to. That change would be DRASTIC. Immortals would become incredibly easy to mass, even as an expensive unit, and it would shut down Terran's containing ability ENTIRELY and make fast Roach tech switches or fast roach pushes miserably bad. Seriously, if you're even going to THINK about proposing a balance change, stop. Really think. People make terrible suggestions because they think "wow this race has something strong against this other race," provide something that will change it, but give NO consideration to any of the other matchups or uses of that unit. It's very narrow-minded thinking. Well immortal build time actually used to be 40 instead of 55, which is almost exactly a 30% decrease. Not saying that I think it should definitely be reverted, but back then immortals were not ruining the game. I think the answer is to look at all the patches that have made balance changes and see what ended up really being necessary, and find out which nerfs/buffs could be reverted. A big problem is that the game was patched a huge amount in its infant stages, when NO ONE knew how to play, and now entire strategies have been nerfed into oblivion or made superfluous. There are obviously still huge changes that need to be made to the game in HotS, as Blizzard has mentioned. But until then maybe the best thing is to see what changes can be reverted in order to make the game more tolerable for everyone NOW, until HotS comes out in 9 or so months.
That was back in the day when roaches, immortals, and marauders were known as the unholy three. Also, people only 1 based so immortals were great since they are crazy good in small engagements. 40 second immortals would be good now but then again, reaper speed without factory would be good too.
|
every race can win
all in's need to be toned down to the point where macro play is actually encouraged, though.
|
On August 19 2011 03:43 DragonDefonce wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:40 Fig wrote:On August 19 2011 03:28 ShamTao wrote:On August 17 2011 02:05 galivet wrote:
If I had to suggest balance changes, they would be these:
- No unit does bonus damage against shields. Meaning, marauders don't do bonus damage against stalkers until the stalker shields are fully depleted. This compensates for the shield mechanic's current uselessness (it's like zerg regen, except you can only regen half your HP and only when not in battle).
- Scan only detects burrowed units (including creep tumors) but does not detect cloaked units. Terran can use turrets, ravens, and EMP for decloaking and save scan for scouting.
- Decrease immortal build time by 30%.
- Decrease templar archives build time by 50%. Er, sorry to say but these are pretty abysmal suggestions. Your first point may hold *some* credibility, but it seems as though you only considered this one instance. There are a lot of other 'bonus versus X' unit attacks that may skew this idea. The scan not detecting cloaked units will make DT openings and Banshee openings absurdly strong, to the point where an unprepared player wouldn't just be at a disadvantage, they would auto-lose, because there is NO way to try to come back from that. I don't think you realize how much the 30% and 50% would actually amount to. That change would be DRASTIC. Immortals would become incredibly easy to mass, even as an expensive unit, and it would shut down Terran's containing ability ENTIRELY and make fast Roach tech switches or fast roach pushes miserably bad. Seriously, if you're even going to THINK about proposing a balance change, stop. Really think. People make terrible suggestions because they think "wow this race has something strong against this other race," provide something that will change it, but give NO consideration to any of the other matchups or uses of that unit. It's very narrow-minded thinking. Well immortal build time actually used to be 40 instead of 55, which is almost exactly a 30% decrease. Not saying that I think it should definitely be reverted, but back then immortals were not ruining the game. I think the answer is to look at all the patches that have made balance changes and see what ended up really being necessary, and find out which nerfs/buffs could be reverted. A big problem is that the game was patched a huge amount in its infant stages, when NO ONE knew how to play, and now entire strategies have been nerfed into oblivion or made superfluous. There are obviously still huge changes that need to be made to the game in HotS, as Blizzard has mentioned. But until then maybe the best thing is to see what changes can be reverted in order to make the game more tolerable for everyone NOW, until HotS comes out in 9 or so months. That was back in the day when roaches, immortals, and marauders were known as the unholy three. Also, people only 1 based so immortals were great since they are crazy good in small engagements. 40 second immortals would be good now but then again, reaper speed without factory would be good too.
It's not a question of what would be "good" now, it's a question of what would HELP now. As you said, immortals are crazy good in small engagements. What does protoss need now? Help in small engagements such as drops/army splitting. Now that I think about it, I can't see how this change WOULDN'T be perfect right now.
Also your trinity of units has one flaw, roaches and marauders are MUCH cheaper than immortals. They each cost less than half as much! Being able to make immortals a bit faster, which come out of a robotic facility (not a barracks with tech lab or a hatchery) Does not mean you can mass them like a roach/marauder army.
And the reaper speed comment has nothing to do with this.
|
On August 19 2011 03:51 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:43 DragonDefonce wrote:On August 19 2011 03:40 Fig wrote:On August 19 2011 03:28 ShamTao wrote:On August 17 2011 02:05 galivet wrote:
If I had to suggest balance changes, they would be these:
- No unit does bonus damage against shields. Meaning, marauders don't do bonus damage against stalkers until the stalker shields are fully depleted. This compensates for the shield mechanic's current uselessness (it's like zerg regen, except you can only regen half your HP and only when not in battle).
- Scan only detects burrowed units (including creep tumors) but does not detect cloaked units. Terran can use turrets, ravens, and EMP for decloaking and save scan for scouting.
- Decrease immortal build time by 30%.
- Decrease templar archives build time by 50%. Er, sorry to say but these are pretty abysmal suggestions. Your first point may hold *some* credibility, but it seems as though you only considered this one instance. There are a lot of other 'bonus versus X' unit attacks that may skew this idea. The scan not detecting cloaked units will make DT openings and Banshee openings absurdly strong, to the point where an unprepared player wouldn't just be at a disadvantage, they would auto-lose, because there is NO way to try to come back from that. I don't think you realize how much the 30% and 50% would actually amount to. That change would be DRASTIC. Immortals would become incredibly easy to mass, even as an expensive unit, and it would shut down Terran's containing ability ENTIRELY and make fast Roach tech switches or fast roach pushes miserably bad. Seriously, if you're even going to THINK about proposing a balance change, stop. Really think. People make terrible suggestions because they think "wow this race has something strong against this other race," provide something that will change it, but give NO consideration to any of the other matchups or uses of that unit. It's very narrow-minded thinking. Well immortal build time actually used to be 40 instead of 55, which is almost exactly a 30% decrease. Not saying that I think it should definitely be reverted, but back then immortals were not ruining the game. I think the answer is to look at all the patches that have made balance changes and see what ended up really being necessary, and find out which nerfs/buffs could be reverted. A big problem is that the game was patched a huge amount in its infant stages, when NO ONE knew how to play, and now entire strategies have been nerfed into oblivion or made superfluous. There are obviously still huge changes that need to be made to the game in HotS, as Blizzard has mentioned. But until then maybe the best thing is to see what changes can be reverted in order to make the game more tolerable for everyone NOW, until HotS comes out in 9 or so months. That was back in the day when roaches, immortals, and marauders were known as the unholy three. Also, people only 1 based so immortals were great since they are crazy good in small engagements. 40 second immortals would be good now but then again, reaper speed without factory would be good too. It's not a question of what would be "good" now, it's a question of what would HELP now. As you said, immortals are crazy good in small engagements. What does protoss need now? Help in small engagements such as drops/army splitting. Now that I think about it, I can't see how this change WOULDN'T be perfect right now. Also your trinity of units has one flaw, roaches and marauders are MUCH cheaper than immortals. They each cost less than half as much! Being able to make immortals a bit faster, which come out of a robotic facility (not a barracks with tech lab or a hatchery) Does not mean you can mass them like a roach/marauder army. And the reaper speed comment has nothing to do with this.
Lol dude I'm agreeing with you that it would be good to reduce immortal build time. And I mention reapers to say that reaper speed at factory is ridiculous but if blizz is willing to do that I doubt they will roll back immortals as immortal build time will have more effect than reaper speed.
With regards to the unholy three, that's just what people just called those three units back then. Not comparing them, just saying they were called that because they were ridiculously good, which is why blizzard significantly nerfed immortals, significantly nerfed roaches then buffed them by a large margin, and poked marauders a bit and said "meh"
|
On August 19 2011 03:57 DragonDefonce wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 03:51 Fig wrote:On August 19 2011 03:43 DragonDefonce wrote:On August 19 2011 03:40 Fig wrote:On August 19 2011 03:28 ShamTao wrote:On August 17 2011 02:05 galivet wrote:
If I had to suggest balance changes, they would be these:
- No unit does bonus damage against shields. Meaning, marauders don't do bonus damage against stalkers until the stalker shields are fully depleted. This compensates for the shield mechanic's current uselessness (it's like zerg regen, except you can only regen half your HP and only when not in battle).
- Scan only detects burrowed units (including creep tumors) but does not detect cloaked units. Terran can use turrets, ravens, and EMP for decloaking and save scan for scouting.
- Decrease immortal build time by 30%.
- Decrease templar archives build time by 50%. Er, sorry to say but these are pretty abysmal suggestions. Your first point may hold *some* credibility, but it seems as though you only considered this one instance. There are a lot of other 'bonus versus X' unit attacks that may skew this idea. The scan not detecting cloaked units will make DT openings and Banshee openings absurdly strong, to the point where an unprepared player wouldn't just be at a disadvantage, they would auto-lose, because there is NO way to try to come back from that. I don't think you realize how much the 30% and 50% would actually amount to. That change would be DRASTIC. Immortals would become incredibly easy to mass, even as an expensive unit, and it would shut down Terran's containing ability ENTIRELY and make fast Roach tech switches or fast roach pushes miserably bad. Seriously, if you're even going to THINK about proposing a balance change, stop. Really think. People make terrible suggestions because they think "wow this race has something strong against this other race," provide something that will change it, but give NO consideration to any of the other matchups or uses of that unit. It's very narrow-minded thinking. Well immortal build time actually used to be 40 instead of 55, which is almost exactly a 30% decrease. Not saying that I think it should definitely be reverted, but back then immortals were not ruining the game. I think the answer is to look at all the patches that have made balance changes and see what ended up really being necessary, and find out which nerfs/buffs could be reverted. A big problem is that the game was patched a huge amount in its infant stages, when NO ONE knew how to play, and now entire strategies have been nerfed into oblivion or made superfluous. There are obviously still huge changes that need to be made to the game in HotS, as Blizzard has mentioned. But until then maybe the best thing is to see what changes can be reverted in order to make the game more tolerable for everyone NOW, until HotS comes out in 9 or so months. That was back in the day when roaches, immortals, and marauders were known as the unholy three. Also, people only 1 based so immortals were great since they are crazy good in small engagements. 40 second immortals would be good now but then again, reaper speed without factory would be good too. It's not a question of what would be "good" now, it's a question of what would HELP now. As you said, immortals are crazy good in small engagements. What does protoss need now? Help in small engagements such as drops/army splitting. Now that I think about it, I can't see how this change WOULDN'T be perfect right now. Also your trinity of units has one flaw, roaches and marauders are MUCH cheaper than immortals. They each cost less than half as much! Being able to make immortals a bit faster, which come out of a robotic facility (not a barracks with tech lab or a hatchery) Does not mean you can mass them like a roach/marauder army. And the reaper speed comment has nothing to do with this. Lol dude I'm agreeing with you that it would be good to reduce immortal build time. And I mention reapers to say that reaper speed at factory is ridiculous but if blizz is willing to do that I doubt they will roll back immortals as immortal build time will have more effect than reaper speed. With regards to the unholy three, that's just what people just called those three units back then. Not comparing them, just saying they were called that because they were ridiculously good, which is why blizzard significantly nerfed immortals, significantly nerfed roaches then buffed them by a large margin, and poked marauders a bit and said "meh"
I see! Agree Agree Agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
