|
4713 Posts
On November 05 2012 20:14 bokeevboke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 19:15 Destructicon wrote:
First, I'm attacking his idea, not him, if I find his idea stupid there is no need to sugar coat it, me and many others have pointed out why it was not well thought out.
You're making an assumption based on the current unit stats, if Colossus and Infestor where removed, so many more other things would need to be re-worked that it makes it impossible to predict how the MUs would look. No one in his right mind would just remove Colossus and Infestors without buffing and compensating the races in some other ways.
I agree that the MUs would look a lot like bio-medivac vs toss (no vikings required any more), and marine-tank medivac vs ling, bling muta (the old go to composition), but again this is assuming the only changes done are Colossus and Infestor being removed.
I won't bother going into the hundreds of potential changes needed to re-work toss and zerg if both those units are removed, or the wide implications on gameplay that will have, that is a topic of its own. To sum up, you're against drastic changes. We don't know whats gonna happen if we remove a unit or two, even if we do the most sophisticate analyze. I understand it. Thats why I said hypothetical, to make my example more clear. I don't necessarily suggest it, and my suggestions might be all bullshit. But again, I was just pointing that marines cause some balance issues in TvZ and TvP. As follows: Terrans have marines, P and Z can't beat them with regular units, lets give them some aoe units, ok, now give terran units that counter that aoe units and so on. And every game boils down to same compositions. Which I think is kinda a problem. In what way we should change them is another story, which can't be decided by me or anyone in under 10 min thinking.
Don't make assumptions about what I do or do not think. I actually am all for drastic changes in SC2, because I hate both how Zerg and Protoss are designed, I hate how they are both super passive at certain times in the game, I hate how they have to rely on gimmiks to win and I hate in general how games with those two races turn out.
Apart from TvP, I like how the compositions in SC2 turn out like.
TvT, is crazy and dynamic with the number of openers it has, the number of follow ups and the multitude of styles possible to play, pure bio, pure mech, bio-mech with transition into sky terran.
TvZ doesn't have as many viable openers and mid games as TvT but it is fantastic because ling, bling, muta or infestor oriented styles are both viable as well as marine tank, pure mech and later sky terran with both ultra, ling, infestor and BL, infestor, corrupter being viable.
ZvZ is kind of fun because of how fast paced it is, having a moderately large number of openers, follow ups and viable compositions.
TvP, is too predictable at times. There are quite of openers, builds and all-ins viable for both sides, but when it goes to macro games, its very predictable because both sides will gravitate towards the same composition and late game 90% of the time, with just very small deviations. So far the MU with only one viable composition from both sides.
ZvP is straight up boring, there are only two viable openers from Toss and one of the is extremely passive, same thing for zerg, the mid game is dull because it usually boils down to the toss trying to hit a timing at some point to kill or cripple the zerg, with the zerg trying to survive it. And late game is super passive with both sides afraid to engage because one wrong move and either side loses. Composition wise they go for basically the same thing in the early to mid game and late game its 90% only one composition.
Only breath of fresh air is warp prism harass style, which is incredibly difficult to pull off now a days with more zergs figuring it out, and muta styles because it makes games much, much more dynamic and involving from both sides.
PvP is even more dull and boring, there are quite some builds but they counter each other in a weird sort of pyramid or circle and if neither side can kill each other with an all-in, pressure or attack they get into a no attack for 10-15 mins macro with a big 200/200 engagement deciding it all. Late game only one composition works well.
I don't want all compositions or weird stuff to be viable, the game just becomes too random then and less emphasis is placed on the skill of scouting, choosing the correct build and composition to counter the enemy. I am happy in general with T and Z related MUs. But P related MUs need a drastic looking over.
And again its not marines that are the problem or terrans in general, its the design of the other two races.
Terrans are the most straight forward, their units are the most generic, they just do the thing they are supposed to do and do it well, they don't rely on gimmiks like FFs of Fungal to be viable, their basic army is actually strong till the late game, and the supporting units like Medivacs, Ravens and Ghosts just enhance the strength of their army.
Protoss and Zergs are the most problematic, their armies are extremely weak without their support units, and basically it feels like their support units make or break them and the rest of the armies are there to support their casters/special units.
Their units don't do shit because they aren't meant to do anything on their own.
I'd be willing to see huge sweeping changes like redesign of WG mechanic, removal of FF, redesign of FG, shuffling units around in the tech tree, redesigning units to be more skill based and micro intensive, etc if I know the bottom line is a better game. A game where Protoss don't need to be passive outside timings, a game where map control is constantly being contested by army movements, small skirmishes and micro, a game where both races can be aggressive or defensive in all times of the game (depending on build), and not have the emphasis placed on one race to defend in a certain time period just by design.
|
On November 05 2012 19:06 BurningRanger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 18:08 HuTSC2 wrote:On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors. The fact that people still believe the Marine needs to be nerfed astonishes me. How can Terran survive any early cheese esp vs Protoss with any of those changes? Change Reapers: - remove cliff jumping, but integrate it into the Nitro Pack upgrade - reduce Reaper build time or make it Reactor producable - reduce Reaper gas cost maybe (in exchange for mineral cost? e.g. 75/25? needs testing) -> nerf Marines The only problem with Reapers and why they have been nerfed into uselessness is the early cliff jump ability. Take it away from them, but include it into the Nitro Pack Upgrade. Then buff Reapers again, especially the build time. Voila, Marines are not needed that badly anymore. Terran can choose to go with a Reaper/Marauder mix or Marines only. Each option has it's vulnerabilites though (no anti-air with R/M, squishy and not that good overall anymore with nerfed Marines only). You can still use Reapers for harass, when you get the Upgrade.
Honestly, this doesn't even really matter that much anymore. How many maps actually have cliffs that can be used? Besides Antigua and Shakuras all maps have reaper usable cliffs right beside the ramps anyway.
|
Infested Terrans still seem like the biggest issue to me. Fungal is obviously an incredibly potent spell, but the Infested Terrans for how cheap they are energy-wise and how well they scale with upgrades seems like the biggest culprit when it comes to how massable Infestors are.
I'd really like to see how things would change if Infested Terrans didn't benefit from upgrades.
|
On November 05 2012 19:12 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 17:32 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 10:50 TimENT wrote:
37 infestors in one game ----> is that okay blizzard?
Taeja struggles SOOOOO hard to barely win an engagement lategame v Rain, both floating 2500 min 1000 gas, rain warps in 48 supply worth of zealots in 1 second ----> is that okay blizzard?
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates. To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Oh, I thought you actually had evidence. Last month's TvZ win rate in Korea was 36% for Terran as posted earlier in this thread. I really don't see how the win rates are stable in that respect, that's why I asked you for evidence. I don't like it when people make up their own facts.
Congratulations, you just used winrates for TvZ to attempt to argue about TvP. Are you serious? Terran had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in August(which is the last available winrate chart) Terrans had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in all of the WCS continental finals tournaments compiled together. At MLG, Terran went 26-20 against Protoss. Oh and btw, there were 0 Protoss in top 4.
|
On November 06 2012 00:41 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 19:12 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 17:32 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 10:50 TimENT wrote:
37 infestors in one game ----> is that okay blizzard?
Taeja struggles SOOOOO hard to barely win an engagement lategame v Rain, both floating 2500 min 1000 gas, rain warps in 48 supply worth of zealots in 1 second ----> is that okay blizzard?
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates. To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Oh, I thought you actually had evidence. Last month's TvZ win rate in Korea was 36% for Terran as posted earlier in this thread. I really don't see how the win rates are stable in that respect, that's why I asked you for evidence. I don't like it when people make up their own facts. Congratulations, you just used winrates for TvZ to attempt to argue about TvP. Are you serious? Terran had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in August(which is the last available winrate chart) Terrans had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in all of the WCS continental finals tournaments compiled together. At MLG, Terran went 26-20 against Protoss. Oh and btw, there were 0 Protoss in top 4.
yeah and those so called "Korean winrates" on the battle.net forums were so few games, that if some players were cut, it would completle screw the "stats". (like if you cut Life's GSL games, TvZ is 47:53, stuff like that).
But if someone actually has meaningful winrates for the last months, I'd love to see them 
|
an idea to fix the warpgate issue:
a cost for EACH gateway you upgrade to a warpgate; cost would be somewhere between 50/25 and 100/100.
The idea would be you can still have the ability to warp in reinforcements anywhere, but you need to decide how many you want to be able to summon anywhere.
Given the value of an army in a group; even with a high price to convert to warpgate; it would be worth it to convert some if it means an attack force is bigger and will thus do better in trying to take down a base/whatever you're doing with an attack.
This is a means to make warpgate into a choice: do you want warpgates (and how many) or not.
There would have to be a few tweaks to other things to balance of course; as this would weaken all aggressive protoss builds, but that would allow the gateway units to be a bit stronger and less dependent on forcefields.
|
On November 06 2012 01:34 zlefin wrote:
an idea to fix the warpgate issue:
a cost for EACH gateway you upgrade to a warpgate; cost would be somewhere between 50/25 and 100/100.
The idea would be you can still have the ability to warp in reinforcements anywhere, but you need to decide how many you want to be able to summon anywhere.
Given the value of an army in a group; even with a high price to convert to warpgate; it would be worth it to convert some if it means an attack force is bigger and will thus do better in trying to take down a base/whatever you're doing with an attack.
This is a means to make warpgate into a choice: do you want warpgates (and how many) or not.
There would have to be a few tweaks to other things to balance of course; as this would weaken all aggressive protoss builds, but that would allow the gateway units to be a bit stronger and less dependent on forcefields.
wohoo, buff Gateway units, so that proxy 2gate or 3Stalker rush or whatever pre 5min pressure/attack you favor finally wins everygame. And if the opponent somehow survives (probably supercrippled), at least you don't need to transition into anything and you can just add more gateways... (yeah, probably an obs at some point)
|
please stick to intelligent comments, troll idiot comments like that do not help big j; i presented a valid solution to a known issue; andi never said the buff would be large, it would be quite minor most likely. and fixing the issues of defensability is quite easy as well.
we all know warpgates need a fix, so try coming up with a solution instead of blathering pointless hate.
|
On November 06 2012 00:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:41 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 19:12 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 17:32 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:
[quote]
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates. To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Oh, I thought you actually had evidence. Last month's TvZ win rate in Korea was 36% for Terran as posted earlier in this thread. I really don't see how the win rates are stable in that respect, that's why I asked you for evidence. I don't like it when people make up their own facts. Congratulations, you just used winrates for TvZ to attempt to argue about TvP. Are you serious? Terran had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in August(which is the last available winrate chart) Terrans had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in all of the WCS continental finals tournaments compiled together. At MLG, Terran went 26-20 against Protoss. Oh and btw, there were 0 Protoss in top 4. yeah and those so called "Korean winrates" on the battle.net forums were so few games, that if some players were cut, it would completle screw the "stats". (like if you cut Life's GSL games, TvZ is 47:53, stuff like that). But if someone actually has meaningful winrates for the last months, I'd love to see them
There can never be meaningful winrates unless we get the top Koreans to play a lot more games against each other (like Bo11 for each GSL series). If we just count Korean offline events, there just aren't enough games to make it statistically meaningful. But it is a catch 20:20. If we start counting international winrates with 'lesser events', people will say balance should only be for the tip top level.
And if you take data over a long time span, you get things like map changes and meta game shifts.
|
Northern Ireland25050 Posts
On November 06 2012 01:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:34 zlefin wrote:
an idea to fix the warpgate issue:
a cost for EACH gateway you upgrade to a warpgate; cost would be somewhere between 50/25 and 100/100.
The idea would be you can still have the ability to warp in reinforcements anywhere, but you need to decide how many you want to be able to summon anywhere.
Given the value of an army in a group; even with a high price to convert to warpgate; it would be worth it to convert some if it means an attack force is bigger and will thus do better in trying to take down a base/whatever you're doing with an attack.
This is a means to make warpgate into a choice: do you want warpgates (and how many) or not.
There would have to be a few tweaks to other things to balance of course; as this would weaken all aggressive protoss builds, but that would allow the gateway units to be a bit stronger and less dependent on forcefields. wohoo, buff Gateway units, so that proxy 2gate or 3Stalker rush or whatever pre 5min pressure/attack you favor finally wins everygame. And if the opponent somehow survives (probably supercrippled), at least you don't need to transition into anything and you can just add more gateways... (yeah, probably an obs at some point)
You know it would be nice if we could actually pressure in the first 5 minutes in PvZ, would make the dynamic of the early game more interesting
|
I was thinking last few days about the Infestor and the FG spell. Basically it is a "needed" atm for the Zerg. However what do you guys think about the following:
The FG remains with the same range,dmg,seconds but the root mechanic will affect only light or biological units. Basically the ZvZ will remain the same status, Infestors are main unit there and FG is also needed spell. ZvT - same mechanics against bio and Hellion(light unit) but cannot root Vikings and Tanks, Thors,Ravens etc. It still will do its damage, therefore the Terran player will need to spread his Vikings since few fungals will kill them. The Vikings still can kite and shoot. In ZvP you can root the zealots now. Stalkers can blink( this is basically the major change in ZvP). All other units will recieve the damage but wont be rooted.
Sadly I cannot test it and I am not sure how it will affect ZvP balance when you cannot root Stalkers/Immortals/Collosus. I prefer test not words but what are your thoughts on this?
|
On November 06 2012 02:08 zlefin wrote:
please stick to intelligent comments, troll idiot comments like that do not help big j; i presented a valid solution to a known issue; andi never said the buff would be large, it would be quite minor most likely. and fixing the issues of defensability is quite easy as well.
we all know warpgates need a fix, so try coming up with a solution instead of blathering pointless hate.
Except that isn't valid. You fail to take into account early pressure in PvP, and how do I warp in sentries to stop a 4gate if I have to burn all my gas on making a warpgate. Your plan also accomplishes nothing in late game, the cost is only short term. Warping in 25 zealots after an engagement to instantly reinforce. But now my midgame is even weaker because I have to spend a bunch of money to make warpgates or accept that my units will come out slower. Your suggestion is actually one of the worst warpgate fix ideas I've ever read. You pointed one finger at the dude presenting a legit concern, but your awful idea points your other four fingers back at you.
|
Northern Ireland25050 Posts
On November 06 2012 02:33 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 02:08 zlefin wrote:
please stick to intelligent comments, troll idiot comments like that do not help big j; i presented a valid solution to a known issue; andi never said the buff would be large, it would be quite minor most likely. and fixing the issues of defensability is quite easy as well.
we all know warpgates need a fix, so try coming up with a solution instead of blathering pointless hate. Except that isn't valid. You fail to take into account early pressure in PvP, and how do I warp in sentries to stop a 4gate if I have to burn all my gas on making a warpgate. Your plan also accomplishes nothing in late game, the cost is only short term. Warping in 25 zealots after an engagement to instantly reinforce. But now my midgame is even weaker because I have to spend a bunch of money to make warpgates or accept that my units will come out slower. Your suggestion is actually one of the worst warpgate fix ideas I've ever read. You pointed one finger at the dude presenting a legit concern, but your awful idea points your other four fingers back at you.
Or, gateway units get stronger to compensate.
It was an interesting idea, many have been proposed on warpgate, almost all of them if the numbers were right would be better than the status quo
|
aye, wingblade, and don't defend the other guy for being uncivil; he wasn't pointing out legitimate concerns, he was hating; learn the difference.
Also, the game should be and should have bheen balanced around something other than forcefield.
Keep in mind 4 gate pressure will pressure you LESS if warpgates are more of aninvestment, because then they can't pressure you at your base quite as well. You use the resources they spent on warpgates on units/a cannon or two to hold their aggression.
And it does accomplsih something late game, albeit not as much; it still means the more warp gates you want to instantly reinforce the more it costs. putting up 25 warpgates would be a lot more expensive than the 3750/0 it costs now under my proposal; it would cost GAS, and some more minerals.
maybe it's a good idea, maybe it isn't, but i don't think you've thought through yoru counterpoints very thoroughly.
If warpgates are expensive enough that getting one doesn't increase the amount of units you have defending your base (due to the frontloading of the production cycle being countered by the cost limiting how much of it you can do) then this would allow the restoration of defender's advantage, something that's often pointed to.
Now that I think of it, also increasing the warpgate conversion time to 30 seconds from 10 seconds would help with the frontloading production issue; it'd keep warpgates from being a production boost when you convert them; instead they're a powerful utility effect with a real cost attached.
|
Terrans, they need to buff the speed of the Banshee. Why is a flying unit slower than a ground unit like the hellion?
Reapers if they cost 50 gas and you need a tech lab or reactor... then why is their speed not that good? and why is their
attack points so low? they need to buff the reapers.. And Blizzard doesn't need to buff the reapers to like 10 AP or to like 6 Speed.
that is ridiculous. slight buffs will make a BIG difference in game balance and entertainment.
|
Does anybody else think that speedlings are too fast?
The game becomes a turtle fest (turtle turtle turtle turtle OKAY NOW FIGHT!) and it's over in 2 seconds in part because of this.
Here's my reasoning: moving out on to the map is extremely risky with things like gateway units and barracks units vs zerg. If at any point in time the zerg player has a bigger army than you, your units can't escape, they can't run home. They all die. This only increases the turtling in sc2.
If speedlings are nerfed in speed, then of course hellions would have to be nerfed in speed as well.
|
For the Thor.. fort that much investment to field a Thor you get..
-Little mobility
-only 400 HP
- ground unit AP is wonderful, but their is little to no semi automatic turret action that can be equiped on Thors. only attacks two units at a time?
-. Air AP is to little. It needs to be buffed.
-.the 250mm Canon should be able to have an area of effect or splash damage.. kind of like the dark templar in Protoss or the
infestor in Zerg.
|
On November 06 2012 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:41 Big J wrote:On November 06 2012 01:34 zlefin wrote:
an idea to fix the warpgate issue:
a cost for EACH gateway you upgrade to a warpgate; cost would be somewhere between 50/25 and 100/100.
The idea would be you can still have the ability to warp in reinforcements anywhere, but you need to decide how many you want to be able to summon anywhere.
Given the value of an army in a group; even with a high price to convert to warpgate; it would be worth it to convert some if it means an attack force is bigger and will thus do better in trying to take down a base/whatever you're doing with an attack.
This is a means to make warpgate into a choice: do you want warpgates (and how many) or not.
There would have to be a few tweaks to other things to balance of course; as this would weaken all aggressive protoss builds, but that would allow the gateway units to be a bit stronger and less dependent on forcefields. wohoo, buff Gateway units, so that proxy 2gate or 3Stalker rush or whatever pre 5min pressure/attack you favor finally wins everygame. And if the opponent somehow survives (probably supercrippled), at least you don't need to transition into anything and you can just add more gateways... (yeah, probably an obs at some point) You know it would be nice if we could actually pressure in the first 5 minutes in PvZ, would make the dynamic of the early game more interesting
Hell I would settle for stargate openings being decently effective again and actually killing something.
|
On November 06 2012 03:33 ButtCraft wrote:
Does anybody else think that speedlings are too fast?
The game becomes a turtle fest (turtle turtle turtle turtle OKAY NOW FIGHT!) and it's over in 2 seconds in part because of this.
Here's my reasoning: moving out on to the map is extremely risky with things like gateway units and barracks units vs zerg. If at any point in time the zerg player has a bigger army than you, your units can't escape, they can't run home. They all die. This only increases the turtling in sc2.
If speedlings are nerfed in speed, then of course hellions would have to be nerfed in speed as well.
THe banshee is too slow, the hellions don't have enough armor to counter the speedlings if surrounded.
I don't know much about protoss though. I think they need better canons, and generally more defensive units.
I kind of like the idea of super fast zerglings. terrans can counter it with the right buffs. I don't know too much about protoss though.
maybe forcefieds? maybe stasis?
i'm still trying to figure out how a speedling and a hellion is faster than vikings and banshees.
for Protoss, they need to re-introduce the Pheonix, void ray, and photon cannons.
|
Screw nerfing it. Just remove the stupid unit. Infestor is not only OP but makes zerg gameplay hella boring (and all the cons already mentioned, like removing micro). Muta/ling/bane is so much better.
They could argue it evolved and got wings in HotS. When a unit is so terribad it should get the Warhound treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
