|
vileHawk here, these are my thoughts on game balance
Balance is intended to mean that any given matchup results in an even 50% winrate. There are two ways to achieve the desired 50% winrate result one good one bad. One way, the way I feel this game is right now is to make the game very luck-oriented and to make cheese IE rush builds very strong.
Why does strong cheese contribute to a balanced winrate? Well let's say there was a fundamental issue with a matchup, let's take a random example, let's say that in ZvT the Zerg player was able to win every single game after they got their mutalisks out. Well in that case, the top Terran players will start to only use cheese strategies to try and end the game before the Zerg player can get out their mutalisks. So, while the gameplay may not be balanced, because cheese is so strong and can almost guarantee a near 50% winrate, it can skew the statistics of the matchup closer to balanced.
Now then what's the other option we can have to make this game balanced? Well, it may not be an exciting prospect, but frankly the only other option is to make Starcraft 2 much, much harder to play than it already is. The question that should be raised is, "How does the difficulty of a game contribute to its balance?"
A balanced game should never be able to be played perfectly, because it's not possible to balance 3 distinct races when each player plays perfectly. That being said, Starcraft 2 in it's current state is being played at the pro level with very very very few mistakes, thus making it very difficult to balance. Making Starcraft 2 more mechanically intensive would help with balance, because then it would be more about the skill & practice of the PLAYERS rather than the races.
Another important issue that is usually left out of game balance, is the game design. Starcraft 2, in it's current state has big game design issues. every matchup, tvz, pvz, tvp all have one thing in common. In the beginning of the game one race is alot stronger than the other, but in the late game the race weaker in the beginning becomes stronger.
TvP? this is the most obvious Terran is stronger early game, Protoss is stronger late game
ZvT? Terran is stronger early game, Zerg is stronger late game
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
Ideally though if the game were balanced, each race should be able to fight on an equal footing with one another despite at what time in the game. These are just game design issues that should be fixed, but foremost the game should be made more difficult.
On one last note with game design I have a big problem with 3 spells in Starcraft 2, one for each race.
1) Fungal
2) Force Field
3) Concussive Shells
Why these spells? They all have one thing in common, there is nothing your opponent can do to prevent them. This game should be about micro, it shouldn't be about, "oh, i got fungalled guess I lose 30 marines". "oh my stalker got hit with a concussive now i die" "oh he had good FF's gg". These are all ridiculous spells that the player on the opposing side of can't do anything about
Reasonable solutions for GAME DESIGN on these spells are as follows (note these aren't meant for balance just for game design)
1) Fungal should slow units, not stop them (should still prevent blink)
2) Force Fields should have a healthbar, somewhere around 200/200 sounds about right.
3) Concussive Shells should be a cooldown spell.
Anyway, that's what I think about this games current balance. <3
|
On August 16 2011 08:29 Bobgrimly wrote:
Switch hydra/roach in tech tree... bring back lurker in t2. Why? Simple. Stops early game air harrass being so effective at containing or destroying zerg. Protoss and terrans would have to come up with something other than lol one banshee/viking/voidray/phoenix for map control. Zerg can't dominate a map with one mutalisk. Of course costs/damage would be altered. But the point is it would work and change up the dynamic of zerg.
Roach and lurker in t2 works. Why? Maruader/tank works. Lurker is static splash damage for holding position. Roach is armoured offensive unit for pushing into areas. Point of a lurker also forces a terran to crawl rather than march towards a zerg without consequences. Forces a protoss to do more than just deathball and win. I would love to see a ZVP where the z had splash damage other than banelings. Splash damage that outranged everything bar maybe the colosus. Again giving zerg an ability to hold ground and force a lot more thought than "run in and win with my big ball" from protoss.
Not to mention the harrass options of lurkers.
Infestors should be altered. Maybe reworked so they aren't a straight damage machine. It would be better if they had synergy with more than a baneling/zergling. Buff surrounding units or slowing/weakening others. Something other than its current incarnation.
Sure, but you switch the Roach and Hydra in the Tech Tree and ZvZ is destroyed completely.
Edit: Maurader and Roach are currently in the same place in the Tech tree. Actually Maurader is available FASTER than the Roach. Let alone the the Hydra. Hydra is more like the Siege tank and would be Lurker more like the Viking.
|
On August 16 2011 08:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 07:54 tuho12345 wrote:
Beside 1/1/1 build and a new unit or skill for protoss to harass effectively like Terran or Zerg. I just want to add a few more health to the carrier. Health to the carriers or else health to interceptors. For whatever reason, it seems that SC2 wind up with naked Carriers much faster than in BW. The other reason I don't think carriers work as well is Vikings. BW you could abuse cliffs to avoid goliaths and hopefully eventually storm the goliaths. Vikings with their range can snipe Carriers much more easily. I wouldn't call imba on Vikings, but I do think the range is part of the interplay that makes Carriers less effective. (Theoretically +3 cloaked wraiths could snipe carriers, but they were such paper airplanes, plus their range was negligible.)
I think carriers don't repair their interceptors anymore like they did in BW (or if they do, it takes some time) - this, in conjunction with higher DPS per area in ground-to-air attacks (marines are tighter packed than in BW, hydralisks do way more damage, all static defenses do more damage to ceptors) mean that interceptors melt super fast in SC2 (though they do admittedly do more damage).
I'd like to see the carrier assume some of the BW characteristics, namely interceptor repair and the ability for interceptors to switch targets within the "extended range" of a carrier (which I think is somewhere between 12-14). This is the range where interceptors will continue to attack a target if the interceptors are already attacking it and the carrier moves outside it's launch range (8). I believe in BW interceptors would switch to another target within the extended range, but in SC2 interceptors only will reattack units in the launch range of 8. This might make smaller numbers of carriers more viable, because as it is they are pretty crappy in small numbers.
|
Yeah I mean it's pretty obvious that ghost counter the entire array of gateway units, which leaves colossus which are not really that useful aside from a surprise tech switch. They need to do something to rebalance the relative strengths of casters. HTs need a speed buff as well.
|
On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
I would love to hear how Zerg is stronger in the late game when the Protoss actually knows how to micro and kills your Infestors.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 16 2011 08:40 Joey Wheeler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
I would love to hear how Zerg is stronger in the late game when the Protoss actually knows how to micro and kills your Infestors.
Watch Destiny play.
|
On August 16 2011 08:33 Kajarn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:28 AttackFromMars wrote:
While I do think the game is balanced in the terms of all races having equal chance to win, I do think the diffrent matchups has a few problems that could be addressed to make the game alot more fun, both to play and to view.
In ZvT, the best matchup in my eyes, the nummber of viable strategies is quite large for both sides, not just in the opening but in the entire game. Terran can go bio, mech, bio+mech, Air (to a certain degre) gosth+ mech, hellion+bio etc. The zerg dont have quite as many options but still quite alot. Lings, blings, mutas, blordls, ultras infestors, they all have their place truoghout the entire game.
I think this is probably why this is the best matchup in terms of winrate. With so many viable strats, there is such an plethora of ways to play the mu that the shifts in the metagame can always be paryed by the opponents. The only thing that could (and did go wrong) is if some kind of early pressure is to strong.
I think the problem with TvP is that there is not many viable ways to play the mu after a certain time in the game. In the early game both sides have some viable openings and some strong allins (and some very strong allins 1-1-1 =). After the 12-15 minute mark however, there is only one viable army composition for terran MMM+G. Likewise protoss HAS to go HT, Collo or HT+Collo. This makes the matchup rigid and boring and also makes the balance disscusion be about templar range vs gohst range. I Feel like if there was as many options as in ZvT in the matchup the debate about such details would be menigless as the games would have another level of strategic depth. Why is it like this? Well feedback kills thors and BCs so two of Terrans lategame units a renderd useless just like that. Sige tanks just dosent touch the toss army in the lategame. For toss I think the problem is the maruder wich hardcounters every unit exept Collosus + HT.
TL;DR
I think that many viable strategy options makes the game balance itself. I also think that this is the correct way to go about balancing if you want the game to be fun both for spectators and players.
I feel you have these rules planted in your head that don't allow for any creativity in regards to T and P. While Zerg mentality of constantly trying something new has you to believe they can be more creative. Maurader OP? Well Mauraders can't shoot up. Maybe try HT/Carrier and Ignore Colossus to not give the Terran incentive to make Vikings. Terran has to go MMM+G? Regardless, Terran will probably go Ghost vs Protoss because every Protoss unit has shields. Maybe you can figure out a way to play with Seige Tanks and Marines, influence from the 1-1-1 just macro oriented instead of all in oriented. Think outside the box and look at units, ask why they aren't being used. Try coming up with a solution for the apparently obvious problem.
Well I play T and TvP is my best MU since I do the 1-1-1 allin and the fact that everything is viable at my Plat level. I do however watch alot of streams and was basing my reasoning on the games you see in the GSL and other pro games.
|
On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
Now then what's the other option we can have to make this game balanced? Well, it may not be an exciting prospect, but frankly the only other option is to make Starcraft 2 much, much harder to play than it already is. The question that should be raised is, "How does the difficulty of a game contribute to its balance?"
What do you want to make difficult?
Reduce Automining, MBS, Unit Selection, Smart Casting?
|
On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
vileHawk here, these are my thoughts on game balance
Balance is intended to mean that any given matchup results in an even 50% winrate. There are two ways to achieve the desired 50% winrate result one good one bad. One way, the way I feel this game is right now is to make the game very luck-oriented and to make cheese IE rush builds very strong.
Why does strong cheese contribute to a balanced winrate? Well let's say there was a fundamental issue with a matchup, let's take a random example, let's say that in ZvT the Zerg player was able to win every single game after they got their mutalisks out. Well in that case, the top Terran players will start to only use cheese strategies to try and end the game before the Zerg player can get out their mutalisks. So, while the gameplay may not be balanced, because cheese is so strong and can almost guarantee a near 50% winrate, it can skew the statistics of the matchup closer to balanced.
Now then what's the other option we can have to make this game balanced? Well, it may not be an exciting prospect, but frankly the only other option is to make Starcraft 2 much, much harder to play than it already is. The question that should be raised is, "How does the difficulty of a game contribute to its balance?"
A balanced game should never be able to be played perfectly, because it's not possible to balance 3 distinct races when each player plays perfectly. That being said, Starcraft 2 in it's current state is being played at the pro level with very very very few mistakes, thus making it very difficult to balance. Making Starcraft 2 more mechanically intensive would help with balance, because then it would be more about the skill & practice of the PLAYERS rather than the races.
Another important issue that is usually left out of game balance, is the game design. Starcraft 2, in it's current state has big game design issues. every matchup, tvz, pvz, tvp all have one thing in common. In the beginning of the game one race is alot stronger than the other, but in the late game the race weaker in the beginning becomes stronger.
TvP? this is the most obvious Terran is stronger early game, Protoss is stronger late game
ZvT? Terran is stronger early game, Zerg is stronger late game
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
Ideally though if the game were balanced, each race should be able to fight on an equal footing with one another despite at what time in the game. These are just game design issues that should be fixed, but foremost the game should be made more difficult.
On one last note with game design I have a big problem with 3 spells in Starcraft 2, one for each race.
1) Fungal
2) Force Field
3) Concussive Shells
Why these spells? They all have one thing in common, there is nothing your opponent can do to prevent them. This game should be about micro, it shouldn't be about, "oh, i got fungalled guess I lose 30 marines". "oh my stalker got hit with a concussive now i die" "oh he had good FF's gg". These are all ridiculous spells that the player on the opposing side of can't do anything about
Reasonable solutions for GAME DESIGN on these spells are as follows (note these aren't meant for balance just for game design)
1) Fungal should slow units, not stop them (should still prevent blink)
2) Force Fields should have a healthbar, somewhere around 200/200 sounds about right.
3) Concussive Shells should be a cooldown spell.
Anyway, that's what I think about this games current balance. <3
1. fungal - i agree maybe fungal should be damage + ensnare effect just so that u dont get fungaled twice in a row for 1 mistake. but realistically in high levels of play, ur gonna have to scan ahead of time for infestors and split ur army to avoid fungals.
2. force field - terrans has ghosts and long range units so force fields arent really an issue. protoss has blink/collosi so not really an issue here either. zerg has the biggest problem i think with low range units but at least they have burrow. auto burrow movement with burrow research would really help but i guess that was too OP and it was removed. the worst is constant FF of the ramp as zerg but i guess that can be stopped if played correctly.
3. concussive - be careful engaging marauders. mabye stim needs to do more damage to marauders so its harder for them to slow u if u are being careful.
|
On August 16 2011 08:04 Kajarn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 07:18 Fig wrote:
Yeah I have wondered about this for a long time myself. It seems like all the micro is in the terran's hands during the late game. Which admittedly makes it hard for the terran player, but it is nice to know that they do have the tools to win even engagements if they have strong enough micro. I wish there was more micro potential for toss to even it out.
One big example of this is the ghost design.
EMP = 10 range
Snipe = 10 range
Now we look at the HT
Storm = 9 range
Feedback = 9 range
This shows that if both players have the same skills, the terran player will get off an EMP before a storm can occur. But this puts a lot of pressure on the terran to land them. If instead each spell had 9 range, then the toss would be required to micro just as much, making the engagement much more interesting and fair for all levels. Great, they have higher range, but this numeric value doesn't instantly mean they are better. Remember its a spell not an attack, which drastically changes the way things work. Think about Banshee vs Marines. Banshee has 6 Range Marine has 5. Alternating between move and A move allows you to Scoot and shoot. This abuses the banshees extra range. To attack a marine at range 6 you just a-move up to it or right click it. Now a marine is stimmed and moving, you right click on it or A-move for the same max range attack. Compare this to EMP or Fungal and you see my point. EMP doesnt have the ablility to right click on a HT or Infestor to cast at max range. You have to click slightly ahead of max range, to allow the AI to move close enough to cast at max range. If the unit is moving, it becomes even more difficult to cast at max range. Compared to Feedback, which can be cast on a single specific unit and let the AI cast at max range. Paired with Shift que-ue can Feedback multiple units quickly. What I'm trying to illustrate with this comparison, is EMP/Fungal's AOE also comes with a draw back. You can't ALWAYS cast at max range every time, even if you know the max range yourself, you will never have the same precision as the AI itself. If Feedback and EMP had the same range EMP would LOSE a MAJORITY of the time in the hands of equivalently microing players just due to the mechanics of an AOE vs Single target ability. TL;DR There is a reason EMP has longer range, it would outright lose to Feedback due to the AOE vs Single Target nature.
First of all, how about snipe? It is single target and has LONGER range than storm, and feedback. By that argument snipe should have less range than storm.
Second, even if all the spells had the same range, because the radius of EMP is larger, when both players have equal micro, the terran still have the advantage. I don't see why single target would be better except at lower levels where both people aim their spells well before they are in range, and don't account for unit movement. However, I do believe that the range of the spells doesn't make too much of a difference except at higher levels of play.
|
On August 16 2011 08:04 Kajarn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 07:18 Fig wrote:
Yeah I have wondered about this for a long time myself. It seems like all the micro is in the terran's hands during the late game. Which admittedly makes it hard for the terran player, but it is nice to know that they do have the tools to win even engagements if they have strong enough micro. I wish there was more micro potential for toss to even it out.
One big example of this is the ghost design.
EMP = 10 range
Snipe = 10 range
Now we look at the HT
Storm = 9 range
Feedback = 9 range
This shows that if both players have the same skills, the terran player will get off an EMP before a storm can occur. But this puts a lot of pressure on the terran to land them. If instead each spell had 9 range, then the toss would be required to micro just as much, making the engagement much more interesting and fair for all levels. Great, they have higher range, but this numeric value doesn't instantly mean they are better. Remember its a spell not an attack, which drastically changes the way things work. Think about Banshee vs Marines. Banshee has 6 Range Marine has 5. Alternating between move and A move allows you to Scoot and shoot. This abuses the banshees extra range. To attack a marine at range 6 you just a-move up to it or right click it. Now a marine is stimmed and moving, you right click on it or A-move for the same max range attack. Compare this to EMP or Fungal and you see my point. EMP doesnt have the ablility to right click on a HT or Infestor to cast at max range. You have to click slightly ahead of max range, to allow the AI to move close enough to cast at max range. If the unit is moving, it becomes even more difficult to cast at max range. Compared to Feedback, which can be cast on a single specific unit and let the AI cast at max range. Paired with Shift que-ue can Feedback multiple units quickly. What I'm trying to illustrate with this comparison, is EMP/Fungal's AOE also comes with a draw back. You can't ALWAYS cast at max range every time, even if you know the max range yourself, you will never have the same precision as the AI itself. If Feedback and EMP had the same range EMP would LOSE a MAJORITY of the time in the hands of equivalently microing players just due to the mechanics of an AOE vs Single target ability. TL;DR There is a reason EMP has longer range, it would outright lose to Feedback due to the AOE vs Single Target nature.
The AOE inherently gives it a longer range though, in order to make up for what you're saying (I'm like 90% sure of this - that the 10 range refers to the center of the EMP. Please correct if wrong). So, assuming you are aiming for that HT or infestor, you can, in fact, cast it at less than maximum range, and it will connect at a range greater than 9.
The biggest point is at the highest level of play (which is generally looked at for balance) a HT should never get off a Feedback before a Ghost EMP's the HT.
By the way, great idea for a thread. There is no reason balance cannot be discussed civilly.
|
On August 16 2011 08:40 Hawk2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 16 2011 08:40 Joey Wheeler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
I would love to hear how Zerg is stronger in the late game when the Protoss actually knows how to micro and kills your Infestors. Watch Destiny play.
I watch Destiny, he faces a ZeNEX Protoss. Destiny takes down 2 bases with Infested Terran and forces the Protoss to attack. Destiny has around 9 Infestors with a ling army, while the Protoss has a few Colossus and HT with archons and stalker/zealot. He neurals the Colossus and Archons and fungals the ball, a few storms goes down on his infestors and they all die quickly, getting rid of the channeling and killing off the rest of what he has.
|
On August 16 2011 08:49 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:04 Kajarn wrote:On August 16 2011 07:18 Fig wrote:
Yeah I have wondered about this for a long time myself. It seems like all the micro is in the terran's hands during the late game. Which admittedly makes it hard for the terran player, but it is nice to know that they do have the tools to win even engagements if they have strong enough micro. I wish there was more micro potential for toss to even it out.
One big example of this is the ghost design.
EMP = 10 range
Snipe = 10 range
Now we look at the HT
Storm = 9 range
Feedback = 9 range
This shows that if both players have the same skills, the terran player will get off an EMP before a storm can occur. But this puts a lot of pressure on the terran to land them. If instead each spell had 9 range, then the toss would be required to micro just as much, making the engagement much more interesting and fair for all levels. Great, they have higher range, but this numeric value doesn't instantly mean they are better. Remember its a spell not an attack, which drastically changes the way things work. Think about Banshee vs Marines. Banshee has 6 Range Marine has 5. Alternating between move and A move allows you to Scoot and shoot. This abuses the banshees extra range. To attack a marine at range 6 you just a-move up to it or right click it. Now a marine is stimmed and moving, you right click on it or A-move for the same max range attack. Compare this to EMP or Fungal and you see my point. EMP doesnt have the ablility to right click on a HT or Infestor to cast at max range. You have to click slightly ahead of max range, to allow the AI to move close enough to cast at max range. If the unit is moving, it becomes even more difficult to cast at max range. Compared to Feedback, which can be cast on a single specific unit and let the AI cast at max range. Paired with Shift que-ue can Feedback multiple units quickly. What I'm trying to illustrate with this comparison, is EMP/Fungal's AOE also comes with a draw back. You can't ALWAYS cast at max range every time, even if you know the max range yourself, you will never have the same precision as the AI itself. If Feedback and EMP had the same range EMP would LOSE a MAJORITY of the time in the hands of equivalently microing players just due to the mechanics of an AOE vs Single target ability. TL;DR There is a reason EMP has longer range, it would outright lose to Feedback due to the AOE vs Single Target nature. The AOE inherently gives it a longer range though, in order to make up for what you're saying (I'm like 90% sure of this - that the 10 range refers to the center of the EMP. Please correct if wrong). So, assuming you are aiming for that HT or infestor, you can, in fact, cast it at less than maximum range, and it will connect at a range greater than 9. The biggest point is at the highest level of play (which is generally looked at for balance) a HT should never get off a Feedback before a Ghost EMP's the HT. By the way, great idea for a thread. There is no reason balance cannot be discussed civilly.
You're correct about how the range is indicated. It indicates the center of the circle, meaning that Fungals should land before feedback. Same for EMP vs feedback. You'll notice in a lot of Destiny's games that he's gotten a really good feel for the range and is able to pretty easily dodge a lot of feedbacks, which is why his infestor play in ZvP is so much better than a lot of other player's.
|
On August 16 2011 07:49 Demonace34 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 07:45 fighter2_40 wrote:
I just played a game against my friend in a custom today vs his blue flame hellions.
I put up spine crawlers at my ramp to wall off but as it turns out... hellions can fit through spines.
In my opinion, this is a problem that can be fixed easily by just making spines take up more space. It makes defending mass hellion much easier as right now zerg needs to make spines and evo chambers in front to actually wall off.
Cannons and bunkers are hellion tight... why aren't spines. I think this has to do with zerg not wanting to create chokes for themselves, just think of creating a wall just for it to bite you in the ass later making your lings/blings running through a tight choke into tanks. It wouldn't be pretty. To state the obvious, if you scout hellions out of a reactor I would suggest either roaches or teching to spire at a decent time. If you don't, I think you pretty much just die to straight up hellions with BF, unless you have some sick ass surround with zerglings or you do sim city well enough to keep them out. (watch out for elevator with medivacs). I don't think this has much balance discussion though.
Interesting why people lead with " to state the obvious ", no offense. I think you'd have to look at the replay to get an idea of what actually happened because the game was not very standard.
You're right that it is not really up for discussion. Just patch the damn things. Zerg has no problem with spines being tight, you can just unburrow them if need be.
Sidenote about emp: it's pretty damn good and I propose that it takes of 50% shield every blast instead of 100 shield.
|
On August 16 2011 08:35 Kajarn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:29 Bobgrimly wrote:
Switch hydra/roach in tech tree... bring back lurker in t2. Why? Simple. Stops early game air harrass being so effective at containing or destroying zerg. Protoss and terrans would have to come up with something other than lol one banshee/viking/voidray/phoenix for map control. Zerg can't dominate a map with one mutalisk. Of course costs/damage would be altered. But the point is it would work and change up the dynamic of zerg.
Roach and lurker in t2 works. Why? Maruader/tank works. Lurker is static splash damage for holding position. Roach is armoured offensive unit for pushing into areas. Point of a lurker also forces a terran to crawl rather than march towards a zerg without consequences. Forces a protoss to do more than just deathball and win. I would love to see a ZVP where the z had splash damage other than banelings. Splash damage that outranged everything bar maybe the colosus. Again giving zerg an ability to hold ground and force a lot more thought than "run in and win with my big ball" from protoss.
Not to mention the harrass options of lurkers.
Infestors should be altered. Maybe reworked so they aren't a straight damage machine. It would be better if they had synergy with more than a baneling/zergling. Buff surrounding units or slowing/weakening others. Something other than its current incarnation. Sure, but you switch the Roach and Hydra in the Tech Tree and ZvZ is destroyed completely. Edit: Maurader and Roach are currently in the same place in the Tech tree. Actually Maurader is available FASTER than the Roach. Let alone the the Hydra. Hydra is more like the Siege tank and would be Lurker more like the Viking.
Zvz would not be destroyed. In fact it would change a lot. Zergling/baneling is always and will always be the initial start. Without roachs to soak banelings it would alter a lot. But good Defense with quick teching could be a viable alternative without the fear of roaches running at you. Its roachs that early that RUINS ZVZ. Think about it. Banelings in mass are a problem... but if you had ranged units (hydras) + defense of more than a couple spines/queens... and a few sacrificial zerglings you don't really have to worry that much... or just get a couple banelings for defense while you tech.
Yes it would take a while to sort out and it would change the dynamic but it wouldn't break zvz. I think it would lead to a whole lot more options especially past the early game which currently is boring as hell as every single match is just ROACH/INFESTOR. Putting lurkers in as an option at the same time roachs come out changes the whole playstyle. I would love to see it.
BFH without early roachs is about the only concern... but if you have scouted and are sure no 2rax early pressure you could quick tech and get lurkers.... once you have lurkers, defending drops becomes much less of a nightmare. I would actually be interested if someone with ability to code just made those changes on a custom map... just for the zerg. To see how it played out. I don't have the ability. The infestor is the only balance issue. Its to powerful in its current form by itself. You shouldn't be massing infestors... it should be a support unit. Buffing or debuffing somehow.
|
I agree with Hawks comments about races being stronger in different stages of the game. Ideally all races would could be aggressive/defensive in all stages of the game, but that clearly is not the case. Terran is clearly the aggressive/early game race, zerg is the lategame race and protoss falls somewhere inbetween. Its pretty easy to pinpoint the major factors for this:
The terran macro mechanic, the mule, is the most potent in the early stages of the game. It allows the terran to really boost the production of low-tech units like marines and hellions. The terran tech tree is incredibly compact: with a 1-1-1 opening you have every tool available pretty much from the start. Terran can make really effective and diverse openers, but this also means that they really gain no new tools as the game progresses.
Zerg is pretty much the opposite. Larva stockpiling becomes extremely effective once you have multiple bases and can allow you to remax instantly whenever resources allow. Zerg also gets their scariest units once they reach hive tech, which isn't usually until after the 15 minute mark.
Protoss falls somewhere inbetween. Warpgates and chrono mean that a protoss can remax relatively quickly in the lategame, although not as well as zerg can. Protoss robo/templar tech also has excellent synergy, and it usually isn't reached until lategame situations.
Now the big question here is whether Blizzard actually intends to radically change these mechanics in the upcoming expansions. The problem is that it would require rebalancing of pretty much everything currently in the game. I could see some macro terran viability in mech builds for example, but we'll just have to wait and see.
|
On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
vileHawk here, these are my thoughts on game balance
Balance is intended to mean that any given matchup results in an even 50% winrate. There are two ways to achieve the desired 50% winrate result one good one bad. One way, the way I feel this game is right now is to make the game very luck-oriented and to make cheese IE rush builds very strong.
Why does strong cheese contribute to a balanced winrate? Well let's say there was a fundamental issue with a matchup, let's take a random example, let's say that in ZvT the Zerg player was able to win every single game after they got their mutalisks out. Well in that case, the top Terran players will start to only use cheese strategies to try and end the game before the Zerg player can get out their mutalisks. So, while the gameplay may not be balanced, because cheese is so strong and can almost guarantee a near 50% winrate, it can skew the statistics of the matchup closer to balanced.
Now then what's the other option we can have to make this game balanced? Well, it may not be an exciting prospect, but frankly the only other option is to make Starcraft 2 much, much harder to play than it already is. The question that should be raised is, "How does the difficulty of a game contribute to its balance?"
A balanced game should never be able to be played perfectly, because it's not possible to balance 3 distinct races when each player plays perfectly. That being said, Starcraft 2 in it's current state is being played at the pro level with very very very few mistakes, thus making it very difficult to balance. Making Starcraft 2 more mechanically intensive would help with balance, because then it would be more about the skill & practice of the PLAYERS rather than the races.
Another important issue that is usually left out of game balance, is the game design. Starcraft 2, in it's current state has big game design issues. every matchup, tvz, pvz, tvp all have one thing in common. In the beginning of the game one race is alot stronger than the other, but in the late game the race weaker in the beginning becomes stronger.
TvP? this is the most obvious Terran is stronger early game, Protoss is stronger late game
ZvT? Terran is stronger early game, Zerg is stronger late game
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
Ideally though if the game were balanced, each race should be able to fight on an equal footing with one another despite at what time in the game. These are just game design issues that should be fixed, but foremost the game should be made more difficult.
On one last note with game design I have a big problem with 3 spells in Starcraft 2, one for each race.
1) Fungal
2) Force Field
3) Concussive Shells
Why these spells? They all have one thing in common, there is nothing your opponent can do to prevent them. This game should be about micro, it shouldn't be about, "oh, i got fungalled guess I lose 30 marines". "oh my stalker got hit with a concussive now i die" "oh he had good FF's gg". These are all ridiculous spells that the player on the opposing side of can't do anything about
Reasonable solutions for GAME DESIGN on these spells are as follows (note these aren't meant for balance just for game design)
1) Fungal should slow units, not stop them (should still prevent blink)
2) Force Fields should have a healthbar, somewhere around 200/200 sounds about right.
3) Concussive Shells should be a cooldown spell.
Anyway, that's what I think about this games current balance. <3
Notice a couple things in what you posted.
Terran is favored early game in every single match-up. I think this points to the strength of Marines and Mauraders. I feel both are too strong too early. Now I don't think they need to be nerfed, I think the other units need to be buffed.
Lings and Roachs: Lings need their attack speed back. If they can actually hit a unit, they should do better DPS then currently. Roaches, they need less health but slightly more DPS and give them their Armor back! (Roach Supply and Armor were nerfed at the SAME time!)
Zealots and Stalkers: Zealots, they need slightly more HP (Which also helps them vs post-buff lings.) Stalkers are tricky, they would ideally be better vs Marines, which I would do by nerfing marines.
Marines: They get thier combat-sheilds base. We just buffed lings and zealots, they would need it. But they get their range set back to 4 and their range upgrade back, which would take the same amount of time as Combat Sheilds.
This would result in Terrans worse off early. Aslong as Marauders concussive shell is nerfed, to as you stated, a cooldown. I would be fine if it was every 3rd shot slowed, which would required Terran to micro their Mauraders to alternate slowing.
Also, Heath bars for Force fields sounds perfect.
Lastly, a couple buffs:
Hunter-Seeker Missle: Switch the way it works around. Make it slow at first fast as it goes on. The opponent has a second to figure out which unit is, but then that unit is guaranteed to die. Also make it 100 energy or 75.
Carriers: Let Interceptors be repaired when they re-enter the Carrier.
|
I wrote this out for the thread on how tough ling/infestor is for protoss nowadays, but it got locked.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255270
I guess I thought it was going to go into strategy, but I guess I'm naive like that. Anyways, why throw away a response? :p
Yeah, my suggestion would be to look at some replays, and figure out when zergs are getting their infestors. Then figure out how to scout it at a certain period, while also developing a viable, sick all-in type push, once you've scouted it.
This is what I'd do, but protoss is the race that I play the least by far. Other random thoughts are, to figure out a timing to snipe the infestation pit, before it finishes the energy upgrade, and follow it up with pressure for an advantage. I'd also be thinking in extremes, if they're going mass ling/infestors, then you really only need to defend against lings, until the infestors reach a critical mass, so maybe stick with an army composition that defends lings until that point, while figuring out a way to get ahead in economy.
It may be possible to get your 3rd base, if you decide to do something like skip the gases at your natural for awhile, build a sim city & army for ling defense, and expand to 3rd. Obviously, this is something easier on some maps than others.
Not sure, but this is how I'd be thinking to experiment.
|
On August 16 2011 09:00 Bobgrimly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:35 Kajarn wrote:On August 16 2011 08:29 Bobgrimly wrote:
Switch hydra/roach in tech tree... bring back lurker in t2. Why? Simple. Stops early game air harrass being so effective at containing or destroying zerg. Protoss and terrans would have to come up with something other than lol one banshee/viking/voidray/phoenix for map control. Zerg can't dominate a map with one mutalisk. Of course costs/damage would be altered. But the point is it would work and change up the dynamic of zerg.
Roach and lurker in t2 works. Why? Maruader/tank works. Lurker is static splash damage for holding position. Roach is armoured offensive unit for pushing into areas. Point of a lurker also forces a terran to crawl rather than march towards a zerg without consequences. Forces a protoss to do more than just deathball and win. I would love to see a ZVP where the z had splash damage other than banelings. Splash damage that outranged everything bar maybe the colosus. Again giving zerg an ability to hold ground and force a lot more thought than "run in and win with my big ball" from protoss.
Not to mention the harrass options of lurkers.
Infestors should be altered. Maybe reworked so they aren't a straight damage machine. It would be better if they had synergy with more than a baneling/zergling. Buff surrounding units or slowing/weakening others. Something other than its current incarnation. Sure, but you switch the Roach and Hydra in the Tech Tree and ZvZ is destroyed completely. Edit: Maurader and Roach are currently in the same place in the Tech tree. Actually Maurader is available FASTER than the Roach. Let alone the the Hydra. Hydra is more like the Siege tank and would be Lurker more like the Viking. Zvz would not be destroyed. In fact it would change a lot. Zergling/baneling is always and will always be the initial start. Without roachs to soak banelings it would alter a lot. But good Defense with quick teching could be a viable alternative without the fear of roaches running at you. Its roachs that early that RUINS ZVZ. Think about it. Banelings in mass are a problem... but if you had ranged units (hydras) + defense of more than a couple spines/queens... and a few sacrificial zerglings you don't really have to worry that much... or just get a couple banelings for defense while you tech. Yes it would take a while to sort out and it would change the dynamic but it wouldn't break zvz. I think it would lead to a whole lot more options especially past the early game which currently is boring as hell as every single match is just ROACH/INFESTOR. Putting lurkers in as an option at the same time roachs come out changes the whole playstyle. I would love to see it. BFH without early roachs is about the only concern... but if you have scouted and are sure no 2rax early pressure you could quick tech and get lurkers.... once you have lurkers, defending drops becomes much less of a nightmare. I would actually be interested if someone with ability to code just made those changes on a custom map... just for the zerg. To see how it played out. I don't have the ability. The infestor is the only balance issue. Its to powerful in its current form by itself. You shouldn't be massing infestors... it should be a support unit. Buffing or debuffing somehow.
I agree Lurkers in ZvZ would make ZvZ amazing! But moving roaches away wouldn't.
If you can play ZvZ at the Masters+ level, you will never die to a Roach-Ling Timing attack unless you've already fallen behind.
Removing Roach means its Ling-Bling all day, and no one can hold and expansion.
Currently you can open 15 Hatch 15 Pool 17 Gas and have 5 Roach in time to stop 14/14 Baneling.
Without roaches, it becomes Ling baneling vs Ling baneling. Which isn't entertaining.
Hint: If your able to tech while fighting ling bling vs ling bling your already ahead!
|
On August 16 2011 08:57 Joey Wheeler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:40 Hawk2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 16 2011 08:40 Joey Wheeler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 08:35 Hawk2 wrote:
ZvP? A bit tricky, but for the most part Protoss is stronger early game, and Zerg is stronger in the late game
I would love to hear how Zerg is stronger in the late game when the Protoss actually knows how to micro and kills your Infestors. Watch Destiny play. I watch Destiny, he faces a ZeNEX Protoss. Destiny takes down 2 bases with Infested Terran and forces the Protoss to attack. Destiny has around 9 Infestors with a ling army, while the Protoss has a few Colossus and HT with archons and stalker/zealot. He neurals the Colossus and Archons and fungals the ball, a few storms goes down on his infestors and they all die quickly, getting rid of the channeling and killing off the rest of what he has.
Destiny shouldn't be relying on mass zerglings and neural parasite when there are collosi and hts out. If you watch a lot of his games you'll also see that he will switch tech to roach as collosi come out. What he could possibly do instead is having the neuraled protoss units kill themselves and have his roaches/lings kill the weaker gateway army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
