|
On August 13 2013 09:48 da0ud wrote:
I love how everyone talks here mostly about the lesser talented leagues of Europe and America.
Those poor Scarlett or Jeadong or Vortix are way behind Soulkey or Symbol who got crushed in Korea (3-1 and 3-0) in round of 8.
I agree there is no balance problem at our level, but at the pro level it is clearly ridiculous to try and admit the opposite.
The games are just hilarious. In ZvT, Terran can afford to lose many fights and make a lot of mistakes and still come back.
If Zerg does one mistake he loses.
Not to take anything from Polt or Duckdoek but there is a massive gap between them and korean players playing in WCS Korea.
I like the ability from Overseer to cast detection upon friendly unit. This would prevent for example getting 60% of your muta ball crushed by three mines because the lazy overseer is half way behind.
Three mines can't kill 60% of your muta ball, you need 4 mines (unless you manage to let them hit all exactly at once). And even then it is your own fault for not paying attention and having them clumped up.
And I can also give you enough examples of terrans losing due to one mistake. Or try playing mech vs zerg, they can make a shitload of mistakes while one mistake is your end. More important, apparantly everyone below RO8 is a lesser talented player who doesn't matter.
Then the question: Do you really want to unbalance the game for everyone outside that RO8 just to get it a tad more balanced for them? Even ignoring that it is of course not even near statistically significant. And that we had a month long zergs complaining WM are OP for everyone outside KR premier league so it shoudl be nerfed to give regular players a chance.
On August 13 2013 09:42 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The reason we wont ever see biotank again:
Tanks dont have the potential to kill 20+ lings/banes in 1 shot or take out mutalisks. Biotank was pretty good before, but now their "tanks" (area control) can hit air too.
Biotank was 'pretty good' in WoL (where pretty good is pretty relative) before mutas were heavily buffed, vipers introduced, ultras heavily buffed, etc.
|
Blizzard is reluctant to make minor stat changes for some reason. In the current balance it's easy to do the following:
-widow mines take +2s to build
-3/3 upgrades for terran both cost 25/25 more
And all of a sudden zerg has a slightly larger window to transition to Hive tech.
They also never make any small stat changes to the siege tank or carrier. It's more likely for them to have minor functional changes like speed boosts or removing upgrades. I guess it's because those things are instantly noticeable and are more easy to adjust to? And if they start tweaking stats it has some philosophical implications that change balancing from art to science? (if that makes sense)
|
On August 13 2013 19:40 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard is reluctant to make minor stat changes for some reason. In the current balance it's easy to do the following:
-widow mines take +2s to build
-3/3 upgrades for terran both cost 25/25 more
And all of a sudden zerg has a slightly larger window to transition to Hive tech.
They also never make any small stat changes to the siege tank or carrier. It's more likely for them to have minor functional changes like speed boosts or removing upgrades. I guess it's because those things are instantly noticeable and are more easy to adjust to? And if they start tweaking stats it has some philosophical implications that change balancing from art to science? (if that makes sense)
Minor stat changes dont really fix any of the big problems.
If the game has to be "finetuned with a microscope" it actually is terrible, because it wont allow any freedom for maps, which probably have a much larger impact than those small changes you suggest. This is one of the reasons why I am "campaigning" against the current general gameplay mechanics ... they REQUIRE a super precise balancing and this limits the maps.
As a good example for this just look at your "timing adjustments" which make the balance perfect for "map size X", but if the map in question is "5 seconds smaller" it is imbalanced again because the timing window is gone again.
You should know why they dont adjust the Siege Tank ... because they HATE IT with a passion.
|
Timing adjustments and that sort of thing happen in maps already anyway. A map with a longer rush distance is already an example of finetuning balance.
I think there are only three main options when dealing with imbalance:
1. parity -- everyone has access to the same tools. This can be like warcraft 2 or chess, where the options are basically the same for all players, it can be like dota where you have the same hero pool to pick from, or even like starcraft where there are a lot of similarities between races.
2. obscurity -- if there is such a wealth of strategic options to choose from then it really becomes so complicated so quickly that no player can master the game's strategy. (maybe like in card games where there are so many deck choices it's not possible to master) Even if there exist theoretically overpowered styles, it would be difficult to exploit them because you leave yourself too vulnerable to being countered. This is sometimes the opposite in starcraft 2 which often gives the perception of possible alternative styles to a dominant style being too easily exhausted, requiring others (blizzard, map makers) to step in. With this method of dealing with imbalance, you really turn finding imbalanced (powerful) options into a skill.
3. finetuning -- trying to constantly adjust the maps and game stats to create reasonable balance, trying to stay 'ahead of the metagame'.
Please tell me if I missed any.
In any case, I think that any game should do well to look into all three areas of balancing, each has its pros and cons. I was playing devil's advocate a bit in my post, since I think it's a complicated issue.
|
On August 13 2013 19:02 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 09:48 da0ud wrote:
I love how everyone talks here mostly about the lesser talented leagues of Europe and America.
Those poor Scarlett or Jeadong or Vortix are way behind Soulkey or Symbol who got crushed in Korea (3-1 and 3-0) in round of 8.
I agree there is no balance problem at our level, but at the pro level it is clearly ridiculous to try and admit the opposite.
The games are just hilarious. In ZvT, Terran can afford to lose many fights and make a lot of mistakes and still come back.
If Zerg does one mistake he loses.
Not to take anything from Polt or Duckdoek but there is a massive gap between them and korean players playing in WCS Korea.
I like the ability from Overseer to cast detection upon friendly unit. This would prevent for example getting 60% of your muta ball crushed by three mines because the lazy overseer is half way behind. Three mines can't kill 60% of your muta ball, you need 4 mines (unless you manage to let them hit all exactly at once). And even then it is your own fault for not paying attention and having them clumped up. And I can also give you enough examples of terrans losing due to one mistake. Or try playing mech vs zerg, they can make a shitload of mistakes while one mistake is your end. More important, apparantly everyone below RO8 is a lesser talented player who doesn't matter. Then the question: Do you really want to unbalance the game for everyone outside that RO8 just to get it a tad more balanced for them? Even ignoring that it is of course not even near statistically significant. And that we had a month long zergs complaining WM are OP for everyone outside KR premier league so it shoudl be nerfed to give regular players a chance. Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 09:42 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The reason we wont ever see biotank again:
Tanks dont have the potential to kill 20+ lings/banes in 1 shot or take out mutalisks. Biotank was pretty good before, but now their "tanks" (area control) can hit air too. Biotank was 'pretty good' in WoL (where pretty good is pretty relative) before mutas were heavily buffed, vipers introduced, ultras heavily buffed, etc.
Can you please offer those numerous examples of terran losing in a macro game because of one mistake? The "mech is unforgivable" argument is stupid cause 4M is so much superior to mech that if you play mech you know you are playing with an inferior composition that has nothing to do with T v Z meta.
|
On August 13 2013 08:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 04:00 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:48 fdsdfg wrote:On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast. They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed. Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines. Say that to Scarlett. Her muta retention was fantastic against Alive - which allowed her to get not-only ultras, but even broodlords. Mutas serve a bigger purpose than doing damage - denying drops. Sure if you want to commit to damage, you will trade mutas. But you don't need to. Just having enough muta on field deters drops. Since when is having more HP a problem for retaining units? 2x hp = 2x more buffer to pull back hurt mutas and let them regen. Reapers have a 10 second delay for their regen, mutas don't. Point is that mutas will regen back to full if you simply don't lose them. Why do people source one game? Just say it: Keeping mutalisks alive is hard when there are marines and widow mines. Plain and simple. Can it be done? Sure. But it is REALLY hard.
No shit it's really hard. It's really hard for the Terran to play against Zerg too, if Scarlett can pull it off, then I'm sure Korean Zergs can too.
|
On August 14 2013 04:17 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 08:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 13 2013 04:00 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:48 fdsdfg wrote:On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast. They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed. Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines. Say that to Scarlett. Her muta retention was fantastic against Alive - which allowed her to get not-only ultras, but even broodlords. Mutas serve a bigger purpose than doing damage - denying drops. Sure if you want to commit to damage, you will trade mutas. But you don't need to. Just having enough muta on field deters drops. Since when is having more HP a problem for retaining units? 2x hp = 2x more buffer to pull back hurt mutas and let them regen. Reapers have a 10 second delay for their regen, mutas don't. Point is that mutas will regen back to full if you simply don't lose them. Why do people source one game? Just say it: Keeping mutalisks alive is hard when there are marines and widow mines. Plain and simple. Can it be done? Sure. But it is REALLY hard. No shit it's really hard. It's really hard for the Terran to play against Zerg too, if Scarlett can pull it off, then I'm sure Korean Zergs can too.
Because people keep arguing about that Scarlett game and how every zerg should play like she did:
1) aLive did a mass blue flame hellion attack early, which is NOT a standard macro build. Whether or not the situation after it was equal, it was in no way normal
2) aLive did not do a paradepush (probably due to 1); the first and only big engagment before ultralisks happened at 18mins in the middle of the map and Scarlett could go into Ultralisks right after that. She did not have to spend a lot of gas on rebuilding banelings and was not forced to combat with mutalisks. Keeping mutalisks alive is pretty easy if their sole purpose is hit and run attacks, instead of fighting marines
3) She did not play a different playstyle. She played a standard-as-can-be muta/ling/bling midgame with a standard-as-can-be ultralisk transition. And when the game did go over 25mins and neither of them was able to kill the other one, she did a standard-as-can-be-in-any-matchup-yet-rare-because-matches-tend-to-end-before-that transition into the most supplyefficient army you can build as a zerg against someone who plays bio: Infestor/Broodlord (just pointing this out because some people here keep on missing that she played muta/ling/bling into ultralisks)
I don't want to take anything away from her (she played awesome) or say that she only won because aLive played badly (I believe he played quite well, until the lategame). But you cannot choose for games to look like that. aLive played in a certain way that allowed Scarlett to play the way she did. In comparison, Polt played a different way against Jaedong, that does not allow you to play that way.
|
On August 14 2013 08:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 04:17 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 08:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 13 2013 04:00 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:48 fdsdfg wrote:On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast. They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed. Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines. Say that to Scarlett. Her muta retention was fantastic against Alive - which allowed her to get not-only ultras, but even broodlords. Mutas serve a bigger purpose than doing damage - denying drops. Sure if you want to commit to damage, you will trade mutas. But you don't need to. Just having enough muta on field deters drops. Since when is having more HP a problem for retaining units? 2x hp = 2x more buffer to pull back hurt mutas and let them regen. Reapers have a 10 second delay for their regen, mutas don't. Point is that mutas will regen back to full if you simply don't lose them. Why do people source one game? Just say it: Keeping mutalisks alive is hard when there are marines and widow mines. Plain and simple. Can it be done? Sure. But it is REALLY hard. No shit it's really hard. It's really hard for the Terran to play against Zerg too, if Scarlett can pull it off, then I'm sure Korean Zergs can too. Because people keep arguing about that Scarlett game and how every zerg should play like she did: 1) aLive did a mass blue flame hellion attack early, which is NOT a standard macro build. Whether or not the situation after it was equal, it was in no way normal 2) aLive did not do a paradepush (probably due to 1); the first and only big engagment before ultralisks happened at 18mins in the middle of the map and Scarlett could go into Ultralisks right after that. She did not have to spend a lot of gas on rebuilding banelings and was not forced to combat with mutalisks. Keeping mutalisks alive is pretty easy if their sole purpose is hit and run attacks, instead of fighting marines 3) She did not play a different playstyle. She played a standard-as-can-be muta/ling/bling midgame with a standard-as-can-be ultralisk transition. And when the game did go over 25mins and neither of them was able to kill the other one, she did a standard-as-can-be-in-any-matchup-yet-rare-because-matches-tend-to-end-before-that transition into the most supplyefficient army you can build as a zerg against someone who plays bio: Infestor/Broodlord (just pointing this out because some people here keep on missing that she played muta/ling/bling into ultralisks) I don't want to take anything away from her (she played awesome) or say that she only won because aLive played badly (I believe he played quite well, until the lategame). But you cannot choose for games to look like that. aLive played in a certain way that allowed Scarlett to play the way she did. In comparison, Polt played a different way against Jaedong, that does not allow you to play that way.
All you're saying is that muta retention is easier when you are ahead. That much is true. Marine retention is also easier when you're ahead. Less banelings to split again, more splash units to have shots again banelings. Better upgrades, better tech (medivac to heal and load-up)
But we also accept that better players in general have better unit retention - even when they are behind (MVP v Tefel for an exaggerated example - tefel's mistake was huge).
Muta retention is also easier when you are the better player.
|
Add a damage cap to Widow Mine's splash damage.
|
On August 14 2013 15:13 ReMinD_ wrote:
Add a damage cap to Widow Mine's splash damage.
Add damage cap to every other AoE in the game.
|
The widow mine is very powerful, while the siege tank is left weak
In my opinion, the siege tank should be buffed to more closely represent its Broodwar counterpart,
While the widow mine should be nerfed
The only side effect would be a more slow paced TvZ, but the increased effectiveness of mech in three matchups
|
On August 14 2013 15:42 PiPoGevy wrote:
The widow mine is very powerful, while the siege tank is left weak
In my opinion, the siege tank should be buffed to more closely represent its Broodwar counterpart,
While the widow mine should be nerfed
The only side effect would be a more slow paced TvZ, but the increased effectiveness of mech in three matchups
How about a tank upgrade available after an armory is build?
"Radioactive shells: Does x extra damage in the area of the tank's damage-radius." The actual numbers can be tweaked - this damage will be unaffected by upgrades and treated like a spell. Take it as a mini-nuke being fired from each tank volley.
In TvP especially, I would love to see tanks be able to take on immortals just a tad bit better.
|
On August 14 2013 15:42 PiPoGevy wrote:
The widow mine is very powerful, while the siege tank is left weak
In my opinion, the siege tank should be buffed to more closely represent its Broodwar counterpart,
While the widow mine should be nerfed
The only side effect would be a more slow paced TvZ, but the increased effectiveness of mech in three matchups
Widow mines are already nerfed version of the Vulture.
They cost 100 minerals and had 3 mines that could wipe out a mineral line.
For SC2 Terranto achieve the same effect he would need to build both a reaper and a WM, both which cost gas, therefore the trade off is that both reaper and widow mine are stronger than the vulture.
Reapers can heal and cliff jump and widow mines are walking missile silos.
So really what is the trade off that you find acceptable then? Because this is a balance discussion not a whine thread. You are supposed to COUNTER PROPOSE.
|
On August 14 2013 16:15 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 15:42 PiPoGevy wrote:
The widow mine is very powerful, while the siege tank is left weak
In my opinion, the siege tank should be buffed to more closely represent its Broodwar counterpart,
While the widow mine should be nerfed
The only side effect would be a more slow paced TvZ, but the increased effectiveness of mech in three matchups Widow mines are already nerfed version of the Vulture. They cost 100 minerals and had 3 mines that could wipe out a mineral line. For SC2 Terranto achieve the same effect he would need to build both a reaper and a WM, both which cost gas, therefore the trade off is that both reaper and widow mine are stronger than the vulture. Reapers can heal and cliff jump and widow mines are walking missile silos. So really what is the trade off that you find acceptable then? Because this is a balance discussion not a whine thread. You are supposed to COUNTER PROPOSE.
I don't even know if you are trolling or not when you compare those things... I really hope you are trolling.
|
On August 13 2013 23:35 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 19:02 Sissors wrote:On August 13 2013 09:48 da0ud wrote:
I love how everyone talks here mostly about the lesser talented leagues of Europe and America.
Those poor Scarlett or Jeadong or Vortix are way behind Soulkey or Symbol who got crushed in Korea (3-1 and 3-0) in round of 8.
I agree there is no balance problem at our level, but at the pro level it is clearly ridiculous to try and admit the opposite.
The games are just hilarious. In ZvT, Terran can afford to lose many fights and make a lot of mistakes and still come back.
If Zerg does one mistake he loses.
Not to take anything from Polt or Duckdoek but there is a massive gap between them and korean players playing in WCS Korea.
I like the ability from Overseer to cast detection upon friendly unit. This would prevent for example getting 60% of your muta ball crushed by three mines because the lazy overseer is half way behind. Three mines can't kill 60% of your muta ball, you need 4 mines (unless you manage to let them hit all exactly at once). And even then it is your own fault for not paying attention and having them clumped up. And I can also give you enough examples of terrans losing due to one mistake. Or try playing mech vs zerg, they can make a shitload of mistakes while one mistake is your end. More important, apparantly everyone below RO8 is a lesser talented player who doesn't matter. Then the question: Do you really want to unbalance the game for everyone outside that RO8 just to get it a tad more balanced for them? Even ignoring that it is of course not even near statistically significant. And that we had a month long zergs complaining WM are OP for everyone outside KR premier league so it shoudl be nerfed to give regular players a chance. On August 13 2013 09:42 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The reason we wont ever see biotank again:
Tanks dont have the potential to kill 20+ lings/banes in 1 shot or take out mutalisks. Biotank was pretty good before, but now their "tanks" (area control) can hit air too. Biotank was 'pretty good' in WoL (where pretty good is pretty relative) before mutas were heavily buffed, vipers introduced, ultras heavily buffed, etc. Can you please offer those numerous examples of terran losing in a macro game because of one mistake? The "mech is unforgivable" argument is stupid cause 4M is so much superior to mech that if you play mech you know you are playing with an inferior composition that has nothing to do with T v Z meta.
Can you give those examples where the terran players play with pink while the zerg player only uses his left hand and right foot? As in, why are you suddenly adding extra demands? I can do that too, but that wasn't what it was all about.
Honestly I think you are hard presses to find a TvZ macro game where the zerg lost due to one mistake. Sure one mistake can cost him a bunch of banelings, but then I can add every TvZ where the T has bad splits.
Then we have stuff like baneling mines which can really ruin a T's day, or how about simply forgetting for a second to raise your supply wall, with next speedlings streaming in, gg.
Or as innovation can testify, running a bunch of loaded medivacs into a swarm of mutas is also not good for your chances to win a WCS KR.
|
On August 13 2013 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
Timing adjustments and that sort of thing happen in maps already anyway. A map with a longer rush distance is already an example of finetuning balance.
I think there are only three main options when dealing with imbalance:
1. parity -- everyone has access to the same tools. This can be like warcraft 2 or chess, where the options are basically the same for all players, it can be like dota where you have the same hero pool to pick from, or even like starcraft where there are a lot of similarities between races.
2. obscurity -- if there is such a wealth of strategic options to choose from then it really becomes so complicated so quickly that no player can master the game's strategy. (maybe like in card games where there are so many deck choices it's not possible to master) Even if there exist theoretically overpowered styles, it would be difficult to exploit them because you leave yourself too vulnerable to being countered. This is sometimes the opposite in starcraft 2 which often gives the perception of possible alternative styles to a dominant style being too easily exhausted, requiring others (blizzard, map makers) to step in. With this method of dealing with imbalance, you really turn finding imbalanced (powerful) options into a skill.
3. finetuning -- trying to constantly adjust the maps and game stats to create reasonable balance, trying to stay 'ahead of the metagame'.
Please tell me if I missed any.
In any case, I think that any game should do well to look into all three areas of balancing, each has its pros and cons. I was playing devil's advocate a bit in my post, since I think it's a complicated issue.
Ummm ... Warcraft 2 was heavily imbalanced with Orcs being favored. Why? Their spellcasters had an OFFENSIVE spell which was extremely powerful. I used to cast that spell through some forest and right in the path of some workers going to and from a gold mine. Insanely powerful and much better than the heal for the Paladin, which required precise clicking skill and only became useful after you take damage.
"Mastering" such a game is not really necessary to have fun; it should only provide a "bonus" if you are really good. Having more than one way of playing the game is not the same as the options available in a card game and frankly the crapton of multiple build orders - which then end up in the same units being produced - already make the game far too complicated on the economic front. The game needs to have VARIETY, but for this to be a good thing it needs to be ROBUST when it comes to balance and not "finetuned". Balance needs to be such that a deviation this way or that way - introduced by different map styles! - does not make the game unplayable for one race or another. Too often the casters are saying just such things though ... "style X is good on this map".
Constantly changing the game stats is RUBBISH, because it is an indicator of how fragile the game balance is. The balance needs to be solid and strong and with a large margin of error to allow for outside factors like maps or "flavour of the month" strategies.
- Why dont we have as many "useable" gold mineral bases in the map pool anymore? Because Terrans would have a huge advantage with them.
- Why dont we have any more maps with cliffs behind a mineral line or even simple pillars in the middle of the map anymore? Because people would think that Siege Tanks on there would be too powreful. With the current trend to "boost harrassment" Blizzard should have pushed for this one though ...
- Why do we have only maps with rather open central battlefields? Because Forcefield and Fungal are too strong crowd control spells.
Robust balance is what we need and not finetuned balance and at the core of the problem sits the amount of units and the army unit density ... in short: the army dps per area. The problematic mechanics behind this are ... huge production, huge economy, unlimited unit selection and clumped up unit movement.
SC2 is a game where controlling your units has almost taken a back seat compared to the ability to produce more stuff than your opponent and in any case "controlling your units" has been reduced to shaping your clump of units into a slightly more advantageous form. True unit micro isnt possible anymore in such big battles, because there simply is too much going on at the same time and units die far too fast to make microing them worth it. Only in the first ten minutes does micro really mean anything ... and that is a shame.
|
On August 13 2013 19:40 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard is reluctant to make minor stat changes for some reason. In the current balance it's easy to do the following:
-widow mines take +2s to build
-3/3 upgrades for terran both cost 25/25 more
And all of a sudden zerg has a slightly larger window to transition to Hive tech.
They also never make any small stat changes to the siege tank or carrier. It's more likely for them to have minor functional changes like speed boosts or removing upgrades. I guess it's because those things are instantly noticeable and are more easy to adjust to? And if they start tweaking stats it has some philosophical implications that change balancing from art to science? (if that makes sense)
It's true they don't make changes (that I can think of at least) not divisible by 5 (to build time or resource costs, that is).
I think what you are suggesting would be far too small to make a real difference.
Because of how well terran infantry upgrades scale for a bunch of units all packed in an area, how able they are at putting out so much damage per second at range (there is no need to surround a building as mêlée units such as zerglings and zealots have to), I do agree with the idea of them being more expensive.
Zerg Mêlée and Missile upgrades are split and our Carapace costs more than Infantry Armour. It costs more than their armour because their armour doesn't apply to vehicles or ships, but on the other hand
1 - Ground Carapace doesn't apply to flying zerg units
2 - Terran can get away with only using bio + medivacs (and maybe mines) pretty well and only really need the infantry upgrades that way.
They could easily change it from 100/175/250 of each resources to either 150/200/250 to make it take longer to get to that stage or 100/200/300. I think the latter would be appropriate, but I don't see it happening despite that. 
Widow mines + 5 or 10 build time if production speed was an issue. They come from a reactor, so 50 might not be so steep as it sounds.
If they needed weakening though, I would probably reduce splash to 30 or 35 instead.
I think the production speed of rallied marines is more of an issue than the mines, personally and/or baneling morph time for zerg (so you could reduce that to 10 or 15 game seconds).
I want to see terrans scouting for mutalisk flock positions and dropping mines from a medivac along the flight path of the mutalisks. You'd need to kill any overseer they have with them, but I think most zergs are only bringing one for the most part, so until they caught on, you could try to make a habit of sniping overseers and then laying mines in the path of mutas.
I do think Widow Mines should be balanced around being able to turn off auto-casting though.
Previously, you supposedly could: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7415155782
|
On August 14 2013 16:15 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 15:42 PiPoGevy wrote:
The widow mine is very powerful, while the siege tank is left weak
In my opinion, the siege tank should be buffed to more closely represent its Broodwar counterpart,
While the widow mine should be nerfed
The only side effect would be a more slow paced TvZ, but the increased effectiveness of mech in three matchups Widow mines are already nerfed version of the Vulture. They cost 100 minerals and had 3 mines that could wipe out a mineral line. For SC2 Terranto achieve the same effect he would need to build both a reaper and a WM, both which cost gas, therefore the trade off is that both reaper and widow mine are stronger than the vulture. Reapers can heal and cliff jump and widow mines are walking missile silos. So really what is the trade off that you find acceptable then? Because this is a balance discussion not a whine thread. You are supposed to COUNTER PROPOSE.
1) Vultures cost 75 minerals
2) Mines required upgrade
3) Mines couldnt hit worker lines, workers hover and mines dont activate on units that hover
4) They had 20 hp
5) They couldnt kill 25 units in 1 hit because units didnt cluster as much
6) Protoss could defuse mines without observers using micro
7) They had 3 range instead of 5
Really, the only similarity between WM and spider mines is that they deal friendly damage, have mine in the name, and.... thats about it.
On August 14 2013 04:17 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 08:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 13 2013 04:00 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:48 fdsdfg wrote:On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast. They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed. Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines. Say that to Scarlett. Her muta retention was fantastic against Alive - which allowed her to get not-only ultras, but even broodlords. Mutas serve a bigger purpose than doing damage - denying drops. Sure if you want to commit to damage, you will trade mutas. But you don't need to. Just having enough muta on field deters drops. Since when is having more HP a problem for retaining units? 2x hp = 2x more buffer to pull back hurt mutas and let them regen. Reapers have a 10 second delay for their regen, mutas don't. Point is that mutas will regen back to full if you simply don't lose them. Why do people source one game? Just say it: Keeping mutalisks alive is hard when there are marines and widow mines. Plain and simple. Can it be done? Sure. But it is REALLY hard. No shit it's really hard. It's really hard for the Terran to play against Zerg too, if Scarlett can pull it off, then I'm sure Korean Zergs can too.
From the sound of things, she didnt have to deal with much of any marine/mine pressure. I mean, your statement of "if Scarlett can do it, why cant koreans" is kind of evidence within itself. How is it that a "lesser" player like Scarlett can do it while players such as soulkey, life, or any other korean zerg cant do it vs korean terrans?
|
On August 14 2013 13:47 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:53 Big J wrote:On August 14 2013 04:17 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 08:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 13 2013 04:00 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:48 fdsdfg wrote:On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast. They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed. Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines. Say that to Scarlett. Her muta retention was fantastic against Alive - which allowed her to get not-only ultras, but even broodlords. Mutas serve a bigger purpose than doing damage - denying drops. Sure if you want to commit to damage, you will trade mutas. But you don't need to. Just having enough muta on field deters drops. Since when is having more HP a problem for retaining units? 2x hp = 2x more buffer to pull back hurt mutas and let them regen. Reapers have a 10 second delay for their regen, mutas don't. Point is that mutas will regen back to full if you simply don't lose them. Why do people source one game? Just say it: Keeping mutalisks alive is hard when there are marines and widow mines. Plain and simple. Can it be done? Sure. But it is REALLY hard. No shit it's really hard. It's really hard for the Terran to play against Zerg too, if Scarlett can pull it off, then I'm sure Korean Zergs can too. Because people keep arguing about that Scarlett game and how every zerg should play like she did: 1) aLive did a mass blue flame hellion attack early, which is NOT a standard macro build. Whether or not the situation after it was equal, it was in no way normal 2) aLive did not do a paradepush (probably due to 1); the first and only big engagment before ultralisks happened at 18mins in the middle of the map and Scarlett could go into Ultralisks right after that. She did not have to spend a lot of gas on rebuilding banelings and was not forced to combat with mutalisks. Keeping mutalisks alive is pretty easy if their sole purpose is hit and run attacks, instead of fighting marines 3) She did not play a different playstyle. She played a standard-as-can-be muta/ling/bling midgame with a standard-as-can-be ultralisk transition. And when the game did go over 25mins and neither of them was able to kill the other one, she did a standard-as-can-be-in-any-matchup-yet-rare-because-matches-tend-to-end-before-that transition into the most supplyefficient army you can build as a zerg against someone who plays bio: Infestor/Broodlord (just pointing this out because some people here keep on missing that she played muta/ling/bling into ultralisks) I don't want to take anything away from her (she played awesome) or say that she only won because aLive played badly (I believe he played quite well, until the lategame). But you cannot choose for games to look like that. aLive played in a certain way that allowed Scarlett to play the way she did. In comparison, Polt played a different way against Jaedong, that does not allow you to play that way. All you're saying is that muta retention is easier when you are ahead. That much is true. Marine retention is also easier when you're ahead. Less banelings to split again, more splash units to have shots again banelings. Better upgrades, better tech (medivac to heal and load-up) But we also accept that better players in general have better unit retention - even when they are behind (MVP v Tefel for an exaggerated example - tefel's mistake was huge). Muta retention is also easier when you are the better player.
No that's absolutly not what I'm saying, nor do I think Scarlett was ahead (or behind). aLIve chose to stay on his side of the map with most of his army. I guess he could have gone for it (even supply/upgrades, standard 8rax production, standard bio vs muta/ling/bling compositions), though not at 12' but maybe at 13' or 14' (due to the blue flame hellion build). But he didn't.
|
This isn't a balance complain so much as a meta thing I had not noticed before. Every now and then even platinums like me meet up with smurfs, so this time I got this guy who fakes a msc core expand. I haven't seen this before in pro games, but it made sense in the meta.
He never built the msc. The first unit he built was a stalker after 2 bases and a robo (and an observer) at the 7 minute mark, knowing that most terrans know not to touch a msc expand. Of course, he continued to play somewhat greedy afterwards too (2 forges, 3 colossus into HT, 3 bases) but that looked more standard. But the opening rang alarm bells in my mind as something that might become the meta in the future.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
