|
On August 30 2013 02:18 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:On August 30 2013 01:48 NarutO wrote:On August 30 2013 00:11 Big J wrote:On August 29 2013 23:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:On August 29 2013 23:26 bo1b wrote:On August 29 2013 23:11 CosmicSpiral wrote:On August 29 2013 22:56 bo1b wrote:On August 29 2013 22:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On August 29 2013 22:32 bo1b wrote:
I really don't know why they don't buff the shit out of the damage that locusts do, make it so locusts can't be up permanently, lower the health of locusts, make swarm hosts faster, and then put a leash range on locusts so they can't attack from so far away if theirs creep available.
Would make the unit so much more interesting to watch and play. That wasn't the original purpose of the unit. It was meant to be a way for zerg players to break a terran that was entrenched without waiting for hive tech or sacrificing their entire army. But now there's no reason for terrans to stay behind a wall of bunkers and siege tanks in the first place. But making those changes wouldn't remove that possibility, it would just take more skill, be more interesting to play, be more interesting to watch, and would allow people to play against the cooldown that the swarmhosts would have. Sort of like how zergs send in a zergling to bait siege tank fire. Locusts already have high DPS. They do twice as much base DPS as a marine. Locust health doesn't really play into the unit being too strong as a siege unit unless you mean lategame ZvZ. Everything else would be nice but compensating for troublesome design in the first place. And we haven't even talked about how poor SH synergy is with the basic zerg cast. You're probably right, I think I'm just clutching at straws in hope of a change towards more interesting units, and less a-movy units/boring units like the collosus/voidray/tempest/swarmhost/marauder/roach/hellbat etc You shouldn't have played SC2 in the first place. ;] Or generally any RTS games. There is basically no RTS game out there that has units that are really interesting in themselves. It's the unit relations that make units interesting. E.g. a Siege Tank in itself is not really an interesting unit. It can move, attack and siege. If my basic units have bigger range than the Siege Tank the relations simply won't make tankplay interesting. Or marine micro is only possible for as long as the marine has high speed and superior range to his enemies. The moment you fight marines against other singlefire units with similar speed and range it becomes nothing but an amove battle. etc. Broodwar Ghost, Broodwar Queen, Broodwar Defiler, Science Vessel all interesting  yeah, that's true. Spellcasters have a quite easier time being inherently interesting. Though again, Ghost and Queen weren't used that much due to lacking useful interactions against a lot of units/compositions. Spellcasters in SC2 have become less interesting due to the fact that they are a "mass unit". There was no smartcast in BW and thus you didnt have "blanket storms" across whole armies; each storm actually meant something AND took a bit of effort/skill on the part of the user, because you had to select one unit and use it. I would also add any units that required skill to use to the exciting ones and Reaver drops and 2-group Mutalisk could belong in that group. Another exciting/entertaining group of units is completely missing from SC2 and those are the "comical relief" ones: Spider Mines and Reaver shot .... which were both capable of "aaaahhhh" and "awwwwww" moments. "Imperfect" unit pathing made these two units / abilities rather unpredictable and thus exciting as a lottery.
as always, predictable post that doesn't really respond to the topic I was talking about and just tries to force a discussion about SC2 game mechanisms.
|
On August 30 2013 02:16 NarutO wrote:
As mentioned before please do open a designated design topic if you want to discuss design. I will not speak for everyone but its tiresome. Its about balance here and while design overall makes for balance, the design we have right now is given and overall won't be changed. I even dare to say some of your points can be valid, but most of it is wrong or in the wrong place. Most of the time you don't consider your changes to every match up and especially you cannot discuss balance and approach a gamechange in design.
We do all 'GET' your points, we simply disagree because lots of them are dumb. We are not haters nor do we not think, we simply do not agree. Once again, PLEASE if you have suggestions for units that increase balance/help in critical situations word them correctly. Do point out what the goal of the change is, what the change will do to other match ups but don't come up with artificial ways to change the game. One swarmhost per queen or two fusion cores for 3-3 Terran upgrades. Please you cannot be serious.
Also in addition: Please do never go into the mental aspect of progaming again... you clearly are not edjucated in that field and everything you wrote down is pure guessing on your part.
As I already stated, imo the only decent way of changing balance in current TvZ is to make players use different combinations of units. E.g. if terrans used more tanks, their attacks would be slowed down naturally. There need to be incentives to to do so. The best way to approach this is to change rather unused units (tanks, swarmhosts) price/general design. This is crucial for balance.
I again wonder why you try to speak for other people, you havent even been adressed and you did not give any arguments at all. The argument of artificial limits is not valid as I explained above. Go spread your hate anywhere else naruto.
On August 30 2013 02:23 HandA711 wrote:
Queens don't provide any supply. Also 1 Overlord = 16 Zerglings.
Thats not the point.
|
Poll: LSNNARUTO GET OUT (25) 57% GET OUT (12) 27% Please stay, we appreciate your feedback (7) 16% 44 total votes Your vote: LSN (Vote): GET OUT
(Vote): Please stay, we appreciate your feedback
(Vote): NARUTO GET OUT
:-) 'my hate'
|
On August 30 2013 02:36 NarutO wrote:Poll: LSNNARUTO GET OUT (25) 57% GET OUT (12) 27% Please stay, we appreciate your feedback (7) 16% 44 total votes Your vote: LSN (Vote): GET OUT
(Vote): Please stay, we appreciate your feedback
(Vote): NARUTO GET OUT
:-) 'my hate'
lol, plz show more of your immatureness. As you anyway make a dozen of your friends vote in this poll while most others wont care I don't believe it has any matter. You are in fact the biggest hater inside this thread and probably of whole TL.
|
I do not make anyone vote, but since there are more Zergs here, I will probably get voted out :-)! Ofcourse, that doesn't mean people appreciate your posts, but I guess you don't really care about being called out, because I really cannot remember a post where people didn't tell you what you write is bullshit. I actually don't think I have ever read 'I agree' or 'I think that could work' from you neither from anyone quoting your posts.
Maybe you should read the topic. Balance suggestions were made today and instead of actually discussing them, you are derailing the topic once again with design-suggestions. (also being called out giving wrong information, you simply say thats not the point. Really hard to acknowledge a mistake right?)
Btw, only because I disagree doesn't mean I am a hater, but that was already pointed out as well. I simply want the game to be successful (I guess you want to but your suggestions...) and while you don't even think around the first corner, I try to think a bit further than that.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
Lol, while LSN may having a valid point in the fact, that shifting the balance in TvZ may involve buffing units like tanks (that suck) or SHs(that suck but and never going to catch-a-drop) i will just stay with general consensus of bio being much better than everything else in nearly all regards.
Also, i liked the fact that nowadays the very second terran loses momentum in parade push zerg that very second turns it on offence and A. kills terran. B. denies fourth for how-long-he-can,while getting himself tech.
|
sure you do, it just takes some time to make them come to this thread. You probably even go on their nerves now in IRC/ICQ or whatever programms you use to come here fast while they probably dont care too much.
This behaviour should by the way be sanctioned by the forum mods/admins. It is real off-topic and abuse. You have not a single argument but your hate. Then you try it a different way.
|
The reply from a mod to reporting you was "He's an idiot but not bannable'. I will simply reply to your post / suggestions now and explain why they are bad. Other than that, no use to talk to you.
|
United States15275 Posts
On August 30 2013 02:10 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 22:29 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Putting an artificial limitation on how many of a certain unit can be made is admitting that the unit itself is poorly designed. If you got an overlord you can build 8 zerglings. If you got 2 you can build 16. If you got 1 queen you can build 1 swarm host. If you got 2 you can build 2. You again provide limiting thinking patterns. All units are eventually artificially limited at a certain point of time in the game by the number of ressources they cost and the units of time they need to be produced. So after 3 minutes in a game, a zerg can't produce 7 ultralisks. Neither can a terran have 3 tanks or 1 battle cruiser. The MSC has a fixed limit of 1. Zerglings have a limit of 16 per overlord and 16 per 400 minerals you gathered. The production capabilities of banelings are limited by the numbers of zerglings you have, the number of broodlords you can build is limited by the number of corruptors you have. It is all the same and for sure not a matter of poor balance. These are just different unit design approaches. In my approach e.g. queens would evolve into a limiting resource for swarmhosts, this is nothing about poor design, not at all. Just to repeat: Noone needs/wants SH to be a full commitment unit that you either build none of at all or at least 15+. SH should be units that can be more easily combined with other units and be a support for them. That would increase quality of this units design and allow a bigger variety of strategies that can use a combination of swarmhosts in the unit-mix.
Tying the amount of units one can make to supply and resources is the basis of every RTS.
Tying the amount of one unit one can make to the amount of another unit one has already made is nonsensical except in the obvious case of a supply cap. It's a completely arbitrary attempt to balance a game that would make the swarm host transition impossible to perform in the midgame.
You really don't have a point here besides a generic nonsensical insult. You can't cover a bad idea by claiming the other person is too dumb to understand your point. I don't accept your proposal precisely because I understand how it would impact zerg as a race.
You also don't address the fact that Swarm Hosts are badly designed in general. But that is neither here nor there in a balance discussion thread.
P.S. The MSC being limited to 1 was also a bad idea from Blizzard in multiple aspects. It severely affected how effective the unit had to be and when it could be available.
|
Naruto, I don't see where your hate is coming from. Anything I do is giving suggestions how to change balance with giving players incentives to use other combinations of units than they do now. This can be crucial for balance. All you do is hate, not a single argument.
You should seriously be sanctioned for what you do here if moderation is not biased.
Btw. as you reply to posts that I directed to sissors and you both in general are of the same opinion in any topic I strongly believe you two are good friends or maybe even the same person? Who cares. The amount of hate you carry with you probably lets you do alot of things.
|
You can't 'make' players use different unit combinations.
The reason every TvZ is 4M is because that is currently the best army composition available to Terran given what it can do early, mid and lategame. You can hardly punish players for using what has proven to be a very viable strategy.
Sure you could kill off 4M and even MMM altogether by doing something like removing Stim.
Bam! No more 4M in TvZ and no more MMM in TvP! But that doesn't improve the game, at all.
Balance isn't about forcing players to go down certain paths, it is to provide equal choices with equal strengths and weaknesses. Perfect balance would be where going Bio, Mech or something in between would all be equally viable in all match-ups.
Bio would be mobile, but be vulnerable to splash damage and high-tech army compositions.
Mech would be incredibly strong at holding a position and having massive firepower, but lacking mobility and adaptability.
Currently the reason 4M exists is because Mech does not provide a strong enough alternative.
Tanks at 150/125/3 with having to deploy slowly into Siege Mode will never have the same synergy with Bio as a mobile, fast 75/25 Widow Mine that essentially does the same.
Add in that Vipers completely nullify Siege Tanks in the lategame and Tanks are suddenly nowhere near as useful as in WoL. The new additions in HotS made the Siege Tank partially obsolete.
Again, you could 'fix' that by completely nerfing the mine into oblivion or something along that line but you cannot think in the line of 'forcing players' or 'making players' because it is inherently wrong. Those players aren't doing anything wrong by going 4M, they are doing what gives them best chance at winning. Obviously this means nearly everyone will do it, which is why we all love it when someone does NOT go 4M, not because 4M players are 'bad'.
To see Bio-Tank in TvZ (or hell, tanks in general in TvP as well) the Tank will need to be changed yes, but carefully.
Modify the Siege Tank so that it provides something that Mines cannot. Maybe just reducing the cost of the Tank to 150/100/2 so that you can have more firepower for the same supply, or improving their damage.
Or perhaps by modifying something else, say that Blinding Cloud is only 50% effective against a sieged Tank.
Once a viable alternative has been created by Blizzard in the form of Bio-Tank or Mech, players should naturally attempt to go for strategies that utiltize them.
I'd much, much rather see Blizzard try and provide as many viable and balanced strategies as possible, rather than nerfing whatever is currently being used by everyone.
The only decent way to get players to try something other than what has become the standard is to provide good alternatives, not nerfing the standard into uselessness so that something else MUST take its place.
|
On August 30 2013 02:59 Thezzy wrote:
...Currently the reason 4M exists is because Mech does not provide a strong enough alternative. ...
If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I proposed to give terrans incentives to use more tanks with bio/mine play by changing the price design of mech units, including tanks at the same time when I also suggested the change of swarmhosts to bring them back into usual games. As I already said more tanks within the bio/mine mix would already change the metagame enaugh to slow terran attacks down a bit and make it a bit more of a siege war, especially in combination with some other changes that I proposed. I think such changes would be enaugh to get TvZ right instead of simply buffing/nerfing anything. And at the same time it makes the matchup more versatile/interesting.
Of course this has to be tried and figured out with tests. I cannot provide patchnotes from the scratch.
|
Your take on balance and how to set up proper balance is equal to some series. Its completely irrational, constructed. Thats our point. We all would like a system and game where different styles are being used and viable, but lets be honest. Starcraft 2 is not yet that far and personally I believe due to its setup its very hard to achieve that it will ever be that way.
Something can be very good in Starcraft 2 at one point and be completely and utterly useless at another point. Best example would be PvP the colossus can be very good midgame, but once there are tempest on the field it becomes utterly useless and wasted supply. Thats just one of the examples. Ofcourse there should be a counter-system, but in Starcraft you can either be countered so hard or seemingly not at all.
The game is super fast paced so your units in the mid / lategame are worth less, but the first fight is worth a ton. You probably will be crushed because losing a fight means you lose all initiative in the game or potentially the opponent directly is into your face. In broodwar for example fights/harass started earlier, was slower and build up. The game was slow enough that you can retreat in fights, approach fights and retreat after. It was fast enough to still spread your concentration and focus apart into multiple locations so you could really never manage everything other than if you are really a godlike player.
Starcraft 2 has fundamental design issues (too fast in general gameplay, too fast maxout, too fast economy pushes) but that is all general design. It will not change from artificially changing units. You are constructing your game, but just because it can theoretically work, players are used to abuse and use stuff, possibly use it like it was never meant to be played, You want to limit the amount of swarmhost because you want them to be viable, but increasing amount of swarmhosts or decreasing it artificially especially like you do makes no sense.
Its not just that you will need a queen (2 supply) but that essentially means that a swarmhost does cost you more supply than now. In addition it means that you bind a few swarmhosts that are no threat at all (like you pointed out) to a lot of supply that is still immobile. Your propose does nullify the swarmhost against mech and Protoss while it doesn't really buff it against bio. While its now viable as playstyle even though its ugly, you make it unviable in all match ups seemingly. This is no hate, its just thinking about what the changes would do. No one wants 10 swarmhost and 10 queens bound to them, because the queens (even if good in some situations) will be terrible in most situations.
A unit does not have to be viable in all match ups. Banshees are not useful or viable in TvP in most situations, but they can and do appear , even if its very rare. The swarmhost can work against Terran, but first of all its rare and secondly its more common vs mech. There is nothing wrong with it. Really I don't want to explain it to you, because I feel like it goes for itself and others will understand. End of story. You will not listen and call me out that I hate, while I really don't. I just generally think all of your suggestions are dumb, but I am not going to write an essay just to have you
a) disappear (happened before) and come back with another statement ignoring my previous points
b) ignoring all what I wrote or blame me for not understanding
so yeah! Have a great day.
|
United States15275 Posts
|
On August 30 2013 03:05 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:59 Thezzy wrote:
...Currently the reason 4M exists is because Mech does not provide a strong enough alternative. ... If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I proposed to give terrans incentives to use more tanks with bio/mine play by changing the price design of mech units, including tanks at the same time when I also suggested the change of swarmhosts to bring them back into usual games. As I already said more tanks within the bio/mine mix would already change the metagame enaugh to slow terran attacks down a bit and make it a bit more of a siege war, especially in combination with some other changes that I proposed. I think such changes would be enaugh to get TvZ right instead of simply buffing/nerfing anything. And at the same time it makes the matchup more versatile/interesting. Of course this has to be tried and figured out with tests. I cannot provide patchnotes from the scratch.
Your proposed changes of the tank were bad. It would be completely and utter destruction for a mech player in TvT. Gascost would increase by a large margin while not making up for it. As you said the problem in TvZ is that Terran with bio isn't has heavy on gas. While bio vs mech is a bit heavier on gas, it certainly still isn't very heavy. You can either go mass bio and straight out kill the mech player while he tries to take his 3rd base, because he doesn't get a sufficient tank count on 4 gas or you can simply choose to add tanks yourself, as they are now low-mineral , heavy gas which has perfect synergy to your bio increasing the chances of your win once again.
As you can see and as I mentioned, you keep looking at one match up, while ignoring one or both other match ups. How do you plan on giving meching players in TvT more chances against bio. Currently its strong, but beatable, the change you propose would weaken it by a lot giving bio players a ton of an edge. Obviously that also means that marine/tank will be played more because the metagame once agian shifts, but you are the person that wants LOTS OF styles to be possible.
|
@naruto
I already answered to the few arguments you provide against my proposed change. Its a matter of unit price design. As zergs anyway have a certain number of queens, there wouldn't be an increase of supply cost but a strong decrease of swarm host costs when getting the exact number of hosts that you have anyway queens for, without bulding extra ones.
E.g. 100:75 for 1 swarmhost with swarmhosts being limited to the number of queens on the battlefield. Thats hardly more than the price of 1 hydra. It would make alot of sense to get hosts in alot more situations then. Zergs can use a few of them to constantly attack a terran rally position and force the terran either to attack or go back. Also if terran break a zerg defense at e.g. the 4th this 4th expansion would not go down instantly but 5 swarmhosts in the back create another wave of 10 locusts to deal with. This can create some time to get reinforcements in place for the zerg and distract the terran from focusing the hatch instanly.
Also the reduced price of hosts would make them viable in low numbers in ZvP while not allowing them to get too strong in dozens. This would result in zergs using hosts more oftenly but not focusing on pure hosts.
@naruto about tanks
A combination of price changes of mech/ravens wouldn't allow the exact same numbers of tanks in TvT thats right. But they will still be usable the same way bio/tank is being used right now. Changing ravens from gas to mineral heavy would also support ravens being used with mech, especially tanks. Reducing thor gas costs helps to keep the mins/gas balance of mech in place for other matchups. Anyway TvT is not the important matchup to direct balance for. Its a mirror and things balance out automatically in mirrors. I doubt that this change would lead into a loss of quality in TvT. Just pure tanks would get less strong, this can be equalized with more hellbats or more of any other units. I would gladly see an increase of options in TvZ while TvT suffers a bit. You wont be able to change anything that does not affect any other matchup. To say such changes can only have a bad effect in the beginning is wrong I think.
Anyway I think what you really dont understand is the general approach of me. I dont say make this or that. I say I would like to see blizzard to trial and error with this stuff. These things all need alot of tests that I am not capable to do but blizzard is. I cannot provide exact numbers of how much a tank should cost from the scratch. What I can do is to say to give the races in TvZ incentives to use other unit combinations than they do now, that would probably fix the whole debate.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On August 30 2013 03:20 LSN wrote:
@naruto
I already answered to the few arguments you provide against my proposed change. Its a matter of unit price design. As zergs anyway have a certain number of queens, there wouldn't be an increase of supply cost but a strong decrease of swarm host costs when getting the exact number of hosts that you have anyway queens for, without bulding extra ones.
E.g. 100:75 for 1 swarmhost with swarmhosts being limited to the number of queens on the battlefield. Thats hardly more than the price of 1 hydra. It would make alot of sense to get hosts in alot more situations then. Zergs can use a few of them to constantly attack a terran rally position and force the terran either to attack or go back. Also if terran break a zerg defense at e.g. the 4th this 4th expansion would not go down instantly but 5 swarmhosts in the back create another wave of 10 locusts to deal with. This can create some time to get reinforcements in place for the zerg and distract the terran from focusing the hatch instanly.
Also the reduced price of hosts would make them viable in low numbers in ZvP while not allowing them to get too strong in dozens. This would result in zergs using hosts more oftenly but not focusing on pure hosts.
Making swarm hosts cheap won't make 'em viable in low numbers in ZvP. Swarm hosts simply have the critical mass parameter, that in their case means can locusts last long enough to do damage and to buy time for new wave of 'em to spawn or not. 14 locusts will be dps'd before they will be able to do serious damage. 30 locusts without mass splash will not. SC2 does not work like this ^_^. Also, makes SH turtle style completely bad, even though queens are good units, queens do not counter collosi and take up supply (and are fragile against feedback).
|
On August 30 2013 02:59 Thezzy wrote:
Balance isn't about forcing players to go down certain paths, it is to provide equal choices with equal strengths and weaknesses. Perfect balance would be where going Bio, Mech or something in between would all be equally viable in all match-ups.
Bio would be mobile, but be vulnerable to splash damage and high-tech army compositions.
Mech would be incredibly strong at holding a position and having massive firepower, but lacking mobility and adaptability.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I wish you elaborated on this point a bit more.
Currently, 4M (in TvZ) has a proper answer for pretty much anything Z can do.
Marines and Mines are extremely cost-effective against Mutas and Zerglings, and decent at kiting Banelings. So it can fight well against muta/ling/bane.
Against roach/hydra, 4M has a huge mobility advantage, and Z gets dropped to death without being able to force a proper engagement.
Vipers have nothing good to abduct, and blinding cloud is useless against something so fast. Ultras are good, but still can get kited and heavily outmaneuvered, and are still not cost-effective against mines.
Broodlords are so immobile they will never force a proper engagement. Swarmhosts cannot handle a 4m ball on the offensive or defensive.
So that's pretty much all the compositions Zerg has, and the one that works best is ling/bling/muta, and eventually ultra.
What SHOULD be the answer? What should the weakness to 4M be? Right now 4M in ZvT has all the advantage of a traditional 'tanks, turrets, and bunkers' terran defense, but it's mobile enough to put the same force on the offense within seconds. It has incredibly good drop mobility, and can secure map control with minimal supply. In ZvT, I don't think it's a stretch to say that 4M has no exploitable weakness. If it had one, what should it be?
|
On August 30 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 03:20 LSN wrote:
@naruto
I already answered to the few arguments you provide against my proposed change. Its a matter of unit price design. As zergs anyway have a certain number of queens, there wouldn't be an increase of supply cost but a strong decrease of swarm host costs when getting the exact number of hosts that you have anyway queens for, without bulding extra ones.
E.g. 100:75 for 1 swarmhost with swarmhosts being limited to the number of queens on the battlefield. Thats hardly more than the price of 1 hydra. It would make alot of sense to get hosts in alot more situations then. Zergs can use a few of them to constantly attack a terran rally position and force the terran either to attack or go back. Also if terran break a zerg defense at e.g. the 4th this 4th expansion would not go down instantly but 5 swarmhosts in the back create another wave of 10 locusts to deal with. This can create some time to get reinforcements in place for the zerg and distract the terran from focusing the hatch instanly.
Also the reduced price of hosts would make them viable in low numbers in ZvP while not allowing them to get too strong in dozens. This would result in zergs using hosts more oftenly but not focusing on pure hosts. Making swarm hosts cheap won't make 'em viable in low numbers in ZvP. Swarm hosts simply have the critical mass parameter, that in their case means can locusts last long enough to do damage and to buy time for new wave of 'em to spawn or not. 14 locusts will be dps'd before they will be able to do serious damage. 30 locusts without mass splash will not. SC2 does not work like this ^_^. Also, makes SH turtle style completely bad, even though queens are good units, queens do not counter collosi and take up supply (and are fragile against feedback).
Well just think of a mixture of units. Instead of 15 swarmhosts use 5 with a combination of all the other stuff Z has like ling, roach, hydra, viper. This makes no sense now because 5 swarmhosts are too expensive. If, as I proposed (as an example), swarmhosts had hardly higher costs than a hydra while being limited to the number of queens, it would make alot of sense to get 5 hosts instead of 6 hydras in combination with your army. Also hosts can be more easily be used to defend 2 base all-ins then and alot of other stuff would change.
Your argument is wrong because you imply that the price of a unit has no matter at all. Any unit that is for free makes sense to use, if you reach a critical mass or not. While 5 hosts never deal enaugh damage alone, I dare to say that they could probably be worth to build instead of 5-6 hydras then. Critical mass is always a matter or costs.
Also just think of Protoss openings without robotics. Swarmhosts could become a more viable not long term counter to them, making skytosses use more oracles with detection and inventing other new styles. This is good for game's general health.
|
I kinda like the changes lsn is proposing..For both the siegetank and swarmhost
and i dont think he is dumb
OMG NARUTO DONT SUE ME PLEASE
Mothershipcore can only have one
Would love to see a change to the swarmhost which would follow the principle of mothershipcore, perhaps it would make terran with their bio/mine wanna go siegetanks, atleast a few.
So more factoryplay with bio = more variation = strategy = one extra unit added to zerg = very good = naruto
The siegetank change i like to.
How often do we seriously see siegetank, naruto claims it would break mech TvT , oh dear! Oh dear oh dear!
Because lets be frank here, with a change to the siegetank, terran mech versus bio terran will play excactly the same or else that terran is stupid, right?
No, he would probably change his style, his goal is to go full mech
but he opens with mairnes/siegetank = easier to secure additional gases
Or he opens more agressive hellions cuz siegetanks cost less money.
I kinda like this alot, maybe we would see some tanks in tvp, atleast we can hope.
Naruto dont be mad
btw: if you now are so sick of design discussion in this thread, maybe you shouldnt write stuff that isnt about balance at all in here, so stop call people out like that, keep it in PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
