| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On September 03 2013 00:42 Wingblade wrote: Map control. It would be irrelevant. Terran would only be able to be on non-creep areas. You cannot just prevent a race from being on parts of the map with their army. Ehem, Widow mine? ( maybe not that extreme, but could not resist  | ||
|
ysnake
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On September 03 2013 00:42 Wingblade wrote: Map control. It would be irrelevant. Terran would only be able to be on non-creep areas. You cannot just prevent a race from being on parts of the map with their army. The problem is the Widow Mine itself with support, do we really need to explain what everyone was saying the past 10 pages? Also, that would force Ravens from Terran, and Blizzard was already stating that they want them used more. At least Terran would make use of them, currently, there's no reason to build anything other than Marines, Widow Mines, Medivacs and occasional Marauder to soak up the Baneling hits. Most Zergs never make it out of the mid-game, so there's clearly a problem with the main gimmicky unit which is Widow Mine. Go and try to play Zerg with your friend Terran, you'd see how annoying it is to play against it. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On September 02 2013 23:29 Big J wrote: The first part is pure speculation. Like if a Terran has to go 2base to defend such a push 3CC might simply not be viable. Right now Terran can defend any push after hatch first while going for a 3CC (with hellion+bunker) build. It may also turn out like an old reactored hellion contain. For gateway timing pushes: I'm talking about things like the old FFE into 4gate+1 timing push where you can barely squeeze out a handful of roaches currently to hold or an even stronger 6-7gate+1 with pure zealots. Can you hold that kind of stuff with hydras instead of roaches? It would at least shake up BOs. What you mean with "it will force people to acknowledge the issues of Protoss as an entire race" I don't really know. If you made Ultralisks T1 you would also "force people to acknowledge the issues of Protoss as an entire race"... It doesn't make sense that you say by introducing a problem you show a problem. For the second part, there have always been a thousand speculations about everything. With every nerf/buff Terrans were telling people how each of their matchups became unwinable (immortal buff --> "without 1-1-1 we can't punish a greedy Protoss", EMP nerf --> "Protoss deathball becomes unbeatable", ultralisk build time buff --> "Broodlord/Ultra switches will become impossible to stop"snipe nerf -->..., fungal buff...; and similarily with Voidrays, widow mines, Seeker Missile change and other things in other matchups). If the community predicts everything, they are bound to sometimes be right. And even that is questionable with the queen buff, because in retrospect I believe that Broodlord/Infestor would have still broken the matchup sooner or later, it would have just been blamed on the snipe nerf instead. The timing window of it was just way to big, the gameplay may have just turned out more ZvPish with Terran having a variety of 2 base allins due to weaker queens. And I disagree with the Infestor being flawed in itself. It was overpowered because it was too hard to avoid perfect fungals and because it could produce an equivalent of a maxed marine army temporarily. Blizzard fixed that and I believe it is a very nice unit to play with and against now, one that can't produce a strong lategame army anymore and can really be dealt with by micro and counterunits, but still has its uses in the lategame. Just one example of a little tweak (this may already be too much, but just to show you the power of such tweaks): right now roach/hydra play in ZvT basically ends in the late midgame, because Terran's production kicks in and from there on it's a question of "who counters who". And Marines win that fight. If roaches had 3-4 instead of 3-3 (e.g. tunneling claws would be a hive upgrade and provide +1armor as well) in the lategame, they would break exactly even with marines in open areas. Instead, marines win with nearly 50% surviving. This is a little tweak, but it would have a big effect on the viability of roach based compositions in the lategame against biobased play. (I also tested this vs stalkers and its probably too much vs lategame Protoss, but you could do this while simultanously just nerfing roach HP by 5-10. Then you'd have a little tweak that could turn out quite uninteresting for most situations, but be really good against fast attacking low damage units in the lategame) If Terran has to go 2 base to counter this strategy, that's fine. Zerg would have to go 2 base to even make the strategy work. 3 CC should not be viable against a dedicated all-in anyway. Both zerg and terran take the substantial risk of spreading out too much with more expensive ranged units. The original suggestion change would make it that such gateway pushes are much easier to hold. Creating a concave would be easier, sustained army DPS would increase, and the benefits of micro naturally increase with range. There's quite a bit of spite and annoyance with my last rationalization. I feel that Protoss is fundamentally broken in that its design is based on the high tech gas units (colossi, high templar) instead of gateway units while both zerg and terran design is based on their basic units. That's why we have this annoying dichotomy between gateway all-ins and extremely lategame that was further warped by the introduction of the MSC. A "thousand speculations" doesn't mean much when 99% of them come from whining and ignorance. That's like saying economic speculation is useless since 99% of people don't understand market cycles. And I wasn't talking about "the community" in general. The infestor was always flawed in the sense that it would either be too strong or too weak given its existing abilities. Its area-of-effect root spell cyclically rewards itself; a group can spawn an entire army on demand; it can control other select units (even though Neural Parasite was never great in reality). All of these plus the fact it can run away underground. So Blizzard ran into the problem of having to make Fungal Growth and Infested Terrans manageable if the infestor count gets too high and that points to another design flaw. No support spellcaster should be so dominant in principle that its main abilities must be nerfed into the ground to be fair. Personally I disagree and think the unit is trash at the highest level of competition. It "has its uses in the lategame" primarily since it lacks viability in the midgame where it is supposed to be most relevant. +1 armor still doesn't account for kiting, tanks and splash while clumped up, and marauders. Also there's no mention of blink or how the +1 armor affects the battle as a whole. It would also make ZvZ even more roach-oriented than it is currently. | ||
|
VieuxSinge
France231 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11803 Posts
Mech seeing too little play. Solution: Decreasing supply cost of siege tank to 2. Side Effects: Might make early pushes too strong due to less money in depots. TvT tank lines might become even more boring to watch, though extra supply for air might work against this. Hard to tell. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
I have had this idea for a while now about how to buff TvP mech while at the same time giving a slight nerf to the widow mines in TvZ: Literally swap the damage types of the tank with that of the widow mine. I think we can agree that the siege tank is an obsolete unit in TvP and TvZ, now that mines do a far more efficient job of clearing out mass units. In addition, one simple mistake can wipe out a whole zerg army from going into widow mines. Now what if: The tank now fires a high singletarget damage + a bit of AoE (maybe reduce to 20 from 40) + shield dmg (mine attack). The mine now fires a general aoe that is stronger in the centre of the blast but is gradually weaker the further away from the initial target (tank attack). What we would get now is a tank that can cope with Protoss units and possibly make mech quite a viable option. In TvZ the mine would still be viable but a lot more forgiving as you wouldn't see the flat 40aoe damage wipe out 15 lings in one hit. I realise that this would be a very fundamental change but what do you guys think of this idea? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Edit: I suppose you could kill individual stalkers faster, but that never seemed like a big problem for siege tanks. The problem was swarms of units like zealots, which are still not very manageable. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
On September 03 2013 04:20 ChristianS wrote: Isn't the tank hit just straight better, though? I haven't ever been able to find a number on how big the radius is for widow mine AoE, but it doesn't seem much bigger, if at all. So then you have high AoE in the middle and low AoE at the outsides versus low AoE everywhere and high damage to one target. Versus both zerg and protoss the high AoE seems better, since having single target damage that high is of limited use (especially for a siege tank). Edit: I suppose you could kill individual stalkers faster, but that never seemed like a big problem for siege tanks. The problem was swarms of units like zealots, which are still not very manageable. In my opinion, what we generally see in TvP mech is the Protoss army massing up zealots, immortals, archons and roflstomping a mech army, unless the Terran hits perfect EMPs and even then it's iffy. Again, in my view its not that the mech army isnt generally powerful, its that the protoss pushes out such high dps vs mech units that they don't give chance for the tanks to deal out their aoe. With this new tank fire, Protoss units would die faster thus reducing the the overall "dps" of the Protoss ball. The additional slight-flat aoe (lets just say 20 for arguments sake) would help out soften up the surrounding protoss units. In other words , the protoss units would not tank as much damage as before, more would die in the initial tank volleys and hence they wouldnt dish out quite as much damage as before. Going to TvZ, a mine with the gradual-aoe of the tank wouldnt wipe out so many lings in one shot as it is not a flat damage. Zergling armor would actually matter (although not too much). | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
I'm playing Settlers II for the last few days now and it's one of those classic games that has held up very well due to the imaginative concept behind it, but I can't see myself playing it for more than a few weeks because there are a lot of areas where the game shows promise but doesn't live up to it due to lack of polish. (expected for a game from 1996) Starcraft would also not have been suitable for e-sports without patches and KeSPA map makers. And it's not just patches, some people scoff at them and claim that it is up to the players to figure out the game, but certainly the developers are balancing the game prior to release. Any time Blizzard creates a new unit it goes through about twenty passes (I made this up, but it seems likely  ) just to test the strength of the concept and to further polish the unit. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
? | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On September 03 2013 04:20 ChristianS wrote: Isn't the tank hit just straight better, though? I haven't ever been able to find a number on how big the radius is for widow mine AoE, but it doesn't seem much bigger, if at all. So then you have high AoE in the middle and low AoE at the outsides versus low AoE everywhere and high damage to one target. Versus both zerg and protoss the high AoE seems better, since having single target damage that high is of limited use (especially for a siege tank). Edit: I suppose you could kill individual stalkers faster, but that never seemed like a big problem for siege tanks. The problem was swarms of units like zealots, which are still not very manageable. Tanks do under 30 damage even in their medium AoE, so at most you'll kill ~5 banelings in one shot with a siege tank with perfect target firing. Widow mines might have about the same AoE, but they do 40 spell damage (i.e. ignores armor) in that AoE, so they can easily kill 10+ banelings even without target firing (i.e. hitting the edge of the pack rather than the middle). And with a Siege Tank's ability to target the middle of a pack rather than the outside honestly I think it would be completely broken. You'd only need ~4 siege tanks to be one shotting large groups of zealots / stalkers, and once you hit a mass of ~8 or so you'd be one shotting groups of Immortals no problem. Not to mention how much more damage siege tanks would do vs marines / mauraders / hellbats in TvT... I guess unless you keep the 40s cooldown. With a 40s Cooldown it would be pretty easy to bait out shots, but would probably leave tanks completely useless in every matchup. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 03 2013 04:29 Psychobabas wrote: In my opinion, what we generally see in TvP mech is the Protoss army massing up zealots, immortals, archons and roflstomping a mech army, unless the Terran hits perfect EMPs and even then it's iffy. Again, in my view its not that the mech army isnt generally powerful, its that the protoss pushes out such high dps vs mech units that they don't give chance for the tanks to deal out their aoe. With this new tank fire, Protoss units would die faster thus reducing the the overall "dps" of the Protoss ball. The additional slight-flat aoe (lets just say 20 for arguments sake) would help out soften up the surrounding protoss units. In other words , the protoss units would not tank as much damage as before, more would die in the initial tank volleys and hence they wouldnt dish out quite as much damage as before. Going to TvZ, a mine with the gradual-aoe of the tank wouldnt wipe out so many lings in one shot as it is not a flat damage. Zergling armor would actually matter (although not too much). This change helps out bio/tank, or anything where you only have a few tanks, but it definitely hurts mech. The reason being that a tank with high AoE scales better in larger numbers than a tank with high single-target damage but less AoE. For mech, you generally want to have enough tanks firing that, if there's a clump of stalkers, you fire enough AoE to do killing damage to all of them. Thus single-target damage doesn't help you kill them faster here, because they should be dead at the end of one volley anyway. Instead you've made it so if the targets you're firing on are really numerous (e.g. zealots), you probably don't do enough damage with a single target shot to 1-hit them anyway, you don't have enough tanks to put one shot on each of them even if you could 1-hit them, and there's not enough AoE to really bite chunks out of them before they come charging in. The effect is that mech does way worse against large armies composed of numerous small units like zealots or zerglings, and a bit worse against large armies composed of smaller numbers of large units. If you only have a few tanks, though, say 3-4 tanks and a bunch of marines, you might prefer the single target damage. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 03 2013 05:03 Pursuit_ wrote: Tanks do under 30 damage even in their medium AoE, so at most you'll kill ~5 banelings in one shot with a siege tank with perfect target firing. Widow mines might have about the same AoE, but they do 40 spell damage (i.e. ignores armor) in that AoE, so they can easily kill 10+ banelings even without target firing (i.e. hitting the edge of the pack rather than the middle). And with a Siege Tank's ability to target the middle of a pack rather than the outside honestly I think it would be completely broken. You'd only need ~4 siege tanks to be one shotting large groups of zealots / stalkers, and once you hit a mass of ~8 or so you'd be one shotting groups of Immortals no problem. Not to mention how much more damage siege tanks would do vs marines / mauraders / hellbats in TvT... I guess unless you keep the 40s cooldown. With a 40s Cooldown it would be pretty easy to bait out shots, but would probably leave tanks completely useless in every matchup. Oh, I was assuming the numbers would be tweaked on the siege tank. Absolutely having a 2 second cooldown on widow mine shots at 13 range would be totally broken. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 03 2013 04:12 Psychobabas wrote: How to buff mech TvP, and give a slight nerf to mines in TvZ I have had this idea for a while now about how to buff TvP mech while at the same time giving a slight nerf to the widow mines in TvZ: Literally swap the damage types of the tank with that of the widow mine. I think we can agree that the siege tank is an obsolete unit in TvP and TvZ, now that mines do a far more efficient job of clearing out mass units. In addition, one simple mistake can wipe out a whole zerg army from going into widow mines. Now what if: The tank now fires a high singletarget damage + a bit of AoE (maybe reduce to 20 from 40) + shield dmg (mine attack). The mine now fires a general aoe that is stronger in the centre of the blast but is gradually weaker the further away from the initial target (tank attack). What we would get now is a tank that can cope with Protoss units and possibly make mech quite a viable option. In TvZ the mine would still be viable but a lot more forgiving as you wouldn't see the flat 40aoe damage wipe out 15 lings in one hit. I realise that this would be a very fundamental change but what do you guys think of this idea? well, buffing the tank from: 35+15 to 125 is just way too much. But it goes in the direction that I have been proposing as well. Buff tank main target damage, so that it becomes stronger at dealing with bigger/higher HP units and isn't solely made for killing banelings, zerglings, marines, marauders, roaches and stalkers. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
In rough numbers I'm proposing this: Tank Siege mode fire: *Keep the area of affect radius and range the same *Single Target receives 100 damage (85+15 from upgrades???) +25 for shields. *Area of effect damage: about 20 (this is flat throughout the radius) Mine damage: *Keep area of affect radius and range the same *Target receives 75 damage. *Units in inner circle (surrounding the target) receive 50 or so damage (1 shots lings still) *Units in outter circle receive 25 or so damage (lings survive and can regenerate back to full health/ Zerg's mistake isnt punished so badly.) I hope this makes sense, let me know what you think. | ||
|
Lock0n
United Kingdom184 Posts
On September 03 2013 04:12 Psychobabas wrote: How to buff mech TvP, and give a slight nerf to mines in TvZ I have had this idea for a while now about how to buff TvP mech while at the same time giving a slight nerf to the widow mines in TvZ: Literally swap the damage types of the tank with that of the widow mine. I think we can agree that the siege tank is an obsolete unit in TvP and TvZ, now that mines do a far more efficient job of clearing out mass units. In addition, one simple mistake can wipe out a whole zerg army from going into widow mines. Now what if: The tank now fires a high singletarget damage + a bit of AoE (maybe reduce to 20 from 40) + shield dmg (mine attack). The mine now fires a general aoe that is stronger in the centre of the blast but is gradually weaker the further away from the initial target (tank attack). What we would get now is a tank that can cope with Protoss units and possibly make mech quite a viable option. In TvZ the mine would still be viable but a lot more forgiving as you wouldn't see the flat 40aoe damage wipe out 15 lings in one hit. I realise that this would be a very fundamental change but what do you guys think of this idea? Unless the shield on immortals is changed, tanks are never going to be viable in TvP. And Zerg would cry even more because ultras would then get demolished by tanks. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 03 2013 05:24 Psychobabas wrote: Yes of course Im saying to leave the mine cooldown and tank range as it is lol. In rough numbers I'm proposing this: Tank Siege mode fire: *Keep the area of affect radius and range the same *Single Target receives 100 damage (85+15 from upgrades???) +25 for shields. *Area of effect damage: about 20 (this is flat throughout the radius) Mine damage: *Keep area of affect radius and range the same *Target receives 75 damage. *Units in inner circle (surrounding the target) receive 50 or so damage (1 shots lings still) *Units in outter circle receive 25 or so damage (lings survive and can regenerate back to full health/ Zerg's mistake isnt punished so badly.) I hope this makes sense, let me know what you think. It's just way too strong of a buff for tanks. like the AoE gets buffed by over 50% in the outer area, the main target damage by 100-200%. we are talking about tank armies killing bio armies beforw they can get a shot off and 3-4 tanks oneshoting colossi, thors, ultras, archons... I mean, why build a seond base if 3tanks can kill a nexus in 15seconds. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 03 2013 05:44 Lock0n wrote: Unless the shield on immortals is changed, tanks are never going to be viable in TvP. That's not necessarily true. Honestly, I think just a tank targetting AI change that made them automatically avoid immortals with their shots if there were other units in range would work wonders. You don't have to kill the immortals with the tanks, you can EMP them or kill them with hellbats or widow mines. Source: Playing a fair amount of mech TvP on ladder at diamond level. No, it's not really viable there either | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
I mentioned before that I was playing Settlers II recently. I don't know how familiar everyone is with the game, so here's a short summary, taken from wikipedia: + Show Spoiler + The player's main objectives are building a diverse economy and conquering every computer opponent. The player begins each map with a warehouse and a set amount of materials and tools. The economy is driven by serfs who transport goods through a network of roads and also populate buildings, if the necessary tool to perform the building task is present in the warehouse. The economy is based on gathering raw materials which include food, stone, lumber, and ores. The player has control over what percent of each material is transported to each building for processing. All raw materials are used to enable different economic functions: food enables miners to mine, rock and lumber are used as material to construct buildings and other tasks while different ores are used to construct tools and war material. The player has a limited territory upon which he can construct buildings and roads. During the start of the game, the main warehouse grants access to land for a specific radius. Territory can be expanded by creating one of four military complexes (Barracks, Guardhouse, Watchtower and Fortress) near the present territory border. Each complex must have at least one soldier garrisoned to receive the added territory bonus. Soldiers can be created by manufacturing a sword and shield, and using them to upgrade a serf. One "unit" of beer is also required to upgrade a serf to a soldier. Gold coins can also be added to raise the rank of a soldier, making him stronger in combat. The player can send any amount of available soldiers to an enemy military complex where the soldier(s) must defeat all enemy soldiers housed in the building. If the player's units defeats all housed soldiers then the military complex is taken over by the player with the accompanying territory of the building's radius. The player can also build catapults, which can attack enemy military buildings. As long as stones are supplied, the catapult will fire automatically. The player wins the scenarios once they defeat all opponents by occupying all their military complexes including the main warehouse or, in campaign mode, when they gain control of a specific area of the map that allows access to the next level. At this point, the game gives an option to either quit the game or continue playing. There are some intricate aspects to the functionality of the game. It's a bit tricky to explain... There is a limit for the number of items that can wait for transportation at one of the constant check points, if you exceed this limit all the couriers except the one responsible will cease any activity and will wait until the problem is solved before resuming activities. If at this point there is a constant flow and an imbalance of goods going in one direction you create a bottleneck that grinds down your entire economy. If you try to combat this by creating an alternative pathway for your couriers, you run into the following issue: the AI of the game always takes the shortest path, it won't care about the traffic congestion, so if your new road is even a slightly longer route it won't be taken. That's one example of fighting against the AI in Settlers II. The game is too broad in scale to allow you to directly control many aspects of the economy. You have to build the structures, set priorities, design the traffic network, but you can't directly tell the settlers what routes to take, what goods to deliver where. This is all automated and you can only influence it by making smart high level decisions for your settlement that indirectly nudge the AI to make the desired adjustments. In the previous example, there are many ways to disrupt the flow of goods to your liking, it's just that you have to take into account the sort of decisions the AI will make. There are many other examples, actually. I am by no means an expert on the game, but I was tempted to try some counter intuitive strategies to deal with some of the issues the game develops once your settlement becomes too large, and for me this means the game becomes a lot more interesting to deal with. With modern technology having a very flexible AI that is very good at responding to the needs of the economy in terms of deciding what goods to transport will be very easy to make. Settlers, which is an old game, didn't have that luxury, so its AI has some limitations once the economy scales up. However, overcoming those limitations adds complexity and longevity to the game. And obviously this relates to Brood War in the following way: nobody cares if the AI was limited by design or due to technological constraints, what matters is if these limitations create interesting problems to solve. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Sometimes the challenges a game presents are rooted in how hard it is to make the game do what you want it to (e.g. successfully performing a difficult combo in a fighting game). If this is a fun challenge, that's fun. But oftentimes such challenges are not very interesting, just rote actions that take a lot of tedious practice to get right. Then if with better technology you can help make those challenges easier, and put the difficulty of the game into more fun and interesting problems, that would be an improvement. For instance, it is my personal opinion that individually selecting a whole bunch of barracks and hitting 'm' every x seconds isn't really fun gameplay. Some people are of a different opinion, but it seems as though the majority of RTS gamers seem to agree with me. TL has a big faction of old Brood War players who disagree, and it's not as though having to select buildings individually doesn't have interesting strategic implications. It puts a much higher premium on APM so that even at the top level most players can't macro perfectly and micro perfectly at the same time, so you're forced to choose at any given time what is the most important way to spend your attention. You can even make strategic decisions with the sole intention of drawing your opponent's attention somewhere else so you can waste their attention (at the expense of your own, of course). That said, it makes one of the most important deciding factors in who will win become APM. For a long time, BW tournaments were won more based on superior mechanics than on anything else. Not only does that mean that a lot of strategic elements couldn't develop properly until players' mechanics reached a point where they could reasonably keep up with all the game's actions for a lot of the early game, but also that means that becoming capable of playing the game takes a HUGE overhead of really tedious practice. So, in my opinion, MBS is a good thing, although there's still plenty of high-post-count TL denizens who disagree with a great deal of passion. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
