|
These changes might as well not exist.
I don't see the point of the seeker missile change. If you start seeker missile the same time you start building ravens, Ravens will have seeker missile by the time they are built+ gather up energy.
Though, it does allow for other Raven upgrades to be prioritized, such as the +25 energy one.
As for the infestor, it seems negligible.
|
On December 01 2012 06:22 MrF wrote:
blizzard is scared of overbalancing so they make stupid useless changes instead o
except it's a test map.
|
ehhhhhhhhh cmon blizzard, THIS is what you came up with?
|
On December 01 2012 06:31 ShamW0W wrote:I think there's a HUGE difference between top competitive play and GM level ladder play. Hard to state just how large the difference it since it's incredibly subjective but it's there.  ....
A huge difference is on Ladder people experiment with builds and deliberately make unconventional decisions. So it is less likely to show obvious flaws.
|
On December 01 2012 06:34 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:22 MrF wrote:
blizzard is scared of overbalancing so they make stupid useless changes instead o except it's a test map.
But what is there to be tested? Are you gonna invest your time to wittness if there is any difference in handling IT eggs? Cause I can't see any significant number of players who are willing to. The last testmap didn't bring any significant and reliable data, cause there were close to zero zergs willing to play the map. And the ones who did, 6 pooled quiie a bit.
So why exactly are they implementing a testmap with nothing to test? And why should you and I or anyone waste time on this placebo map?
|
On December 01 2012 06:32 FeyverN wrote:
These changes might as well not exist.
I don't see the point of the seeker missile change. If you start seeker missile the same time you start building ravens, Ravens will have seeker missile by the time they are built+ gather up energy.
Though, it does allow for other Raven upgrades to be prioritized, such as the +25 energy one.
As for the infestor, it seems negligible.
I'm interested to see how it changes ITs against Storm and Collosus. Maybe it won't be big enough, maybe it won't. The thing with the Infestor nerfs that I think people need to remember is that they have to work in a post-HotS world. When the expansion comes out, Infestors aren't going to be necessary anymore. Viper-based compositions are in a lot of situations just as good. So overnerfing is actually a concern, since there's another support caster being released that'll take prominence.
|
i think it'd be worth it to sit down with a small stadium of professional players and having them test and give input to various changes--this would have to be done in phases.
that... or taking larger leaps to changes while assuming the general pop. of players have still a long way to go before we start seeing perfected play.
the strategies are stale because of the layout of the map, and the maps are stale because of the strategies players use.
how could we make it so interesting and viable maps are more easy to create ?
|
On December 01 2012 06:31 ShamW0W wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:50 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 ShamW0W wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 05:01 ShamW0W wrote:
The only statistics that matter imo would be statistics at the very top level of play. I don't care how many players of race X or race Y are in Masters or GM, that's irrelevant to how balanced the game actually is. At the very top level though you'll get rid of factors like matchmaking and severely reduce the variable level of skill between player to get a more accurate representation of how well-balanced your game is.
I have a limited view but most of the tournament results I have seen recently suggest that P and Z are outperforming T. Not quite as much as some people think but from what I've seen it's there.
Where the Psionic change was probably too large of a change I feel this current one is too small. It doesn't address the core issue that players can still mass Infestors and hold their own because it's too much of a catch all unit.
Nerf Fungal, Nerf Infested Terran, buff the Hydralisk. Players shall rejoice.
That's one way of balancing the game. But the problem is how do we look at that? GSL code s sample size is way too volatile (sample size to low) to be meaningfull alone. GM results from the ladder oculd be used (higher sample size) and according to those numbers, terran is heavily underpowered as well (through quite a lot of seasons). Me personally? I'd prefer the small sample size, even though it's volatile, over using the larger sample size of GM players across the ladders. For instance, in tournaments or leagues where the prize pool is $5k+, what are the racial win rates since the last patch? How have those rates evolved over the last few months as players have adapted to the current meta game? Are we trending closer to a more balanced game as players learn the metagame or is one race becoming dominant over the others? You can use statistics to inform balance changes but ultimately there's a level of intuition about the game that a designer must have to make the best call for the game. edit: If there's data for this already it'd be awesome to see. Well I think Blizzard should look at several metrics. Then could of course design a high-level tournament win rate metric and weight it according to the signifcance of the results and for how important they believe it is. But logically, why would there by any signifcant difference between top-top level and GM results on the ladder? (I know there is one argument which states that people play different on the ladder than tournament but that is not really relevant here as it probably is the similar for all three races). Sure there are also players who are bad at tournamaents/good at ladder, but again, on average we expect this to even out. In the end, I just think GM results on the ladder is a more important metric than high level tournament play which suffers from low sample sizes and could be biased due to many korean terrans being invited and few korean toss's/korean zerg's (over a large sample size this would probably be evened out as well, but this just leads to very volatile). So I guess we can't just look at this tournmanet metric quantiatively. We have to combine it with a qualitive analysis which Blizzard also do, but this is a very difficult task for a small team, and honestly I don't think they are doing a particular good job (though they aren't awfull either - the game is still somewhat balanced, but due to design flaws of the game it makes it difficult to balance the infestor etc.). Also, I dont agree that it's completely irrelevant that the game is balanced at master level/diamond level etc. Sure top level play should have highest priority, but balance matters for the playing experience and if players are unsatifised they could stop watching the game --> killing esports etc. I think there's a HUGE difference between top competitive play and GM level ladder play. Hard to state just how large the difference it since it's incredibly subjective but it's there. Using statistics from ladder play is tough for various reasons: Matchmaking exists to try and push people to 50/50 win rates Playing for money is a MUCH larger motivator for playing optimally than playing for ladder points Individual players can have multiple accounts across multiple ladders That's not to say that ladder statistics are useless or irrelevant but with an e-sport you want to balance for the absolute top level of play. The play experience for Diamond and Masters level players is definitely important, I fall into that bucket, but would require a re-design of certain mechanics and I don't think Blizzard is hip to that level of suggestion right now. (yes, I said hip)
All the factors you stated, shouldn't they even out across races? Hence if terran players play in average 5% worse on ladder (due to no motivation/testing stuff), then zerg will probably play 5% worse as well.
Average pro terran probably have just as many multiple accounts as the average zerg player as well...
Or at least I don't logically see any reasons for why GM results shouldn't be usefull.
2) Regarding redesign, I (unforuntately) think you are correct. It's probably close to impossible balance the game across diamond and top-top level play at the same time. The problem is obvioulsy that zerg/toss is easier to play than terran, and one solution would be to make the infestor/collosus more difficult to use optimally (which I believe they should have tried to test redesign in HOTS) and/or make fungal growth less forgiving (so your marine army don't get killed in an instant if you make a mistake in a nanosecond).
I think HOTS will be an improvement afterall, but it doesn't fix many of the underlying problems (unlike TFT which seemed to completely redesign the faulty design of WC3 vanilla).
So let me conclude that I think that Blizzard is correct in prioritizing highest level, but I believe results from GM players is a more reliable indicator of balance than just large tournmanets due to the much larger sample size. And my theory is that even at the highest level of play terran is underpowered (though it's probably even worse in masters/diamond/plat).
A redesign of the infestor would make terran and protoss easier to play against zerg.
A redesign of the collosus would make protoss more difficult to play optimally aganst terran/zerg.
Thus the game would be more enjoyable (if redesigned correctly) and it would be easier to balance the game across different skill levels.
|
On December 01 2012 06:49 nanaoei wrote:
i think it'd be worth it to sit down with a small stadium of professional players and having them test and give input to various changes--this would have to be done in phases.
that... or taking larger leaps to changes while assuming the general pop. of players have still a long way to go before we start seeing perfected play.
the strategies are stale because of the layout of the map, and the maps are stale because of the strategies players use.
how could we make it so interesting and viable maps are more easy to create ?
I actually think this would be the wrong approach. They should not sit down with a group of them (as they would have biased responses). Rather they should hire 2-3 pro's (or just a "semipros") on a part time basis. They obviously talk alot with other pro's and can therefore improve the communication channel between pro's and Blizzard.
At the same time they would be responsible for their work (as they get paid) which leads to a higher degree of objectivism and they will sugggest realistic proposals.
|
On December 01 2012 06:41 Tryagain4free wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:34 zhurai wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 MrF wrote:
blizzard is scared of overbalancing so they make stupid useless changes instead o except it's a test map. But what is there to be tested? Are you gonna invest your time to wittness if there is any difference in handling IT eggs? Cause I can't see any significant number of players who are willing to. The last testmap didn't bring any significant and reliable data, cause there were close to zero zergs willing to play the map. And the ones who did, 6 pooled quiie a bit. So why exactly are they implementing a testmap with nothing to test? And why should you and I or anyone waste time on this placebo map?
you're misinterpreting my position.
|
What if...infestor gas requirement was moved to 200, keep this infested terran HP change, and made fungal a slow instead of stun?
|
On December 01 2012 06:42 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:32 FeyverN wrote:
These changes might as well not exist.
I don't see the point of the seeker missile change. If you start seeker missile the same time you start building ravens, Ravens will have seeker missile by the time they are built+ gather up energy.
Though, it does allow for other Raven upgrades to be prioritized, such as the +25 energy one.
As for the infestor, it seems negligible. I'm interested to see how it changes ITs against Storm and Collosus. Maybe it won't be big enough, maybe it won't. The thing with the Infestor nerfs that I think people need to remember is that they have to work in a post-HotS world. When the expansion comes out, Infestors aren't going to be necessary anymore. Viper-based compositions are in a lot of situations just as good. So overnerfing is actually a concern, since there's another support caster being released that'll take prominence.
Fair enough.
But I think by now it is safe to say that undernerfing would be by far the more serious concern. The overwhelming mayority within the community is sick and tired of infestor broodlord. It's not only about balance. It's aswell the situation of a very stale "metagame" in the zerg matchups. Viewer numbers are going down. Player numbers are going down.
There was once a joke in early beta: What do you do if marauders don't work? More marauders!
I have the feeling, this is even more true in case of infestors.
What I find interesting and positive was the balance suggestions in several threads about options to nerf the infestors. There were many different suggestions, but the baseline in the discussion seemed to be: Let's nerf it to bring the infestor in line with other casters, but let's also make sure not to nerf the unit to the ground. This is something new, imo, there was less whine and more constructive thinking. I got the feeling, large parts of the community had learned a lesson from things like the ghost nerf, where qq killed a whole unit in a certain MU.
But seeing the options the devs are going to give the playerbase, I can't help but feeling lost. The current suggestions and statements from blizz are painful and don't adress major problems in fields of balance and fun.
And if you take a look at recent feedback for hots, especially from terrans, you will find hardly any terran player looking forwards to hots. I'm not a terran player, but I came to the conclusion that they are rightfully disappointed atm.
Blizzard needs to step up their game. I'm sorry, but his "test" is pathetic.
|
On December 01 2012 07:03 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:41 Tryagain4free wrote:On December 01 2012 06:34 zhurai wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 MrF wrote:
blizzard is scared of overbalancing so they make stupid useless changes instead o except it's a test map. But what is there to be tested? Are you gonna invest your time to wittness if there is any difference in handling IT eggs? Cause I can't see any significant number of players who are willing to. The last testmap didn't bring any significant and reliable data, cause there were close to zero zergs willing to play the map. And the ones who did, 6 pooled quiie a bit. So why exactly are they implementing a testmap with nothing to test? And why should you and I or anyone waste time on this placebo map? you're misinterpreting my position.
Sorry if I did
|
No fungal on psionic was an absolutely retarded change anyhow and would have resulted in Protoss starting to completely rape Zerg. It wouldn't have brought balance, it just would have flipped the advantage. I don't agree that this IT change is worthwhile and would be happy to see a more reasonable nerf, but that change was just stupid.
|
On November 30 2012 11:12 Cyro wrote:
You cant kill eggs when they have 0 attack priority. Period. If there is a single zergling within attack range, every single unit you have, ranged, melee, trapped or otherwise will shoot at it and overkill it by thousands of damage before turning to shoot at eggs.
IT problem cant be solved by reducing the hp on eggs that dont have attack priority by 20%, im pretty embarassed for blizzard for even thinking that could have a notable effect.
That's why you focus fire the unit that you think has the highest priority to kill, instead of using attack move.
|
Canada1849 Posts
On December 01 2012 07:11 kezz_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 11:12 Cyro wrote:
You cant kill eggs when they have 0 attack priority. Period. If there is a single zergling within attack range, every single unit you have, ranged, melee, trapped or otherwise will shoot at it and overkill it by thousands of damage before turning to shoot at eggs.
IT problem cant be solved by reducing the hp on eggs that dont have attack priority by 20%, im pretty embarassed for blizzard for even thinking that could have a notable effect. That's why you focus fire the unit that you think has the highest priority to kill, instead of using attack move.
Yes let me just focus fire 40 infested terran eggs 1 by 1. idiot...
User was warned for this post
|
On December 01 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:31 ShamW0W wrote:On December 01 2012 05:50 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 ShamW0W wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 05:01 ShamW0W wrote:
The only statistics that matter imo would be statistics at the very top level of play. I don't care how many players of race X or race Y are in Masters or GM, that's irrelevant to how balanced the game actually is. At the very top level though you'll get rid of factors like matchmaking and severely reduce the variable level of skill between player to get a more accurate representation of how well-balanced your game is.
I have a limited view but most of the tournament results I have seen recently suggest that P and Z are outperforming T. Not quite as much as some people think but from what I've seen it's there.
Where the Psionic change was probably too large of a change I feel this current one is too small. It doesn't address the core issue that players can still mass Infestors and hold their own because it's too much of a catch all unit.
Nerf Fungal, Nerf Infested Terran, buff the Hydralisk. Players shall rejoice.
That's one way of balancing the game. But the problem is how do we look at that? GSL code s sample size is way too volatile (sample size to low) to be meaningfull alone. GM results from the ladder oculd be used (higher sample size) and according to those numbers, terran is heavily underpowered as well (through quite a lot of seasons). Me personally? I'd prefer the small sample size, even though it's volatile, over using the larger sample size of GM players across the ladders. For instance, in tournaments or leagues where the prize pool is $5k+, what are the racial win rates since the last patch? How have those rates evolved over the last few months as players have adapted to the current meta game? Are we trending closer to a more balanced game as players learn the metagame or is one race becoming dominant over the others? You can use statistics to inform balance changes but ultimately there's a level of intuition about the game that a designer must have to make the best call for the game. edit: If there's data for this already it'd be awesome to see. Well I think Blizzard should look at several metrics. Then could of course design a high-level tournament win rate metric and weight it according to the signifcance of the results and for how important they believe it is. But logically, why would there by any signifcant difference between top-top level and GM results on the ladder? (I know there is one argument which states that people play different on the ladder than tournament but that is not really relevant here as it probably is the similar for all three races). Sure there are also players who are bad at tournamaents/good at ladder, but again, on average we expect this to even out. In the end, I just think GM results on the ladder is a more important metric than high level tournament play which suffers from low sample sizes and could be biased due to many korean terrans being invited and few korean toss's/korean zerg's (over a large sample size this would probably be evened out as well, but this just leads to very volatile). So I guess we can't just look at this tournmanet metric quantiatively. We have to combine it with a qualitive analysis which Blizzard also do, but this is a very difficult task for a small team, and honestly I don't think they are doing a particular good job (though they aren't awfull either - the game is still somewhat balanced, but due to design flaws of the game it makes it difficult to balance the infestor etc.). Also, I dont agree that it's completely irrelevant that the game is balanced at master level/diamond level etc. Sure top level play should have highest priority, but balance matters for the playing experience and if players are unsatifised they could stop watching the game --> killing esports etc. I think there's a HUGE difference between top competitive play and GM level ladder play. Hard to state just how large the difference it since it's incredibly subjective but it's there. Using statistics from ladder play is tough for various reasons: Matchmaking exists to try and push people to 50/50 win rates Playing for money is a MUCH larger motivator for playing optimally than playing for ladder points Individual players can have multiple accounts across multiple ladders That's not to say that ladder statistics are useless or irrelevant but with an e-sport you want to balance for the absolute top level of play. The play experience for Diamond and Masters level players is definitely important, I fall into that bucket, but would require a re-design of certain mechanics and I don't think Blizzard is hip to that level of suggestion right now. (yes, I said hip) All the factors you stated, shouldn't they even out across races? Hence if terran players play in average 5% worse on ladder (due to no motivation/testing stuff), then zerg will probably play 5% worse as well. Average pro terran probably have just as many multiple accounts as the average zerg player as well... Or at least I don't logically see any reasons for why GM results shouldn't be usefull. 2) Regarding redesign, I (unforuntately) think you are correct. It's probably close to impossible balance the game across diamond and top-top level play at the same time. The problem is obvioulsy that zerg/toss is easier to play than terran, and one solution would be to make the infestor/collosus more difficult to use optimally (which I believe they should have tried to test redesign in HOTS) and/or make fungal growth less forgiving (so your marine army don't get killed in an instant if you make a mistake in a nanosecond). I think HOTS will be an improvement afterall, but it doesn't fix many of the underlying problems (unlike TFT which seemed to completely redesign the faulty design of WC3 vanilla). So let me conclude that I think that Blizzard is correct in prioritizing highest level, but I believe results from GM players is a more reliable indicator of balance than just large tournmanets due to the much larger sample size. And my theory is that even at the highest level of play terran is underpowered (though it's probably even worse in masters/diamond/plat). A redesign of the infestor would make terran and protoss easier to play against zerg. A redesign of the collosus would make protoss more difficult to play optimally aganst terran/zerg. Thus the game would be more enjoyable (if redesigned correctly) and it would be easier to balance the game across different skill levels.
To change our discussion to more specifics since we seem to be headed that way, I made a suggestion in the earlier CTA thread that was largely ignored.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383354¤tpage=62#1236
The tldr; version is to nerf the Infestor so that it's more of a support unit and to buff the Hydralisk to make up for the hole that's left in the Zerg arsenal.
|
On December 01 2012 07:12 Scila wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 07:11 kezz_ wrote:On November 30 2012 11:12 Cyro wrote:
You cant kill eggs when they have 0 attack priority. Period. If there is a single zergling within attack range, every single unit you have, ranged, melee, trapped or otherwise will shoot at it and overkill it by thousands of damage before turning to shoot at eggs.
IT problem cant be solved by reducing the hp on eggs that dont have attack priority by 20%, im pretty embarassed for blizzard for even thinking that could have a notable effect. That's why you focus fire the unit that you think has the highest priority to kill, instead of using attack move. Yes let me just focus fire 40 infested terran eggs 1 by 1. idiot...
While they are on top of your army, with siege tanks. I am sure it will work out in the end......
Focus firing infested terran eggs is like focus firing charglots, its not going to happen.
|
On December 01 2012 07:11 kezz_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 11:12 Cyro wrote:
You cant kill eggs when they have 0 attack priority. Period. If there is a single zergling within attack range, every single unit you have, ranged, melee, trapped or otherwise will shoot at it and overkill it by thousands of damage before turning to shoot at eggs.
IT problem cant be solved by reducing the hp on eggs that dont have attack priority by 20%, im pretty embarassed for blizzard for even thinking that could have a notable effect. That's why you focus fire the unit that you think has the highest priority to kill, instead of using attack move.
huh? LOL...that's as dumb as Blizz removing the a-move function...actually that's better...would be interesting to see how Zerg functions
|
On December 01 2012 07:22 ShamW0W wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 06:31 ShamW0W wrote:On December 01 2012 05:50 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 ShamW0W wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 05:01 ShamW0W wrote:
The only statistics that matter imo would be statistics at the very top level of play. I don't care how many players of race X or race Y are in Masters or GM, that's irrelevant to how balanced the game actually is. At the very top level though you'll get rid of factors like matchmaking and severely reduce the variable level of skill between player to get a more accurate representation of how well-balanced your game is.
I have a limited view but most of the tournament results I have seen recently suggest that P and Z are outperforming T. Not quite as much as some people think but from what I've seen it's there.
Where the Psionic change was probably too large of a change I feel this current one is too small. It doesn't address the core issue that players can still mass Infestors and hold their own because it's too much of a catch all unit.
Nerf Fungal, Nerf Infested Terran, buff the Hydralisk. Players shall rejoice.
That's one way of balancing the game. But the problem is how do we look at that? GSL code s sample size is way too volatile (sample size to low) to be meaningfull alone. GM results from the ladder oculd be used (higher sample size) and according to those numbers, terran is heavily underpowered as well (through quite a lot of seasons). Me personally? I'd prefer the small sample size, even though it's volatile, over using the larger sample size of GM players across the ladders. For instance, in tournaments or leagues where the prize pool is $5k+, what are the racial win rates since the last patch? How have those rates evolved over the last few months as players have adapted to the current meta game? Are we trending closer to a more balanced game as players learn the metagame or is one race becoming dominant over the others? You can use statistics to inform balance changes but ultimately there's a level of intuition about the game that a designer must have to make the best call for the game. edit: If there's data for this already it'd be awesome to see. Well I think Blizzard should look at several metrics. Then could of course design a high-level tournament win rate metric and weight it according to the signifcance of the results and for how important they believe it is. But logically, why would there by any signifcant difference between top-top level and GM results on the ladder? (I know there is one argument which states that people play different on the ladder than tournament but that is not really relevant here as it probably is the similar for all three races). Sure there are also players who are bad at tournamaents/good at ladder, but again, on average we expect this to even out. In the end, I just think GM results on the ladder is a more important metric than high level tournament play which suffers from low sample sizes and could be biased due to many korean terrans being invited and few korean toss's/korean zerg's (over a large sample size this would probably be evened out as well, but this just leads to very volatile). So I guess we can't just look at this tournmanet metric quantiatively. We have to combine it with a qualitive analysis which Blizzard also do, but this is a very difficult task for a small team, and honestly I don't think they are doing a particular good job (though they aren't awfull either - the game is still somewhat balanced, but due to design flaws of the game it makes it difficult to balance the infestor etc.). Also, I dont agree that it's completely irrelevant that the game is balanced at master level/diamond level etc. Sure top level play should have highest priority, but balance matters for the playing experience and if players are unsatifised they could stop watching the game --> killing esports etc. I think there's a HUGE difference between top competitive play and GM level ladder play. Hard to state just how large the difference it since it's incredibly subjective but it's there. Using statistics from ladder play is tough for various reasons: Matchmaking exists to try and push people to 50/50 win rates Playing for money is a MUCH larger motivator for playing optimally than playing for ladder points Individual players can have multiple accounts across multiple ladders That's not to say that ladder statistics are useless or irrelevant but with an e-sport you want to balance for the absolute top level of play. The play experience for Diamond and Masters level players is definitely important, I fall into that bucket, but would require a re-design of certain mechanics and I don't think Blizzard is hip to that level of suggestion right now. (yes, I said hip) All the factors you stated, shouldn't they even out across races? Hence if terran players play in average 5% worse on ladder (due to no motivation/testing stuff), then zerg will probably play 5% worse as well. Average pro terran probably have just as many multiple accounts as the average zerg player as well... Or at least I don't logically see any reasons for why GM results shouldn't be usefull. 2) Regarding redesign, I (unforuntately) think you are correct. It's probably close to impossible balance the game across diamond and top-top level play at the same time. The problem is obvioulsy that zerg/toss is easier to play than terran, and one solution would be to make the infestor/collosus more difficult to use optimally (which I believe they should have tried to test redesign in HOTS) and/or make fungal growth less forgiving (so your marine army don't get killed in an instant if you make a mistake in a nanosecond). I think HOTS will be an improvement afterall, but it doesn't fix many of the underlying problems (unlike TFT which seemed to completely redesign the faulty design of WC3 vanilla). So let me conclude that I think that Blizzard is correct in prioritizing highest level, but I believe results from GM players is a more reliable indicator of balance than just large tournmanets due to the much larger sample size. And my theory is that even at the highest level of play terran is underpowered (though it's probably even worse in masters/diamond/plat). A redesign of the infestor would make terran and protoss easier to play against zerg. A redesign of the collosus would make protoss more difficult to play optimally aganst terran/zerg. Thus the game would be more enjoyable (if redesigned correctly) and it would be easier to balance the game across different skill levels. To change our discussion to more specifics since we seem to be headed that way, I made a suggestion in the earlier CTA thread that was largely ignored. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383354¤tpage=62#1236The tldr; version is to nerf the Infestor so that it's more of a support unit and to buff the Hydralisk to make up for the hole that's left in the Zerg arsenal.
I guess the idea is okay'ish (hydra needs buff infestors should be nerfed), but I am not a fan of easy-to-use abilities (which QXC suggested as well for the immortal).
I think abililties should be "easy to learn - difficult to master", and observers should be able to notice the difference betwen a mediocore player using the ability and a top player. The hydra ability you suggests is just an easy to use click ability with a cooldown. Also I am not sure if hydra's really need an ability, rather than just a buff. What about just making the speedupgradde avaiable at lair (and balance it through the time it takes to upgrade), and adding a hive +10 health (or something) upgrade. Possibly the range upgrade could be cheaper or it could add +1.5/+2 to range, etc.
But I think you are on to something regarding the infestor being too good allround. Nerfing it vs anti-air wouldn't be that bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
