EPT1/24 Balance test map - Page 41
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Constructive criticism is welcome, but no mindless SC2/Developer bashing in this thread. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
| ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
Good video by qxc with his thoughts on the potential changes. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
damage: from 12(+1) to 15(+2) attack cooldown: 0.83 to 1.05 --> dps: from 14.5 to 14.3 So, dps stays essentially the same, but their burst goes up a tiny bit and their upgrade scaling goes up. It essentially makes upgraded hydralisks better vs targets with armor upgrades/natural armor. (e.g. against Capital Ships or roaches; a little bit weaker against immortals) And another one: Grooved Spines requirement changed from Lair to Hive. Grooved Spines now grants +2extra range instead of +1. Imo, the grooved spines with +1 in the midgame is not necessary! The extra range is nice when you fight forcefields, but it doesn't really change a lot and the speedupgrade is similarily strong anyways. And usually you can't research both at the same time. Meanwhile lategame, Hydralisks die very easily to longrange units before doing anything (e.g. storms, Colossi, tanks) and this makes hydras usually very bad against anything, once a certain amount of counters is up. E.g. you cannot combat 9range vikings at all with them, because those are protected by 13range tanks, or 6-7range voidrays, when they are protected by storms/colossi. Imo, implementing at least one of those changes (bust+upgrade scaling or extra range) would help hydras finding a place in the lategame, but have hardly an effect on midgame timings. | ||
|
pivor
Poland198 Posts
Anyone else feels like each time blizz "balances" something, everything they do is make some as least as possible affecting or just booring changes to stop the qq? Protoss needs some hardcore nerfs to make tvp enjoyable, not some minor adjustments. | ||
|
Wingblade
United States1806 Posts
On January 27 2014 03:34 pivor wrote: How those changes are supposted to help in tvp? Anyone else feels like each time blizz "balances" something, everything they do is make some as least as possible affecting or just booring changes to stop the qq? Protoss needs some hardcore nerfs to make tvp enjoyable, not some minor adjustments. Broodlord/Infestor needed hardcore nerfs. Not this. Don't grossly exaggerate the issue. What would you propose anyways? | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On January 27 2014 03:34 pivor wrote: How those changes are supposted to help in tvp? Anyone else feels like each time blizz "balances" something, everything they do is make some as least as possible affecting or just booring changes to stop the qq? Protoss needs some hardcore nerfs to make tvp enjoyable, not some minor adjustments. Yes, TvP will only ever be fun if the protoss just gets killed easily every game, we need to make sure protoss can never win in the matchup so that terran players have fun destroying them. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On January 27 2014 01:51 SC2Toastie wrote: I'd love to see collosi have lower build time, lower movement speed, slower attack speed, bigger splash area and a lot higher damage. (which is easilly dodgable in skirmishes, but really powerful in big fights!!) so you basically want a reaver ? | ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
On January 27 2014 03:50 Whitewing wrote: Yes, TvP will only ever be fun if the protoss just gets killed easily every game, we need to make sure protoss can never win in the matchup so that terran players have fun destroying them. not that I agree with pivor but what you are describing is the feeling I have playing tvp atm. hope you are having fun. because I dont. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On January 27 2014 03:34 pivor wrote: How those changes are supposted to help in tvp? Anyone else feels like each time blizz "balances" something, everything they do is make some as least as possible affecting or just booring changes to stop the qq? Protoss needs some hardcore nerfs to make tvp enjoyable, not some minor adjustments. Do you remember what +1 range on a queen did to TvZ? You really dare to call for "hardcore nerfs" after that. The balance in SC2 is extremely fragile, because everything snowballs impossibly fast. There is room for only the smallest of touches (unless you rework essentially everything). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 27 2014 03:38 Wingblade wrote: Broodlord/Infestor needed hardcore nerfs. Not this. Don't grossly exaggerate the issue. What would you propose anyways? pfff... Broodlord/Infestor produced very similar winrates in ZvT to the last months of TvP. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On January 27 2014 02:18 Big J wrote: btw, reposting an old idea about hydralisks of mine, basically 2smaller changes than the blizzard one, but they rather focus on their potential in the lategame, instead of increasing their already good potential in the midgame. damage: from 12(+1) to 15(+2) attack cooldown: 0.83 to 1.05 --> dps: from 14.5 to 14.3 So, dps stays essentially the same, but their burst goes up a tiny bit and their upgrade scaling goes up. It essentially makes upgraded hydralisks better vs targets with armor upgrades/natural armor. (e.g. against Capital Ships or roaches; a little bit weaker against immortals) And another one: Grooved Spines requirement changed from Lair to Hive. Grooved Spines now grants +2extra range instead of +1. Imo, the grooved spines with +1 in the midgame is not necessary! The extra range is nice when you fight forcefields, but it doesn't really change a lot and the speedupgrade is similarily strong anyways. And usually you can't research both at the same time. Meanwhile lategame, Hydralisks die very easily to longrange units before doing anything (e.g. storms, Colossi, tanks) and this makes hydras usually very bad against anything, once a certain amount of counters is up. E.g. you cannot combat 9range vikings at all with them, because those are protected by 13range tanks, or 6-7range voidrays, when they are protected by storms/colossi. Imo, implementing at least one of those changes (bust+upgrade scaling or extra range) would help hydras finding a place in the lategame, but have hardly an effect on midgame timings. Grooved Spines IS actually pretty important vs Protoss. I would say 6 basic, +1 range at hive actually. Don't change cost. I like the renewed attack for sure! Makes them better vs the units Zerg has trouble with  | ||
|
LongShot27
United States2084 Posts
On January 27 2014 03:58 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: not that I agree with pivor but what you are describing is the feeling I have playing tvp atm. hope you are having fun. because I dont. GSL CODE A this season, exactly the same amount of zergs advanced as protoss. The problem isn't protoss, the problem is terran. Thats what needs to be changed. Something is wrong in the Terran midgame, what is it? Im not sure. But nerfing protoss isnt going to fix things | ||
|
Wingblade
United States1806 Posts
On January 27 2014 04:06 Big J wrote: pfff... Broodlord/Infestor produced very similar winrates in ZvT to the last months of TvP. Um yea BS. The lowest point in Broodlord/Infestor(according to Aligulac, it's much easier to track than the community made graphs was 43.3 percent winrate for Terran in January 2013. The lowest point for PvT in its current state was 54.87 in Protoss favor in November. That number feel three percent in December. Source: http://aligulac.com/reports/balance/ | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 27 2014 04:24 LongShot27 wrote: GSL CODE A this season, exactly the same amount of zergs advanced as protoss. The problem isn't protoss, the problem is terran. Thats what needs to be changed. Something is wrong in the Terran midgame, what is it? Im not sure. But nerfing protoss isnt going to fix things Not really... TvZ was balanced (10-11; btw including the 1-6 Deadalus stats!), ZvP was balanced apart from Deadalus Point (20-15; 12-12 without Deadalus Point!); Meanwhile TvP was 31-8. The problem was only TvP, whether you say T is to weak or P too strong I don't care, but there is nothing suggesting ZvX made any problems during Code A (apart from Deadalus ofc). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 27 2014 04:44 Wingblade wrote: Um yea BS. The lowest point in Broodlord/Infestor(according to Aligulac, it's much easier to track than the community made graphs was 43.3 percent winrate for Terran in January 2013. The lowest point for PvT in its current state was 54.87 in Protoss favor in November. That number feel three percent in December. Source: http://aligulac.com/reports/balance/ yeah, and no race ever had 79,5% winrate in GSL before = current PvT winrate. (worst point in BL/Infestor ZvT was like 65%) no race was ever as badly represented in GSL as Terran is now, despite TvZ producing pretty balanced winrates. Like Protoss alone is stomping Terran harder than Terran and Zerg did with Protoss in GSL seasons when both of those races had quite high vP winrates. Sorry, those BL/Infestor whines these days are hugely exaggerated. It was very bad. But the way Protoss in the last months (yes, less than 8months of BL/Infestor ZvT dominance) has dominated Terran isn't far off. And BL/Infestor in ZvT would have been easily fixable with a reasonable Infestornerf, but it didn't need "hardcore nerfs". Not to mention that such would have probably screwed Zerg in WoL ZvP. | ||
|
LongShot27
United States2084 Posts
On January 27 2014 04:46 Big J wrote: Not really... TvZ was balanced (10-11; btw including the 1-6 Deadalus stats!), ZvP was balanced apart from Deadalus Point (20-15; 12-12 without Deadalus Point!); Meanwhile TvP was 31-8. The problem was only TvP, whether you say T is to weak or P too strong I don't care, but there is nothing suggesting ZvX made any problems during Code A (apart from Deadalus ofc). exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On January 27 2014 05:20 LongShot27 wrote: exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
On January 27 2014 00:59 Gamlet wrote: 40 sec need for makeing raven/Terans must build more ravens in tvp Yes because the solution to TvP is "more micro" | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf) Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now. Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through. Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged. Thoughts? | ||
|
starimk
106 Posts
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for. Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf) Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now. Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through. Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged. Thoughts? I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future. The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below: From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though. | ||
| ||
