Pro Opinions: New Proposed Balance Changes - Page 7

On July 19 2014 23:03 RyLai wrote:
Some things I want to see:
1) An upgrade that allows Terrans to upgrade Bunkers, giving them turrets on top like in the campaign (but a lot stronger).

2) An overall reduction in production costs for the Siege Tank to 150 minerals, 100 gas, 2 supply, and 40 seconds (maybe even 35-38 seconds). And perhaps an upgrade that gives them 20 damage to Shields (or 20 bonus damage to all units).

3) The return of the Goliath, but I won't hold my breath for that one.

4) A more dynamic creep spread. It should spread and recede much faster than it currently does (the creep on the ground, not the tumor spawn cooldown), though this will kill some early builds, so perhaps making the creep tumors weaker (so that sniping them is a little easier, and early game battles will be for sniping tumors). Maybe make Hellions a little faster (and I mean only a little) so there will be closer micro battles between Hellions and Lings off creep so that a good Terran can continuously try to slow down the creep spread (this will make the early and mid game more important than just turtling up until you're ready to hit your timing). Or maybe make speed Zerglings slower off creep. You might have to add a new Protoss air or ground unit that is very mobile to deal with the new creep spread (since otherwise it will easily get out of hand in PvZ).

5) Potential removal of Warp Gate tech. Honestly, it's just too much mobility. There are times I think it's good, but there are also times I think it's beyond broken (funnily enough, sometimes I think it's good BECAUSE it's broken and would otherwise do very little). Maybe remove Warp Gate and double the size capacity of Warp Prisms? I don't know.

6) Probably a ton of counterbuffs to Zerg. I don't know. At the moment, Protoss is way too supply efficient and has too much mobility with Warp Gate and Zealot/DT harass (versus Terran). To give Terran legitimate lategame transitions, you'd have to give some buffs to Zerg, but then they become too strong against Protoss... I don't know. The game is just horrible. Too many bad design decisions were made along the way. You'd have to heavily remake the game.

On July 19 2014 15:32 SC2John wrote:


There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.



This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.

The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.

---

ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.

I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.

Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).

On July 19 2014 23:49 VArsovskiSC wrote:

No offense to BW nostalgia, but that's the worst thing to ever think of possible.. If you don't believe me - try the SC2 BW mod with unlimited unit selection and multiple buildings, and see how would BW fare in the "modern world"

You basically stated the worst thing possible, if you wanna sit on your !@#$%^&* - fine, that thoroughly "describes" your gameplay attitude, but WG is far better designed than any 2 supply 100 gas tank ever would

On July 20 2014 00:09 Hider wrote:

You are not serious about this argument right?



That's typically what happens when a race is underpowered. There are less players of the UP race who rate them selves "comeptitive" and thus fewer that opt to play in the tournament. Terran is a more played race in general than protoss, but it's easier to become "competitive" as protoss, which means more protoss players participate in tournaments.

When there is a strong selection-proces + the tournament doesn't invite all of the very best players in the world (but only some of the best players), then win/rates become useless.
I say Dreamhack Valencia fits those criteria