EPTBalance Publish - Feb 9 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PressureSC2
122 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On February 11 2016 04:44 DSK wrote: It's for science....you monster. OP: Can we have destructible rocks to wall off the gold bases too? Destructibles for days. More like magic rather then science. I don't see the positives here. If they are naturals, then everyone gets them. So what? There will be more of a focus in mineral only units? With the mineral only units being so different to the 3 races this just screams potential and unnecessary balance problems to me. It was cool when gold bases were tried as a central or far of base, but it turned out that you needed to be a bit ahead to take one and after it made you be even more ahead, so it made comebacks even harder then they usually are in SC2. So the idea of gold bases just seems like a failed one that we should just move on from. For gameplay diversity there are a lot of other things they have to focus on. Like FUCKING MECH in TvP/TvZ that they failed on for 6 years now. Even TvT lost all diversity and, gold bases or slightly smaller or slightly bigger chokes are not to do anything here. Map diversity is cool don't get me wrong, but there are still a lot of basic unit interactions that should take priority to unlock strategies and gameplay diversity. | ||
|
SSMMA
15 Posts
| ||
|
huller20
United States112 Posts
| ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 12 2016 06:25 Loccstana wrote: I dont mind a gold base natural, however, there should be a destructible rock blocking it. Dustin Browder would be proud of this map. Destructible rocks blocking a natural make the game basically unwinnable as Zerg. 1-base builds are stupid and if the opponent knows that you are going to take a far away base as your first expo, he will prepare accordingly and run you over. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
On February 12 2016 07:06 opisska wrote: Destructible rocks blocking a natural make the game basically unwinnable as Zerg. 1-base builds are stupid and if the opponent knows that you are going to take a far away base as your first expo, he will prepare accordingly and run you over. Who says rocks at natural = 1 base build? Build some units and destroy the rocks, then build natural. Your opponent has to do it too anyways. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 12 2016 11:39 Loccstana wrote: Who says rocks at natural = 1 base build? Build some units and destroy the rocks, then build natural. Your opponent has to do it too anyways. Which would work without any issues in a game balanced about such situation. However for the current instalment of SC2 it is not the case. In a macro game, Zerg is balanced around droning like a mad man. Beuuase of the different mechanisms of making units, the other races are moreorless forced into making units just to hang around, because they can't massproduce them right when they needed, but when Zerg does it, they fall behind. Moreover, killing rocks with lings takes half a year, so it would have to be at least roaches, which is an insane investment, if you don't do anything with them. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On February 12 2016 07:06 opisska wrote: Destructible rocks blocking a natural make the game basically unwinnable as Zerg. 1-base builds are stupid and if the opponent knows that you are going to take a far away base as your first expo, he will prepare accordingly and run you over. Half the zergs were already taking their third first on that map. Half of those were even taking their fourth before taking their natural. So really, a blocked natural wouldn't be the end of the world for zerg. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 12 2016 17:55 Sissors wrote: Half the zergs were already taking their third first on that map. Half of those were even taking their fourth before taking their natural. So really, a blocked natural wouldn't be the end of the world for zerg. Please show me the 1/4 of games on Prion where the second gold is taken before the natural. Using untrue hyperbole is not a very good way to support your argument. Anyway, taking the gold first had enough benefits to outweight the risk. Is it really that difficult to comprehend the concept that the early game balance is walking on an extremely tight rope and that if you take something away from just one race, you have to make up for it somewhere? | ||
|
SiaBBo
Finland132 Posts
On February 11 2016 17:48 huller20 wrote: One question, and please answer this. Will Swarm Hosts, Ravens, BCs, Carriers ever be relevant in competitive play? Please answer as to what your intentions are with those units. Swarm Hosts are just bad, Ravens are okay for the lategame and BCs are just bad. Carriers however actually destroy absolutetly everything in the lategame. I still haven't find a unit composition that can destroy 200/200 full upgraded Carriers. Their DPS is just way too much. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 12 2016 18:10 SiaBBo wrote: Swarm Hosts are just bad, Ravens are okay for the lategame and BCs are just bad. Carriers however actually destroy absolutetly everything in the lategame. I still haven't find a unit composition that can destroy 200/200 full upgraded Carriers. Their DPS is just way too much. Ravens and BCs probably would do  | ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
| ||
|
SSMMA
15 Posts
Ravens are okay for the lategame Sorry but I don't really see were you've seen that, raven is like the worst cost effective unit in sc2. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States694 Posts
On February 10 2016 06:57 OsaX Nymloth wrote: Just had an evil idea. Imagine if PO damage was random. Madness! ![[image loading]](http://www.hearthcards.net/cards/ffdb5b86.png) I mean it kinda was before the update, no? Maybe not random, but inconsistent. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
Why ravens? PDD doesn't work against carriers, I am not gonna see mass turrets as a real option, and seekers don't do much vs that high hitpoint units. Unless he really on purpose clumps them all up, nothing is gonna happen. BCs will beat them if it is pure carrier and they got sufficient energy in a straight up fight. | ||
|
Wyrdness
United Kingdom29 Posts
On February 14 2016 18:06 Sissors wrote: Why ravens? PDD doesn't work against carriers, I am not gonna see mass turrets as a real option, and seekers don't do much vs that high hitpoint units. Unless he really on purpose clumps them all up, nothing is gonna happen. BCs will beat them if it is pure carrier and they got sufficient energy in a straight up fight. Tbh I don't think that comp can be beaten if it's attained unless it's mass corruptors with vipers for PB or infestors to try and fungal the interceptors. As T I'm not sure anything can deal with that as the DPS is god level, most people I see only really build like 6 carriers to compliment the tempest they're massing as the latter is the better unit tbh. | ||
|
WaffleFriesFoFree
2 Posts
On February 11 2016 17:48 huller20 wrote: One question, and please answer this. Will Swarm Hosts, Ravens, BCs, Carriers ever be relevant in competitive play? Please answer as to what your intentions are with those units. Not gonna lie I completely forgot a few of those units you mentioned existed. Also don't forget about Colossus! | ||
| ||
