|
[QUOTE]On April 06 2017 15:55 plogamer wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 05 2017 14:00 Odowan Paleolithic wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 05 2017 13:15 eviltomahawk wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 05 2017 08:40 ThunderJunk wrote:
Could also just increase build time of carrier so it's similar to how long it takes to make a BC.[/QUOTE]
...
It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure).
...
[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously adding pylon build time to this? [/QUOTE]
Pylons take time to build man!
To be fair, even including the SG build time is debatable at this point in the meta 
|
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote:
Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
|
On April 06 2017 23:09 AnossSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote:
Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less. If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build... I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game). So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
i totally agree with you AnossSc2
LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all.
- It reduced strategic options in the early game
- made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics
- overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg
- trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this)
- new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game
- scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners
....
etc.
LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc...
This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play.
Everything can end the game instantly at any time.
LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
|
I feel like Blizzard wants to keep the current 12 worker start, as well as the new economy model.
If that's the case, removing macro boosters would probably reintroduce an early game. Terran wouldn't have the money to tech straight to medivacs, stim, etc. Zerg wouldn't be able to yolo drone for 4 minutes, because they'd need an additional 2 hatches to match 2 queen inject production, and protoss wouldn't be able to yolo out these crazy upgrades for strong timings.
That'd slow the entire pace to the midgame down, and since you'll have a wider opening before stronger units come out, you should be able to do some more things with early tech units, right?
And of course, with slower worker production, you wouldn't be rushing for thirds and fourths, since you won't have the workers to mine out a base in 6 minutes now, but with the new ecocomy, you'll still need to expand faster than you would have in hots or wol.
|
On April 06 2017 20:12 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 13:57 c0sm0naut wrote:On April 06 2017 13:55 hiroshOne wrote:
Its because BIO was OP since the beginning of the game. But it seemed cool to developers that u can play whole game with tier1 units and how cool it synergies with mules. Then they balanced whole game around BIO and thats why we have so much ballshit fixes arround. If they would nerf BIO they would have to make this game from scratch. So nerfing BIO is impossible. Stop demanding it. i would like to say i agree with u good sir Bias much, you just don't see Terrans play with Tier 1 units all game long, they build medivacs, widow mines, vikings too. Those are not Tier one. The real problem is the upgrade path, bio does not synergize with mech upgrades. If mech was viable, that is what I would play, regardless of the strength of Bio, as I prefer Mech. In fact I play more mech than bio when I think about it, I just suck up the losses.
Im a masters terran and play random, t is my highest mmr. This is just the truth bro like mech is unplayably bad bc every time some factory unit is constructed and is worth constructing, bio players mix it in their army and it gets nerfed as a result
|
On April 06 2017 16:58 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 15:55 plogamer wrote:On April 05 2017 14:00 Odowan Paleolithic wrote:
It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure) Are you seriously adding pylon build time to this? Cmon, just leave this guy alone in his imaginary world of carrier and bc rushes.
Welp. TY lost. So I stand corrected. (Stats also lost, proving just build enough marine is a good response.)
|
On April 06 2017 23:39 StraKo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 23:09 AnossSc2 wrote:On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote:
Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less. If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build... I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game). So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start. i totally agree with you AnossSc2 LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all. - It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this) - new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners .... etc. LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc... This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play. Everything can end the game instantly at any time. LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
I totally agree.
I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player.
This is the game 4 : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/133925792
We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need...
If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see.
|
U really should start a new topic for this mod. It will drown here.
|
D: will you be the new david kim?
It'll be interesting to see if everything stays balanced as more people play on it... not that I see how this would unbalance anything. I like to keep the faith that Blizz did this for a good reason, i guess.
|
U should really twek this mod to bring old makro mechanics too. 4 larva, old chrono and mule. It would be more telling. I feel like in this one- only 6 worker starting Zerg with 3 larva is behind if Toss has his first chrono boost on nexus aviable at the beginning
|
What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage.
|
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote:
What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage.
I think it is a good idea. I like starting with more workers since it speeds up the first few minutes of the game, but I do not like running out of resources so fast. When to expand should be a choice but in LOTV there is no choice, you either expand non-stop or you die.
|
|
|
On April 07 2017 10:37 AnossSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 23:39 StraKo wrote:On April 06 2017 23:09 AnossSc2 wrote:On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote:
Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less. If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build... I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game). So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start. i totally agree with you AnossSc2 LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all. - It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this) - new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners .... etc. LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc... This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play. Everything can end the game instantly at any time. LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love. I totally agree. I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player. This is the game 4 : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/133925792We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need... If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see.
just because you like it doesnt mean it will ever be good... 6drone srart was so boring, full of random elements and games took 30+ minutes at the end of hots... i dont want this ever again in SC2... if you are not fast enough there are plenty fo diamond and platinum cups for you 
|
On April 07 2017 21:16 PharaphobiaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 10:37 AnossSc2 wrote:On April 06 2017 23:39 StraKo wrote:On April 06 2017 23:09 AnossSc2 wrote:On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote:
Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less. If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build... I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game). So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start. i totally agree with you AnossSc2 LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all. - It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this) - new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners .... etc. LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc... This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play. Everything can end the game instantly at any time. LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love. I totally agree. I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player. This is the game 4 : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/133925792We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need... If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see. just because you like it doesnt mean it will ever be good... 6drone srart was so boring, full of random elements and games took 30+ minutes at the end of hots... i dont want this ever again in SC2... if you are not fast enough there are plenty fo diamond and platinum cups for you
You're blaming the 6 worker start for long games and not the swarm host, mech meta?
Really?
Like... really?
|
In reply to InfCereal,
"You're blaming the 6 worker start for long games and not the swarm host, mech meta?
Really?
Like... really?"
You ever heard of "multiple causation"? Both of those issues caused the long games. In the game shared by Anoss, the first 4 minutes were spent building workers and infrastructure.
I'm willing to admit that trying out different numbers of workers at the beginning is a decent idea, but there are many other design issues than that and a lot of you have invested way too much hope in this idea that "6 worker start would fix everything". Here are some other issues to consider right now:
1. Static defense - Static defense doesn't work properly when you introduce ravagers, disruptors and now with the buffed siege tank. Static defense goes from worthwhile to nearly worthless, depending on the static defense and its location.
2. Unit design - certain units have massive utility (for example, the adept) while some units have almost no utility (the Thor). Meanwhile, something like the ghost is a niche unit, and those have a place.
3. Total unit cohesion by race - Zerg units, somehow, all seem to mesh well together. Protoss less so, and Terran the least. (In my opinion.) If the transformation of Terran mechanical units is the problem, remove transformation as a gimmick on them. For instance, I think the Hellion should exist as one unit and the Firebat as a completely separate unit from the barracks.
These are just some of the hugely important things to discuss about game design, and a lot of this is being drowned out here. As some others have said, I think it's time to start a separate thread on the forums about your "6 or 12 worker" discussion.
|
Honestly I don't think 6 worker start will fix lotv design problem.
I'm pro 12 workers because it really decreased dead time in early game, the main problem is building time and production time didn't been adjusted accordingly.
This mean, a fast production race, with a faster eco, gains an overall benefit.
If we examine all three races, this benefit is for zerg at most, then terran, then protoss goes last.
Zerg has a very faster unit production since it's a reactornary race.
Terran has a fast production since bio last for all the game stages and units need to come out fast far entire game.
Protoss had a slower production time but units are (were..) powerful; this is why protoss had so many aoe options in hots, to balance the unit productions.
In lotv, protoss aoe got nerfed for no reason (imho) and simply every units does not fit anymore game design because they got outmassed by other two races.
This bring to a situation were gate units should be microed as hell to get profit in early to mid game, because bread and butter units from terrans and zerg (read roaches and bio mines) beat every protoss gate composition even in smaller numbers (that's why protoss are disappearing and numbers are decreasing). And this, just to rush and MASS t2-t3 units, that in hots were usefull also in low numbers, while in lotv they need to be in big numbers to be efficient (look immortals in pvz).
I think the game would greatly benefit from a production-time-rearranging patch; first protoss population will increase a bit, second the game could be more enjoyable at all levels. The best, as asked since lotv release, would be to redistribuite some power in the whole race, decreasing some late game power for better gate units.
|
I think this debate about 6 workers vs. 12 workers misses the point of the problem entirely.
The LOTV economy rework happened because the beginning of games were drawn out and boring. That is a general subjective fact that the community believed, and begged Blizzard to fix.
Instead of looking at the economy or lack of harass units as the problem, I recommend looking at other reasons why passive play in the beginning of games (the early game) was so prominent in WOL and HOTS.
Willingness to get past the early game without interacting with your opponent comes back to mechanics. Naturally, the longer a game goes on then the more possible actions there are. However, in Starcraft 2 (as Catz points out in his video he recently made) the game is more focused on countering units and/or tricking (outsmarting) your opponent. The quality of life features that were added in Starcraft 2 create an environment where people aren't worried about macroing or late game mechanical soundness.
Thus, the balance of the game is based more on the power of units, and the strategies used with those units. While mechanics matter in Starcraft 2, they just matter a lot less. Game balance is more of an issue in Starcraft 2 for the sole reason that no amount of mechanical skill over your opponent matters as much as strategies.
Essentially, no matter what unit changes or economy changes they make in Starcraft 2 the game will be imbalanced. Someone is always going to be finding new (or reusing old) strategies that catch their opponent off-guard, and/or using units that quietly get buffed over time. They have shifted the priority of what skills determine the outcome of games.
Edit: Here is Catz post about it. I've been talking about it for years on the Battle.net forums (the cesspool of Starcraft 2). But Catz hits the nail on the head. Moreover, he even provides some interesting stats between both BW and Starcraft 2 pros.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2017 10:48 ROOTCatZ wrote:Some of my main perceived differences between BW and SC2. For reference I've been playing StarCraft for something like 17 years, the last 7.5 being in SC2 and the rest in Vanilla/BW. Hope you enjoy!
|
On March 31 2017 05:51 jpg06051992 wrote:
Lol, the balance team and their incessant habit of noticing an issue that exists and coming up with some backwards and nonsensical approach to fixing the issue.
PvZ variety is fine except for the fact that Adepts are superior to Zealots and Stalkers in pretty much every single way. Beefier, ranged, scouting, puts "fake" but very real pressure on, and 2 shots workers. Stop making things more complex then they really are, nerf the Adept and give the Zealot and Stalker some early game buffs for Christ's sake, I'm a Zerg player and can realize this.
Also, Skytoss is so cancerous that it's even cancer in it's own mirror match up, nerf the damn Carrier but don't cut it's balls off, once again, how hard is this really?
The Thor has also been a huge balance problem in that it shifts away from being an OP a move unit and totally useless because it get's hard countered by cracklings, remove the unit from the game and replace it with the Goliath, and be...done....with....it....You can really only polish a turd so much, even if the turd is glimmering and covered in chrome, it's still a turd.
Lol, their little Raven discussion, "Terran already has powerful harassment tools out the wazzoo, so we're going to take this broken and OP harassment option, make it 3 shot instead of 2 shot workers, and call it a day." The Raven is hilariously bad on a design stand point, trading out mana for free damage is just begging to be massed up in a turtle fashion. Why not change the Raven to a strict utility unit more like the Science Vessel? Terrans problem in the late game is that bio has no beef/staying power on the field, let the Raven fill a hole that the Terran arsenal has maybe?
5 years later and somehow David Kim is still in charge of these ludicrous "balance changes" as the games player base slowly but surely dwindles and tournaments get less funding from less viewers. How is this game even going to compete with a remastered BW which already crushes SC2 on a stream viewership level. I don't want SC2 to continue to shrink, and while I'm sitting here praising the Starcraft Gods for delivering us a remastered BW I summarily curse them for the balance teams ineptitude.
David Kim is like a bad coach in the NFL who has been grandfathered in because the manager likes him. At this point, it's just bad for the health of the game.
New Balance Update
- David Kim has been removed from lead balance and design and replaced with someone who knows what he's doing
^ The only patch this game really needs.
User was warned for this post
Happy?
|
Well if you wish to see more mech play, the following needs to be adjusted:
1. Thors currently only work against mutas. They are too weak against Carrier/Tempest/BC/Liberators for mech to be playbable. Thor need to have the its single target anti-air damage increased.
2. Swarm Hosts are too cheap which means you can get alot of them too early before mech can have an answer. Swarm Hosts need a price increase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
