|
The purpose of this thread is to collect feedback on what Blizzard can buff to ensure that Terran has a viable lategame. The current thread is completely unproductive, so I added a poll collecting the most common suggestions I've seen floating around. Please try and be constructive--explain your reasoning instead of complaining. The current balance changes were taken straight from the Korea house balance talk, so we know Blizzard is open to feedback as long as it's within the guidelines they've set (that means no mass Raven missile spam).
Poll: What should Blizzard buff to ensure that Terran has a viable lategame?Nothing. The proposed 10 HP viking buff is fine (28) 25% A bigger Viking HP buff (provide a number) (1) 1% Some other buff to the viking (provide details) (4) 4% A BC buff (provide details) (63) 56% Some other buff to the Raven (keeping the damage isn't an option, and provide details) (4) 4% A buff to some other unit (provide details) (13) 12% 113 total votes Your vote: What should Blizzard buff to ensure that Terran has a viable lategame? (Vote): Nothing. The proposed 10 HP viking buff is fine
(Vote): A bigger Viking HP buff (provide a number)
(Vote): Some other buff to the viking (provide details)
(Vote): A BC buff (provide details)
(Vote): Some other buff to the Raven (keeping the damage isn't an option, and provide details)
(Vote): A buff to some other unit (provide details)
Edit:
There have been a number of people calling for nerfs instead. While I think a Carrier nerf, in particular, is very unlikely given the state of PvZ, there's an outside chance that Blizzard might go down this road, so I've added a second poll for completeness.
Poll: What should Blizzard nerf?Both (24) 59% Carriers (9) 22% Parasitic bomb (6) 15% Something else (2) 5% 41 total votes Your vote: What should Blizzard nerf? (Vote): Parasitic bomb
(Vote): Carriers
(Vote): Both
(Vote): Something else
|
Rebuff raven auto turret cast range to either 2 or 3. And Decrease the missile speed of shredder so people can "split" vs it and maybe take away 5 damage from it (I think 30 damage is fine tbh)
|
^^Keeping the damage isn't an option. We know the damage is going away because they don't want people spamming the missile, period, regardless of whether there's counterplay.
|
On a possible BC buff, making them attack slower but deal higher damage per shot without tweaking their DPS (so basically how they attacked in the previous game) can make them much better since:
1. it makes them stronger against high-armor units
2. it allows them to suffer less DPS loss for having to reposition (c.f. the Cyclone)
Certainly, it would be very boring to see every 20+ minutes Terran game to end up as BC vs anything, but it would be nice if they were used more.
|
Terran ultra-late game is strong enough. Getting there is hard.
|
I support no change that affects TvZ balance. Some sort of buff to terran or nerf to protoss (that doesnt drastically change pvz) is what I want to see
|
On March 09 2018 10:00 Mahanaim wrote:
On a possible BC buff, making them attack slower but deal higher damage per shot without tweaking their DPS (so basically how they attacked in the previous game) can make them much better since:
1. it makes them stronger against high-armor units
2. it allows them to suffer less DPS loss for having to reposition (c.f. the Cyclone)
Certainly, it would be very boring to see every 20+ minutes Terran game to end up as BC vs anything, but it would be nice if they were used more.
That ruins the corruptors role in countering the battle cruiser. It also ruins the role of the voidray or viking (High armored Anti air units)
|
I think viking buff is ok
If we specifically wanted a different buff though, BCs could be neat. I think a big part of BCs being difficult is how hard it is to get enough starports to build them in meaningful quantities. Seems like a build time buff could be helpful; increase cost if necessary.
A bit off topic, I also think that mass BCs looks aesthetically unpleasing. it's this huge ship that has yamato, but then it just sits there tickling things really quickly at really short range... At least carriers look visually imposing lol
I think having BCs deal higher damage per shot is doable. Right now VRs/vikings/corruptors kill BCs pretty well I feel like, it's probably not necessary to have such a hard counter relationship.
Another interesting point about why BCs are uninteresting compared to e.g. carriers is that vs carriers you have to focus fire, which produces overkill (naturally softening a lot of otherwise very hard counters e.g. corruptors) and gives rise pretty naturally to kiting mechanics where the carriers get pulled back. BCs you can just amove into and trust your units will target correctly and not overkill, so while some focus fire is optimal it isn't as necessary as it is vs carriers. I guess an interesting fight to see would be if VRs, corruptors etc. had target priority on carriers over interceptors, then amove. I suspect the fight would look a lot more one-sided than focus firing once both armies are roughly maxed out, but idk
|
I'll keep saying this forever, the BC needs more range and being capable of shoting while moving, BCs are unmicroable because they have such a low range and they need to stop to fire.
I mean a tempest has 10 range, a broodlord too, carriers can deploy interceptors at 8 range and then have leash range.
Having higher range makes more sense for a unit like a BC because it rewards control and good micro and makes them necessary to baby sit them, the fact that the best way to use BCs is to teleport them in the middle of a fight and then cross your fingers while you wait to see if you came out on top is nothing but garbage design.
|
None of the above. Blizzard should instead start by nerfing carriers and parasitic bomb, and see where to go from there. And the problems with PvT aren't even ultra-late game related mostly.
Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead).
|
Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead).
This is under the assumption that the damage nerf is going through. Removing the stacking is functionally the same as nerfing the damage---it removes missile spam from play so it still calls for a buff elsewhere (or a nerf to other races (but Blizz is proposing a buff so that's what I went with).
If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks.
|
i think the problem is VIkings lack of survivability. Even adding 10 HP is won't help much about the fact that Viking is easy to clump up and die to AOE whether from Storm or Parasitic Bomb. More range is required for air to help Viking survive, like 11.
|
Maybe something from this?
- Increase Raven's supply cost instead of reducing damage?
- Buff marauders. Give them "conclusive shells" from start of game. +1 additional armor to +1 upgrade?
- Maybe mines upgrade. Cloak ability upgrade and energy bar like it banshee or ghost has?
- Remove fusion core?
A BC buff is a good one.
|
Japan1926 Posts
I think doing something with the BC would be really interesting. Having like a BC/raven/Ghost/Thor type of army would be pretty cool to see late game. Most importantly would be how ravens and BCs can work together.
I think one of the really big factors that sucks with BCs is the build time. Because tempests are quite good vs BCs I think they should make the build time of the BCs more similar to that. Right now they take 64s I believe. Change that to a number between the current # and the Tempest build time, which is only 43s (not incl chrono!).
I believe something like 53s would make them more competitive.
I'm not quite sure what else you could specifically change without them just becoming too good though. Changing health I think is unneeded. The abilities are quite good already imo. Damage is okay. Perhaps like a 25, or 50 mineral cost decrease would be okay, though I'm not really sure.
I think the biggest thing is that they need to add some way to get BCs out quicker (hence time change) and some way for them to mesh better with units like ravens.
I have not seen anyone using these two units together, but I think with the new damage thing on the raven they may be quite strong together.
edit: after unit testing BCs and the raven missle idk why people would not use them together vs toss air. the missile increases the effectiveness of 8 carrier or 8 tempests vs 7 bc/1 raven from 3 remaining bcs alive, to 6 or even all 7 in straight up fights+yamato.
the effectiveness of the armor missile vs tempests is insane. in low numbers bcs do almost nothing to tempests without the armor missile, but with it they just delete them.
With the recent stalker nerf, I think BCs are a lot more viable now with this arrangement. I could understand before the risk of transitioning there before with how insane stalkers were before. I often stated that I knew they would be nerfed as their anti armor dmg was way too high, esp for cost effectiveness vs things like BCs. Now, it makes a bit more sense and I think the above is already something that is quite good, people just need to learn to play it/micro it/which situations it would be good in.
|
bc buff would be nice; however, problem is the cost and time it costs to produce them just doesnt seem to be worth it.
|
I think buffing battlecruisers is a terrible idea. If they were good they'd be as oppressive as carriers are (or possibly even more due to their teleport ability). All-rounder capital ship type units are much better off being fringe.
|
Please buff ground units, we have enough air deathballs as it is.
|
I think the Viking is the key unit that should be buffed.
Terran has the tools to deal with everything except Carrier/HT (with support units).
If Vikings had 20 more hit points and 1 native armor they would do their intended job of countering capital ships. Since Vikings should not become too strong vs ground I suggest lowering their ground damage by 2 or 3.
|
In my opinion the remake of Raven is the stupidest thing that balance team has ever did (even though I like it  )
Just recall how strong Science Vessel is in BW, it has irradiate and EMP, which is for Zerg and Protoss respectively. Now massing Raven just like the Science Vessel in the past. Loss of armor just like casting irradiate among the units (your units die more quickly) and EMP the protoss army (your units die way faster when shield are gone).
Also, the interference matrix just resembles lock down of Ghost in BW. Imagine that you have a flying Science Vessel and Ghost thingy and it only cost 100/200, that may account for why massing Raven is so powerful.
Reduce the damage might be a good choice, but I think this ability should never have existed. Chronoboost indeed make Protoss upgrades much faster than Terran, but how can a single ability deny all the upgrades for so much long time? Also, after the debuff, Protoss can choose replace a few stalkers with chargelots and upgrade shield instead of armor, the Raven becomes useless again.
|
The problem with improving BC is that it might turn into another Carrier. Carriers are bad for the game since they are good against almost anything.
Another way to go is to nerf Carriers and parasitic bomb. Then Terran needs no changes and the game will be in an overall better shape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
