EPTBlizz: Proposed changes for post-BlizzCon patch 2019 - Pag…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
winsonsonho
Korea (South)143 Posts
| ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3091 Posts
On October 08 2019 07:58 seemsgood wrote: i know uncle blizz doesnt want to admit this but because of the warp in mechanic,protoss cant have strong gateway units while still being able to instantly warp them.putting thier power spike behind an upgrade looks bandaid and confusing at first but i am sure protoss players will thank the balance team later for not straight up trashing them so yeah i d think protoss can have strong stalkers just like last year Why would we thank the balance team for not straight up trashing us when they ARE straight up trashing us? | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic9026 Posts
On October 08 2019 07:58 seemsgood wrote: i know uncle blizz doesnt want to admit this but because of the warp in mechanic,protoss cant have strong gateway units while still being able to instantly warp them.putting thier power spike behind an upgrade looks bandaid and confusing at first but i am sure protoss players will thank the balance team later for not straight up trashing them so yeah i d think protoss can have strong stalkers just like last year Stalkers are trash. Even with blink. Why do you think you need tempests in the lategame TvP? Why do you think you need immortals/tempests in the lategame ZvP? Stalkers are trashy early to mid game unit. There's nothing wrong about it. Similarly reaper is an early game scout and cheesy option, that's it. Blink doesn't change that, blink just changes their value for midgame otherwise they would be just like reapers, trashy early game unit  That's their role, many Protoss are fine with that, but saying power spike behind upgrade and write stalkers in the same sentence Have you seen how powerful they are against strong liberator position with some siege tanks and emp? | ||
|
totalpigeon
United Kingdom105 Posts
Abduct and neural should not work against massive units. It's neither fun nor reasonable to pick off big units like that. There's no counterplay. Air units need a collision radius to limit clumping or a fast, forced splitting that overrides fungal slow. Fungal and parasitic bomb counter light air units way too hard as it is. I think a collision radius would be best, so the power of clumped air units is also nerfed, because balancing mass voids has been impossible because of it. Mothership should not be a hero unit. It should be cheaper, weaker and massable so it doesn't contribute to the deathball issue. Smaller msss recalls around the map would make the zerg spine forest less ridiculous to deal with without having to be all or nothing assaults. Non massive, cheaper arbiters could also be abducted or neuraled without making toss want to uninstall. Warp gate should be more expensive to research and have longer unit build time compared to gateways. This would give a defenders advantage back in PvP and allow small buffs to gateway units to be possible to keep them viable into the late game (since toss would have to make more gateways for the same reinforcement capabilities, which means smaller armies / slower maxs). Sure, some numbers would need to be tweaked after. Maybe fungal would need more dps against air units if they didn't clump. But the point is is that even with an e.g. 50% DPS increase, it would never lead to that ridiculous scenario where you lose 10 expensive air units to a single spell because you clumped, got hit and couldn't retreat. It would still suck, but it wouldn't feel completely unfair. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary134 Posts
On October 09 2019 00:26 totalpigeon wrote: Air units need a collision radius to limit clumping or a fast, forced splitting that overrides fungal slow. Fungal and parasitic bomb counter light air units way too hard as it is. I think a collision radius would be best, so the power of clumped air units is also nerfed, because balancing mass voids has been impossible because of it. I was thinking about a similar solution, but my problem was that i would like to have clumped mutas, corruptors, phoenixes, oracles, banshees, vikings in the game. Maybe make that it is a bit harder to make these air units group up, and increase other air units collision radius greatly, so that we will never see clumped up broods/voids/carriers/tempests/bcs again. This would nerf these heavily. | ||
|
totalpigeon
United Kingdom105 Posts
On October 09 2019 01:29 bela.mervado wrote: I was thinking about a similar solution, but my problem was that i would like to have clumped mutas, corruptors, phoenixes, oracles, banshees, vikings in the game. Maybe make that it is a bit harder to make these air units group up, and increase other air units collision radius greatly, so that we will never see clumped up broods/voids/carriers/tempests/bcs again. This would nerf these heavily. It's a broken part of the game. The interaction between aoe spells on ground units and aoe spells on clumped air units is just so different that it is impossible to balance in a manner that feels fair to everyone, especially when there is no realistic way for the owner of the air units to keep their units from clumping. It worked in BW because you could only have 12 units on a hotkey, so things could never be too densely packed in. It's a problem for SC2 because you can have 200 supply on a hotkey, so the dps of the army can be absurdly dense. Overkill from using all of these units to attack the same target is a thing, which helps a little to keep things in check, but the fact that everything can be on the front line means that the dps / area is still extremely high - something like mass muta or voids can be very strong in a straight up fight if you have no aoe to deal with it, and utterly useless if you do. If units didn't clump then the dps would be lower and aoe would be both less effective and less necessary. I think it would be a sensible direction to go, anyway. It's not a change that will balance things in and of itself, but removing the ridiculous possibility of ultra stacked air units will make the game easier to balance in the long run, since the range of potential interactions that aoe damage can have reduces dramatically. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States9362 Posts
Just some brief thoughts on a few things: 1) Infested Terran Change Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2. One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well. While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point. Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced. You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now. At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are. 2) Battle Cruiser Warp Jump 1 Second Delay Finally, I'm a Terran but that should have been obvious and there from the start. 3) Nydus Changes Hurray again that the starting load/unload time is slightly nerfed. In pro games it seems as if an entire army can just go through it almost instantly, like teleporting around the map, which is obviously not what it should be (both lore wise and gamplay wise, as it makes it less unique compared to simply teleporting). So, I do like that it takes longer to unload/load. What I don't like though, is that for only a 100/100 upgrade you can boost it back to the current speed for the rest of the game. You shouldn't be able to transfer your army between huge points nearly instantly, it should take some time for your army to move through. You should be able to reinforce a position with an army coming through, but there should be more of a hidden cost to it (it should take a bit longer for the rest of your army to go through to fight, instead of your maxed out army being there almost instantly). If you bring a big enough army and are in position already, you should be able to have a strong advantage vs the army that is trying to come out, enough to discourage the player to go through the Nydus with the rest of their army unless they have a much bigger army. I believe it would be much better and more unique for them to simply tweak the Nydus in a way that involve the load/unload time increase, and force players to spawn MULTIPLE Nydus for each position later in the game if they want to move a huge army quicker. Nydus is not very expensive as it is, I think an upgrade is unnecessary. A Nydus Network is 150/150 that you can use throughout the whole game, and spawning a Nydus Worm is a measly 50/50. If you want to move your 130 supply army through to the opponent's base, then you should just be encouraged to spawn 2 Nydus for that one position to get it through faster as a commitment. It would be very Zerg-like and more interesting than Zergs only using 1 Nydus for 99% of situations like it is now. It would also be much less volatile. Right now it's like, if you don't finish off the Nydus, then their whole army comes through suddenly and it's over. But if the slower unload/load changes are passed, and there is no upgrade to buff it back to the current speed, it would mean Zergs would need to spawn 2 Nydus Worms to get their army through for a slightly higher price. It would also indeed mean you would need to kill both Worms as opposed to 1 to stop their army from coming through, but it would be more interesting this way, as if you killed only 1 of the 2 Worms, if the Zerg wanted to still come through the remaining Worm, it would be much more expensive to do so anyway as much more of their army would be killed due to the slower unloading. So it's an option for the Zerg but much much less cost efficient. If needed, the Worm durability could be reduced to to help balance this out. Basically I think they should nerf the unload/load time for Nydus Worm a little to make it less scary early and mid game. And late game, it would be better for the design and gameplay if Zerg needed to spawn more than 1 Worm to get a big army through quickly. It's weird to me that in almost all situations, 1 Worm is enough whether you want to move a small force through or your maxed out army. It's wrong when you see pro matches where a defending player already has their whole army in their main base, failing to kill the Worm but is fighting the units spewing out, but yet the attacking player is able to commit and just send the rest of their army through it with little disadvantage. There needs to be a little more of a defender's advantage here, lest the attacking Zerg wants to spend a little more to spawn more Worms. Props to them for the 14 second thing, that was well thought out. 4) Mech It's great that they haven't forgotten about TvP mech, which was very weak last I tried (way weaker than Mech in HOTS which is very sad as it actually was pretty solid in HOTS). Nerfing the Chargelot by removing the +8 damage will help Mech take their third which is really crucial with how many bases Protoss can take in LOTV, and had been incredibly difficult to defend with the LOTV Warp Prism and other buffs (Charge +8 damage, existence of Adepts, Immortal Shield change "nerf" which only actually made it harder to counter in mid-game it made EMP much less useful, etc). And the Cyclone revert made it even harder to tech to Mech while getting a 3rd because they no longer had a jack-of-all-trades solid unit they could open with to scout, harass, and defend, while working up to other Mech units. I don't know how significant the +8 damage initially even was, but if it means getting a near extra full volley of tank shots off during the fight, that would be quite helpful. Also it was cool to see them remind us and give props to SlayerS for that BFH drop build. That was an amazing time and it was so cool to see all their Terrans coordinate together and dominate a tournament like that with a new build. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia17247 Posts
On October 09 2019 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I like the direction of some changes but some of the changes are weird and don't seem that well geared towards the intended goal that was stated. Just some brief thoughts on a few things: 1) Infested Terran Change Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2. One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well. While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point. Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced. You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now. At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are. 2) Battle Cruiser Warp Jump 1 Second Delay Finally, I'm a Terran but that should have been obvious and there from the start. 3) Nydus Changes Hurray again that the starting load/unload time is slightly nerfed. In pro games it seems as if an entire army can just go through it almost instantly, like teleporting around the map, which is obviously not what it should be (both lore wise and gamplay wise, as it makes it less unique compared to simply teleporting). So, I do like that it takes longer to unload/load. What I don't like though, is that for only a 100/100 upgrade you can boost it back to the current speed for the rest of the game. You shouldn't be able to transfer your army between huge points nearly instantly, it should take some time for your army to move through. You should be able to reinforce a position with an army coming through, but there should be more of a hidden cost to it (it should take a bit longer for the rest of your army to go through to fight, instead of your maxed out army being there almost instantly). If you bring a big enough army and are in position already, you should be able to have a strong advantage vs the army that is trying to come out, enough to discourage the player to go through the Nydus with the rest of their army unless they have a much bigger army. I believe it would be much better and more unique for them to simply tweak the Nydus in a way that involve the load/unload time increase, and force players to spawn MULTIPLE Nydus for each position later in the game if they want to move a huge army quicker. Nydus is not very expensive as it is, I think an upgrade is unnecessary. A Nydus Network is 150/150 that you can use throughout the whole game, and spawning a Nydus Worm is a measly 50/50. If you want to move your 130 supply army through to the opponent's base, then you should just be encouraged to spawn 2 Nydus for that one position to get it through faster as a commitment. It would be very Zerg-like and more interesting than Zergs only using 1 Nydus for 99% of situations like it is now. It would also be much less volatile. Right now it's like, if you don't finish off the Nydus, then their whole army comes through suddenly and it's over. But if the slower unload/load changes are passed, and there is no upgrade to buff it back to the current speed, it would mean Zergs would need to spawn 2 Nydus Worms to get their army through for a slightly higher price. It would also indeed mean you would need to kill both Worms as opposed to 1 to stop their army from coming through, but it would be more interesting this way, as if you killed only 1 of the 2 Worms, if the Zerg wanted to still come through the remaining Worm, it would be much more expensive to do so anyway as much more of their army would be killed due to the slower unloading. So it's an option for the Zerg but much much less cost efficient. If needed, the Worm durability could be reduced to to help balance this out. Basically I think they should nerf the unload/load time for Nydus Worm a little to make it less scary early and mid game. And late game, it would be better for the design and gameplay if Zerg needed to spawn more than 1 Worm to get a big army through quickly. It's weird to me that in almost all situations, 1 Worm is enough whether you want to move a small force through or your maxed out army. It's wrong when you see pro matches where a defending player already has their whole army in their main base, failing to kill the Worm but is fighting the units spewing out, but yet the attacking player is able to commit and just send the rest of their army through it with little disadvantage. There needs to be a little more of a defender's advantage here, lest the attacking Zerg wants to spend a little more to spawn more Worms. Props to them for the 14 second thing, that was well thought out. 4) Mech It's great that they haven't forgotten about TvP mech, which was very weak last I tried (way weaker than Mech in HOTS which is very sad as it actually was pretty solid in HOTS). Nerfing the Chargelot by removing the +8 damage will help Mech take their third which is really crucial with how many bases Protoss can take in LOTV, and had been incredibly difficult to defend with the LOTV Warp Prism and other buffs (Charge +8 damage, existence of Adepts, Immortal Shield change "nerf" which only actually made it harder to counter in mid-game it made EMP much less useful, etc). And the Cyclone revert made it even harder to tech to Mech while getting a 3rd because they no longer had a jack-of-all-trades solid unit they could open with to scout, harass, and defend, while working up to other Mech units. I don't know how significant the +8 damage initially even was, but if it means getting a near extra full volley of tank shots off during the fight, that would be quite helpful. Also it was cool to see them remind us and give props to SlayerS for that BFH drop build. That was an amazing time and it was so cool to see all their Terrans coordinate together and dominate a tournament like that with a new build. I really like the nydus discussion here. A slightly different take on what you said, it would be interesting if spawning a nydus worm cost 10 supply. That would make it really hard to mass multiple worms and a great counter to nydus worms would be to snipe overlords. I'm the late game there would be a big trade off on being maxed versus saving supply to spawn worms. | ||
|
Wombat_NI
Northern Ireland12714 Posts
On October 09 2019 09:58 BisuDagger wrote: I really like the nydus discussion here. A slightly different take on what you said, it would be interesting if spawning a nydus worm cost 10 supply. That would make it really hard to mass multiple worms and a great counter to nydus worms would be to snipe overlords. I'm the late game there would be a big trade off on being maxed versus saving supply to spawn worms. Pretty good post there Yoshi, hadn’t actually considered that IT DPS would be more locally concentrated. Specifics aside, just introducing more trade-offs as a general principle is definitely a direction I wish Blizzard would explore. As per previous discussions on the warpgate mechanic, I’m ok with potent things being in the game but, introduce more risk or difficulty of execution, or a strategic dimension to it. Introducing a supply cost I quite like actually, have a more mobile but slightly smaller army than you could otherwise have. Would also make the allins hit slightly less hard. I’m just sick of nydus play because the balance feels so far off in the lategame. When Rogue threw down 25 or something in one game against Dark, just silly. If they entered the mass nuke zone where you could still keep pumping them out, but lose because of it, cool. I can recall offhand plenty of games where a Terran has bled himself out with inefficient overnuking and you can point to it as a contributory factor. I really can’t think of a game that goes late where I’ve ever felt, ‘oh he made too many nyduses that game, that was bad strategically and cost him the game.’ I really cannot think of a mechanic in a game that is easy to execute, difficult to defend in a stretched lategame and has legitimate game winning potential if it comes off once, that you can just keep repeating over and over again with little cost. Or at least a mechanic in a good game anyway. Silver lining I guess is for once by theorycrafting of many moons ago that lategame Nydus was mystifyingly underused has been validated of late if nothing else :p | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary134 Posts
One other way to stop or tone down mid game nydus to require creep for exit (as someone already mentioned) before the hive time upgrade. So the Z would have to fly a (slow) overlord over the base, quite visible, drop creep, then plant the nydus exit. The hive upgrade would revert to the vision is enough behavior, as it is currently. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States1415 Posts
On October 09 2019 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I like the direction of some changes but some of the changes are weird and don't seem that well geared towards the intended goal that was stated. Just some brief thoughts on a few things: 1) Infested Terran Change Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2. One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well. While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point. Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced. You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now. At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are. The IT change is nowhere near a buff in direct engagements. It's a straight up nerf. First of all, despite costing double the energy, it only gets a 50% buff in HP. This is huge, especially considering the fact that 75 HP is enough to be OHKO'd by liberators, psionic storm, and disruptors. This means that Infested Terrans now take half as many liberator shots and half (maybe more, since, like you said, they can be spread out) as many disruptor and psionic storms to kill. Overall less firepower is needed to contend with a full spawn of ITs. On the other hand, ITs got a slight DPS buff, taking the double energy into consideration. However, it must be noted that ITs are now more susceptible to overkill. Finally, the amount of space 25 energy ITs take up cannot be understated. With 50 energy ITs, a Zerg player cannot just flood the space beneath Protoss and Terran air units with ITs and zone their ground units out to the same extent they did before. ITs will take up less space and will be surrounded by Protoss and Terran ground units easier as well. Overall ITs were massively nerfed in direct engagements. It will be significantly harder to employ the same tactics to break a Terran position or dive on a Skytoss death ball. You are right that the new IT is a buff in indirect engagements/harassment like sniping a base from a cliff like you mentioned. But that is not where mass infestors are insanely powerful. Their insane strength occurs when they are massed in death balls and participate in direct engagements. Amount of clicks needed to deploy infestors is basically a nonfactor at the highest levels of play. | ||
|
Wombat_NI
Northern Ireland12714 Posts
It’s really hard to crunch the maths on how engagements will actually go down based just on the numbers themselves and crunching those. All the nitty gritty of numbers/positioning, targeting, overkill etc make it a lot more complicated. | ||
|
heronn
13 Posts
Reduce workers at start to ~8-10 Nerf WGate and move it to TC + buff GW units Replace MShip by MSC as a normal unit with all MS abilities Bring back Ultralisk speed upgrade Add some new upgrades | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany3127 Posts
On October 09 2019 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced. AFAIK progamers do this with the mousewheel, therefore no clicks needed. You spin the wheel which basically accounts for 100s of clicks in a sec | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2165 Posts
| ||
|
hg2g2
Canada62 Posts
On October 09 2019 12:18 bela.mervado wrote: I feel that in late game nydus is a nice tool to break a defensive opponent. One other way to stop or tone down mid game nydus to require creep for exit (as someone already mentioned) before the hive time upgrade. So the Z would have to fly a (slow) overlord over the base, quite visible, drop creep, then plant the nydus exit. The hive upgrade would revert to the vision is enough behavior, as it is currently. Honestly, I've always wondered whether a nydus worm just shouldn't spread creep, taking the creep buffs away, the ability to spread tumors, and possibly take up important space even after it's gone. Being able to fight 'on creep' from an effective nydus seems like an unfair offender's advantage taking into account how important creep is, and I've never really seen that discussed before. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3103 Posts
On October 09 2019 18:20 Harris1st wrote: AFAIK progamers do this with the mousewheel, therefore no clicks needed. You spin the wheel which basically accounts for 100s of clicks in a sec Either that or you can also bind left click to an unused key in the hotkey settings (I have it set to space). With that, you can hit the IT spell cast key, hold down shift, then hold down the key you set to be left click and it will cast the spell far faster than you could ever click. Even worse, you don't even need to move your mouse since it will automatically spread out the ITs in an increasing radius around where your mouse pointer is for you. You can technically use this method for any spell, but the IT spell is the only spell it's actually good for other than maybe creep spreading. Protoss players also use it for warping in units fast (I learned it from Parting's stream). | ||
|
Allred
United States349 Posts
Zerg: move upgrades for units to be completed at the Hatchery / Lair / Hive. This would make the following changes. Lingspeed: the upgrade can be completed at a hatchery. Roach movement speed/burrow movement. upgrades moved to lair. Hydra den: Require Hatchery. Hydra upgrades can be completed at Lair. (Hydras attack range = 4, range upgrade now gives +2) Spire: Requires Lair. attack / armor upgrades still at spire. Infestation Pit: upgrades for infestor are done at the Hive. Infestor Changes: Reduce unit size by 0.25 Fungal Growth: able to cast while burrowed. Units take damage and slow movement speed, but the fungal should cover the ground, and allow units to move out of it / blink etc. Area of fungal growth increased by .25 Neural parasite removed. Neural Inhibition added: Requires upgrade at hive. Costs 100 energy. Sends microspores at an enemy unit that is capable of disrupting it's neural / electrical network and disables the units similar to that of the raven's interference matrix. The only difference is that the unit will be unable to be given a new command. for example, if a mothership is moved forward slightly and during this time period before it stops moving, it is hit with neural inhibition, it will continue moving forward until it wears off. If the mother ship is stationary when hit with the spell, the MS will be unable to perform any new commands. If the mothership is attacked moved forward towards another specific building/creature it will continue to move towards that unit until it reaches that unit at which time it will stop moving until the spell wears off. (personally I think this is one of the better changes of all of these that should be considered, it will allow good counterplay on both parts and won't completely punish a retreating player nearly as bad as neural parasite would, but can be used to punish an aggressive player who moves to far forward. Hive: Require Infestation pit Lurker Den: Requires Hive. Lurker upgrades to be done at the hive Greater Spire: Requires Hive. * make broodlords initially have attack similar to guardian. Upgrade at hive attack changes to broodling. Ultralisk Cavern: Requires Hive. Ultra Upgrades are done at Hive. This should drastically add to the amount of time it will take a zerg player to move all the way up the tech tree and extend the mid-game. At the same time, it would allow for strategic decisions such as making more than 1 lair to hit certain upgrades, and will create more strategic choices in determining how many queens to build, when in the build order to build them since the lair / hatchery / Hive will need to also be performing upgrades. With the queens you do build, you will have to decide if they should do larvae injections or creep spreading. At the same time, Hydras can come out sooner to help defend. Some of the units would need the base stats altered to be balanced to account for the change in pace that will happen to the zerg economically. I think this would help the zerg brood feel more similar to it's BW counterpart where it slowly builds up and then overwhelms an opponent and is capable of playing on a level playing field with a smaller army supply until the end game when it overruns an opponent. Obviously such a drastic change would need to be balanced in a similar fashion for terran / protoss as well. one of the ways this can be done is by increasing the costs and timings of certain upgrades for units, and by adding in some late game upgrades for the Tier 1 units. This would allow all 3 races to have late game low tier armies that can be supplemented by higher tier units instead of a large mass of high tier units that completely dominate the lower tier compositions. Just as a few quick examples. Increase build time for Twighlight council, Robo Bay, and Fleet Beacon Add a stalker upgrade that gives small amounts of splash damage to it. at the same time reduce the strength of storm. this upgrade would require DT tech Give immortal / disruptors a useful upgrade. This would cause Protoss to commit more to a specific robounit. Disruptors + 0.25 nova range explosion Immortals + 1 range attack For Terran. Move Bio Upgrades to the Ghost Academy. (Stim, Combat shields, concussive shell). Ghost Academy Costs reduced to 150 minerals / 0 gas Give Bio an antisplash upgrade such that if a marine is hit with splash damage, it reduces it's life to 1 instead of killing it if it's currently being healed by a unit. (requires an upgrade at the ghost academy) Give medivacs the ability to heal 2 units at the same time - upgrade at the fusion core. Ghost Cloak upgrades / Nuke now require a fusion core. Siege Tanks: Siege ability now requires an upgrade. Fast Siege: Siege tanks now siege faster, requires an upgrade, requires armory Widow Mines: By default do not do splash damage Can get splash damage by an upgrade Terran mech upgrades should require an armory but are completed with a tech lab addon Similar to zerg tech tree being slowed down, this will also slow down the advancement of the Terran and protoss tech trees by requiring more of a commitment to certain units. The examples of Protoss and Terran changes are not all the changes I would make, but it is more of a theme of slowing down the progression of the game and making the late early game and midgame last longer and require more commitment to tech choices while also allowing flexibility to respond to what you are scouting your opponent doing. | ||
|
WayTeh
Belarus14 Posts
| ||
| ||
