|
On August 12 2020 07:51 ilax30 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2020 21:56 Decendos wrote:
i tried playing ZvP without banes for a week now...macro games are basically unwinnable...no matter the unit comp but Z just sucks without banes.
Banes arent even a problem in low eco or even eco games....banes are a problem when Z has a huge eco advantage. On the other hand without banes every unit comp Z has sucks in late midgame. roach ravager etc. is all fine in early midgame but later on without banes...nope.
So if blizz really wants banes to become less effective in ZvP...go for it but compensate Z with some buffs on useless units like hydras or lurkers or infestors... I mean you played without banes while they are only getting a small nerf.. So maybe just play with banes and you will be fine?!
that was the whole point. I tried to play without banes to not be dependend on them - problem (for me at least) was, that without banes in late midgame on equal footing with P (so neither me nor them took big damage before) my comp just got destroyed as in completely destroyed.
I would love Z to not be as dependend on banes and be lurker, hydras or infestors be more viable before hivetech....
|
On August 12 2020 14:39 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2020 07:51 ilax30 wrote:On August 11 2020 21:56 Decendos wrote:
i tried playing ZvP without banes for a week now...macro games are basically unwinnable...no matter the unit comp but Z just sucks without banes.
Banes arent even a problem in low eco or even eco games....banes are a problem when Z has a huge eco advantage. On the other hand without banes every unit comp Z has sucks in late midgame. roach ravager etc. is all fine in early midgame but later on without banes...nope.
So if blizz really wants banes to become less effective in ZvP...go for it but compensate Z with some buffs on useless units like hydras or lurkers or infestors... I mean you played without banes while they are only getting a small nerf.. So maybe just play with banes and you will be fine?! that was the whole point. I tried to play without banes to not be dependend on them - problem (for me at least) was, that without banes in late midgame on equal footing with P (so neither me nor them took big damage before) my comp just got destroyed as in completely destroyed. I would love Z to not be as dependend on banes and be lurker, hydras or infestors be more viable before hivetech....
I mean, I understand your point but you have to realize it's no different for protoss. Protoss is essentially forced to play certain units every game also to survive. If protoss tried to play PvZ without immortals they would never win since surviving roach/ravager all-ins is incredibly hard without immortals.
Also, lurkers seem totally fine at the pro level. We've seen them used defensively quite well and with the hive upgrades, they become a potent zoning and offensive tool. Tinkering with lurkers is also quite dangerous because, like tanks, a small nerf could make them useless while a small buff could make them unbeatable on the ground. I view lurkers as the opposite of banelings in that lurkers are a unit that can be used to show skill differential between players. Good lurker play is easy to tell apart from bad lurker play (good lurker play being splitting before burrowing, positional control, ramp control, etc. and bad lurker play being moving a group of lurkers all together and then burrowing them all in one spot so they die to a couple storms or using lurkers purely with hope the opponent forgot detection rather than using them to supplement an army). As it is right now, it is more difficult to tell a bad baneling user from a good one because even badly used banelings come out on top most of the time in terms of efficiency.
I don't think hydras need help either. In 2018 we were watching pro zergs win PvZ games with almost pure hydra so something needed to be done, and the nerfs done were minimal. It's just that right now ling/bane/ravager is even stronger so hydras have become less popular to use.
|
On August 12 2020 14:39 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2020 07:51 ilax30 wrote:On August 11 2020 21:56 Decendos wrote:
i tried playing ZvP without banes for a week now...macro games are basically unwinnable...no matter the unit comp but Z just sucks without banes.
Banes arent even a problem in low eco or even eco games....banes are a problem when Z has a huge eco advantage. On the other hand without banes every unit comp Z has sucks in late midgame. roach ravager etc. is all fine in early midgame but later on without banes...nope.
So if blizz really wants banes to become less effective in ZvP...go for it but compensate Z with some buffs on useless units like hydras or lurkers or infestors... I mean you played without banes while they are only getting a small nerf.. So maybe just play with banes and you will be fine?! that was the whole point. I tried to play without banes to not be dependend on them - problem (for me at least) was, that without banes in late midgame on equal footing with P (so neither me nor them took big damage before) my comp just got destroyed as in completely destroyed. I would love Z to not be as dependend on banes and be lurker, hydras or infestors be more viable before hivetech....
It's like saying, playing Protoss without Zealots cause it got nerfed then ask Blizzard to buff other units cause Protoss is so dependent on Zealots and it's unwinnable without them so lets buff other units to compensate. Oh wait, Protoss still wins games and zealots are still being used in every game.
See how flaw that argument is? Units get nerfed/buffed every patch, doesn't make them disappear or become useless.
Or lets look at a different angle.
Lets assume, Zerg finally can win late game without using baneling after the buff to other units. Then, wait... there is a race that can win a macro late game without the need of using one of its core unit?? Does that make them OP or balanced? Let that sink it.
|
Buff Sentry blizzard! Lower build times, make them tankier, 75g instead of 100
Anion crystals lowering lift cost to 25 would be nice as well.
|
There s obvious solution for Blizz to make Banes legit at geek / casual level but they are probably afraid to lose players if they are going deep. I checked the last patch consequences (patch 4.11 2019/10) on Zerg players and a lot of them have left the game because of the changes.
Zerg
Brood Lord
Broodling leash range decreased from 12 to 9.
Creep
Active Creep Tumors may no longer be canceled.
Infestor
Removed the Infested Terran ability.
New Ability: Microbial Shroud
Creates a shroud that obscures ground units below, reducing the damage they take from air units by 50%. Lasts 11 seconds. Energy cost: 100.
Cast range: 9.
Radius: 3.
New upgrade found on the Infestation Pit: Evolve Microbial Shroud
Requirement: Hive.
Research cost: 150/150.
Research duration: 79 seconds.
Updated visual effects and sounds for Microbial Shroud
Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 8.
Neural Parasite can no longer target Heroic units.
Lurker
Lurker Den build time decreased from 86 seconds to 57 seconds.
Lurker range decreased from 9 to 8.
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines
Increases the Lurker's range from 8 to 10.
Requirement: Hive.
Research cost: 150/150.
Research duration: 57 seconds.
Increased research duration of Adaptive Talons from 54 seconds to 57 seconds.
Lurkers affected by Blinding Cloud will now only fire to melee range.
Nydus Network
Nydus Worm cost increased from 50/50 to 75/75.
Summon Nydus Worm ability cooldown increased from 0 to 14.
Nydus Network and Nydus Worm initial unload delay increased from 0.18 to 0.36.
Nydus Network and Nydus Worm load period increased from 0.09 to 0.18.
Nydus Network and Nydus Worm unload period increased from 0.18 to 0.36.
Overlord
Pneumatized Carapace research cost increased from 75/75 to 100/100.
https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&l=5
I didn t studied every patch and his consequence but if i would have to give my opinion on this, the removal of Infested Terrans seems to be the drop of water that breaks the camel's back (funny expression...). Blizzard tried to resolve the issue of sky toss but after one try in changing the spell of infested terrans, they gived up..
If the spell works so well at pro level, it must be incredibly powerfull !!! cause i didn t see it once time since the last patch.
Can someone explain it ? (i must admit i liked the first idea concerning infested terrans, to make them powerfull but more expensive in mana)
|
On August 08 2020 12:20 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Limit the possible targets of adbuct and neural to 4 supply units max, and buff broodlords and ultralisks.
The problem with this kind of change is that it removes the point of the spell. you use abduct and neural precisely to target the big units. If you can't, then nobody is going to pour the resources into it (unless you can somehow target multiple units, and then you're back in the same "supply-affected" range again).
a similar nerf would be storm no longer deals damage to sub-3 supply units, or pulsar beam no longer target workers.
|
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that.
|
On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that.
Increase Queen supply cost to 3.
Increase Baneling supply cost to 1.
Increase Zerg supply cap to 210.
Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers.
|
On August 13 2020 21:22 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that. Increase Queen supply cost to 3. Increase Baneling supply cost to 1. Increase Zerg supply cap to 210. Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers.
+1
I agree, it s a reasonnable idea. supply cap could even be increased to 215 i guess (i would say 220 without your comments).
This kind of changes is something missing to Starcraft 2... It s a question of good sense to represent the effectiveness and the power of an unit with pragmatism. I would be super excited to watch these small changes into a Wardi tournament for example (with community donations)
What are we waiting ?
PS : even +6 supply from hatchery can be increased to +7 (to adjust spending minerals at start)
That said, it will probably help a lot the casuals / geek gamers but actually Zerg feel in a bad mood from a spectator view
|
Some changes I personally would like the balance team to address as well beyond just nerfing Zerg (For what it's worth, I am a Zerg player and have been since WoL.), because what I've always felt for Protoss is that the Oracle and Disruptor are in bad places design wise, and early Gateway units still suck. I'm not so sure that Zerg needs to be nerfed compared to Protoss just needing buffs and number tweaks. Plus, buffs are always more exciting for the community and the players beyond things that were just crimes against nature like Brood Lord/Infestor.
- Making sentries more useful overall combat units, they seem to be in a bad place concerning their interaction with Ravagers and early game gateway units still all these years later seems flimsy and unable to allow Protoss to apply meaningful ground based pressure to a Zerg player.
Perhaps buffing their damage and guardian shield to give some early offensive firepower and more ground based durability to small squads of Gateway units. Allowing Protoss to commit to early aggression more reliably and force the Zerg player to more carefully monitor their greed.
Giving the Oracle a range increase of +1 but a nerf in damage and/or removal of bonus to light units, along with removal of energy expenditure when attacking and the ability to attack air units. Oracles come out strong but then fall off drastically, the Revelation change lessens this a bit but the team could do more. This change would give greater versatility to the Oracle by doing the following.
1. Buffing range will allow micro outside of static defenses which will promote longevity to the unit, not allowing Spore Crawlers to hard counter them.
2. Energy removal will negate the decision of choosing to attack or to cast spells, why not do both? The Oracle is expensive, it shouldn't have such a binary choice between how to utilize it.
3. Nerfing damage and or removing the light tag would not make the Oracle completely broken with the two above proposed buffs, it should not instantly kill workers. The damage should be reduced to a point where a fast Zerg player can react and micro away to lessen the damage, while a slow or inattentive Zerg will be punished.
4. Allowing it to attack air units will take away the helplessness of the Oracle once a Spire is dropped, while allowing them to simultaneously fill in a more Phoenix like roll or killing and shooing away Overlords. Allowing the Protoss player greater vision, map control, and slowing the economy of the Zerg player.
Also, my last proposal, is to remove the Disruptor and replace it with the Reaver. Simple as that, the Reaver is awesome and the Disruptor just sucks to watch, play against and play with. Give Protoss the Reaver and make everyone happy, just like nobody properly understand why Lurkers were not in the game since WoL, the introduction of the Lurker has drastically improved the Zerg arsenal both for the players and spectators, I have no doubts that the Reaver would do the same.
Edited for grammar
|
On August 13 2020 21:22 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that. Increase Queen supply cost to 3. Increase Baneling supply cost to 1. Increase Zerg supply cap to 210. Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers.
Amazing....
What about increasing marine supply from 1 to 2 and mules from 0 to 1 to compensate ?
Seriously, you have no clue how the game works, and this suggestion is just "kill zerg i don't like them".
|
On August 13 2020 21:22 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that. Increase Queen supply cost to 3. Increase Baneling supply cost to 1. Increase Zerg supply cap to 210. Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers.
Not sure about the Zerg supply cap going up. Do like the idea of looking at the queen, whether that is Q/Hatch or Supply
|
On August 14 2020 05:00 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 21:22 MockHamill wrote:On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that. Increase Queen supply cost to 3. Increase Baneling supply cost to 1. Increase Zerg supply cap to 210. Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers. Amazing.... What about increasing marine supply from 1 to 2 and mules from 0 to 1 to compensate ? Seriously, you have no clue how the game works, and this suggestion is just "kill zerg i don't like them".
I agree that those changes are kind of ridiculous but people have been saying that nerfs are going to kill Zerg for ages and they are still winning the most and sitting on a pile of prize money $3million bigger than Protoss or Terran. While maybe not that posts suggestions specifically I do think Blizzard should try something bigger than what we've seen in the last few years.
|
On August 13 2020 21:22 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that. Increase Queen supply cost to 3. Increase Baneling supply cost to 1. Increase Zerg supply cap to 210. Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers.
Ah of course, mass Queen, the infamously most abused zerg strategy. Can't believe the entirety of 2019 was just all the zergs massing queens and a-moving across the map. Nobody could stop them, the Brendas were too powerful.
|
On August 14 2020 06:02 slant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 21:22 MockHamill wrote:On August 13 2020 20:36 120720 wrote:
Limit the amount of alive queens per hatcheries, boost whatever units you need for that. Increase Queen supply cost to 3. Increase Baneling supply cost to 1. Increase Zerg supply cap to 210. Mass Banelings and mass Queen will now have clear drawbacks without Banelings or Queens becomming less effective in reasonable numbers. Ah of course, mass Queen, the infamously most abused zerg strategy. Can't believe the entirety of 2019 was just all the zergs massing queens and a-moving across the map. Nobody could stop them, the Brendas were too powerful.
Making 4 queens is massing them, don'tcha know.
|
Honestly, 16+19 or 18+17 doesn't really seem like it's going to make a huge difference. While I understand playing with these numbers is the easy "fix" the problem with banes is mostly that they are an easy way to utterly overkill everything on the field. In ZvT there is considerable micro involved in early marine vs baneling skirmishes, but lategame and vs P, the name of the game is the just use overwhelming numbers. And vs stalkers that number got a bit bigger, but was already thoroughly cost ineffective and only really feasible because Zerg (1) eat the map and (2) don't really have a mid game alternative for whiping out an army. It's the only zerg splash (ravagers are easily dodged). I guess fungals might start making more of a comeback, but everybody hates fungal as well. But there isn't really any other answer that works as well as splash, so Zerg will still make lots of banes (just as Terran make tanks and widow mines, and Protoss make Colossus and storm).
Also, why not look at shadowstride. DTs blinking on top of planetaries is really really dumb.
|
Northern Ireland25130 Posts
On August 14 2020 08:09 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly, 16+19 or 18+17 doesn't really seem like it's going to make a huge difference. While I understand playing with these numbers is the easy "fix" the problem with banes is mostly that they are an easy way to utterly overkill everything on the field. In ZvT there is considerable micro involved in early marine vs baneling skirmishes, but lategame and vs P, the name of the game is the just use overwhelming numbers. And vs stalkers that number got a bit bigger, but was already thoroughly cost ineffective and only really feasible because Zerg (1) eat the map and (2) don't really have a mid game alternative for whiping out an army. It's the only zerg splash (ravagers are easily dodged). I guess fungals might start making more of a comeback, but everybody hates fungal as well. But there isn't really any other answer that works as well as splash, so Zerg will still make lots of banes (just as Terran make tanks and widow mines, and Protoss make Colossus and storm).
Also, why not look at shadowstride. DTs blinking on top of planetaries is really really dumb.
Pretty much. Historically bio/tank and subsequently bio/mine against ling/bane or LBM has been held up as the gold standard for compositional interactions. That and the numbers behind it haven’t changed massively over the years.
Difference nowadays is that huge Zerg economy that is more frequently obtained, and Zergs just being better. Creep spread is almost unrecognisably better from top Zergs now for example.
Outside of other matchups, historically it’s always felt an arms race for Protoss and Terran to keep Zergs exploding with their patent mechanics, and once Zergs figure out how to not be strangled the patent strengths of the race come to the fore.
One thing I will say in terms of balance is at least Zerg isn’t particularly cost-efficient. It has some strengths for sure, but the race only really becomes ridiculous when it has access to really cost-effective comps, BL/Infestor being the most infamous example.
As per shadowstride I have it filed in ‘silly, and will probably be shown to be broken once we see it more’. How would you tweak it?
Personally I think DTs shouldn’t be able to attack after striding through the shadows for a period, say 2 seconds to pick an arbitrary number.
You can still aggressively blink onto buildings. It’s not a huge window of reaction your opponent can counter, but there is a window. You retain the utility of the ability in terms of retreating and retaining your DTs, which I think should really be the main benefit of the upgrade. You lose the ability to blink onto small groups of bio and instantly wiping them out.
It’s beyond punishing and borderline impossible to react to for a variety of reasons. Unless your opponent runs around detection a bit and hits /dance, you have between a second or two tops and literally zero time to actually react.
Even a mine drop that you’ve missed you have more time to react, and that’s when you have only 2-3 bases to keep an eye on. Blink DTs come out when you’re spread across 4-5+ bases
I mean I’m a Protoss at heart but I feel they’re unreasonably good in lategame vT
|
On August 11 2020 03:38 Dedraterllaerau wrote:
It's good to see that Blizzard at least acknowledges Protoss is really weak at the moment.
Protoss has not been competitive in the late game in both PVT or PVZ for a long time now.
The Protoss race right now has been all about choosing a single build that has to do critical damage or kill the opponent and even then that is sometimes only enough to make it a even game when Protoss deserves to be ahead by a large margin considering the damage they have done.
Mules and mass drones in a single production cycle are comeback mechanics Protoss do not have, chronoboosted probes takes a considerable amount of time to pay off while the Terran and Zerg can maintain more stable economies if they take heavy economic damage.
On the protoss side of things losing worker amounts that Terran and Zerg can "live with" is a game ender for Protoss and if you have knowledge of Starcraft you already know the game is pretty much over already.
So Protoss is the most fickle race when it comes to taking economic damage yet they have the worst defense capabilities of all three races.
This is problem number one.
Problem number two:
Protoss is an expensive race, units are expensive, techpaths are expensive, take a long time to get and you can not just change your techtree as you see fit since the investments are huge.
This makes reactive play very difficult because it is to expensive and takes to long to make reliable tech that can counter your opponents army.
Pro players know Protoss are locked to the decisions they made early in the game (techpaths) and for players who know how to scout and know how protoss works, Protoss is the most predictable race in the game, the only unpredictable thing about protoss is how hard are they going to commit to an attack causing a defensive overreaction the opposite.
So you would assume the downside of having expensive units, supply expensive units, expensive slow tech paths to more powerful units would be balanced out by the strength of the units.
Well this is where Blizzard dropped the ball,
They want Zerg to by "Zergy" mass amounts of units overwhelm you fast teching, tech switches living true to Brood war game play and lore for those who care about that. They carried this over into SC2 it's still their key strengths
Terran also has its core elements from Brood war, extremely strong defensively, parade pushes, good at sieging bases using terrain to their advantage even acquired new strengths with the medivac mobility.
Now for Protoss, this is where I want you to think a bit and reflect see if you come to the same conclusion as me.
We still have the expensive buildings, upgrades, and units.
We are still locked into techpaths for longer because of this.
Now this is supposed to be compensated by the strength of the units you make, but this is not the case, protoss units are not very versatile and easily countered by a scouting opponent because of how predictable Protoss techpaths are.
You do not pay more for stronger units as a protoss, you pay more to hardcounter a specific unit of the enemy, which the enemy in turn Zerg and Terran can make easily obsolete because of how quick and how easy access they have to whatever tech they need.
Which means protoss units only perform when the opponent is not prepared for them.
So you are in fact not paying more for anything other then hoping your enemy was not prepared for that specific unit.
Which again reinforces the fact that protoss must play based on deception and outsmarting your opponent, there is no brute force like Terran and Zerg playstyles.
Now I know most people well say well this is not Brood war so what is my point?
My point is why do you give Protoss the core mechanics of expensive supply demanding armies with slow techfrom brood war, and then expect us to use deception to beat the opponent when they have even better tools of deception then Protoss have.
You have the most predictable easily read race in the game and you want us to rely on deception to win games?
All of these things contradict themselves and is the core reason why Protoss has been a poorly designed race and it needs some heavy reworking if its ever going to fit into this game and make for fun matchups like TVZ is getting closer too.
Smart Post.
Lots of people agreeing it seems, except for the Devs...
|
My ideas for protoss:
- Sentry: remove forcefield ability, reduce price to 25/75, Attack: +1 range, reduces enemy movement speed by 50% (1 sec duration).
- Warpprism: remove fast warpin and add as upgrade to robobay 150/150 121 sec
- Stalker: +3 base damage, attack upgrades give +2 damage, reduce starting range by 1, add upgrade at twilight to research range +1 (for 100/100 121 sec).
- Archon: add speed upgrade at templar archive 150/150 79 sec(equal to psi storm), speed equals speedlots - 4.725.
- Adept: starts with resonating glaives, psionic transfer needs to be researched now instead(same price, duration), psionic transfer can now be trigger manually before the duration runs out. OR start with glaives and psionic transfer and offer manual transfer trigger as upgrade (mabye lock part of the current cooldown behind the upgrade as well)
- voidray: starts with flux vanes, prismatic slignment need to be reserached instead of flux vanes (same price, duration), prismatic alignment grants +1 range while active. (The current patch proposals for the void are actually much better.)
- Tempest: 4 supply (Current patch proposals are very valid as well.)
- Mothership: removed
- New ability, researched at the dark shrine: cloak of shadows 100/100 50 sec, which allows oracles to cloak any one unit for 9 sec for 100 energy.
Intended Results:
- more dps early game(!!!) due to adepts starting with glaives and stalker having more dps and cheaper sentries
- reduced stalker range to not make them dominate early game with their increased dps, +1 range on twilight allows for early range or blink
- more mobile air defense & harrass options with speed voids (anti medivac + raven + mutas)
- no more forcefields, less abuse but also much weaker defense
- cheaper sentries have more range, slow down enemies can be more easily integrated into a high pure gateway army
- less brutal adept harrass without upgrade, but more potential to use adepts in regular gateway armies without requiring an upgrade
- more micro potential with manually triggered shades, after upgrade
- archon upgrade to open up more strategical build options and raise protoss mobility in the mid/late game (zealot archon mobile playstyle), better air defense vs mutas
- no early fast warpins, locking the power of offensive warp gate behind a second later game upgrade, accounting for early gateway units dps increase
- tempest not quite as terrible for their supply anymore and might find a place in late game as long range air support
|
* necro because I couldn't find a more recent / relevant balance discussion thread
I want to test changes to the nexus that might improve the state of TvP
new structure: Nexus. costs 400 minerals. does what a nexus does (build probes and chrono), but with no recall / battery overcharge
new upgrade: Arbitral Core. costs 50 minerals / 50 gas, 25 seconds build time, requires a cybernetics core. unlocks the recall / battery overcharge abilities. while upgrading, the nexus cannot build probes
feels like a decent way to stabilize the early-game where terran often gets far behind in economy. it would make P a bit more vulnerable while taking new bases
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
