|
On August 25 2020 04:08 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 03:25 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2020 01:33 Ben... wrote:On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time. With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary. There's still spawning time and cost. Sure, a Zerg can instantly remax on zerglings, but a remax of zerglings is easily dealt with if the other player maintained tech units. If both players are reset, then zerglings can wreak havoc, but the whole idea of trading ineffectively for zerg is that their stronger economy and shittier units allow them to trade their crappy units over and over and swarm the opponent with those shitty units. Remaxing on anything other than zerglings (or roaches) takes the spawning time, and for high tier units that is plenty long enough for a terran to get enough of an army out to defend. Endgame terrans and toss may not be able to instantly remax, but it takes them 2 production cycles... which is about the same as the 1 from zerg + the move across the map. And they can do it over and over, whereas a zerg remaxing cannot do it instantly again, as it takes 4-5 injects to get those 19 larvae per hatchery back up again. I really don't think hte problem is the larvae bank. The problem is the fact that a zerg can (and should) generally sit on 1 base more than their opponent. If as a 3-base terran your push on the 4th works, you win. If it fails, the zerg's economy takes off and you play defense and try to get back through drops and backstabs. Protoss do a similar push but it's earlier. The problem is that modern zergs are too good to not win if they get and hold that stable economic advantage. That said, if you take away the economy advantage, zerg units are way too trashy to hold up in a "fair" fight. You need to be able to trade an infinite amount of banelings for cheaper units... because trading banelings at an equal economy means you run out and die. So you'd actually have to *buff* zerg units if you nerf their economic advantages. It'll change their swarmy nature, and I don't know if that is actually desirable. Oh, and I am not opposed to lowering the max larvae per hatch. I just don't think it'll change much. In fact, it might just make stuff harder: sniping a hatch now can really set production back, but if zerg get used to making more macro hatcheries, every individual hatch being sniped will actually hurt production less. I agree Zerg having the economic advantage is good and necessary (and unique to their race). I think the issue is there is that their ideal lategame should be having so much econ/bank/mining/larva that they can overwhelm the opponent or batter them constantly until they die or are unable to continue mining. They should swarm them with lower cost efficient units. The problem is that Zerg actually has some of the strongest lategame armies, with mobile Spore forests and the highest number of useful spellcasters with the highest number of battle-oriented spells (AOE/damage/crowd control, or NP/Abduct). If Zerg's endgame army was a little weaker in a straight up battle, then it would put pressure/incentive on them to actually try to end Terran/Protoss. I think with BCs, Terran super endgame is probably stronger, but Protoss seems to need some help. Lategame aside, I think Zerg with their explosive economy in LotV can effectively achieve stronger armies because they can access multiple T3 units (Viper + Lurker in PvZ) faster than the opponent while having an econ advantage... This means that Zerg (at least in PvZ as that is the biggest issue), is basically stronger throughout the whole game except maybe late-lategame or endgame, but Protoss isn't going to get there. I've wondered before with all the sped up econ in LotV, if there might be certain tech/upgrades that can be re-scaled. For example, +2 and +3 attack/armor upgrades taking longer to finish, or Hive/Hive tech taking longer so there is more time fighting with lower tech units before players access lategame units.
It is weaker in straight up fight, that's why it needs mobile spore forest and strong spellcasters.
|
On August 25 2020 00:46 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 09:22 Sprog wrote:On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote:
Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races
Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less. Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries. That's actually a good idea. The other races have to continually build units or else they've basically wasted production time they could have been using. Zerg by design has always been able to save larva a bit, but with so many larva per hatchery, they are basically able to completely ignore having to waste production time for a good chunk of the game and are instead limited by supply and income. I think in general, the macro mechanics have been badly in need of rebalancing for a long time now. Chronoboost is useful for about the first 10 minutes of the game and then it falls off the map in terms of usefulness, and with the added battery charge, chronoboost has now become a more situational spell since there are key times it shouldn't be used now. Similar with MULES. They're nice to have early on, and can be useful situationally, but once terran gets enough SCVs, diminishing returns set in for MULES and often scans are favoured unless terran is already behind and is using MULES to replace dead workers. With zerg, there is no trade-off for using injects, and not only do injects not slowly lose value, they actually gain power and usefulness as the game goes on. Because there are unlimited queens available, outside of when the first two or three queens pop in the game, there is never a question of whether an inject should be done or if creep should be spread instead. Typically, enough queens are made so both can be done, with the added bonus of queens also being good for holding off a huge number of different builds. The trade-offs the other races have to deal with don't exist for zerg and zerg is rewarded for abusing this. Zerg macro mechanics exist in the same tier of design issues as warpgate where there should be trade-offs to using them, but in reality there aren't so it's always favourable to use them. Like warpgate, fixing the zerg mechanics would require a ton of work and would be quite difficult so it probably won't end up happening.
I fail to see your logic here, you discuss mules like they are not part of an orbital command, that can also scan. And Nexi not only have chrono, but also recall and Batery overcharge. A queen has inject, spawn creep and a weak heal. Of all these abilities, the queen heal falls off most late game, together with battery charge. Mules and scans are highly important late game, as soon as a new base is taken drop 8 mules and even if you only mine for a minute you get 2k minerals. Recall is the "Oh shit" button and immensely powerfull in base trade scenarios.
Inject and creep spread on the other hand are mechanically highly taxing and cant be forgotten once or you are screwed, and you have to look away from the army while doing it. Creep denial is pretty easy late game since both other races have deathballs with detection moving around. Try respreading that while injecting 5 bases and making sure you are never out of position and aware of drops.
Im afraid you only see your side of the picture.
19 Larvae at a hatch requires 6 injects by the way, that takes 3 Minutes to build up. T and P can add Production too you know. With 20 Warpgates toss can remax in a Minute.
|
On August 25 2020 01:33 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time. With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary.
In a split map scenario with 4-5 bases mining out, mules become ridiculously overpowered. Plus Terran can just sack 40 SCVs and have 40 more army supply than Zerg or Protoss late late game. Your statement is false. Perhaps in the mid game, but that's where scan is most powerful so i guess that's evened out.
And to your second paragraph, yes it can snowball out of control, but it needs to because harass is so powerful, adepts, hellions, libs, drops, DTs. Also we have the weakest Units and the one of the best ones even dies on its use. So zerg needs a better economy. 2 Base Terran can easily defeat a 4 Base zerg due to sheer cost effectiveness.
|
On August 25 2020 05:19 Teoita wrote:
It's honestly not just lategame that's awkward against Zerg because of larva. They are the only race that can lose, say, 15 out of 50 workers (30ish percent), and still be in the game. Meanwhile, if Terran or Protoss lose, say 8 out of 40 (20 percent), they sometimes can have a Hail Mary play but for the most part, they are done. Given the choice I wish Terran and Protoss were more like Zerg in that regard because games being ended by a single widow mine drop is dumb as hell, but it's honestly pretty hard to achieve that.
edit: if you think it was easy for Zerg to suffer damage to non-committed timings or harassment in WoL you were watching the wrong game. WoL vZ post Queen buff was all about using every single resource you had to build up to just one all-in before Hive tech kicked in. Most builds investing in cutesy harassment or pokes were not optimized for that and fell out of flavour.
That first bit isn't true at all. It is only true vs protoss adept pushes, and to make those hit fast and hard, the protoss cuts a LOT of probes, and adepts lose their usefulness the moment enough roaches (or a single muta) hits the table, meaning protoss has (1) cut probes and (2) built an army that is no longer useful at that moment, so needs to invest heavily in expanding infrastructure, giving the zerg a good window to redrone, as they already have the infrastructure necessary to continue being useful. But a zerg losing 8 drones to a widowmine drop or a hellion runby is just as screwed as a protoss losing 8 probes (or a terran losing 8 scvs in TvT). Sure, they can invest in redroning, but then the follow-up tank push crushes them because they don't have enough army to hold it off.
You can complain that there are not enough comeback mechanics for leaving harrassment to happen, but that is equally true for all races. Actually terran probably have it easiest in that regard, as turtle terran into mech deathball is probably the best way to get back from an economic deficit.
|
On August 25 2020 04:32 [Phantom] wrote:
BTW I think creep giving vision is cool, and spreading creep is a good mechanic. However maybe it does too many things, as it gives vision, speed, and health regen. It also delays every push as you need to clear it as you push else your fighting at a disadvantage. I like the idea of the creep tumors being visible without detectos.
Creep does not give health regen, get your facts straight please. Tumors give vision and creeped terrain gives movement speed buffs.
And stop spouting that Zerg is imbalanced when terrans are destroying top zergs left and right, yes protoss need a bit of love, but creep is not the problem here, it's their late game.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On August 24 2020 23:58 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 22:24 chuchutrain wrote:On August 24 2020 22:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Removing creep vision is an atrocious idea and a massive nerf to a core mechanic.
Been following the thread for a while, am no good player myself (very very casual player, more of a tourney watcher for the last 10 years), I definitely have wondered what is the downside to removing vision, as most of the comments here seem to be in favour of this.. but there must be a con to it right? What do you think are the worst things that will come out of it? Losing the creep vision destroys one of Zerg's main form of defender's advantage. Zerg doesn't have tanks, or forcefields, and their 'walls' are of little value against anything beyond early game hellions or adepts. A big part of the defender's advantage Zerg gets is the combination of vision and movement speed provided by creep. Knowing the opponent's army movement, or forcing them to slow down to remove that vision, let's the Zerg position their army better for a defensive fight and fire up units. If you remove creep vision, then Zerg needs to dump extra resources and attention into vision, which is one of their main defensive advantages. This would be especially bad in TvZ, where you need creep anyway to fight efficiently. Only now it would be of no value spotting drops or move-outs.
Especially the visibility - zerg has ovies and lings. So specifically the visibility is a tad overdramatized since many zergs especially early on "see" via different things than the creep. The issue of losing complete visibility is that you cannot spread the creap and it would be much huger APM sink than before. Technically only the active tumors can see, but then many pro zergs spread the creap via queens and not much via tumors themselves.
|
Dude can we chill out on the queen nerfs and creep nerfs. Those arent the issue at all. Zerg would still find a way to be OP.
Do you have any idea how frustrating zerg will be to play with an even weaker defender advantage? They have less harass options, less openings, less raiders than the other races. They dont have some of those units you make 1 or 2 of and can get game ending damage done. IF you nerf their defender advantage, their mid game, AND their late game, there will be no reason to play zerg. Other races will be strategically better.
At this point, its just banelings and vipers. Banelings being 0.5 supply is what makes zerg strong in mid game and probably late game too. Vipers are also a unit that makes it so zerg late game is either too strong or too weak.
Too reliant on abduct in late game. And i feel the abduct interaction can never be balanced. If its the way to go and done properly, its always gonna be too strong. If it becomes weak but zerg is balanced around abducting t3 units, then zerg late game becomes trash.
I feel the first change should be the remove abduct and buff zerg in other areas for late game. Then it becomes easier to balance the late game armies by playing around with numbers.
Right now unit stats dont really matter if its all about staying near spores and lurkers and abducting units 1 by 1. You can buff protoss units all you want, if zerg does the micro viper thing right, they will still win out. And if they cant win out by doing it right, then protoss will be overpowered in late game. It will never be balanced as long as abduct exists. If zerg can safely get abducts off, its overpowered late game. If they cannot, its underpowered late game, vs protoss at least.
Then you have to figure out how to make banelings 1 supply without breaking the game. It would mean a nerf to splash of other races, and perhaps a buff to some of the midgame zerg units like roaches, hydras, and maybe infestors. ( Or make lurkers better at lair tech).
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
If somebody can make gazillion banelings which cost gazillion of gas, the question is - how is it even possible? Why nerf banelings when the issue is zerg can bank so much gas to make so many banes? 
|
On August 25 2020 17:02 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 00:46 Ben... wrote:On August 24 2020 09:22 Sprog wrote:On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote:
Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races
Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less. Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries. That's actually a good idea. The other races have to continually build units or else they've basically wasted production time they could have been using. Zerg by design has always been able to save larva a bit, but with so many larva per hatchery, they are basically able to completely ignore having to waste production time for a good chunk of the game and are instead limited by supply and income. I think in general, the macro mechanics have been badly in need of rebalancing for a long time now. Chronoboost is useful for about the first 10 minutes of the game and then it falls off the map in terms of usefulness, and with the added battery charge, chronoboost has now become a more situational spell since there are key times it shouldn't be used now. Similar with MULES. They're nice to have early on, and can be useful situationally, but once terran gets enough SCVs, diminishing returns set in for MULES and often scans are favoured unless terran is already behind and is using MULES to replace dead workers. With zerg, there is no trade-off for using injects, and not only do injects not slowly lose value, they actually gain power and usefulness as the game goes on. Because there are unlimited queens available, outside of when the first two or three queens pop in the game, there is never a question of whether an inject should be done or if creep should be spread instead. Typically, enough queens are made so both can be done, with the added bonus of queens also being good for holding off a huge number of different builds. The trade-offs the other races have to deal with don't exist for zerg and zerg is rewarded for abusing this. Zerg macro mechanics exist in the same tier of design issues as warpgate where there should be trade-offs to using them, but in reality there aren't so it's always favourable to use them. Like warpgate, fixing the zerg mechanics would require a ton of work and would be quite difficult so it probably won't end up happening. I fail to see your logic here, you discuss mules like they are not part of an orbital command, that can also scan. And Nexi not only have chrono, but also recall and Batery overcharge. A queen has inject, spawn creep and a weak heal. Of all these abilities, the queen heal falls off most late game, together with battery charge. Mules and scans are highly important late game, as soon as a new base is taken drop 8 mules and even if you only mine for a minute you get 2k minerals. Recall is the "Oh shit" button and immensely powerfull in base trade scenarios. Inject and creep spread on the other hand are mechanically highly taxing and cant be forgotten once or you are screwed, and you have to look away from the army while doing it. Creep denial is pretty easy late game since both other races have deathballs with detection moving around. Try respreading that while injecting 5 bases and making sure you are never out of position and aware of drops. Im afraid you only see your side of the picture. 19 Larvae at a hatch requires 6 injects by the way, that takes 3 Minutes to build up. T and P can add Production too you know. With 20 Warpgates toss can remax in a Minute.
IMO, the main "offender" of the orbital command is the Mule. To me, it feels like a bandaid macro booster to balance out chroned probes and inject, and I think the game would be better off without them.
Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
|
Dominican Republic610 Posts
On August 25 2020 04:32 [Phantom] wrote:
Imo the core problems of zerg is:
Larva Mechanic is too good, and the way they can easily expand is also too strong. To balance that, they made it easier to suffer damage to harass and timming pushes. That worked on WoL and HotS. However on Lotv we have 3 problems: It's easier for the zerg to expand, Protoss and Terran timmings/harass have been generally nerfed and the Queen is stronger than when the game came out, and finally zergs have gotten better in defending pushes, and the maps favor defending expantions in general too.
The end result is that i'ts very hard to deal economic damage to a zerg. And even if you do deal damage t's negated by the larva mechanics and zergs becoming better. They defend their bases with 4-5 queens, and even if your harass kills 7-10 drones they just remax them instantly. Since Queens don't require larva, the intended design trade-off of "zerg either drones or makes army" is negated, as they can make both drones and queens and defend well.
The queen should be a vulnerable unit, only good vs air. It should have never been good to defend pushes. I'd say increasing the time to spawn larva from the hatchery a little bit, and nerfing the queen, either in health, damage, cost or supply, so that zerg can't just make 5, defend every push and keep droning as if nothing had happened.
That's the main problem in PvZ (and to an extend TvZ). There doesn't seem to be a way anymore to stop the zerg from growing and taking half the map incredibly fast, and thanks to LotV and increased game knowledge and mechanics the Zergs can do it much more effectively than ever before. So when the midgame comes, and the lategame comes, the zerg is always at an advantage, which makes the mid and lategame themselves being hard to judge as the zerg is always ahead by the time they come.
BTW I think creep giving vision is cool, and spreading creep is a good mechanic. However maybe it does too many things, as it gives vision, speed, and health regen. It also delays every push as you need to clear it as you push else your fighting at a disadvantage. I like the idea of the creep tumors being visible without detectos.
This.
User was warned for this post
|
Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
Why not? we're talking about lategame here, so there are banks and workers en masse. Adding Production is no Problem here, no more than taking time to stack injects and building macro hatches.
Remember, the moment a Z is maxed, there are Zero Larvae. Now let's say there are 6 hatches, 3 of which injected, now then there are 24 Larva spawning in the next 30 sec, but then larva capped on all hatches, so from there it is only 9 per 30 sec.
Now Zerg Production is very decentralized so reinforcements are scattered and weak, and killing a hatchery is not only a huge blow to the economy, but also to production, usually killing a hatch is 15-25% of production.
|
On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote:
Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong...
I see your point, but I also think that this unit can be adjusted in other ways. A Queen only cost 150 Minerals and 2 Supply and still has the same "tankyness" as a Siege Tank(175 hp and 1 Armor!)
The problem is how much value you get from so little resources.
A good start would be to change the Queen price to maybe 175 Minerals at least.
|
Is the game playable right now or is terren still messed up?
|
On August 26 2020 06:02 PyroNswe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote:
Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong... I see your point, but I also think that this unit can be adjusted in other ways. A Queen only cost 150 Minerals and 2 Supply and still has the same "tankyness" as a Siege Tank(175 hp and 1 Armor!) The problem is how much value you get from so little resources. A good start would be to change the Queen price to maybe 175 Minerals at least. Queen is critical to Zerg's early game defence. Messing with it will brake the game. Especially that Blizzard messed with it enough already. Also, comparing Queen to Siegetank...Seriously? Siegetank is not there for it's"tankyness" but for range and splash dmg. Queen isnfor tanking dmg. Both units have different role.
User was warned for this post
|
Dominican Republic610 Posts
On August 26 2020 06:02 PyroNswe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote:
Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong... I see your point, but I also think that this unit can be adjusted in other ways. A Queen only cost 150 Minerals and 2 Supply and still has the same "tankyness" as a Siege Tank(175 hp and 1 Armor!) The problem is how much value you get from so little resources. A good start would be to change the Queen price to maybe 175 Minerals at least.
a unit like the Queen, should cost at least 200 or its to good for his mineral price, u rarely see a queen dying in the battlefield.
|
I like these ideas for PvZ:
- Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king.
- Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back.
- Ravagers take more time to transform.
- Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation.
- Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it.
- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
|
Queen is critical to Zerg's early game defence. Messing with it will brake the game. Especially that Blizzard messed with it enough already. Also, comparing Queen to Siegetank...Seriously? Siegetank is not there for it's"tankyness" but for range and splash dmg. Queen isnfor tanking dmg. Both units have different role.
Adjusting the queen again will not break the game, was the game broken after blizzards queen changes over the years?
I may have expressed myself wrong, let me be clear: I was stating that the Queen have the same defense(and by that I mean hp and armor) as the Siege tank, for the price of 150 minerals and 0 gas. I know that the two units have different roles but that doesn´t change the fact that the queen might be to strong in correlation to the price you pay for it.
Then some poster said earlier in the thread that the queen needs to be this strong to actually hold of early pressure from Terran/Protoss. Fine, maybe a little price raise would balance it out and solve some things.
I think a +25 mineral cost or even a small gas cost could be interesting, and it would force the Zerg into some more strategic decisions.
|
I think making Queen 3 supply instead of 2 should be considered too. If it costs 1 more supply, it effectively costs 12.5 more minerals due to needing 1/8th of an Overlord. And needing ~1 more Overlord for several queens means using up 1 more larvae. Though these would probably be too tiny to help much early game. And may impact lategame too much. because Zerg needing a lot of drones already doesn't leave much supply left to make a big army to swarm with (aside from Banelings being 0.5 supply, which is why I think they should not be nerfed to 1 supply as it is the only one real good unit helping Zerg to be able to create a very overwhelming, large lategame army that is "Zergy" due to being not very cost efficient, but supply efficient). Though Queens being 3 supply and nerfing lategame may be desirable as well, if we want to see less mass Queen/spellcaster lategame.
Otherwise, given the +25 minerals doesn't break any timings early, it may be pretty nice for Zergs to consider whether to make many Queens or make 1 more Spore/Spine or even macro hatch.
Another idea I wanted to throw out is nerfing Transfuse range so you have to be closer. It would make players have to be more careful about their Queen positioning. Right now, if you have Queens generally in the same area, you can Tranfuse each other easily and stay alive for a lot of harass as long as you make the right number. This heavily discourages the opponent from trying to kill Queens, as it will make their harass units take too much damage. But if Transfuse range was like 4 instead of 7, there would be more openings to kill Queens or find damage. It would be more possible to pick off Queens if you didn't have enough Queens in the right spot to defend, and your other Queens were a bit too far to help heal in time. It would add more skill/depth to the game, rather than straight up nerfing their raw power. The reduced range would also weaken Zerg lategame, and discourage spellcaster/Transfuse spam.
I would also be in support of removing or nerfing/reworking Abduct. If Transfuse range is nerfed as well especially, it would be fine to buff some Zerg lategame units in raw strength slightly, to compensate for the weaker spells.
|
On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote:
I like these ideas for PvZ:
- Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king.
- Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back.
- Ravagers take more time to transform.
- Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation.
- Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it.
- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
these are really interesting ideas
"- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana."
I'm guessing you meant vipers, not lurkers
|
On August 26 2020 11:49 Die4Ever wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote:
I like these ideas for PvZ:
- Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king.
- Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back.
- Ravagers take more time to transform.
- Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation.
- Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it.
- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
these are really interesting ideas "- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana." I'm guessing you meant vipers, not lurkers
I support the first few ideas, in order basically. GS giving +1 armor to melee, Batteries that can lower/phase out, Ravagers taking a couple more seconds to transform. I kind of like Zerg units getting full HP when they finish morphing, but that's something to explore (to compensate, you could increase the Cocoon armor, or Cocoon HP more, which would further improve Coccoon micro to take advantage of armor and cancel out). Adrenal Glands should stay because mass Zerglings can either catch you off guard and do a lot of damage, or be completely shut down and waste all your larvae reserves. Viper needs nerfing/reworking for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
