|
On August 25 2020 21:48 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Of course "adding production" is not possible. Have you ever played against a terran with 30 rax, 20 factories and 20 starports? THAT is the kind of production which is needed to match a zerg remax, and yes, you need all of them because zerg can make that larva into any unit they want to throw the terran off.
|
On August 26 2020 09:06 PyroNswe wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Does a Queen have a Splash attack vs ground units? Does a tank slow down by three quarters when he leaves his base? Is a tank needed to keep production on par with the other races?
No? Then keep the cost as is please.
This thread keeps coming up with nerfs to things that are well balanced i feel entertained and so happy the Balance team does a good job ignoring these things.
|
The new patch is just live, any tournaments point to pretty balanced distribution and all there is is race bashing on Zerg with mostly horrible ideas that would completely remove zerg from the game.
Funny how discussion went from patch notes to random battle net level flame wars.
|
On August 26 2020 11:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
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.
A queen nerf is not what's needed, your proposed +1 supply change would mess up the whole early game and make BC rush impossible to hold without being massively behind.
Also, Transfuse is only 7 range as is, same range as a photon canon, i have never heard about anyone in the pro scene complaining about transfuse either. So i wonder are you just trying to come up with random things popping in your head about how to nerf zerg? And then writing it here without giving it a second thought? It surely feels this way
|
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...
First two, i don't care
Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap!
Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons.
Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls.
Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game
|
On August 26 2020 15:10 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 21:48 plainsane wrote:
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. Of course "adding production" is not possible. Have you ever played against a terran with 30 rax, 20 factories and 20 starports? THAT is the kind of production which is needed to match a zerg remax, and yes, you need all of them because zerg can make that larva into any unit they want to throw the terran off.
Since you only ever lose half the army supply the Zerg loses if you are on even footing, you would only need half. And its eather mech or bio, so stop exagerating to make a point like we wouldnt notice. And yes, i have seen 12+ Factories and 8+ starports games and Terrans remaxing really fast.
And dont forget that then the larva bank is a goner, a ling bane remax can easily require 100 Larva, which doesnt come easy, your factories and starports keep producing. Plus this is not a serious imbalance. If anything i see Zerg losing because they cant keep up with the cost efficiency of Terran even if 1 or 2 bases ahead
|
Northern Ireland25118 Posts
On August 26 2020 16:33 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 11:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
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. A queen nerf is not what's needed, your proposed +1 supply change would mess up the whole early game and make BC rush impossible to hold without being massively behind. Also, Transfuse is only 7 range as is, same range as a photon canon, i have never heard about anyone in the pro scene complaining about transfuse either. So i wonder are you just trying to come up with random things popping in your head about how to nerf zerg? And then writing it here without giving it a second thought? It surely feels this way
A slight nerf to transfuse range isn’t a bad idea, although maybe 4 is too far. Gives opportunities to punish badly positioned Queens but if players are on point with positioning then they’ll be able to transfuse basically as normal anyway.
I’m down with keeping Zerg balanced in strength but shifting it slightly from the Queen being such a strong catch-all unit. Be it transfuse range, stat wise, supply increase, tweak to creep or whatever.
On the other side of the coin giving Protoss a walling option with a battery being able to phase out isn’t a significant buff but makes that slightly more forgiving defensively. Even walls that pass the eye test we sometimes see Zerglings push units out of the wall and pop through them.
If the barrier to doing that is BC rushes I’m happy with them being neutered, probably by making jump need an upgrade. While it was a creative opener it is kind of fundamentally really, really silly to my particular tastes.
|
On August 26 2020 16:33 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 11:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
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. A queen nerf is not what's needed, your proposed +1 supply change would mess up the whole early game and make BC rush impossible to hold without being massively behind. Also, Transfuse is only 7 range as is, same range as a photon canon, i have never heard about anyone in the pro scene complaining about transfuse either. So i wonder are you just trying to come up with random things popping in your head about how to nerf zerg? And then writing it here without giving it a second thought? It surely feels this way
I suggested the supply change as an alternative to discussion about increasing the cost by 25 minerals.
I did say it was just "another idea I wanted to throw out". And what does a photon canon's range have anything to do with this? How many balance changes have went through that changed things that you don't hear pros complain about?
And also I support removing BC warp or heavily reworking/nerfing it, such as bringing back an energy bar and also keeping cooldowns for Warp and Yamato. The whole idea of a BC warping is really stupid and bad design, except maybe if BCs had both energy+cooldowns so you had to choose between using energy for Yamato or Warp (and both also have cooldowns).
|
On August 26 2020 16:57 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 15:10 Slydie wrote:On August 25 2020 21:48 plainsane wrote:
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. Of course "adding production" is not possible. Have you ever played against a terran with 30 rax, 20 factories and 20 starports? THAT is the kind of production which is needed to match a zerg remax, and yes, you need all of them because zerg can make that larva into any unit they want to throw the terran off. Since you only ever lose half the army supply the Zerg loses if you are on even footing, you would only need half. And its eather mech or bio, so stop exagerating to make a point like we wouldnt notice. And yes, i have seen 12+ Factories and 8+ starports games and Terrans remaxing really fast. And dont forget that then the larva bank is a goner, a ling bane remax can easily require 100 Larva, which doesnt come easy, your factories and starports keep producing. Plus this is not a serious imbalance. If anything i see Zerg losing because they cant keep up with the cost efficiency of Terran even if 1 or 2 bases ahead
What I really don't like about the zerg remaxes, especially watching on pro level, is that it forces Terran to be the aggressor. It is always the job of Terran to kill drones and preasure or kill the 4th, while there are no incentive to do such things for Zerg. The counter to a very greedy build from Terran is just to make expand even faster and make more drones.
Fortunately, Zerg can screw up and make too few units or too few drones, but the dynamic that Terran needs to keep Zerg in check to keep the macro under control remains the same.
It isn't like Zerg can't do an early all-in to keep Terran honest, but they don't have to at all.
|
On August 26 2020 16:48 plainsane 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 Vipers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game
Summarizing your thoughts, you do not see imbalance anywhere and therefore any nerf is bad - not only these. Obviously I disagree, ZvP is imbalanced and in a horrible state since last year.
There is no single unit responsible for that, but a generic economy and cost-effectiveness advantage for Z. That's why I think small changes that slightly reduce this effectiveness or increase it for P are the way to go.
Perhaps I went too far suggesting to remove Adrenal, its boost may be reduced alternatively.
|
On August 27 2020 02:45 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 16:48 plainsane wrote: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 Vipers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game Summarizing your thoughts, you do not see imbalance anywhere and therefore any nerf is bad - not only these. Obviously I disagree, ZvP is imbalanced and in a horrible state since last year. There is no single unit responsible for that, but a generic economy and cost-effectiveness advantage for Z. That's why I think small changes that slightly reduce this effectiveness or increase it for P are the way to go. Perhaps I went too far suggesting to remove Adrenal, its boost may be reduced alternatively.
I see TvZ as pretty much in good balance, perhaps best balance ever. I Think PvZ is Zerg favored yes, but only in late game, mid game Protoss is still very strong. So my point is that i support the approach of the balance team deciding to only change things that affect PvZ late game. Reworking the viper may be a good idea, but it is what Z relies on vs late game Terran, so nerfing it hard would just bring a new Problem in TvZ
Edit: And yes i would really like to see more variety in openings in PvZ, adept printer is getting boring. I think Protoss needs a viable late game for that. Because a failed gladept opener is often game over.
|
Northern Ireland25118 Posts
On August 27 2020 04:34 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2020 02:45 Xamo wrote:On August 26 2020 16:48 plainsane wrote: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 Vipers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game Summarizing your thoughts, you do not see imbalance anywhere and therefore any nerf is bad - not only these. Obviously I disagree, ZvP is imbalanced and in a horrible state since last year. There is no single unit responsible for that, but a generic economy and cost-effectiveness advantage for Z. That's why I think small changes that slightly reduce this effectiveness or increase it for P are the way to go. Perhaps I went too far suggesting to remove Adrenal, its boost may be reduced alternatively. I see TvZ as pretty much in good balance, perhaps best balance ever. I Think PvZ is Zerg favored yes, but only in late game, mid game Protoss is still very strong. So my point is that i support the approach of the balance team deciding to only change things that affect PvZ late game. Reworking the viper may be a good idea, but it is what Z relies on vs late game Terran, so nerfing it hard would just bring a new Problem in TvZ Edit: And yes i would really like to see more variety in openings in PvZ, adept printer is getting boring. I think Protoss needs a viable late game for that. Because a failed gladept opener is often game over.
TvZ isn’t terrible IMO, it’s far from the best we’ve ever seen.
I don’t think I support changes that affect only late game in PvZ because you can’t untether the late game from how the early and mid game flow into it.
In recent years the solution to that lategame problem is air toss, which is either too strong IMO (and I hate air balls) or too weak, and in the latter case Protoss lategame is bad.
A good matchup doesn’t have to be absolutely perfectly balanced, perfect balance is incredibly difficult to achieve. Enjoyability, a variety of viable approaches etc.
Protoss doesn’t necessarily need a better lategame, it needs a more solid and less committal early and midgame game in the matchup, that’ll transition into a more solid lategame anyway. That seems to be the spirit of the theorycrafting in the thread anyway.
|
To be honest, my biggest gripe atm is the Battlecruiser jump ability, how can a capital ship just jump from one side of the map to the other :\
|
On August 27 2020 17:16 AssyrianKing wrote:
To be honest, my biggest gripe atm is the Battlecruiser jump ability, how can a capital ship just jump from one side of the map to the other :\
In terms of design, I would agree that is the one most blatantly bad thing they need to change. Mass BCs with yamato is already the strongest straight up army in the game, and now they can warp too? So you can base trade with BCs, you can harass and constantly jump/snipe bases and repair and repeat, you can even open with them and harass so you can slowly turtle and build up to that toxic lategame. It's not interesting, it's not fun to fight against, there's not much strategy involved, you just use warp/yamato as much as possible when it's off cooldown.
Adding a 1 sec cooldown to Jump at least made it not as broken, but still being able to escape fights like that is really stupid and frustrating to play against. As a Terran I feel incredibly dirty doing it. The fact that BCs counter Carriers AND Tempests due to being able to Jump on them is so dumb. Also, did you guys know that BC is the only capital ship that has 3 armor? Yeah, not even Carrier or Mothership have 3.
(Even if massing BCs from early on is not a great strategy at Code S level, it's still doable and that's bad. It's way worse than the old Raven which had more ways to counterplay and can easily have been toned down. And they could have fixed its oppressiveness by giving each PDD shot a tiny cooldown or only allow it to block 2-3 projectiles a second, and reverting Seeker Missile to a single target zoning tool rather than a AOE nuke, and if really desired then make the unit 3 supply too).
|
On August 29 2020 13:50 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2020 17:16 AssyrianKing wrote:
To be honest, my biggest gripe atm is the Battlecruiser jump ability, how can a capital ship just jump from one side of the map to the other :\ In terms of design, I would agree that is the one most blatantly bad thing they need to change. Mass BCs with yamato is already the strongest straight up army in the game, and now they can warp too? So you can base trade with BCs, you can harass and constantly jump/snipe bases and repair and repeat, you can even open with them and harass so you can slowly turtle and build up to that toxic lategame. It's not interesting, it's not fun to fight against, there's not much strategy involved, you just use warp/yamato as much as possible when it's off cooldown. Adding a 1 sec cooldown to Jump at least made it not as broken, but still being able to escape fights like that is really stupid and frustrating to play against. As a Terran I feel incredibly dirty doing it. The fact that BCs counter Carriers AND Tempests due to being able to Jump on them is so dumb. Also, did you guys know that BC is the only capital ship that has 3 armor? Yeah, not even Carrier or Mothership have 3. (Even if massing BCs from early on is not a great strategy at Code S level, it's still doable and that's bad. It's way worse than the old Raven which had more ways to counterplay and can easily have been toned down. And they could have fixed its oppressiveness by giving each PDD shot a tiny cooldown or only allow it to block 2-3 projectiles a second, and reverting Seeker Missile to a single target zoning tool rather than a AOE nuke, and if really desired then make the unit 3 supply too).
I 100% agree with everything you're saying. But I get the feeling that the people feeding Blizzard feedback are biased in their opinions, since its usually pros that are giving the feedback and they usually want changes where their race comes out better, rather than in the interest of balancing the game...
|
I haven't really liked the void ray changes so far. It works fairly as intedend in PvZ and I like it there, but it seems like it just increases stupid 1 base cheese in PvT and PvP. Having 1 void show up and tunnel down your single pylon powering your 2 gates and then not having anti air is a definite feels bad.
|
Hmm.. what if there was an easier wall off and Vipers only hold units still (instead of yoinking them) if they have shield health?
Fixes Protoss needing to be insurmountably ahead in the late game. Positioning still matters. But now, units don’t auto die.
Banelings seem to always get value against Protoss as well, though I’m not sure if that’s too important. It does seem to force less mobile Archons/Immortals. Maybe a speed buff for those units.
|
On August 29 2020 16:42 Supah wrote:
Hmm.. what if there was an easier wall off and Vipers only hold units still (instead of yoinking them) if they have shield health?
Fixes Protoss needing to be insurmountably ahead in the late game. Positioning still matters. But now, units don’t auto die.
Banelings seem to always get value against Protoss as well, though I’m not sure if that’s too important. It does seem to force less mobile Archons/Immortals. Maybe a speed buff for those units.
An upgrade on the Templar archives to boost archon speed could help. Just an outright buff will make archons too strong early game.
|
Has anyone else tried out that tempest upgrade? It seems almost too good. It more than doubles tempest damage against buildings. Once you get to about 9 or 10 tempests and the upgrade, you can basically one-shot or two shot every building in the game, even planetaries.
There has got to be some incredibly broken proxy tempest build using that upgrade that someone just has to figure out.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
I have an idea that helps protoss in pvz early game and cause little problems in other matchups.
rework adept:
1) remove shade
2) up move speed to stalker level
3) up attack speed to glaves level by default
4) instead of glaves upg pseudo-splash upg (something similar to bounce like in 1st version of LotV beta, just little more stable)
Results:
without a shadow, adepts have much less mobility and cannot threaten the economy before prism, but they can destroy lings and control map. This change will allow to limit zerg growth, because he will have to make more lings to counter 1st 2-4 adepts.
Later, with grade and prism adepts can be used for harass but without shade, they cant be at 2 places at the same time.
In PvT adepts without shades are no threat to anything but unupgraded marines. They have not enough speed and range to catch helions or reapers and no shade to teleport into tanks.
In PvP this change removes last part of earlygame randomness with lucky shade into main..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
