|
On March 25 2022 04:26 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2022 23:00 Coffeeling wrote:On March 11 2022 13:40 QOGQOG wrote:On March 11 2022 10:55 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 11 2022 09:56 Wrathsc2 wrote:
good changes but they just needed to nerf z a little more. specifically the baneling imo I can't think of a single thing you could do to the Baneling that wouldn't be catastrophic for Zerg. It's such a one dimensional unit that nerfing any part of it would be very damaging indeed. The Queen on the other hand does so many things that you can nerf individual parts of her and she's still super strong and super important. But the Baneling? Any nerf to its hp, damage, or speed would be super damaging to it and Zerg REALLY relies on those units in every match up. So we'd first need to ask, what are we nerfing Banelings against? Terran? Protoss? Against Workers? Then how would we go about doing it that wouldn't impact the areas we aren't trying to nerf it. I just don't see anything they could do to it without it being massive. It's been nerfed before. Relatively recently, even, when Zerg was just killing Protoss every game by a-moving into their armies. I really disagree with this sort of extreme conservatism when that's left Zerg busted at a pro level for years. At some point, you have to try a big change. Took a look at Baneling patch notes: Weapon damage changed from 20 (+15 vs light) to 18 (+17 vs light).
Weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 16 (+19 vs light).
laughs in GhostThose patches took the amount of Bane hits to kill a Ghost from 5 to 5,55 (=6) and then 6.25 (=7) Yes banelings units are the core of the problem... Maybe Banelings could switch to T2 unit, getting bigger, explode slighty stronger but with one supply (and with a good armor, maybe 2). This would be the simpliest way if you doesn t want to modify the overall balance.
In the earlier parts of the game they give so much flexibility as the zerg player can wait almost the last second to morph his lings into banelings (or simply just spend that money elsewhere if he does not need them) and in the late game it feels like they're increasing the zerg max supply because they're not really a half supply unit, in a rather cost inefficient way I admit. Maybe simply increasing their morph time significantly would be enough, I'm clueless tbh.
|
Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design.
|
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote:
Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design.
Balance wise perhaps at certain phases over SC2’s lifespan, design wise though?
I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally broken about the baneling as a unit. They have an obvious downside in having to be expended to attack, and there are counter-measures from splitting, walling or (less so nowadays) forcefielding them out.
I think there’s core problems in an RTS design sense with the other two you mentioned for sure, less sure with the baneling in that sense.
|
On April 13 2022 22:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote:
Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design. Balance wise perhaps at certain phases over SC2’s lifespan, design wise though? I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally broken about the baneling as a unit. They have an obvious downside in having to be expended to attack, and there are counter-measures from splitting, walling or (less so nowadays) forcefielding them out. I think there’s core problems in an RTS design sense with the other two you mentioned for sure, less sure with the baneling in that sense.
there's nothing "fundamentally broken" with any of those things, when people use this phrase they just mean "this is not my preferred design" and they want to make themselves sound more important.
So if Banelings are not his preferred design then that's how it is.
I completely disagree with that view but it's not any less legitimate than complaining about the design of other "fundamentally broken" units.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4dynr77.png)
Top 13 accounts on KR are either Zerg or Terran. Note that this includes Creator's off-race Terran. His Protoss is around 100 MMR lower.
|
On April 14 2022 00:25 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 22:50 WombaT wrote:On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote:
Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design. Balance wise perhaps at certain phases over SC2’s lifespan, design wise though? I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally broken about the baneling as a unit. They have an obvious downside in having to be expended to attack, and there are counter-measures from splitting, walling or (less so nowadays) forcefielding them out. I think there’s core problems in an RTS design sense with the other two you mentioned for sure, less sure with the baneling in that sense. there's nothing "fundamentally broken" with any of those things, when people use this phrase they just mean "this is not my preferred design" and they want to make themselves sound more important. So if Banelings are not his preferred design then that's how it is. I completely disagree with that view but it's not any less legitimate than complaining about the design of other "fundamentally broken" units.
Yes I have replaced any mention of "I dont like this" with "This is fundamentally flawed" in my dictionary, thank you for pointing that out.
RTS is about farming ressources and using them to produce units, broodlord and swarm host create (potential) infinite units while the amount of ressources always stays the same (unlike say the carrier which has to pay minerals for interceptors). Infested terrans from energy were similiar, but less severe since you did invest energy afterall. So by nature these go against the very fundamentals of RTS design, which is what I would call fundamentally broken. There is a reason that these have fluctuated between completely breaking the game and being close to useless over the history of SC2.
The ability to create units anywhere on the map with little to no risk factor involved kinda explains itself. This was bandaided somewhat decently with slow vs fast warp ins, but again goes against the very core concept of units being made by production facility. If you think back to the original PvP meta in WOL, in any other RTS circumstance you would have had to make 4 gateways in your opponnents base to achieve the same affect. This huge risk was replaced by spending 100 minerals on a pylon.
Due to warpin being a thing, gateway units have had an incredibly hard time being properly balanced. The initial bandaid was the force field, which was about as anti counter micro as you could possibly design an ability. Nowadays you see a ton of shield batteries thrown down, in HOTS it was the mothership core.
SC2 has several of these flawed designs that lead to weird bandaids as blizzard has been unwilling to change these core fundamentals of the game ever since the original beta when people began to point these things out.
As for banelings: Usually an RTS comes down to trading more cost efficiently than your opponnent if you are on an even playing field. You can start trading cost innefficiently when you are economically ahead.
Banelings, since they destroy everything that doesn't fly, allow you to trade cost inefficiently and still come out ahead. You could make a similiar argument against scourge in SC 1, but since those only target flying units and involve a lot more control to be used effectively, they are more niche in both usecase and impact on trade efficiency.
|
The ability to create units anywhere on the map with little to no risk factor involved kinda explains itself. This was bandaided somewhat decently with slow vs fast warp ins, but again goes against the very core concept of units being made by production facility. If you think back to the original PvP meta in WOL, in any other RTS circumstance you would have had to make 4 gateways in your opponnents base to achieve the same affect. This huge risk was replaced by spending 100 minerals on a pylon.
Due to warpin being a thing, gateway units have had an incredibly hard time being properly balanced. The initial bandaid was the force field, which was about as anti counter micro as you could possibly design an ability. Nowadays you see a ton of shield batteries thrown down, in HOTS it was the mothership core.
I wonder what would happen if units warped in far away would be significantly worse. For example units that are warped in outside range of a Nexus are warped in with 0 shield.
|
Might need a few more protoss buffs to have creator and zoun consistently beat maru
|
On April 14 2022 21:26 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2022 00:25 Charoisaur wrote:On April 13 2022 22:50 WombaT wrote:On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote:
Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design. Balance wise perhaps at certain phases over SC2’s lifespan, design wise though? I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally broken about the baneling as a unit. They have an obvious downside in having to be expended to attack, and there are counter-measures from splitting, walling or (less so nowadays) forcefielding them out. I think there’s core problems in an RTS design sense with the other two you mentioned for sure, less sure with the baneling in that sense. there's nothing "fundamentally broken" with any of those things, when people use this phrase they just mean "this is not my preferred design" and they want to make themselves sound more important. So if Banelings are not his preferred design then that's how it is. I completely disagree with that view but it's not any less legitimate than complaining about the design of other "fundamentally broken" units. Yes I have replaced any mention of "I dont like this" with "This is fundamentally flawed" in my dictionary, thank you for pointing that out. RTS is about farming ressources and using them to produce units, broodlord and swarm host create (potential) infinite units while the amount of ressources always stays the same (unlike say the carrier which has to pay minerals for interceptors). Infested terrans from energy were similiar, but less severe since you did invest energy afterall. So by nature these go against the very fundamentals of RTS design, which is what I would call fundamentally broken. There is a reason that these have fluctuated between completely breaking the game and being close to useless over the history of SC2. The ability to create units anywhere on the map with little to no risk factor involved kinda explains itself. This was bandaided somewhat decently with slow vs fast warp ins, but again goes against the very core concept of units being made by production facility. If you think back to the original PvP meta in WOL, in any other RTS circumstance you would have had to make 4 gateways in your opponnents base to achieve the same affect. This huge risk was replaced by spending 100 minerals on a pylon. Due to warpin being a thing, gateway units have had an incredibly hard time being properly balanced. The initial bandaid was the force field, which was about as anti counter micro as you could possibly design an ability. Nowadays you see a ton of shield batteries thrown down, in HOTS it was the mothership core. SC2 has several of these flawed designs that lead to weird bandaids as blizzard has been unwilling to change these core fundamentals of the game ever since the original beta when people began to point these things out. As for banelings: Usually an RTS comes down to trading more cost efficiently than your opponnent if you are on an even playing field. You can start trading cost innefficiently when you are economically ahead. Banelings, since they destroy everything that doesn't fly, allow you to trade cost inefficiently and still come out ahead. You could make a similiar argument against scourge in SC 1, but since those only target flying units and involve a lot more control to be used effectively, they are more niche in both usecase and impact on trade efficiency.
I've never really agreed with this idea. It's not like there is a textbook (as far as I know) on the fundamental rules of RTS. As far as general RTS guidelines that most people try to abide by, Starcraft is unique and great because it challenges these thoughts. That's what allows for the asymmetric design that makes the game so interesting.
Tech progression for Terran and Protoss is extremely fast without (significant) threat. Terran (and to a lesser extent Zerg) can abandon a position with little cost by simply moving buildings away. Protoss unit production is frontloaded. Larvae allow zerg to leverage production in any direction at a moments notice. Terran bio, overlapping protoss splash, excess zerg map vision, the list goes on. Almost everything in Starcraft goes against what many would consider traditional rules of RTS.
The question is if these units go TOO far. Swarmhosts obviously went too far, providing damage from an extremely safe position. Broodlords tend to be in a pretty good spot- they provide a unique way of dealing damage, but are extremely vulnerable.
|
On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote:
Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design.
... I'm just gonna choose to believe that this is satire
|
Its a good start but feel like it didn't do enough to freshen up the game, immortals and colossus lacking a bit, especially vs Zerg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
