EPTWhat balance / design changes do you want to see?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RiSkysc2
686 Posts
| ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2305 Posts
I obviously know, this is 100% not going to happen, but one can Dream | ||
|
totemjack
5 Posts
| ||
|
depressed1
30 Posts
| ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden516 Posts
| ||
|
TheCheapSkate
Slovenia296 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland17631 Posts
1. Theoretical more micro to do, splitting, flanks, wrapping around positions etc. Doesn’t have to be fancy, lings have a lot of utility purely because they’re very quick. 2. Charge is immensely frustrating at times, don’t think people who don’t play Protoss realise how much of a crapshoot it can be with your zeals, do they charge into where you’re trying to position them or exactly where you don’t want them? 3. Protoss have an actual fast unit. I think their mobility might create some difficulties in PvT perhaps, but could potentially seriously improve the difficulties in non-committal sharking and poking in PvZ. 4. It’s harder to control at the Protoss end. Much of the deathball wanders around at similar speeds. It’s quite easy to A-move for that reason. If you’re A-moving and not repositioning with a big divergence in move speeds you’ll end up with a split army that’s vulnerable to flanking. I think this is actually doable within what seems to be the parameters of patching that are currently on the table. In general I’d like Protoss to be harder, but scale better with higher skills. For stuff I don’t think is on the table, but have wanted to see forever it’s a complete retooling of warpgate and gateway tech in general | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1485 Posts
On March 26 2022 00:47 WombaT wrote: Speedy, speedy Manlots versus chargelots 1. Theoretical more micro to do, splitting, flanks, wrapping around positions etc. Doesn’t have to be fancy, lings have a lot of utility purely because they’re very quick. 2. Charge is immensely frustrating at times, don’t think people who don’t play Protoss realise how much of a crapshoot it can be with your zeals, do they charge into where you’re trying to position them or exactly where you don’t want them? 3. Protoss have an actual fast unit. I think their mobility might create some difficulties in PvT perhaps, but could potentially seriously improve the difficulties in non-committal sharking and poking in PvZ. 4. It’s harder to control at the Protoss end. Much of the deathball wanders around at similar speeds. It’s quite easy to A-move for that reason. If you’re A-moving and not repositioning with a big divergence in move speeds you’ll end up with a split army that’s vulnerable to flanking. I think this is actually doable within what seems to be the parameters of patching that are currently on the table. In general I’d like Protoss to be harder, but scale better with higher skills. For stuff I don’t think is on the table, but have wanted to see forever it’s a complete retooling of warpgate and gateway tech in general I like this idea a lot. It's one of the few I've seen that (to me) would actually achieve the `higher floor and ceiling' thing for protoss. It makes map control and not-allin-pressure better, but just a-move flooding a bit worse. They can even still have a very short range version of charge just to still have that `pounce' factor, without the current thing where we occasionally see zealots sliding across half a screen charging after a ling or hellion. | ||
|
LTCM
167 Posts
Queen builds from spawning pool Banes do -50% damage to shields Transfuse removed Vipers cannot abduct massive Enhanced emp upgrade removed You're welcome, game is now balanced | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland17631 Posts
On March 26 2022 01:02 LTCM wrote: My wish list for the past few years has been this: Queen builds from spawning pool Banes do -50% damage to shields Transfuse removed Vipers cannot abduct massive Enhanced emp upgrade removed You're welcome, game is now balanced Removing transfuse basically breaks the game so I dunno where you’re getting that from. | ||
|
LTCM
167 Posts
On March 26 2022 01:11 WombaT wrote: Removing transfuse basically breaks the game so I dunno where you’re getting that from. Then put all those changes on the test server and find out. Zergs whining "you cannot do xx because itll break the game in this scenario" is so tiresome. My suggestions will weaken Zerg, but that's the point. | ||
|
Chris_Havoc
United States550 Posts
Ever since the Legacy of the Void 12-worker start I've felt like the period from early-game expansion to late-game max armies is so very brief, especially in the pro scene. Unfortunately I have no real ideas on how to achieve this in a meaningful way. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France23644 Posts
On March 26 2022 00:47 WombaT wrote: Speedy, speedy Manlots versus chargelots 1. Theoretical more micro to do, splitting, flanks, wrapping around positions etc. Doesn’t have to be fancy, lings have a lot of utility purely because they’re very quick. 2. Charge is immensely frustrating at times, don’t think people who don’t play Protoss realise how much of a crapshoot it can be with your zeals, do they charge into where you’re trying to position them or exactly where you don’t want them? 3. Protoss have an actual fast unit. I think their mobility might create some difficulties in PvT perhaps, but could potentially seriously improve the difficulties in non-committal sharking and poking in PvZ. 4. It’s harder to control at the Protoss end. Much of the deathball wanders around at similar speeds. It’s quite easy to A-move for that reason. If you’re A-moving and not repositioning with a big divergence in move speeds you’ll end up with a split army that’s vulnerable to flanking. I think this is actually doable within what seems to be the parameters of patching that are currently on the table. In general I’d like Protoss to be harder, but scale better with higher skills. For stuff I don’t think is on the table, but have wanted to see forever it’s a complete retooling of warpgate and gateway tech in general I wholeheartedly agree with that. It raises the skill needed to handle P gateway armies and allows clever tweaks. This and some kind of carrier change (not necessarily a full nerf, but giving it more range with appropriate micro while diminishing the dps could be interesting). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland17631 Posts
On March 26 2022 01:17 LTCM wrote: Then put all those changes on the test server and find out. Zergs whining "you cannot do xx because itll break the game in this scenario" is so tiresome. My suggestions will weaken Zerg, but that's the point. You can’t just throw stuff out without regards for consequences, how the game state is now or corresponding buffs. It’s not worth putting on the test server because these are huge changes, all at once and basically combine to make Zerg terrible. We’re talking about a game that is, generally reasonably close to being balanced. Which people forget sometimes. I’m alright with radical changes (notably with warp gate) but you have to do them piecemeal, and slowly so one can assess how the changes are working and how people are adapting. The problem here is that Queen’s are too catch-all, at times too strong and let Zergs drone greedily. Which I agree is a problem. It’s a crutch. You’re just proposing removing the crutch, and Zerg will just get crushed. Many (most) pro level TvZs involve some kind of pretty committed bio push on the Zergs 3rd or 4th that see multiple Queens tanking and transfusing like crazy to buy time for more bane morphs. Zerg at the top level hold more often than not currently, but Terrans do break them too. It’s a reasonably delicate interaction Queens would just melt without transfuse, Zergs could hold these pushes but they’re going to have to cut droning pretty hard and how’s that feed into the late game? Battlecruiser openers shift from annoying/reasonably easily deflected depending on the quality of the Zerg to basically unstoppable. Either a bunch of attributes of Zerg units need changed to compensate, or something else. Perhaps their static D becomes salvageable (or they get a drone back) so they can stick up defences to hold pushes, but not be super behind to fakeouts. Or something in that vein | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland17631 Posts
Aye I dunno. It’s the only real tweak I can think of outside of a more fundamental change to WG/Gateway tech. It’s not sexy but doesn’t have to be necessarily. Lings can run around and threaten or commit to backstabs, envelope armies or run through minefields. Their only real attributes are they’re cheap and fast. Protoss actually has a ton of high skill micro potential, but it doesn’t always sync up across various phases. And it’s basically impossible with complex armies. Also there’s an annoying tendency to their micro either being uncounterable, or useless if countered. In the former category you’ve got blink micro and good prism pickup micro. Undoubtedly skillful. If someone is 100% nailing it there’s not a massive amount of counterplay. On the other side of the ledger say targeting disruptors with a complex composition is hard, but if your opponent is amazing at splitting you can’t really do much. So a stock basic unit being a bit more manouverable I think helps a little. Agree 100% on carriers but I dunno how you fix them. Even if you replicate the cool mechanics they have in Brood War, the game flow is so different In BW even a couple of carriers can be very dangerous, and you can micro the fuck out of them, but the transition to mass carrier is a good bit slower. I think there’s a more general problem in SC2 where with tier 3 air, more tends to equal better. Ideally, for me anyway a small squad of carriers would have more micro requirement/potential, and be very potent if used well, but would be subject to diminishing returns/hard-countering if we’re talking massing them. And other similar units Again I don’t know how to achieve that, but I think as a vague goal it makes sense | ||
|
Xamo
Spain770 Posts
Change carrier mechanics to be more like BW. Nerf interceptor cost. Buff sentries (damage/speed and/or FF energy). Nerf EMP. Buff nukes. | ||
|
Xamo
Spain770 Posts
On March 26 2022 00:47 WombaT wrote: Speedy, speedy Manlots versus chargelots 1. Theoretical more micro to do, splitting, flanks, wrapping around positions etc. Doesn’t have to be fancy, lings have a lot of utility purely because they’re very quick. 2. Charge is immensely frustrating at times, don’t think people who don’t play Protoss realise how much of a crapshoot it can be with your zeals, do they charge into where you’re trying to position them or exactly where you don’t want them? 3. Protoss have an actual fast unit. I think their mobility might create some difficulties in PvT perhaps, but could potentially seriously improve the difficulties in non-committal sharking and poking in PvZ. 4. It’s harder to control at the Protoss end. Much of the deathball wanders around at similar speeds. It’s quite easy to A-move for that reason. If you’re A-moving and not repositioning with a big divergence in move speeds you’ll end up with a split army that’s vulnerable to flanking. I think this is actually doable within what seems to be the parameters of patching that are currently on the table. In general I’d like Protoss to be harder, but scale better with higher skills. For stuff I don’t think is on the table, but have wanted to see forever it’s a complete retooling of warpgate and gateway tech in general Actually I also like this a lot. It could cost or take more time than charge if it is a problem in PvT. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States498 Posts
Reverse build time advantages for gateways and warpgates. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2450 Posts
You'd have to completely remake the game, if we're talking about actual improvements and not just tweaks. All the units people hate (strength of the queen, vipers, disruptors) exist because they are essentially a "patch" fix to the actual bad design of the game. Like zerg needs a way to deal with super cost efficient armies (vipers). Zerg is very vulnerable on defense (queens). Zerg would never kill a marine marauder ball before lurkers (banelings). Protoss is generally terrible (mass splash on a click). The pathing of this game and the high DPS of the units force certain design decisions to be made. If we wanted to really improve the game, you'd probably have to make it clunkier/roll back that smooth pathing or simply reduce the DPS of units. Does anyone remember in WoL beta when each race had like a "macro" unit that basically was defensive? Like a hero. Zerg could only make 1 queen, etc. Thought that was kind of cool. | ||
|
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
| ||
| ||
