|
I like the idea of having Queens more at the forefront and allowing for more skirmishes when spreading/denying creep.
However, instead of something big like making tumors not able to spread, how about we just increase the cooldown that it takes for tumors to spread? That would be a good first step to try out, and will already help a lot. It would encourage queens to be more active if they want to aggressively spread as fast as possible. Safer spreading (keeping queens more at home to defend harass) would be nerfed a little.
It takes 11 seconds right now before tumor can spread. Why not try nerfing that to 13 or maybe 15 seconds?
Also, currently, you can spread a tumor before the tumor finishes spreading the max creep. This means that players with high APM/multitasking can spread creep faster than other players if they are on top of it and spread as fast as possible.
If we make tumors take 13-15 seconds to spread instead of 11, it will lower the mechnical skill ceiling of Zerg, make Zerg easier to play at lower levels, and ultimately make it easier to balance Zerg around the top players without making Zerg as hard for lower levels. We don't have to worry about a few top pros being super good at spreading creep.
|
|
|
On May 26 2022 12:06 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I like the idea of having Queens more at the forefront and allowing for more skirmishes when spreading/denying creep.
However, instead of something big like making tumors not able to spread, how about we just increase the cooldown that it takes for tumors to spread? That would be a good first step to try out, and will already help a lot. It would encourage queens to be more active if they want to aggressively spread as fast as possible. Safer spreading (keeping queens more at home to defend harass) would be nerfed a little.
It takes 11 seconds right now before tumor can spread. Why not try nerfing that to 13 or maybe 15 seconds?
Also, currently, you can spread a tumor before the tumor finishes spreading the max creep. This means that players with high APM/multitasking can spread creep faster than other players if they are on top of it and spread as fast as possible.
If we make tumors take 13-15 seconds to spread instead of 11, it will lower the mechnical skill ceiling of Zerg, make Zerg easier to play at lower levels, and ultimately make it easier to balance Zerg around the top players without making Zerg as hard for lower levels. We don't have to worry about a few top pros being super good at spreading creep.
Yeah like ! --- Double Nuked ---
|
|
|
Denmark3552 Posts
About the Zerg players getting better at spreading creep. I think the Inject change so that it's stackable had a huge impact on this. It's actually crazy how hard Zerg was to play in HotS, SoO basically made his career by being the best Injector. But now it's become a lot more trivial, which allows Zergs to spend these actions on spreading Creep.
I think removing the ability from Tumours to spread can be a good change. I also think you can just as easily increase the cost of Creep Tumours from 25->50.
The thing is, Zerg is not actually OP right now, so there needs to be other changes to not simply nerf Zerg. Zerg just has OP Corruptors, Lurkers, Spores, Fungal and Abduct, but I put Terran as the stronger race.
I like this change:
Queen starting energy from 25->50.
Transfuse back to pre-LotV.
Creep Tumour energy cost from 25->50.
As for Hatch tech Hydra, I think it can be interesting, but I don't see it solving any issues.
I like the idea of Hydras being higher tech than the Roach, then as Roach evolves into the Ravager it becomes higher tech than the Hydra, then lastly, Hydra evolves into the Lurker and is now again higher tech than the Ravager.
That said I don't see the issue with Queens being the anti air unit for Zerg, Actually not at all and I also think it's a cool gimmick that Queen walks exist.
Aesthetically, I think though that Hydras should be mega fast like they were in BW and I think actually a cool change could be to nerf their range from 5->4 in exchange for giving them A LOT of move speed. One of the worst parts of Hydralisk timing attacks is that they are actually as all in as Queen walks are. Because, Hydras just can't retreat off of Creep. But then this would also be a stealth buff to Lurker, since they are now more mobile, in evolving into Lurkers.
|
On May 27 2022 05:14 ejozl wrote:
About the Zerg players getting better at spreading creep. I think the Inject change so that it's stackable had a huge impact on this. It's actually crazy how hard Zerg was to play in HotS, SoO basically made his career by being the best Injector. But now it's become a lot more trivial, which allows Zergs to spend these actions on spreading Creep.
Also the addition of the steal unit from control group hotkey made it way easier to split up your army and set up counterattacks, also freeing up a lot of APM Zerg can use on other tasks. I think this often gets overlooked
|
@ejozi My suggestion about the hydra is because I think we have gotten these ideas about balance and design in our heads over the last decade. Some of them are right and some of them are wrong, but they are there.
"zerg has no anti-air"
"zerg can't defend early harass"
"zerg needs time to drone"
These are the ideas that have seen most forms of early harass gutted. It's why the Void Ray has been dogshit for 10 of 12 years. It's why the Oracle is only allowed to get a couple of kills, despite being made of wet single-ply toilet paper. So my idea is, let Zerg have their early anti-air. That way when they lose because they can't be arsed to keep vison over their own natural, it's their own fault.
|
Damned,I have never read so many messages pointing the same solution. I just can t guess who thinks Hydralisks need a 1 supply cost or 2 (eventually if patch)
Poll: With an eventual patch must hydralisk supply cost be equal to 1 or 2 ?2 supply cost (7) 88% 1 supply cost (1) 13% 8 total votes Your vote: With an eventual patch must hydralisk supply cost be equal to 1 or 2 ? (Vote): 1 supply cost
(Vote): 2 supply cost
Poll: Then how many minerals and gas ?(2 supply) unchanged (3) 60% (1 supply) 75 / 25 (2) 40% (1 supply) 50 / 25 (0) 0% 5 total votes Your vote: Then how many minerals and gas ? (Vote): (1 supply) 75 / 25
(Vote): (1 supply) 50 / 25
(Vote): (2 supply) unchanged
|
On May 27 2022 05:38 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2022 05:14 ejozl wrote:
About the Zerg players getting better at spreading creep. I think the Inject change so that it's stackable had a huge impact on this. It's actually crazy how hard Zerg was to play in HotS, SoO basically made his career by being the best Injector. But now it's become a lot more trivial, which allows Zergs to spend these actions on spreading Creep.
Also the addition of the steal unit from control group hotkey made it way easier to split up your army and set up counterattacks, also freeing up a lot of APM Zerg can use on other tasks. I think this often gets overlooked
Being able to see worker counts on supply hover also helped.
I've harped on this a lot in discord and reddit - every "helper" you add to the game removes a factor that differentiates players.
They add up.
|
I don't think the change should be to resources or supply. I know some people yearn for the days of SC:BW when the hydra was the core of the Zerg army, but we don't want to see mass hydra now or see a big buff to roach/hydra. Hydras should be a situational unit built in moderate numbers.
|
On May 28 2022 04:58 Jerubaal wrote:
I don't think the change should be to resources or supply. I know some people yearn for the days of SC:BW when the hydra was the core of the Zerg army, but we don't want to see mass hydra now or see a big buff to roach/hydra. Hydras should be a situational unit built in moderate numbers.
I agree, the Hydralisk doesn't need to be changed. It's already had a few meta eras based around it as well so it's not like it's weak or without use.
The balance team should start by adjusting creep to what another poster on the previous page mentioned where creep doesn't get spread by tumors. Instead Queens have to manually place every tumor which would create a skirmish zone on the creep where alot of fighting would be done to contest creep spread.
|
On May 26 2022 12:06 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I like the idea of having Queens more at the forefront and allowing for more skirmishes when spreading/denying creep.
However, instead of something big like making tumors not able to spread, how about we just increase the cooldown that it takes for tumors to spread? That would be a good first step to try out, and will already help a lot. It would encourage queens to be more active if they want to aggressively spread as fast as possible. Safer spreading (keeping queens more at home to defend harass) would be nerfed a little.
It takes 11 seconds right now before tumor can spread. Why not try nerfing that to 13 or maybe 15 seconds?
Also, currently, you can spread a tumor before the tumor finishes spreading the max creep. This means that players with high APM/multitasking can spread creep faster than other players if they are on top of it and spread as fast as possible.
If we make tumors take 13-15 seconds to spread instead of 11, it will lower the mechnical skill ceiling of Zerg, make Zerg easier to play at lower levels, and ultimately make it easier to balance Zerg around the top players without making Zerg as hard for lower levels. We don't have to worry about a few top pros being super good at spreading creep.
This is imo the best suggestion so far. A change that doesn't affect low-level players too much but definitely will have an impact at the pro level.
|
Having an eye on the previous video i linked some days ago, hydralisks aren t enought cost efficient against marines/medivacs.. Of course you can argue that Zergs need a mixed army composition with Banelings, but their cost is the same amount of minerals and gas (and Tier 1...).
I feel like it s more dependant about player skill injection than a true strategic decision and Zergs can run out of bankrupt if his parry (of paying hydralisks) isn t enought cost-effective.
That s why adding one point to the hydralisks range (and lower his damage in consequence) possibly not have such a big impact (in term of priority) on the units range ladder ( Range ), ... And with reducing medivacs range from 4 to 3, you could get a new relationship/interaction between units (by now it s about mediv : 4 + 5 = 9 (marines) against 6 for hydralisks).
With these changes, a skilled Zerg could snipe more medivacs. Just my feelings
|
On May 29 2022 21:05 Vision_ wrote:Having an eye on the previous video i linked some days ago, hydralisks aren t enought cost efficient against marines/medivacs.. Of course you can argue that Zergs need a mixed army composition with Banelings, but their cost is the same amount of minerals and gas (and Tier 1...). I feel like it s more dependant about player skill injection than a true strategic decision and Zergs can run out of bankrupt if his parry (of paying hydralisks) isn t enought cost-effective. That s why adding one point to the hydralisks range (and lower his damage in consequence) possibly not have such a big impact (in term of priority) on the units range ladder ( Range ), ... And with reducing medivacs range from 4 to 3, you could get a new relationship/interaction between units (by now it s about mediv : 4 + 5 = 9 (marines) against 6 for hydralisks). With these changes, a skilled Zerg could snipe more medivacs. Just my feelings
But why? Hydralisks are not a balance issue, they aren't weak, they aren't strong. Why would they need a buff to snipe medivacs? lol
|
On May 29 2022 22:33 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2022 21:05 Vision_ wrote:Having an eye on the previous video i linked some days ago, hydralisks aren t enought cost efficient against marines/medivacs.. Of course you can argue that Zergs need a mixed army composition with Banelings, but their cost is the same amount of minerals and gas (and Tier 1...). I feel like it s more dependant about player skill injection than a true strategic decision and Zergs can run out of bankrupt if his parry (of paying hydralisks) isn t enought cost-effective. That s why adding one point to the hydralisks range (and lower his damage in consequence) possibly not have such a big impact (in term of priority) on the units range ladder ( Range ), ... And with reducing medivacs range from 4 to 3, you could get a new relationship/interaction between units (by now it s about mediv : 4 + 5 = 9 (marines) against 6 for hydralisks). With these changes, a skilled Zerg could snipe more medivacs. Just my feelings But why? Hydralisks are not a balance issue, they aren't weak, they aren't strong. Why would they need a buff to snipe medivacs? lol
because marines/medivacs rapes hydralisks.
|
Something worth looking at might be projectile speed and (I'm pretty sure) preswing.
Unlike almost every other ranged unit in Starcraft 2, Marines don't have a projectile. Combined with SC2's smart targeting AI, this means that they don't waste damage on overkill. All else being equal, units without a projectile absolutely massacre units with a projectile.
The original thread on this is here, but the video seems to be gone. The person tweaked hydralisks to be identical to marines. The fight was only equal when the projectile unit had 50% more damage (+3 attack) over the instant hit unit.
https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/198860-insta-vs-missile-shot
What this really highlights is how much of a difference overkill makes in unit performance in large battles. I am pretty sure how much damage is lost to overkill can be adjusted by changing projectile speed or preswing. Changing preswing probably has the side effect of making the unit more or less responsive.
Anyway, tweaking those numbers is a way to change how units perform in large battles without changing the core stats like attack speed or damage and significantly changing how they perform in very small engagements or when attacking things with a lot of health. Also, there is probably a lot more room for fine-grained adjustment with this.
But anyway, the difference between projectile and not projectile is probably a very significant element in why marine/medivac destroys hydralisks.
EDIT: I can't take full credit for this idea. Increasing Stalker projectile speed by 50% was suggested earlier in this thread.
|
On May 30 2022 00:12 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2022 22:33 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 29 2022 21:05 Vision_ wrote:Having an eye on the previous video i linked some days ago, hydralisks aren t enought cost efficient against marines/medivacs.. Of course you can argue that Zergs need a mixed army composition with Banelings, but their cost is the same amount of minerals and gas (and Tier 1...). I feel like it s more dependant about player skill injection than a true strategic decision and Zergs can run out of bankrupt if his parry (of paying hydralisks) isn t enought cost-effective. That s why adding one point to the hydralisks range (and lower his damage in consequence) possibly not have such a big impact (in term of priority) on the units range ladder ( Range ), ... And with reducing medivacs range from 4 to 3, you could get a new relationship/interaction between units (by now it s about mediv : 4 + 5 = 9 (marines) against 6 for hydralisks). With these changes, a skilled Zerg could snipe more medivacs. Just my feelings But why? Hydralisks are not a balance issue, they aren't weak, they aren't strong. Why would they need a buff to snipe medivacs? lol because marines/medivacs rapes hydralisks.
Building other units than the hydralisk is not an option?
|
On May 30 2022 00:12 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2022 22:33 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 29 2022 21:05 Vision_ wrote:Having an eye on the previous video i linked some days ago, hydralisks aren t enought cost efficient against marines/medivacs.. Of course you can argue that Zergs need a mixed army composition with Banelings, but their cost is the same amount of minerals and gas (and Tier 1...). I feel like it s more dependant about player skill injection than a true strategic decision and Zergs can run out of bankrupt if his parry (of paying hydralisks) isn t enought cost-effective. That s why adding one point to the hydralisks range (and lower his damage in consequence) possibly not have such a big impact (in term of priority) on the units range ladder ( Range ), ... And with reducing medivacs range from 4 to 3, you could get a new relationship/interaction between units (by now it s about mediv : 4 + 5 = 9 (marines) against 6 for hydralisks). With these changes, a skilled Zerg could snipe more medivacs. Just my feelings But why? Hydralisks are not a balance issue, they aren't weak, they aren't strong. Why would they need a buff to snipe medivacs? lol because marines/medivacs rapes hydralisks.
and? Should BC's be buffed because corrupters rape them?
|
On May 30 2022 13:12 dph114 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2022 00:12 Vision_ wrote:On May 29 2022 22:33 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 29 2022 21:05 Vision_ wrote:Having an eye on the previous video i linked some days ago, hydralisks aren t enought cost efficient against marines/medivacs.. Of course you can argue that Zergs need a mixed army composition with Banelings, but their cost is the same amount of minerals and gas (and Tier 1...). I feel like it s more dependant about player skill injection than a true strategic decision and Zergs can run out of bankrupt if his parry (of paying hydralisks) isn t enought cost-effective. That s why adding one point to the hydralisks range (and lower his damage in consequence) possibly not have such a big impact (in term of priority) on the units range ladder ( Range ), ... And with reducing medivacs range from 4 to 3, you could get a new relationship/interaction between units (by now it s about mediv : 4 + 5 = 9 (marines) against 6 for hydralisks). With these changes, a skilled Zerg could snipe more medivacs. Just my feelings But why? Hydralisks are not a balance issue, they aren't weak, they aren't strong. Why would they need a buff to snipe medivacs? lol because marines/medivacs rapes hydralisks. and? Should BC's be buffed because corrupters rape them?
Woah R-word. D:
I don't t think the analogy is correct. BCs have a good window where they're strong, which is pretty much until you have enough corruptors to 1shot BCs.
Hydras... I don't think there's a time when the hydra is better.
However, the idea of playing with the default hydra range might be useful.
Note that queens are extremely needed to defend proxy raxes. In the current state with awful range w/o upgrades and the current hp/cost, hydra is just useless vs that.
|
Hydras are meant to be a squishy long range backline unit with high dps and they do that job wonderfully. Dunno why we'd want to buff them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
