| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Noumena
United States85 Posts
Personally I think the game was gimmicky from the get-go. Idk who else remembers VR rushes on Desert Oasis that would end the game immediately leading to the queen buffs, or the multiple iterations of Protoss defensibility to counteract how offensive Protoss can be with Warp. Also buff the tank , everyone loves mech.  | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
If i could, i will convince people in charge of the server to tweak all the damage down a little bit in order to look where problems can be resolve (in function of the range of the unit ofc) Then i will tweak IT, Infesters should throw them further  | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Slow down the economy and make bases more impactful. I wouldn't mind making the terrain more impactful as well (e.g. high ground advantage). And then let's talk about specific units... | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
> Warp-In : Reverse warp-in function. Further the unit is warped, longer the cooldown is. > Improve "Shield system" : I m not expert at all of Protoss (it s the race i played the less), but it seems legit to think that "Shield" is a core idea of Protoss and Pro players should be able to take advantage from this comparing to casual players. How ? Idk > Stalkers : Unit doesn t really need to be modified, But I wonder if a pro gamer could take advantage of blink ability with a shield regeneration like mutalisks. Maybe add a boost damage ability after blink (like it was intended on adepts) Finally, looking closer to Stalkers, the unit has been really modified in the 4.0.0 patch era : Patch 4.0.0 [2] Particle Disruptors weapon damage changed from 10 (+4 Armored) to 15 (+6 Armored). Weapon speed changed from 1 to 1.54. Receives +2 base damage per level of Protoss Ground Weapon upgrades. Patch 4.1.4 Balance Update [3] Particle Disruptors’ damage reduced from 15 (21 vs. armored) to 13 (18 vs. armored), period reduced from 1.54 to 1.34. Protoss Ground Weapons upgrade will provide +1 base damage and +1 armored instead of +2 base damage. | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
- Size Reduced from 1.25 to 1.125 (size of marauders) - +1 bonus damage against light increase to +2 Blink ability tweak : - Get vision on high ground terrain. - Shields recharge at a rate of 3 points per game second (instead of 2) | ||
|
tskarzyn
United States516 Posts
Edit... F2 / All Army Units removed Observer Mode removed Supply Depot Drop removed | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On March 27 2022 21:30 Vision_ wrote: Finally, my wish (excepted Lurkers stupidity...) is about Stalkers : - Size Reduced from 1.25 to 1.125 (size of marauders) - +1 bonus damage against light increase to +2 Blink ability tweak : - Get vision on high ground terrain. - Shields recharge at a rate of 3 points per game second (instead of 2) Yea, despite Lambo's analysis of the Lurker not being an issue in PvZ, I kind of don't see it. The Lurkers agility both on and off creep combined with it's long range and insane damage vs armored means that it kind of hard counters any ground unit that Protoss has that can capably deal with it. Ever seen Immortals try to take on Lurkers? It's not a pretty sight for the Immortals, they get obliterated by the time they get in range. Sadly though the Lurker I think is going to be difficult to get into a, "perfect" spot balance wise because in ZvT it's much less strong, Terran has a plethora of ways to effectively deal with the Lurker and the unburrow nerf already made them even more vulnerable to Ghosts while seemingly doing very little to reduce their strength vs. Protoss outside of it being much harder to dodge Disruptor shots which is a good thing in my book. That Blink upgrade would be kind of OP and would probably just break PvT with Blink all in play reigning supreme, and tbh I don't see that shield change doing anything at all to help Protoss where they currently suffer. Which, to me (opinions welcome) is that Protoss cannot reliably shark around and take favorable trades against Zerg in the early game due to Zerg's defensive power and Protoss's lack of ground mobility. Some small and reasonable changes that I would make I've already mentioned would be things like making force field require 2 biles instead of 1, and perhaps a more ambitious change would be to say allow Guardian Shield to give either melee defense as well as ranged defense (to help trading against early lings, this would be a ZvP targeted change) or improving Protoss mobility by giving say, a 25% (numbers subjective obviously..) speed buff to units inside of the Guardian Shield. The bile change would allow Protoss players with superior FF control to take more Parting type trades by letting FF go back to sectioning off the Zerg army and letting the Protoss fight smaller chunks at once. Good for early and mid game trades, only a buff against Zerg. The Guardian Shield changes would be a bit more ambitious and prone to balance issues but I think would be fun to experiment with in the test map. A defensive bonus vs. melee would be another targeted PvZ buff and would help small numbers of Gateway units to trade alot more effectively against heavy Zergling armies BEFORE robo splash units hit the field. The speed buff I think would be the most fun to see, but would probably have some big balance implications in PvT. I think if Gateway units were just more mobile from a movement speed stand point and not weird teleporting abilities they would be able to engage and disengage better, kind of like how Hellions puts fear into a Zerg not because they are beefy or because they are great frontline fighters, but because they are speedy and mobile, able to be micro managed around Queen defenses and take positions behind mineral lines. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States739 Posts
On March 28 2022 01:07 Beelzebub1 wrote: Yea, despite Lambo's analysis of the Lurker not being an issue in PvZ, I kind of don't see it. The Lurkers agility both on and off creep combined with it's long range and insane damage vs armored means that it kind of hard counters any ground unit that Protoss has that can capably deal with it. Ever seen Immortals try to take on Lurkers? It's not a pretty sight for the Immortals, they get obliterated by the time they get in range. Sadly though the Lurker I think is going to be difficult to get into a, "perfect" spot balance wise because in ZvT it's much less strong, Terran has a plethora of ways to effectively deal with the Lurker and the unburrow nerf already made them even more vulnerable to Ghosts while seemingly doing very little to reduce their strength vs. Protoss outside of it being much harder to dodge Disruptor shots which is a good thing in my book. That Blink upgrade would be kind of OP and would probably just break PvT with Blink all in play reigning supreme, and tbh I don't see that shield change doing anything at all to help Protoss where they currently suffer. Which, to me (opinions welcome) is that Protoss cannot reliably shark around and take favorable trades against Zerg in the early game due to Zerg's defensive power and Protoss's lack of ground mobility. Some small and reasonable changes that I would make I've already mentioned would be things like making force field require 2 biles instead of 1, and perhaps a more ambitious change would be to say allow Guardian Shield to give either melee defense as well as ranged defense (to help trading against early lings, this would be a ZvP targeted change) or improving Protoss mobility by giving say, a 25% (numbers subjective obviously..) speed buff to units inside of the Guardian Shield. The bile change would allow Protoss players with superior FF control to take more Parting type trades by letting FF go back to sectioning off the Zerg army and letting the Protoss fight smaller chunks at once. Good for early and mid game trades, only a buff against Zerg. The Guardian Shield changes would be a bit more ambitious and prone to balance issues but I think would be fun to experiment with in the test map. A defensive bonus vs. melee would be another targeted PvZ buff and would help small numbers of Gateway units to trade alot more effectively against heavy Zergling armies BEFORE robo splash units hit the field. The speed buff I think would be the most fun to see, but would probably have some big balance implications in PvT. I think if Gateway units were just more mobile from a movement speed stand point and not weird teleporting abilities they would be able to engage and disengage better, kind of like how Hellions puts fear into a Zerg not because they are beefy or because they are great frontline fighters, but because they are speedy and mobile, able to be micro managed around Queen defenses and take positions behind mineral lines. Reducing production time out of the gateways (and increasing them out of warpgates) would achieve the early game shark effect while also controlling for midgame warpgate all in potential. J/s | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
On March 28 2022 01:07 Beelzebub1 wrote: Yea, despite Lambo's analysis of the Lurker not being an issue in PvZ, I kind of don't see it. The Lurkers agility both on and off creep combined with it's long range and insane damage vs armored means that it kind of hard counters any ground unit that Protoss has that can capably deal with it. Ever seen Immortals try to take on Lurkers? It's not a pretty sight for the Immortals, they get obliterated by the time they get in range. Sadly though the Lurker I think is going to be difficult to get into a, "perfect" spot balance wise because in ZvT it's much less strong, Terran has a plethora of ways to effectively deal with the Lurker and the unburrow nerf already made them even more vulnerable to Ghosts while seemingly doing very little to reduce their strength vs. Protoss outside of it being much harder to dodge Disruptor shots which is a good thing in my book. That Blink upgrade would be kind of OP and would probably just break PvT with Blink all in play reigning supreme, and tbh I don't see that shield change doing anything at all to help Protoss where they currently suffer. Which, to me (opinions welcome) is that Protoss cannot reliably shark around and take favorable trades against Zerg in the early game due to Zerg's defensive power and Protoss's lack of ground mobility. Some small and reasonable changes that I would make I've already mentioned would be things like making force field require 2 biles instead of 1, and perhaps a more ambitious change would be to say allow Guardian Shield to give either melee defense as well as ranged defense (to help trading against early lings, this would be a ZvP targeted change) or improving Protoss mobility by giving say, a 25% (numbers subjective obviously..) speed buff to units inside of the Guardian Shield. The bile change would allow Protoss players with superior FF control to take more Parting type trades by letting FF go back to sectioning off the Zerg army and letting the Protoss fight smaller chunks at once. Good for early and mid game trades, only a buff against Zerg. The Guardian Shield changes would be a bit more ambitious and prone to balance issues but I think would be fun to experiment with in the test map. A defensive bonus vs. melee would be another targeted PvZ buff and would help small numbers of Gateway units to trade alot more effectively against heavy Zergling armies BEFORE robo splash units hit the field. The speed buff I think would be the most fun to see, but would probably have some big balance implications in PvT. I think if Gateway units were just more mobile from a movement speed stand point and not weird teleporting abilities they would be able to engage and disengage better, kind of like how Hellions puts fear into a Zerg not because they are beefy or because they are great frontline fighters, but because they are speedy and mobile, able to be micro managed around Queen defenses and take positions behind mineral lines. As you say, Lurkers need a spot balance, it s really important for the health of SC2. I don t see other solutions than increase their supply cost from 3 to 4, with a little bit adjustement. Then, I think Hydralisks are too expensive for what they are supposed to do, and if i don t misunderstand, they could hit ground unit from further (by +1, in adding a slightly different second attack against air units, with little bit lower damage in order to help light armored units of getting away. This Hydralisks tweak is considered as a counterpart balance of the new Lurker and should help to hold on front line and for example deal with medivacs). I ve already noticed your comment on the Force field and the corrosive biles, i think it s legit because FF have been used very very frequently in WoL and HotS then disappears in LotV. I also answered to your proposition that biles had to reduce FF time by 6 seconds (numbers subjective obviously..) Why will my blink ability upgrade break the game ? Because they can now blink on high ground without observers ? The idea is to directly help Stalkers of escaping from zerglings when they are killing tumors and when they are chased. Then if it s too strong at the start of the game, Zerg could benefit of a new buff but actually, stalkers are only used for all-ins AND are a total garbage in end game (from my spectator point of view). So i would like to see skilled Protoss players take an advantage of Stalkers in cleaning creep. By the way, Stalkers would be the mirror unit of hellions. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
Reducing production time out of the gateways (and increasing them out of warpgates) would achieve the early game shark effect while also controlling for midgame warpgate all in potential. J/s I wish something like this would happen. The community has been asking for WG changes for over a decade now and they have never came or even been hinted at so I think it's best to theory craft on at least semi-reasonable/possible changes, not on changes that are assuredly never going to come. I ve already noticed your comment on the Force field and the corrosive biles, i think it s legit because FF have been used very very frequently in WoL and HotS then disappears in LotV. I also answered to your proposition that biles had to reduce FF time by 6 seconds (numbers subjective obviously..) I like the reduction by 6 seconds. Why will my blink ability upgrade break the game ? I never said it would break the game, I said it would be broken in TvP. You can't help Protoss against Zerg by making them OP against Terran. I'm not so sure that the Stalker is the problem with GW unit weakness, I've been watching alot of recent pro level ZvP where Blink Stalkers seem to form the core of the ground army and are used to dodge and trade against Roach/Ravager and whittle the Zerg down. And yes I agree that Stalkers are absolute trash end game and get decimated by, well, essentially every other early game unit that translates into the lategame (3/3 marines, Cracklings) I wouldn't be opposed to helping out how they scale, but I think it's not the most pressing issue with Protoss, specifically in ZvP which seems to be the MU that needs to the most help atm. | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
ScrubbleS
United States74 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. Prob the dumbest comment I have seen. Not sure how you can ever beat late game toss with your idea. also helbat marauder openings vs zerg are almost un beatable without transfuse. queens from a pool? LMAO. Interesting. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27072 Posts
On March 28 2022 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: Can I ask why Warpgate keeps coming up? Is it a production complaint (too fast or too easy)? Or is it a tactic complaint about the warp-in capability? I feel like this is an argument that belongs in the WoL era when people thought scouting three places for pylons was difficult. It’s a little column A, little column B. More that there’s a lot of knock-on effects from that base. Well-documented at this point, to grossly understate it. I think at the very least gateways should produce faster, warpgates would give you tactical opportunities through greater deployment potential. Wee bit of extra strategy if you can pick between bludgeoning with pure macro, or reinforcing pushes and backstabs with WG. Honestly never understood why warpgates aren’t just equal with gateways for production but faster. While it would be cool to have more wholesale changes, I’ve tried to keep my posts quite limited in ambition/easily implementable etc. Give us rapid Manlots damnit! If SC3 is announced, or Frost Giant show us something then yeah, spitballing would be fun but this has quickly turned into a ‘completely redesign the game’ thread for some reason. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2594 Posts
On March 28 2022 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: Can I ask why Warpgate keeps coming up? Is it a production complaint (too fast or too easy)? Or is it a tactic complaint about the warp-in capability? I feel like this is an argument that belongs in the WoL era when people thought scouting three places for pylons was difficult. The fundamental problem with Warpgate is that it allows resources to be translated into army instantly, anywhere on the map, with no tradeoff. That breaks a lot of interactions that make RTS interesting. The period of time between when you make an investment and when that investment pays off is very important to how this kind of game works. So is the fact that that period of time generally grows as you get further from your production facilities - that's one of the big factors that creates what we call "defender's advantage." If you're in my base, and we both spend 1000 resources on reinforcements, mine are going to get to spend a minute or two fighting before yours arrive. Warpgate tosses that entire concept out the window. One of the results is that we ended up with much weaker Gateway units than we could have had without Warpgate. You just can't have units as scary as BroodWar Gateway units if they can be teleported directly into battle, which I think is a shame. It also robs PvX games of a lot of classic StarCraft interactions around managing rally points and reinforcement paths. So it's really not about needing to scout for pylons or feeling like the Protoss player is getting away with something that's too easy. It's that breaking this really basic concept of RTS - you pay money now, you get a unit later, then that unit has to make its way to where it is needed - has a ton of unavoidable knock-on effects that overall make the game a poorer experience. | ||
|
machinus
United States292 Posts
| ||
|
Legan
Finland580 Posts
| ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
Also, while I don't mind giving lurker extra range, that instant burrow is so meh. I really wish they would remove that upgrade. | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
On March 28 2022 02:57 Beelzebub1 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Reducing production time out of the gateways (and increasing them out of warpgates) would achieve the early game shark effect while also controlling for midgame warpgate all in potential. J/s I wish something like this would happen. The community has been asking for WG changes for over a decade now and they have never came or even been hinted at so I think it's best to theory craft on at least semi-reasonable/possible changes, not on changes that are assuredly never going to come. I ve already noticed your comment on the Force field and the corrosive biles, i think it s legit because FF have been used very very frequently in WoL and HotS then disappears in LotV. I also answered to your proposition that biles had to reduce FF time by 6 seconds (numbers subjective obviously..) I like the reduction by 6 seconds. Why will my blink ability upgrade break the game ? I never said it would break the game, I said it would be broken in TvP. You can't help Protoss against Zerg by making them OP against Terran. I'm not so sure that the Stalker is the problem with GW unit weakness, I've been watching alot of recent pro level ZvP where Blink Stalkers seem to form the core of the ground army and are used to dodge and trade against Roach/Ravager and whittle the Zerg down. And yes I agree that Stalkers are absolute trash end game and get decimated by, well, essentially every other early game unit that translates into the lategame (3/3 marines, Cracklings) I wouldn't be opposed to helping out how they scale, but I think it's not the most pressing issue with Protoss, specifically in ZvP which seems to be the MU that needs to the most help atm. So what do you think if tumors are considered as a serie of tumors, and when the last one which is visible now, is destroyed, it reveals the second last ? do you think start of PvZ could be improved by this update and with your, which consist to get decent force field? Then the quesion is, in TvZ, can Top Zerg player be efficient as before in protecting their creep ? | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19368 Posts
* (Credit to Tastosis) Prevent Zerg from spreading creep to sections of the map unless they use a overlord, nydus, or hatchery first * (Credit to Tastosis) Limit proxy locations * It would have prevented all those late game scenarios where Zerg continually parked spores and spines under their supreme late game army. I'd like for map designers to explore more in this area of the games because there plenty of other consequences from a map change like this. | ||
| ||
|
|
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
