EPTWhat balance / design changes do you want to see?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RiSkysc2
696 Posts
| ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2655 Posts
I obviously know, this is 100% not going to happen, but one can Dream | ||
|
totemjack
5 Posts
| ||
|
depressed1
51 Posts
| ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
| ||
|
TheCheapSkate
Slovenia316 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 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 Africa1848 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
174 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 Ireland24390 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
174 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 States599 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
France24192 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 Ireland24390 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 Ireland24390 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
Spain877 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
Spain877 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 States669 Posts
Reverse build time advantages for gateways and warpgates. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2825 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
| ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12044 Posts
But if I did, I'd redesign terran. It's absurd that in a strategy game your main composition against 95% of the things that can realistically be thrown at you remains the same, just with slightly different emphasis. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On March 26 2022 03:45 honorablemacroterran wrote: Perfect example here: creep spread has received multiple nerfs for precisely this purpose. The ACTUAL "issue" is that top Zergs make a boatload of queens, and have the mechanics to keep the spares continuously spreading and re-spreading creep. Top Terrans manage it pretty fine, while top Protoss struggles more. At the same time, top Protoss players are objectively mechanically weaker than the tip top Zergs whose map expansion they are struggling to contain, so is creep spread actually the issue? And what can be further nerfed without overtuning the early creep spread that Zerg needs to be able to secure early bases?The biggest thing that needs to be nerfed is creep spread at the very high level. It's ridiculous how fast zerg can eat the map and just drown their opponent in cost inefficient shit units even if their opponent is trying to clear creep constantly. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1338 Posts
Zerg: multiple tumors dont let creep spread faster than 1 tumor + give hydras lategame upgrade "+2 vs air" Protoss: lategame upgrade for stalkers "+2 vs everything" | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years? In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric? And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’ Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene. Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill? It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 26 2022 04:50 Nebuchad wrote: I wouldn't really change the design since that obviously won't happen at this stage and it's therefore pointless to think about. But if I did, I'd redesign terran. It's absurd that in a strategy game your main composition against 95% of the things that can realistically be thrown at you remains the same, just with slightly different emphasis. Careful, Terrans will be annoyed that you’re taking away the ‘great design’ there. Protoss having a bunch of AoE is of course, ‘bad design’, I wonder why they have so much of it? Why is it possibly in the game? Aw golly gee I wonder! Biggest myth in the wider community is that Terran is the well-designed race. Aspects of it I love don’t get me wrong, the micro is fun | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:21 WombaT wrote: Someday you will learn "not my preferred design" =/= "flawed design"Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years? In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric? And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’ Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene. Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill? It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions. Or maybe not, because it's been 12 years and you're still beating an utterly dead horse. Stats was a very excellent and mechanically sound player, and is exactly the kind of player SC2 Protoss is lacking right now. His loss is readily apparent to Protoss representation in the pro scene. Players like Zest struggle with comparable macro rhythm and unit control relative to his T and Z peers. Players like Maru and Serral in peak form win through excellent fundamentals and army control, and Stats was very, very close to their capabilities. There aren't currently any comparable players repping Protoss at the moment. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:29 WombaT wrote: Careful, Terrans will be annoyed that you’re taking away the ‘great design’ there. Protoss having a bunch of AoE is of course, ‘bad design’, I wonder why they have so much of it? Why is it possibly in the game? Aw golly gee I wonder! Biggest myth in the wider community is that Terran is the well-designed race. Aspects of it I love don’t get me wrong, the micro is fun What is fundamentally wrong with a race leaning on AoE abilities? All three do to an extent. This is the case in BW, also. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator 5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer 10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager 15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin 20+ = commander, executor, metamorph this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:43 RampancyTW wrote: What is fundamentally wrong with a race leaning on AoE abilities? All three do to an extent. This is the case in BW, also. Terrans have complained for the entirety of SC2’s existence about Protoss’ ez A-move AoE While exaltating Terran as the well-designed race. I have no particular truck with that rough design call, personally But outside of mirroring bio, it is the only counter you can throw into the game for a mobile, massive DPS and highly microable comp consisting entirely of ranged units. Terran players like to wank off over how superior their micro is with em, extremely microable units and complain about AoE that is 100% required to exist to counter bio. I don’t have a personal massive problem with it, the point was that what’s considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ design by sections of the community. They’re symbiotically linked, Blizz made the call to make bio as it is, the other races have to factor that in. Bio can’t be ‘good design’ while the entirely necessary counters to bio the other races have be ‘bad design’ I don’t mind the idea of a ranged glass cannon/high damage ranged faction in and of itself, it’s basically how Night Elf in WC3 function, albeit there’s differences in the core gameplay and melee micro plays more of a role. | ||
|
AcrossFromTime
29 Posts
Rather than nerfing the carrier I would prefer if every race had a powerful unit like the carrier that didn't have much micro potential. There is already way too many things to control in the game, so I like when in the late game you gain access to powerful units that don't need to be babysat as much as the early and mid game units. Just my preference, it's not a problem the way it is now though. As for things that weren't on the list, this isn't really something that could be done in Starcraft, but I think it would be interesting if units couldn't shoot through other units. So big blobs of units would be ineffective because only the front row would be able to shoot. You would need taller units in the back that could shoot over their heads. I have other ideas too that wouldn't work in starcraft like units requiring energy to move and shoot, making it harder to maintain supply lines as one makes their way across the map. But it would be a completely different game at that point. I think it's okay to talk about this stuff because sometimes it's just fun to talk about video games. It's a starcraft forum so I think this is a perfectly good place to talk about the design of the game. I don't think there has to be a chance of the game being changed for it to be an interesting discussion. Probably, idk, 99% of human communication is purely for entertainment, and not because it will accomplish anything. Maybe if we were like androids or something then it would make sense to limit communication to only information that had some kind of benefit. I mean everything that everybody says and does is eventually going to be erased long before the eventual heat death of the universe which will erase everything. So maybe we should limit communication to only plans for how humanity could potentially survive the death of our planet, sun, and eventually universe. Until we come up with a solution, no more talking about video games! Haha, sorry I'm just kidding. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:40 RampancyTW wrote: Someday you will learn "not my preferred design" =/= "flawed design" Or maybe not, because it's been 12 years and you're still beating an utterly dead horse. Stats was a very excellent and mechanically sound player, and is exactly the kind of player SC2 Protoss is lacking right now. His loss is readily apparent to Protoss representation in the pro scene. Players like Zest struggle with comparable macro rhythm and unit control relative to his T and Z peers. Players like Maru and Serral in peak form win through excellent fundamentals and army control, and Stats was very, very close to their capabilities. There aren't currently any comparable players repping Protoss at the moment. It’s no more of a dead horse than just arbitrarily nerfing or buffing races until we get parity. Outside of putting AlphaStar in charge of a Toss player, I don’t think any Protoss can come close to what a Serral can do with Zerg, or Maru can manage with Zerg. Trap at his best is mechanically excellent, maybe not quite as good as Maru or Serral, he just is stuck with his race. The race doesn’t allow it, it’s not how it’s fundamentally built. And it’s not an issue that can be fixed with unit numbers and build times, it’s a real fundamental design thing. Look I don’t believe fundamental reworks will happen, albeit I did suggest a ‘doable’ change in this threads. SC2 is still a fantastic game, and IMO is borderline balanced which is miraculous considering mechanics like warpgate | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote: a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count 0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator 5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer 10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager 15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin 20+ = commander, executor, metamorph this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game An interesting idea, I think it might get very wonky though. It’s hard enough to gauge engagements with units with uniform abilities, but if we’re factoring in veterancy that’s trickier again to parse. Also with a strict 200 cap I think hardcore turtling styles might get a bit too optimal as a way to play the game. Just sit in there and you’ve got a maxed army with bonuses and how do you kill it? Skytoss versus Zerg being one example. Zerg will throw waves to chip at it and eventually overwhelm, and still frequently fail. Now if after each wave if the Protoss survivors get stat boosts that’s going to snowball to largely their advantage. I do like the base concept but I’m not sure between just how much is going on, the importance of consistency in unit interactions to gauge decisions and it potentially augmenting turtling styles if veterancy bonuses would translate well to SC2 specially. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On March 26 2022 06:29 WombaT wrote: An interesting idea, I think it might get very wonky though. it won't work at all in SC2, but it's fun to imagine the possibilties of a new Starcraft game. SC2 is such a fast and responsive experience already, I don't think you can really push it much further in that direction (and even if you could, would you want to? people complain the game is too fast and cut-throat already, with battles ending in the blink of an eye). SC3 will be such a great challenge to balance because I feel it is almost inevitable that it will see the introduction of new mechanics, such as veterancy and environmental variables. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote: a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count 0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator 5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer 10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager 15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin 20+ = commander, executor, metamorph this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game It's an idea I've considered ever since I saw the ranks on the units. I remember it used to exist in TA:Kingdoms for instance (who remembers that game except me haha). It would be extremely interesting but I don't know how it could work in SC2. For instance Z would never go for ling heavy compositions anymore vs P, who would just mass colossi that would get stronger and stronger by the second ; conversely, it would be hard for someone playing vs P to get the bonus on his units. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On March 26 2022 06:55 [PkF] Wire wrote: It's an idea I've considered ever since I saw the ranks on the units. I remember it used to exist in TA:Kingdoms for instance (who remembers that game except me haha). It would be extremely interesting but I don't know how it could work in SC2. For instance Z would never go for ling heavy compositions anymore vs P, who would just mass colossi that would get stronger and stronger by the second ; conversely, it would be hard for someone playing vs P to get the bonus on his units. ah man, you have my sympathies. to remember TA:Kingdoms so vividly surely makes you an old fuck in gamer years  now that I think of it, I don't know anyone personally under the age of 30 who plays SC2. it hit me yesterday seeing how mature Ryung looks. in my mind he is still that fresh-faced Slayers kid in a bomber jacketchew on this: it doesn't have to be exactly 1 ling = 1 kill. we could imagine a much more fine-tuned veterancy system, one that looks at the mineral / gas value of the unit killed, or perhaps an entirely different set of experience values. kill count would be the basis of the system, but from there you can take it all sorts of places you could make it so that units do not yield veterancy gains if they die under the effects of certain spells, and obviously not from static defensive or structures. you could also make it that lower-tier units gain bonuses faster than higher-tier units. for example, a ling need only net a handful of kills in order to reach the next rank, while a thor, carrier or battlecruiser might need 20 or more kills just to reach the first tier of bonuses. Zergling: 0-2 kills = predator 3-5 kills = slayer 6-9 kills = ravager 10-14 kills = assassin 15+ kills = metamorph Battlecruiser: 0-14 kills = recruit 15-24 kills = corporal 25-49 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager 50-99 kills = captain 100+ kills = commander | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
On March 26 2022 07:23 SHODAN wrote: ah man, you have my sympathies. to remember TA:Kingdoms so vividly surely makes you an old fuck in gamer years now that I think of it, I don't know anyone personally under the age of 30 who plays SC2. it hit me yesterday seeing how mature Ryung looks. in my mind he is still that fresh-faced Slayers kid in a bomber jacketchew on this: it doesn't have to be exactly 1 ling = 1 kill. we could imagine a much more fine-tuned veterancy system, one that looks at the mineral / gas value of the unit killed, or perhaps an entirely different set of experience values. kill count would be the basis of the system, but from there you can take it all sorts of places you could make it so that units do not yield veterancy gains if they die under the effects of certain spells, and obviously not from static defensive or structures. you could also make it that lower-tier units gain bonuses faster than higher-tier units. for example, a ling need only net a handful of kills in order to reach the next rank, while a thor, carrier or battlecruiser might need 20 or more kills just to reach the first tier of bonuses. Zergling: 1-2 kills = predator 3-5 kills = slayer 6-9 kills = ravager 10-14 kills = assassin 15+ kills = metamorph Battlecruiser: 0-14 kills = recruit 15-24 kills = corporal 25-49 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager 50-99 kills = captain 100+ kills = commander  I played so much TA and TA:Kingdoms when I was ~10-12 that I have to remember them vividly (and AOE, and Dark Reign, and Rising Lands... I was such a RTS nerd now I think about it !). Yeah, with some kind of fine tuning it could be very interesting and I personally would absolutely love it, but it's such a huge change it terms of game philosophy that imo it should be implemented in a SC3. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 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 This definitely +1 For, "on the table" changes Also I would like a nerf to Corrosive Bile against Force Field, changing it from 1 Bile to 2 Biles to break down a FF. Would give the Sentry I think a bit more early/mid game power and maybe encourage some more aggression on the Protoss end if FF wasn't gimped. For off the table changes Make the Sentry more or a general combat unit since FF is bad now, remove Hallucinate, remove either the Armored or the Light tag and give it one or the other to make it less vulnerable to bonus damage and give it a DPS boost from 8.4 to maybe like 12.4? Change it from a tickle beam to an ouch beam. | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
| ||
|
Albert14
2 Posts
Zerg is not a strong race but is so Overpowered in the hands of a genius. | ||
|
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_
851 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_
851 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_
851 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 States669 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_
851 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_
851 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 Ireland24390 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
Germany2576 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 States290 Posts
| ||
|
Legan
Finland368 Posts
| ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1739 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_
851 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
Bisutopia19208 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. | ||
|
Legan
Finland368 Posts
On March 29 2022 02:46 BisuDagger wrote: I really liked the idea behind un-buildable terrain discussed in the GSL Group C cast. * (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. Problem with un-buildable terrain is that it needs to be very clear visually in-game and from the overviews that are usually used in judging. It could still be done with some standardization. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
2. Higher than 200 max supply. Perhaps 250. Unit food costs are higher compared to BW, which is not inherently bad, but larger armies would be great. 3. Base mining saturation should gradually decrease the efficiency of mining. There have been plenty of posts about this with various strategies/implementations. 4. Limit the number of times spine/spore crawlers can reposition. Maybe 2-4 times. Something not very limiting but still preventing some end game ridiculousness. 5. Nydus Worm no longer makes a global sound if it is created on creep. 6. High ground advantage 7. Reduce creep tumor vision. | ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
Smart Servos to include tank (siege) as well. MedVacs wouldn't really repair Hellbats. | ||
|
SharkStarcraft
Austria2196 Posts
More likely scenario: warp prisms now cost 500 minerals and the swarm host gets +100HP | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 29 2022 02:46 BisuDagger wrote: I really liked the idea behind un-buildable terrain discussed in the GSL Group C cast. * (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. Not just this, but also 100% this. Just general experimentation with map features in general has been a drum I’ve been banging for ages. I think a bigger map pool with more vetoes gives the space for not just solving problems, but creating more varied strategy and general gameplay. You’ll know better than me as more of a BW veteran, whereas I’m a latecomer to the party but there’s a hell of a lot you can do with maps if they’re not subject to the constraints of basically being a standard map and being relatively balanced across all matchups | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On March 29 2022 02:46 BisuDagger wrote: I really liked the idea behind un-buildable terrain discussed in the GSL Group C cast. * (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. I also propose this kind of terrain, but it would be for SC3 like.It s also possible to create minerals which allow workers to gather let s say 60 minerals by travel. This kind of minerals could be apart of bases but defended outside of the mine, in a slow SC3 game-like. It seems that nobody read post.... | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote: I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. I agree soooo much with this post, thank you for this! I especially cringe when I see people referring to the things they don't like as "fundamental design flaws" in an attempt to make their opinion appear more meaningful. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On March 26 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote: It’s no more of a dead horse than just arbitrarily nerfing or buffing races until we get parity. Outside of putting AlphaStar in charge of a Toss player, I don’t think any Protoss can come close to what a Serral can do with Zerg, or Maru can manage with Zerg. Trap at his best is mechanically excellent, maybe not quite as good as Maru or Serral, he just is stuck with his race. The race doesn’t allow it, it’s not how it’s fundamentally built. And it’s not an issue that can be fixed with unit numbers and build times, it’s a real fundamental design thing. Except Trap has outplayed Maru and Serral in multiple series already. Lately he hasn't been able to do that because the balance shifted and he had a dip in form but that has nothing to do with "fundamental design issues" | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 29 2022 08:00 Charoisaur wrote: Except Trap has outplayed Maru and Serral in multiple series already. Lately he hasn't been able to do that because the balance shifted and he had a dip in form but that has nothing to do with "fundamental design issues" He certainly has, he just doesn’t bludgeon opponents into dust with (among other skills they have) sheer raw mechanics like Serral and Maru can. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I like the mechanical aspects of the game but there’s a lot more that makes a ‘skilled’ player than mechanical chops that folks can sometimes downplay. | ||
|
t2azor
32 Posts
| ||
|
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 30 2022 06:58 t2azor wrote: hmm maybe change the game back to sc1? Brood War's unit design and balance is honestly awful compared to SC2. Defilers are busted in ZvT. Reavers are busted in PvT to the point that Terran is forced to play mech. Tanks kill everything even faster. The damage type system is awful. The workers being different sizes is ridiculous. There are a lot of aspects of Brood War that are actually very unbalanced and you can chalk that up to there being no concept of esports beforehand. It was not designed to be what it became. A lot of that is mitigated by the game overall being much more mechanically intensive to accomplish practically anything compared to SC2 leaving a lot more "low-hanging fruit" for differentiating skill levels when it comes to mechanics. Still, I think in most areas SC2 is far better than Brood War and generally a fairer game. There are some virtues of Brood War over SC2 though. I think the pacing is probably better for one. The phases of SC2 games are very compressed and a lot of units have extremely small windows of usefulness compared to earlier iterations of SC2 or in Brood War. I think limiting the amount of units that can be selected at once would be interesting and provide some incentive for more complex attack patterns than deathballing, but would probably also require some other balance tweaks to compensate. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On March 30 2022 08:39 honorablemacroterran wrote: Brood War's unit design and balance is honestly awful compared to SC2. Defilers are busted in ZvT. Reavers are busted in PvT to the point that Terran is forced to play mech. Tanks kill everything even faster. The damage type system is awful. The workers being different sizes is ridiculous. There are a lot of aspects of Brood War that are actually very unbalanced and you can chalk that up to there being no concept of esports beforehand. It was not designed to be what it became. A lot of that is mitigated by the game overall being much more mechanically intensive to accomplish practically anything compared to SC2 leaving a lot more "low-hanging fruit" for differentiating skill levels when it comes to mechanics. Still, I think in most areas SC2 is far better than Brood War and generally a fairer game. There are some virtues of Brood War over SC2 though. I think the pacing is probably better for one. The phases of SC2 games are very compressed and a lot of units have extremely small windows of usefulness compared to earlier iterations of SC2 or in Brood War. I think limiting the amount of units that can be selected at once would be interesting and provide some incentive for more complex attack patterns than deathballing, but would probably also require some other balance tweaks to compensate. Heresy. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
There is absurdly broken stuff in BW, but as you say the pacing, the difficulty of moving forces around etc, just the general difficulty of the game. I mean to take one example, dark swarm versus Terran. Sneak a defiler around to a base and Terran have almost no units that can do anything to units under the swarm. There’s obviously a lot of other stuff that mitigates interactions SC2 maybe only had forcefielding of ramps as something so ‘if I get into position and I do this I win’ that feels like genuinely without counterplay, until Legacy and biles. With SC2 style control things like dark swarm, stasis would be beyond broken. Bio is considerably more potent due to how SC2 is built Both bloody great games, I think whatever the next great RTS is will either be innovative and different, or in some way manage to keep the kinds of QOL UI things SC2 has, but find some way to replicate some of the things that made BW so compelling. | ||
|
Sprog
New Zealand83 Posts
Widow mine speed changed to 3.15. This is so stalkers can more easily catch them before they can escape Medivac Boost unlocked after armory. Forcefield changed to require 2 biles to break Sentry starts with +2 armor, GS modes can be melee only +2 shields or +2 ranged only Sentry has a siege mode. Stalker shot speed increased by 50% Marauder model size increased by 33% | ||
|
ETisME
12329 Posts
| ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary373 Posts
- increase marine collision radius by 10% - reduce bane splash radius by 10% - add a *small* spash radius to stalker and hydra anti air attack [ requires blink, hydra range research ] - force field 50->25 mana, lasts for 11->6s. [ maybe behaves like a building having 55 hp 3 armor, can be attacked ] - prism +1 pickup range - storm duration 2.85s->4s [ same dmg, but slower, more time to move out ] i hate P air edition - void ray prismatic alignment ability requires flux vanes - interceptor costs 10/5. carrier costs 400/300. carrier built with 3 interceptors, 5 already in the queue, no extra payment required (canceling would refund 50/25). - carrier leash range 14->12 - viper can not abduct MF, no more easy -400/-400 memes, massive units pulled only half the way some QoL - move the res / pop / supply counters to the top of the minimap (needs new skins, i know it won't happen) - (separate) hotkeys for all hatcheries, all nexi, all CCs, all rax, all facts, all starports, all buildings, all gates (not just wg), all starports, all robos, all queens, all overlords - selectable color for 2nd opponent in 2v2 (both red now, would like to have red+purp) - hotkeys for money feed in 2v2 (send all gas, send all money, send all res, send 100/50, send 500 min, send 500 gas) - setting in 2v2 to allow ally to not only control allied units, but also to spend money (macro) (any hotkey above left unbind does not produce a warning in the UI) | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
allow medivacs to stack heals on 1 target. I think that would help terran out after big baneling trades, where there are only a few marauders / marines left over (but lots of medivacs still in the air). just a nice wee situational buff next one is probably too much work to implement, as it would be a whole new feature to the game: custom unit hotkey priority! give me the option to prioritize marines / marauders over ravens and ghosts. it would help a lot when you need to stim in an emergency: box units + stim hotkey is waaaaaaaaay faster than: box units + tab tab + stim or control click marines + shift + control click marauders + stim hotkey | ||
|
tad
15 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
On March 29 2022 04:34 SharkStarcraft wrote: Nerf lurker speed, a siege unit shouldn't be that fast. Either that or nerf the dmg. A big creep nerf is also needed. Maybe even nerf banelings too. More likely scenario: warp prisms now cost 500 minerals and the swarm host gets +100HP The reason it's fast in BW is because it's not actually a siege unit in that game. The Lurker in BW has 6 range and cannons are range 7, which gives you the idea of what kind of unit they want Lurkers to be. Actually so much of it's power in BW comes from lower detection ranges. Even though an Overlord, Cannon or Turret can see pretty far, they only have a detection range of 7, which is the range that static defences can shoot. In sc2 the standard detection range is 11 which is so hugely different. So we can easily see why invisible units in SC2 are by default weaker. DT isn't weak, but they 1 shot workers which is way more powerful AND they have Blink. If you look at the sc1 Lurker and the sc2 Lurker side by side, it's actually insane how much the SC2 Lurker is buffed in every aspect. The thing is in SC2 units move so smoothly as well that it's way easier to get on top of Lurkers as well so it's easy to see why they did this. I wish that the spines wouldn't travel so damn fast, the hope was that we would see Stalkers, Marines micro to dance around the spines, but it never became a reality in sc2. If the spines traveled slower they could increase the damage from 20+10vs armoured -> 30, so that they 2 shot Marines and do way better vs Zealot and Archons and even couple it with the removal of the instant-burrow upgrade and then from there see how much range we can take away without removing the unit from the ground. I think it should be a fast unit, but with 10 range it becomes broken, as you say. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 03 2022 00:38 SHODAN wrote: random shower thoughts (QOL buffs I think would be worth testing): allow medivacs to stack heals on 1 target. I think that would help terran out after big baneling trades, where there are only a few marauders / marines left over (but lots of medivacs still in the air). just a nice wee situational buff next one is probably too much work to implement, as it would be a whole new feature to the game: custom unit hotkey priority! give me the option to prioritize marines / marauders over ravens and ghosts. it would help a lot when you need to stim in an emergency: box units + stim hotkey is waaaaaaaaay faster than: box units + tab tab + stim or control click marines + shift + control click marauders + stim hotkey Considering how customisable hotkeys are, it’s ridiculous that priority isn’t customisable at all Both your example and ‘oh I didn’t realise I had a single Templar accidentally boxed and missed all my forcefields’ are particularly aggravating examples. It’s also only an issue with specific compositions, and it’s as much an issue with people who use separate keys, or manually box as it is to people F2ing, so it’s not like it is making the game more A-move friendly, given it’s priority to cycling active abilities. Another QoL improvement, customise the UI elements while we’re at it. Never mind actually keeping track of what you’re controlling and tracking in the play space, you have a minimap and timer at the exact opposite end of the screen from your resources/supply. Pull them to where you want. It’s no great skill, or lack thereof to miss something on a minimap solely because the UI draws your eyes to the furthest possible position if you want to check other data. And that’s just repositioning things a little, I think other things could improve QoL for people with vision issues, notably making the minimap bigger, or more customisable in terms of colours. | ||
|
weiliem
2061 Posts
| ||
|
Woosixion
117 Posts
| ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
yep, I can attest to this having good applications for protoss as well (been off-racing a bit lately!). it's a right pain in the arse when you need to F2 and hit stim, or when you're having to repeatedly subtract the raven from control groups, especially that one awkward raven early vP. even if customization is too much to ask for, I think most terrans would rather have bio given hard priority: 1) bio 2) ghosts 3) ravens doesn't this make much more sense? the raven's model is freakin huge. it's really not hard to just click on it. terrans tend to have it in a dedicated control group anyway, so it's kinda redundant having it at the top of the unit control priority. after almost 20 years, world of warcraft is almost unplayable to me without a facelift from various UI addons. where sc2 largely feels and plays like a hyper-optimized modern RTS that could have been released yesterday, there are just a few nagging, counter-intuitive UI and control issues that make it frustrating to revisit, or for new players to sink their teeth into. really good suggestions for minimap size, resources, supply and all that stuff. I think this could be delivered with new UI profiles sanctioned by blizzard and the community. | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
| ||
|
PtossParty
20 Posts
On May 03 2022 00:52 tad wrote: Creep tumor should be created by queens directly, no free expansion from tumor itself. Love this idea. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On May 03 2022 06:09 WombaT wrote: Considering how customisable hotkeys are, it’s ridiculous that priority isn’t customisable at all Both your example and ‘oh I didn’t realise I had a single Templar accidentally boxed and missed all my forcefields’ are particularly aggravating examples. It’s also only an issue with specific compositions, and it’s as much an issue with people who use separate keys, or manually box as it is to people F2ing, so it’s not like it is making the game more A-move friendly, given it’s priority to cycling active abilities. Another QoL improvement, customise the UI elements while we’re at it. Never mind actually keeping track of what you’re controlling and tracking in the play space, you have a minimap and timer at the exact opposite end of the screen from your resources/supply. Pull them to where you want. It’s no great skill, or lack thereof to miss something on a minimap solely because the UI draws your eyes to the furthest possible position if you want to check other data. And that’s just repositioning things a little, I think other things could improve QoL for people with vision issues, notably making the minimap bigger, or more customisable in terms of colours. Massive yes to all of this. I'm convinced ladder level lategame TvP would immediately feel a whole lot more fair if I could stim and EMP without having to worry about tab priority. I hhhaaaate mixing ghosts with bio, simply because I know I will miss stims and spells tabbing back and forth. Similar feelings with sentries and lategame ravagers. Having resources and supply in the bottom-middle of the screen (just like observer UIs... that are well made for quickly seeing all relevant information...) would also be beautiful for my easily stressed eyes  | ||
|
tigera6
3220 Posts
| ||
|
notfge
11 Posts
The way I see it, it could really restore the balance of ZvAnything; denying creep is just too expensive for both P and T. But I am quite sick, as a spectator only, mind, to see that many zergs in the final rounds of major tournaments. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 03 2022 13:04 Woosixion wrote: some kind of zerg anti-air that can directly match the power of someone massing phoenixes in the early-game, and a hive upgrade for roaches to make them scale better.. maybe like that +3 armor when they're below 50% health from single player I think the zerg's "lack" of anti-air drives a lot of problems. Because you can't just make hydras or mutas on a whim, we've become very comfortable with corruptors being kind of a ridiculous anti-air unit. | ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary465 Posts
| ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
On May 03 2022 19:44 SHODAN wrote: yep, I can attest to this having good applications for protoss as well (been off-racing a bit lately!). it's a right pain in the arse when you need to F2 and hit stim, or when you're having to repeatedly subtract the raven from control groups, especially that one awkward raven early vP. even if customization is too much to ask for, I think most terrans would rather have bio given hard priority: 1) bio 2) ghosts 3) ravens doesn't this make much more sense? the raven's model is freakin huge. it's really not hard to just click on it. terrans tend to have it in a dedicated control group anyway, so it's kinda redundant having it at the top of the unit control priority. after almost 20 years, world of warcraft is almost unplayable to me without a facelift from various UI addons. where sc2 largely feels and plays like a hyper-optimized modern RTS that could have been released yesterday, there are just a few nagging, counter-intuitive UI and control issues that make it frustrating to revisit, or for new players to sink their teeth into. really good suggestions for minimap size, resources, supply and all that stuff. I think this could be delivered with new UI profiles sanctioned by blizzard and the community. def agree with your suggestion, this would make bio much more playable at lower-mid levels, where terrans are struggling a lot, it would be huge buff to overall terran mechanical gameplay, for zerg/toss it doesnt really matter, since you dont need to "use spell" for basic units before engagements. it one of the reasons why terrans are reluctant to add ravens and ghost to there bio armies, as even if you dont use there spells suddenly its much hard to micro your bioball. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 06 2022 23:39 notfge wrote: I would only do one change for testing: creep tumors are visible at all times. The way I see it, it could really restore the balance of ZvAnything; denying creep is just too expensive for both P and T. But I am quite sick, as a spectator only, mind, to see that many zergs in the final rounds of major tournaments. This is the entire story of SC2. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
ZvT may also need to be looked at but I think balance is in a bit of a rough spot. Zerg is strong in the match up no doubt, but Ghosts are just so damn good in the late game and are just eye watering efficiency when played at a high level. So it's going to be tough to nerf Zerg against Terran without making them too weak against Protoss. As some people including myself have said, perhaps a creep nerf is in order. I think if creep spread 25% slower and receded 25% faster it would go a long way in ZvT. The match up isn't super broken but when Zerg covers 75% of the map with creep by the 8 minute mark it makes defensive play very strong, and when Zerg can sit back and defend and macro against a Terran, it's going to be tough. | ||
|
serendipitous
Canada195 Posts
I think Zerg's stability could use a nerf but I don't think it should go too far. Current Protoss is an example of what happens when a race is very volatile, and while I think Protoss is cool it's sad to see how unreliable it is in the hands of even the greatest Protoss players in the world. I would prefer if some thought went into making Terran and Protoss less volatile as well, rather than simply making Zerg more volatile. Other than that I think banshees and broodlords could use a slight buff, and adepts could use a slight buff that increases their power only in the mid and lategame. Carriers and ghosts are immensely powerful right now but they feel like "crutch units." If ghosts and carriers were nerfed Terran would fall apart in two matchups and Protoss would fall apart in PvZ. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
I don't think there's any fixing basic race design at this point, but the main Protoss complaint, I feel, is the lack of strategic flexibility. There have been some hilarious games lately where it appears the Zerg just doesn't expect the Protoss to still go air and then gets caught out. Eventually, though, Zerg will stop hurting itself in the confusion and the air nerfs with no compensatory buffs will result in P being in a worse spot. So, imo, the balance team should try to figure out a way to provide some strategic flexibility. I know that's really difficult. If you go air, you either have to keep going air or just abandon that tech and units as worthless. That's always going to be worse than just going ling>roach>ravager>lurker. One idea might be to fix the extreme overtuning of Corruptors/Vikings against colossi. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On May 09 2022 21:26 Jerubaal wrote: One idea might be to fix the extreme overtuning of Corruptors/Vikings against colossi. + colossus are hard-countered too easily by viking / corruptor vikings also ruined TvT. rough timeline: -> tanks were weak AF in WoL. you could just stim into tank lines with mass marine --> weak tanks = less value from vikings, esp. on macro maps where you can just walk around tank lines. tank / viking was a primitive WoL style only played on tiny maps like Slag Pits ----> tank went through an identity crisis, with the whole tankivac thing we settled on a tank that's v. strong against marines and that's what made vikings a core unit in post-patch LotV. thing is, vikings are a 2-dimensional "numbers game" unit. mass marine was much more energetic, fun to play and entertaining to watch. tanks are way too strong in TvT because of vikings starport units are a design mess and need a serious rethink banshees, useless in every matchup, except the odd bio vZ opener. it needs a purpose and a fresh identity. maybe give them D-8 charges? make it super strong vs structures (like the reaper in WoL) so that it better fits the role of harass bomber liberators, v. strong vs ground in the lategame of all matchups (when you can hit the tech + eco that is needed). utterly useless vs. air units. they are so confused about what they're supposed to do vs air. their AA splash got nerfed because zergs couldn't be bothered to micro their mutas. what was the problem? they already had a distinct weakness: short range. simply stay out of their range and all your mutas don't die. was that too strong? OK, maybe reduce their AA range 1 point further, but make their splash super strong like it was before, so you can at least suicide them into clumps of mutas / corruptors / interceptors vikings, stupidly unmicroable and 2-dimensional in every matchup. basically a flying roach that can turn into a ground mech roach. zzz. it needs to be weaker, but control better, and become more defined as a mediocre single-target AA unit with some bonus utility on the ground. I actually really like the idea of weakening its default AA attack, or reducing its default attack range, but giving it a new ability: a powerful single-target AA with finite uses and limited capacity: 2 rockets, one on each wing, that need to be replenished (like interceptors) or perhaps 2 rockets that are available immediately but cannot be replenished (like spider mines). I think I like the 2nd idea better, because that would give terrans a great reason to suicide harass with them once the rockets are spent. I imagine the rocket would have the same range it has presently, but do a shit-tonne more dmg: kinda like a crossover between vulture / scourge. ravens, forever in a weird place. they are stupidly strong vT at every phase of the game. vP, that one raven surviving is the difference between winning and losing. a huge design crutch, just like the mothership core. vZ they aren't really useful except for the odd anti-armor missile. I dunno what to do with this unit, but I think it also needs a big redesign. presently it is way too situationally powerful and far too situationally useless battlecruisers and medivacs are fine. the other starport units are suffering an identity crisis. and yeah, corruptor timings are stupid vs skytoss and mech | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On May 09 2022 11:51 serendipitous wrote: The big problem as I see it isn't that Zerg is op in the traditional sense. Their units are weak after a few years of nerfs, it's not uncommon to see a pvz or tvz where the Zerg trades 10k resources worse. The problem is Zerg is just so much more stable and reliable than the other two races. Zerg has nigh perfect scouting with speedlords and overseers, incredible map vision with creep and overlords, and an incredibly stable defense with queens and their strong static defense and creep movespeed. Combined with their strong eco top tier Zerg players can see everything coming their way and play as greedy as humanly possible while still surviving. I almost never feel like a game comes down to luck or rock paper scissors with Zerg, but I feel that often with Terran and Protoss. This is especially apparent right now, after years of stability there are few builds that can catch a Zerg off guard. This is a very good explanation of why Zerg is more consistently succesful at the highest level imo. I'm not really sure how to adress this though, maybe just via maps by removing the 'standard' safe Overlord spots as has been suggested several times already, to make it a bit harder for them to gather information. | ||
|
leublix
493 Posts
Nerf Carrier. Buff ??? | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
A. You could nerf creep spread rate by 25% and increase recede rate by 25%. This is probably the most straight forward nerf just tune the numbers to make it sonewhat less strong, I don’t know if it really solves the problem though. B. Queen creep tumor energy cost increased to 50, even top tier zergs float a lot of energy on queens but this may also be a transfuse/defense nerf since now queens have less energy to work with overall. It also helps reduce the total number of tumors zerg can place which may slow them down a bit early on making it take longer for creep to cover the map. Might make taking the third too hard vs Terran though since it’s important that queens can roam between the Nat and third. 3. Creep tumors visible, maybe way to huge of a nerf but I think this would allow Terran to actually fight creep spread I think a big issue in the matchup is that a tumor is 25 energy on a spamable unit where a scan is 50 on a command center, even if Terran consistently clear creep unless they have map control right up to the Zergs creep there is nothing they can do to actually halt the spread. In the current meta Zerg can make so much liing bane queen that it’s not really possible for terrran to have control outside of thier push timing as a result the Zerg will always get to push the creep forward. Letting Terran just clear creep without scan both gives Terran a bit more economy with mules and allows them to hit and run creep tumors more effectively as units are always a threat to creep. 4. Determine a way to give Terran a reasonable detection option in tvz. No one wants to make ravens in tvz, they just don’t do enough in the matchup and they compete with reactors and medivac for starport time, Terran does not have the income to go for a second port to make them. This essentially forces Terran to be reliant on scans and early on the numbers game just favors Zergs. Scanning creep only delays the inevitable spread. Unless Terran has map control, which on a macro game they pretty much don’t in the current meta. If Terran has map control usually Zerg is already dead. Maybe another Terran unit could be given the detector tag. 5. Quit making maps where the final bases on a map are so far away that it is extremely difficult to clear creep on the way to securing it./ Zerg is guaranteed to if not control at least permanently deny them due to their position. More hardwires, less pride of altaris. Honestly I think creep issues could be solved with maps but it would probably constrain map design to much to have to balance this mechanic for all time. For instance if all maps were taller then they are wide like jagantha was, or designed like hardwire with close bases that are difficult to lock out with creep. Or are limited to no more than 10 bases. Or had areas of unbuildable terrain that creep could not cross I think Terran would have a better time in the matchup and a creep nerf might be unnecessary. I think the strength of creep tends to compound with maps that are very wide where typically edge bases can not be secured by Terran and Protoss because creep provides to much control and mobility to a Zerg claiming these areas, or allows them to rapidly rotate and crush bases on the other side of the map. | ||
|
DaNi_Toss
Costa Rica3 Posts
Why does the nuke have an alert and the nydus doesn't? Considering the amout of games lost because the player didn't see a Nydus making, it might be an intesting though, like you could balance it with a faster build time or something. Or remove the alert from the nuke (as a toss I get chill saying this, but sounds interesting.) lol | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On March 28 2022 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote: 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. At this point discussing any change to warpgate in sc2 is pointless. Its just to much of an overhaul to fix how it works and all the knock on affects it has on protoss's design and how they function. I think we should just hope its not in sc3, if we ever get an sc3. | ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
2. Drop overlords can't drop creep anymore This may actually weaken quen attacks as (I believe) previously intended. 3. Buff or add an upgrade for one of the protoss gateway units to offer protoss a few more options aside from AoE. Ideas: a) archon speed buff -> just general usefulness buff but also very good vs muta (I really think this should be tried) b) archon range upgrade (at templar archive or dark shrine or at forge but requires the aforementioned) -> better in big army battles and vs roaches c) stalker +2 attack upgrade scaling (vs all) - could be in exchange for 10 HP or similar -> stalker much better late game and when doing forge builds d) zealot or adept +1 shield armor, -> better vs zergling/marine especially on defense with shield batteries e) adept upgrade that allows glaives to punch through an enemy and hit a second one if they behind the first and/or very close (with full damage or close to full damage) - the upgrade could be at the robotics facility or the dark shrine so that it is mostly available late game -> makes adepts viable against clumps of light units, later in the game | ||
|
Woosixion
117 Posts
| ||
|
Woosixion
117 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States899 Posts
On March 26 2022 01:11 WombaT wrote: Removing transfuse basically breaks the game so I dunno where you’re getting that from. I actually think it would be a healthy change for the game. Or a 1 queen per hatchery limit and make all of their abilities cost 5 less energy. Give them a significantly buffed separate anti air attack, bonus health regeneration, and revert all of the creep tumor nerfs. I don't think the current zerg paradigm is what was envisioned. I haven't kept up with any meta, strats, or tournaments and I think I can count the amount of games of sc2 I've played in the past five years on my fingers and zerg was the only race that I was able to quickly match GMs on. I'll gladly attest that is solely because of the queen. Not needing to know any intricate timings or even 'what' is coming because you have a blanket cover for every strategy is a little broken in comparison to how the rest of the game functions. | ||
|
derkopf
Germany77 Posts
I can’t see anything with that animation | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
I haven't kept up with any meta, strats, or tournaments and I think I can count the amount of games of sc2 I've played in the past five years on my fingers No offense intended but, forgive me if I don't take huge stock into your opinions lol that's like saying you haven't been in the stock market game for 5 years but here's my uninformed opinion on the matter. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On May 11 2022 20:00 Beelzebub1 wrote: No offense intended but, forgive me if I don't take huge stock into your opinions lol that's like saying you haven't been in the stock market game for 5 years but here's my uninformed opinion on the matter. I mean it's pretty clear he has no idea what he's talking about. Almost everything he said was wrong | ||
|
sirok_
33 Posts
- Vipers can't abduct heroic unit (mothership) and abduct pull on massive units decreases by 50% - Ravager corrosive bile range reduced from 9 to 8, cooldown increases from 7 to 9 seconds, morph time from roach increases from 8.5 seconds to 12.5 seconds - Creep tumor expands 25% slower and regresses 25% faster Terran: - Raven speed increases from 4.13 to 4.83 - Reapers KD9 grenade deals 15 damage instead of 5, cooldown increases from 14 to 29 seconds (=> reapers change is not really for balance purpose, but just for fun) Protoss: - Archon speed increases from 3.94 to 4.44 - Recall cooldown decreased from 4 seconds to 3 | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 11 2022 18:04 Agh wrote: I actually think it would be a healthy change for the game. Or a 1 queen per hatchery limit and make all of their abilities cost 5 less energy. Give them a significantly buffed separate anti air attack, bonus health regeneration, and revert all of the creep tumor nerfs. I don't think the current zerg paradigm is what was envisioned. I haven't kept up with any meta, strats, or tournaments and I think I can count the amount of games of sc2 I've played in the past five years on my fingers and zerg was the only race that I was able to quickly match GMs on. I'll gladly attest that is solely because of the queen. Not needing to know any intricate timings or even 'what' is coming because you have a blanket cover for every strategy is a little broken in comparison to how the rest of the game functions. This is correct, and some good ideas. I was responding to someone who said removing transfuse without making other changes and the game is ‘fixed’ Which is utter nonsense. I’d love to see wholesale changes to really make the Queen such a catch-all crutch, but you can’t simply nerf the Queen hugely and the game will be ‘balanced’ if you do nothing else, which was the point I was making. | ||
|
Creager
Germany1889 Posts
On May 11 2022 23:08 WombaT wrote: This is correct, and some good ideas. I was responding to someone who said removing transfuse without making other changes and the game is ‘fixed’ Which is utter nonsense. I’d love to see wholesale changes to really make the Queen such a catch-all crutch, but you can’t simply nerf the Queen hugely and the game will be ‘balanced’ if you do nothing else, which was the point I was making. Interesting, because I'd argue that just partially reversing the range buffs of the Queen could already be enough to bring the unit back in line. Requiring the Zerg to actually invest into a specialised response according to his/her scouting intel would not necessarily be more expensive as Queens are still costly, but it would punish players that just build more Queens regardless, as they're not as strong in defending a specific unit composition in a timing attack on their own. Less range could force less favorable positioning/heavier commitment to cover certain angles, building something else than a Queen would also slightly reduce creep spread (which arguably would still be fine IMO as players have gotten so good at it over the years) and forcing other races into certain tech responses is common and this would also suit the "fantasy" of Zerg being the reactionary race. Of course there are probably lots of possibilities to explore, but since I'm not expecting anything from Blizzard these days, a simple range reduction could already do wonders without having to require additional effort. | ||
|
notfge
11 Posts
On May 10 2022 12:21 washikie wrote: [...] 3. Creep tumors visible, maybe way to huge of a nerf but I think this would allow Terran to actually fight creep spread I think a big issue in the matchup is that a tumor is 25 energy on a spamable unit where a scan is 50 on a command center, even if Terran consistently clear creep unless they have map control right up to the Zergs creep there is nothing they can do to actually halt the spread. In the current meta Zerg can make so much liing bane queen that it’s not really possible for terrran to have control outside of thier push timing as a result the Zerg will always get to push the creep forward. Letting Terran just clear creep without scan both gives Terran a bit more economy with mules and allows them to hit and run creep tumors more effectively as units are always a threat to creep. [...] It's not like removing creep is cheap for the Protoss either, is it? Detection needs either a probe or an Oracle's Revelation ability, and those are far from being free. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2576 Posts
On May 12 2022 22:01 notfge wrote: It's not like removing creep is cheap for the Protoss either, is it? Detection needs either a probe or an Oracle's Revelation ability, and those are far from being free. Probes with detection is a change I could get behind. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 12 2022 22:19 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Probes with detection is a change I could get behind. He meant the flying probe. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2576 Posts
Another change I'd support. | ||
|
notfge
11 Posts
On May 12 2022 22:19 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Probes with detection is a change I could get behind. Oops... I meant observer of course. Sorry... | ||
|
Draddition
United States59 Posts
On the Terran side, I'd be interested to see some tuning of scans to help active Terrans clear creep more efficiently- I'm thinking a change similar to what Oracles received a while back. Cut the effectiveness of scans, but make it cost less energy. | ||
|
Sprog
New Zealand83 Posts
Perhaps tumors being visible all the time seems a bit much, maybe the 'burrow' timeout could be extended so that really active players can snipe them with basic units? | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 13 2022 03:22 Draddition wrote: I'm really not buying that Protoss doesn't have the tools to deal with creep. Observers aren't free, but they offer a LOT for what they cost. Oracles are something that should be out anyways with a Stargate opener, its just a matter of controlling them after that. If there's a creep problem in ZvP, its because Protoss isn't (or can't) move out to clear it comfortably. With new, more active, styles of Protoss play coming back it'll be interesting to see how things develop. On the Terran side, I'd be interested to see some tuning of scans to help active Terrans clear creep more efficiently- I'm thinking a change similar to what Oracles received a while back. Cut the effectiveness of scans, but make it cost less energy. It's not that P (or T for that matter) "don't have the tools". It's that creep essentially gives P and T an "objective" with the only upside being avoiding giving Z a pretty good advantage. From the P point of view, this puts units that have to go clear creep at risk. You may not have wanted to warp in those units, or those could have been units warped in to other places. Or if you move your whole army out, you leave your bases open to attack. Terran can actually deal with this wonderfully because they can send out one medivac and boop and scoot, but obviously scan has a high price. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
Because this is not how the game has been made for, i mean maybe it s a good decision to balance the awareness of the game. This kind of game changing decision could make sense in a patch, just because it hasn t been though like that. The only thing to do is to create an "eye spell" which gives 1 vision square cell by cell until a line collision with a possible building. If no collision occurs, tumor is created where the player decided. Simple I think the problem at high level is mostly due to vision than the capacity of being invisible. Now as many members here, i approved Protoss is lacking of a fast unit like hellions even if these ones haven t a huge potential overall. And simplier, only Queens can make tumors, with a cooldown to avoid over-using. | ||
|
Klaus117
3 Posts
| ||
|
Klaus117
3 Posts
| ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On May 14 2022 09:57 Klaus117 wrote: What if they adjusted raven so instead of anti armor missile, they gave nearby units an attack buff, it would be much easier to use and more consistent results. Perhaps a +3 dmg buff to all units in a radius. Or maybe instead a 15% attack speed boost. Very similar to guardian shield except for offensive purposes. ok, but only if we change the unit model to this! ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hqYx9rp.gif) | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
Tune it to be easier to set up and maintain very near to hatcheries, but substantially harder to do so away from the base. For example, tumors in some range of a hatchery could stay invisible (as they are now) and have a bigger radius, but tumors outside of hatchery range could be visible, and have a smaller creep spread radius. This way Zerg can still connect their first few bases, but swallowing the map will be a slower process, and not require the opponent to have detection. Creep is one of those mechanics with ridiculous speed-scaling, and this would tune it so that top Zergs can't just throw APM at it until they have guaranteed map control. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On May 14 2022 10:06 Klaus117 wrote: What if they gave queens an extra cost of 25 gas... this would dampen the amount of early game queen spam, and as a result would also lower the amount of creep spam. Wanna just remove Zerg from the game entirely while we're at it? | ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
Nerf Libs, Queen, Disruptor, Carriers, BC, Broodlord, Viper, Infestor, Thor, Collosus, Tempest, Archon, Raven (tvt), Viking (tvt). | ||
|
smithcarter
1 Post
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 14 2022 17:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Philosophy change for how creep spread works: Tune it to be easier to set up and maintain very near to hatcheries, but substantially harder to do so away from the base. For example, tumors in some range of a hatchery could stay invisible (as they are now) and have a bigger radius, but tumors outside of hatchery range could be visible, and have a smaller creep spread radius. This way Zerg can still connect their first few bases, but swallowing the map will be a slower process, and not require the opponent to have detection. Creep is one of those mechanics with ridiculous speed-scaling, and this would tune it so that top Zergs can't just throw APM at it until they have guaranteed map control. I would be very happy for base players if something less punitive is found. I like your idea more than the entire removal of spreading creep from tumors themselves. Maybe overlord could grant invisibility to tumors ;o) .. good .. But your idea doesn t resolve the protoss issue, which is the lack of units wiith enought speed to stand at the border of creep (and moving around). That s why i m saying vision is more important than tumors invisibility But if you remove vision from tumors, it will be hell for Zerg to defend against hellions run-by. That s why your idea is revelant, i mean if tumors are enought close of an hatchery they could give vision but not the others. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 15 2022 02:44 dph114 wrote: Nerf anti fun units Nerf Libs, Queen, Disruptor, Carriers, BC, Broodlord, Viper, Infestor, Thor, Collosus, Tempest, Archon, Raven (tvt), Viking (tvt). What units are considered fun? | ||
|
IMSupervisor
Australia138 Posts
| ||
|
ShowTheLights
Korea (South)1669 Posts
I agree with all of this list except Vipers and Disruptor More micro units the better | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 15 2022 09:25 ShowTheLights wrote: I agree with all of this list except Vipers and Disruptor More micro units the better Stock solid units have their place in an RTS, units with a niche role have their place, power units have a place Terran is a race of almost nothing but micro units and all players of that race tend to do is complain | ||
|
serendipitous
Canada195 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States899 Posts
If we're talking units that have had the most detriment to sc2, it's hands down the Broodlord. When it didn't get re-designed mid WoL I was just about sure it was going to be removed in HotS. (Fun little tidbit: When I shared spine/spore/infestor/BL to Destiny I was hoping he'd use his exposure to highlight the unit and get it changed.) There's also the ripple effect of design to consider that the Tempest wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the Broodlord, amongst other decisions. Things like the Swarm Host actually making it into the game was pretty puzzling also. (Soulkey Reality anyone? lmao) Starting worker change should have been 9 at the most. It's weird to think that every unit added to the game with the exception of maybe the Hellbat, Ravager, and Adept actually resulted in negative fun/playability rather than add any value. Honestly I think WoL with very very minor tweaks (and balanced maps) is the best state the game could have. [Some changes of the top of my head: Broodlords attack no longer spawns units, upgrade available to passively increase medivac speed (still no boost), ghost EMP range slightly reduced (The Terran 'Deathball' was actually uncontestable for TvP). Mules removed and changed to outfit an SCV with bonus mineral harvesting or repair (Netting ~155 mineral gain, down from the ~270 of the mule), Calldown Supply increases armor as well as health of a Supply depot. Corruptors given a castable ability that reduces armor of the targeted unit (1 unit per cast with a cooldown). Photon cannons given secondary attack for AA significant buffed to be a viable versus Phoenix and Mutalisk. Engineering bay upgrade for minor turret splash damage. Ultras have a trample type affect the removes forcefields from a longer range, Archons get a similar affect but smaller in comparison.] Plenty more, but that's a good generalization. Maps didn't do the balance situation much justice. (Antiga Shipyard, Testbug, Shakuras Plateau, etc). It's a big shame we had to wait so long to get a map as good as Daybreak made. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10316 Posts
What if tumors keep vision, but just reduce their range a little, maybe roughly 3-4 radius? That way if you want to spread creep quickly you can and use single tumors, but if you want more vision and see everything, you want multiple tumors and spread them out more. I think the idea of making creep tumors further away from hatcheries spread less creep, or slower (creep spawns slower or it takes longer to spawn a new creep tumor), could be a relatively uncomplicated way to nerf it too, without making early game creep weaker. Vipers & Abduct Viper really needs to be taken a look at too. Its original purpose was to allow you to pull expensive units away from a deathball, and give more anti-deathball tools. WoL was deathbally, and they wanted to address it for HotS. In LotV, we don't have a deathball problem anymore, games are spread across a lot more bases with armies doing things in more areas of the map now. Deathballs can work but are riskier and more committal, not the go to anymore. Abduct pulling expensive units is just very anti-fun. There isn't meaningful micro you can do to play around it or stop it. It also is a strong tool to stop comebacks from happening, because there isn't meaningful micro you can do against it without HTs and Feedback or such. Perhaps Abduct can not pull Massive anymore, or make it so that it only pulls 50% distance vs Massive. Watching a Zerg just pull 2-3 Colossus and near guarantee winning a battle is not fun to watch, it's very hard for me to watch when it happens in a pro game. Even if the player is behind I want them to at least have a chance if they micro very well. It's an anti-comeback tool, and deathballs aren't a problem anymore. Abduct probably should not be able to pull Heroic either, watching MS just get pulled and sniped makes it feel like a joke unit. Mothership and Carriers Mothership could also be buffed, if you want then give Carriers a very slight nerf too to compensate. Mothership you could make Time Warp stronger, cost less energy, have more radius or range, anything... You could even give Mothership an HP/attack buff, or more armor, etc. Even something small! Buff it in a way that doesn't break anything, why not. Lurker Mobility Lurkers are probably a little too mobile, I'm not sure if burrow/unburrow needs to be so fast, but at least they did get a very slight hit, which definitely helps (especially makes it harder for Lurkers to chase down retreating units, that tiny burrow/unburrow speed nerf really adds up and results in 1-2 less attacks when chasing down an army). Protoss Walls vs Ling Runbys Ling runbys need to stop, when Protoss has a unit at the wall. Whenever I play Protoss, I'm surprised at how PRECISE you have to be with a Zealot/Adept in order to block the wall vs lings. It takes too much work vs how much game ending damage ling runbys can do, it's not fun to watch pros take so much damage just because they weren't 100% perfect with their positioning. I don't know how to address this though. Perhaps Protoss buildings specifically can have like a tiny 0.1 collision radius around them that applies only to Zerglings? Ravens and PDD Ravens I wish weren't turned into a mostly early game unit that's used for timing pushes. The unit is so much less fun and has much lower potential now. Terran doesn't have a gas sink, which really hinders players who want to play high econ or mine lots of gas. Protoss and Zerg both have powerful gas sink units, which reward you if you successfully manage to get lots of bases and a high gas income. I really don't like how Raven is just a "you get 1 only" unit vs Zerg. It's just really boring design; you should be able to benefit more from creating more Ravens if you want. I understand they wanted to nerf mass late game Raven, yes it was broken. But keep in mind that Zerg has Blinding Cloud and Abducts, which are powerful tools vs mass Ravens, and Corruptors got a speed buff too. There were definitely other ways to nerf the Raven and give much more diminishing returns if you want to make a lot of them. To me, AA missile is kind of like the replacement for PDD; instead of giving you a strong defensive position you can push with, AA is more of an active tagging spell and can force the opponent to want to back up which effectively lets you push. So both PDD and AA missile can be used in similar ways, however with AA missile it's a boring spell where you don't really get more by casting multiple of them... Interference Matrix is like a replacement for both PDD and HSM. It's a spell that instead of destroys units or blocking their projectiles, can render them inactive for a bit. I think the spell itself is fine, though again it sucks there isn't really any practical use vs Zerg. Building ravens to disable Vipers or Infestors just isn't really a thing. Can it be tweaked in a way to make it so? PDD was actually a really well designed and unique spell that allowed for more positional playstyles. Unlike AA missile which speeds up fights, PDD also slows down fights, and increases the defender's advantage which is lacking a little in SC2, and helps increase comeback potential. It can be used aggressively for slow pushes, too. The main issue with PDD, is when you have 20-30 Ravens, and spam 10 PDDs instantly vs Corruptors. The PDDs will instantly block all attacks. And if the Zerg tries to run away, or chase your army down, you can just spam PDDs to be completely safe. Specifically, the issue is that 1 PDD is able to use all of its charges instantly. So if the Zerg army has 30 Corruptors, you only need 3 PDDs to 100% block all attacks, and you can throw more down as you need them. The solution to this is simply make it so that the PDD is only able to shoot down for example 2 projectiles per second. Now suddenly you need 15 (!!!) PDDs if you want to block 100% of the 30 Corruptor's shots! Suddenly, if the Zerg wants to back up and re-engage elsewhere, or chase your army down, the Terran has to burn a LOT of energy. You can also tweak PDD in a way to give it more use in early game, since they wanted to make Raven more useful in early game. In compensation for a PDD only being able to block ~2 projectiles per second, you can buff it's early game usage by allowing it to block a higher number of projectiles. For example, perhaps instead of being able to block 10 projectiles instantly (10 projectiles isn't much early game), you can decrease the energy cost a little and increase the regeneration rate. Now suddenly if you want to plop 1 PDD down for an early push or harass, your PDD can maybe shoot down 20 projectiles by the end of its lifetime, but only 2 shots per second. And if you want to use it lategame, for a quick fight where a PDD won't have time to regenerate as much, maybe it can only shoot down 15 projectiles. If you fight a 30 Corruptor flock with 20 Ravens, you'll have to throw down 15 PDDs to block 100% of shots for 20 seconds straight, which is a LOT of time, but it's also a TON of energy needed. And the simple counter would be to give up that base/position and back up to where the PDDs aren't, or engage the Terran early to force them to burn PDDs before they arrive. Maybe this is still really strong, but probably not too strong now that there is Parabomb along with Abducts. I'm sure there is a way to balance PDD so that it has enough diminishing returns lategame to not be broken, and for it to be useful for early game pushes instead of needing AA missile. Other possibilities is to also increase Raven supply from 2 to 3, which only really hurts lategame mass Raven strats, or to rebalance PDD around 110-125 energy so you can still use 1 for early game pushes but you can't spam 2 instantly per Raven lategame. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7192 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 15 2022 14:11 serendipitous wrote: No units should exist that can end the game in a single hit like disruptors can Well people didn't want a solid, steady source of aoe damage like the colossus, so instead we got a high risk/high reward unit. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 15 2022 15:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Creep I think the idea of making creep tumors further away from hatcheries spread less creep, or slower (creep spawns slower or it takes longer to spawn a new creep tumor), could be a relatively uncomplicated way to nerf it too, without making early game creep weaker. . I don t think it s possible. The speed of the creep is an absolute speed, it means that it doesn t depend on the distance because it acts like a single element with multiplicator speed value when tumors are close between themselves. Active creep tumors are modifying creep like a flow, not as single entity. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 15 2022 14:11 serendipitous wrote: No units should exist that can end the game in a single hit like disruptors can It s pretty true since their damage aren t dedicated to counter some units. In comparaison Fungal growth is incredibibly inoffensive. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On May 15 2022 16:07 Jerubaal wrote: Well people didn't want a solid, steady source of aoe damage like the colossus, so instead we got a high risk/high reward unit. but still have the Collossus | ||
|
-Kaiser-
Canada932 Posts
So you get mass Queen, and you get mass creep, as your not-interesting catch-all "I live" gameplan. So what do P and T do? Either turn their harass into some kind of all-inny gimmick or rush to lategame. - Reduce creep tumor vision - Increase creep recession rate when a tumor dies - Make inactive creep tumors visible (still need detection for the active tumor) - Remove Queen's +1 armor - Move Hydra Den to Hatchery tech, keep the upgrades at lair tech - Reduce un-upgraded Hydralisk speed a notch - Move Lurker Den to Hive tech With the general idea that Z gets a stable anti-air option without giving them OP hatch-tech hydra all-ins. They macro slower because hydras are expensive, but transition smoother into mid-game with an army that can all-in cheesy 2/3-stargate battery/cannon builds. It also lets Terran and Protoss do "damage" by forcing a response instead of actually *needing* to do serious damage. T/P harassment right now is nothing but a skill-check: "Can you look at the minimap and move 1-2 groups of queens around? Yes/no." Now you can buff Banshees and make them cool again, and if you still want TvZ BC builds you could probably buff them too. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
Creep recession tumor, i should say most of casual should be ok, maybe pros players doesn t bother as well. Inactive creep tumors visible : it s impossible, it s not a reasonnable change because you can clear easily creep beside the last one. + Show Spoiler + My solution with similarity should be to consider creep tumors like a chain with visible last one so if you kill the last one, the before last becomes visible and so on. Obviously, you can add a small cooldown to reveal the new tumor. Remove Queen armor, i m not sure as this unit has no tag armor. It should be reasonnable to position his weakness and strength against a type of damage. I think everybody here agree of the expensive cost of an hydra. Something has to be done here. + Show Spoiler + My solution i would make Roachs more swiss-knife oriented (like burrowed roachs able to pass over cliffs but for example, doesn t benefit of bonus speed on creep, with maybe a regeneration active ability ) and then increase his mineral cost by 25. While Hydras take her place in term of cost (75 minerals and 25 gas) with 1 supply, and a longer distance shoot (searching a critical mass against bio-ball). Lurker is garbage in actual state because he is good at everything, destroy casual games (except if you are enought good with ghosts) PS : Or maybe fix the cost of hydralisk from 100/50 to 100/25 (keeping supply cost 2) and work out on units with a close relationship | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Zerg still have swarmhosts. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On May 15 2022 21:34 -Kaiser- wrote: - Increase creep recession rate when a tumor dies Creep spreads at the same rate as it recedes. This has been true from WoL. The rate has changed in LotV. Creep got "nerfed" by increasing the rate. This allowed creep to be spread faster with equal amounts of tumors. The increased queen numbers in current meta adds to the creep spread speed. What would happen if the WoL/HotS spread rate came back but the receding rate increased? Side note: Scarlett's creep spread reputation started with her spreading creep both relentlessly and efficiently. Pre LotV 2 tumors were needed to make the creep spread to the tumors' max range when their coldown was up. The single tumor roads were slow to build and Scarlett was among the few to invest in that second tumor off the early queens. She also used her tumors within seconds of them being able to spread for almost the entire game. Today the difference between great spreaders and the rest is mostly about attention spent on it. There are an abundance of queens so there is no lack of energy for more tumors. This makes me curious about giving each queen a limited amount of tumor uses. 25 energy limited to 4 uses. The late game creep will be affected but not the so much the early game creep. How will this shape games? Maybe let lairs and hives be able to recharge tumors for a resource cost so Zerg doesn't have to invest supply into more queens when they run out of tumors. | ||
|
Kitai
United States869 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 19 2022 09:31 Kitai wrote: I'm getting old and want a "remove one from selection" button. For example, if I have 20 zerglings or marines selected and want to send several individuals to scout ahead or different areas of the map, I have to right click the minimap, move my mouse back to the group selection, shift+click a unit out of the group, move my mouse back to the minimap to right click the next location, etc. etc. My suggested hotkey would just deselect the first unit in the selection so I can be lazy and never move my mouse away from the minimap while I choose locations. That would be neat as a QoL change for sure. Certain tasks are just laborious and could absolutely be optimised with some more options in terms of command/UI I wonder if you combined that with a massive mouse wave/move command spam if you could split bio at the individual unit level | ||
|
Kitai
United States869 Posts
On May 19 2022 09:52 WombaT wrote: That would be neat as a QoL change for sure. Certain tasks are just laborious and could absolutely be optimised with some more options in terms of command/UI I wonder if you combined that with a massive mouse wave/move command spam if you could split bio at the individual unit level Hah, didn't even think about that application. That would be awesome!! | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
On May 15 2022 08:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Vipers & Abduct ... In LotV, we don't have a deathball problem anymore,... Abduct pulling expensive units is just very anti-fun. I find the definition of "fun" very one-sided. Toss sit with skytoss over sb and cannon is fun? but viper abduct is not fun? Personally, I hope they change the Carrier, change the priority of Interceptors, or reduce the leash range so they have to move more. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary373 Posts
On May 19 2022 09:31 Kitai wrote: I'm getting old and want a "remove one from selection" button. For example, if I have 20 zerglings or marines selected and want to send several individuals to scout ahead or different areas of the map, I have to right click the minimap, move my mouse back to the group selection, shift+click a unit out of the group, move my mouse back to the minimap to right click the next location, etc. etc. My suggested hotkey would just deselect the first unit in the selection so I can be lazy and never move my mouse away from the minimap while I choose locations. you can do this now this way: - have a junk hotkey group, rebind #0 to a convenient key (i'll keep referring to this hotkey group as #0) - select your ling group (#1 for example) - click one ling in the unit list at the bottom of the screen, you don't even need to look at the lings/units - alt + 0 to steal the ling, move it to the junk group - move command your ling on the minimap - repeat now this won't be that automatic as the select first unit (sometimes, hydra+ling+bane army comes to my mind, you don't want the first one anyways), but you don't need to move your mouse too much. you can change your hotkeys so that ctrl+# actually steals, or even better, simply pressing 0 steals to the group 10, as you do not want to select your junk group units. you can always click select the group on the ui in case you mess up something (or keep shift/ctrl+0 as group selection). | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10316 Posts
On May 19 2022 15:33 jack_less wrote: I find the definition of "fun" very one-sided. Toss sit with skytoss over sb and cannon is fun? but viper abduct is not fun? Personally, I hope they change the Carrier, change the priority of Interceptors, or reduce the leash range so they have to move more. I would be down with tweaks to Carriers too. Lategame skytoss could be taken a look at, I'm just not really familiar with it. Good point that Abduct is helpful in those situations. I'm mostly annoyed by Abduct when used in the midgame, it seems a bit too powerful as it seems to be good at pushing one's advantage even harder and reducing comeback potential (due to lack of meaningful interaction/micro). Maybe it's not as much of an issue now that HTs have longer range feedback, I don't see many games ending anti-climaticly in GSL anymore. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On May 19 2022 16:21 bela.mervado wrote: you can do this now this way: - have a junk hotkey group, rebind #0 to a convenient key (i'll keep referring to this hotkey group as #0) - select your ling group (#1 for example) - click one ling in the unit list at the bottom of the screen, you don't even need to look at the lings/units - alt + 0 to steal the ling, move it to the junk group - move command your ling on the minimap - repeat now this won't be that automatic as the select first unit (sometimes, hydra+ling+bane army comes to my mind, you don't want the first one anyways), but you don't need to move your mouse too much. you can change your hotkeys so that ctrl+# actually steals, or even better, simply pressing 0 steals to the group 10, as you do not want to select your junk group units. you can always click select the group on the ui in case you mess up something (or keep shift/ctrl+0 as group selection). I'd recommend changing alt+# to the normal strg+# anyway since there's almost never a situation in which you want 1 unit in 2 seperate control groups (with Bio mine to quickly select the mines while also keeping everything in the main control group is the only situation that comes to mind.) | ||
|
kellyhilton
1 Post
Not so much flourishing nor so much bright, I like an average of mixed. Regards: halloween squishmallows User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Hvvacha
82 Posts
- Siege Tank HP & perhaps Siege changes reverted, add +2 fire range while sieged upgrade instead - Widow Mine hold fire ability | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 19 2022 03:58 Drfilip wrote: This makes me curious about giving each queen a limited amount of tumor uses. 25 energy limited to 4 uses. The late game creep will be affected but not the so much the early game creep. How will this shape games? Maybe let lairs and hives be able to recharge tumors for a resource cost so Zerg doesn't have to invest supply into more queens when they run out of tumors. You can t limit the amount of this spell because it sn t intuitive to block a spell after a specific number. The only acceptable solution would be one tumors per queen like if you have a single-use ability. Same for one queen per hatch, it s not acceptable because players could waste his 'mouse-actions' in trying to do something and will result as a frustration. I trust in the solution with a chain-tumors with the last one only visible. It s not a big change in the gameplay, and it will help most of the people. It also can increase the interest of the battle for territory. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2576 Posts
| ||
|
LeereKiste
2 Posts
Second a function that makes it possible to watch (the top 10?) replays in the matchhistory of other players for analyzing games. Does that makes sense or is there another way to do things like that? I am new here btw. sincerely diamond 3 player | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 20 2022 23:38 AmericanUmlaut wrote: I disagree. Vultures had a similar ability in BW with a limited number of casts, and no one struggles to understand the concept of not having any more mines. Mines charge ability is reloaded while i don t think : "limited amount of 4 tumors" means that Queens have 4 charges which recovers after some delay. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On May 21 2022 02:48 Vision_ wrote: Mines charge ability is reloaded while i don t think : "limited amount of 4 tumors" means that Queens have 4 charges which recovers after some delay. Spider mines can't be reloaded-a BW vulture comes with 3 mines and that's it. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 21 2022 06:03 Athenau wrote: Spider mines can't be reloaded-a BW vulture comes with 3 mines and that's it. Ok thanks my bad. Maybe it s also inappropriated to compare a game with a 12 units controlling feature. I can accept to be wrong, but there s a time to list what can be done for tweaking the creep problem at casual level. 1) Limited tumors : Every Queen starts with a fixed number of 3 tumors. 2) Chain tumors : The last tumor of the chain is visible (btw the before last becomes visible when you killed the last) 3) Safe tumors : Only tumors enought close from an hatchery are invisible What else ? I remenber someone arguing to create tumors from drones like every other units, which is good but not do-able because it demands a big patch. I m thinking most of complains concerned the invisible ability (plus the lack of Protoss units for deny creep spreading). If i m not wrong and if the community is complaining about that, i m not really surprised as this feature is contested since the beginning. Now the best way to implement this tweak consist to take an advantage from the fact that some units could benefit from speed on the mucus while others aren t affect at all. This bonus could be a part of an upgrade ? why not ? Example : Hydralisks, they are designed for | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
Much better to limit the ability of creep to spread in some other way. Whether it's slower spread, smaller radius away from hatches, or even something very drastic like just removing spread and forcing queens to put down tumors, all of these are better than attaching a cost / limit. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
or even something very drastic like just removing spread and forcing queens to put down tumors It does sound drastic on paper, but honestly with the amount of Queens that Zerg goes for I almost wonder if this is the perfect solution. I mean, Terran has to sacrifice a Mule for a scan to clear creep, maybe it's time to make the Queen actually have to choose between banking Transfuse vs. spreading creep. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On May 22 2022 00:05 Beelzebub1 wrote: It does sound drastic on paper, but honestly with the amount of Queens that Zerg goes for I almost wonder if this is the perfect solution. I mean, Terran has to sacrifice a Mule for a scan to clear creep, maybe it's time to make the Queen actually have to choose between banking Transfuse vs. spreading creep. It does have the interesting benefit of making the edge of creep a combat-oriented zone. If Zerg has to put queens there to spread, you create lots of fights with exposed queens. I think tumors themselves would need a buff in this case, but it certainly makes creep more contestable - and in a way that encourages skirmish-heavy play. I'd definitely prefer it as a change to limiting tumor-numbers or anything odd like that. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On May 22 2022 00:10 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: It does have the interesting benefit of making the edge of creep a combat-oriented zone. If Zerg has to put queens there to spread, you create lots of fights with exposed queens. I think tumors themselves would need a buff in this case, but it certainly makes creep more contestable - and in a way that encourages skirmish-heavy play. I'd definitely prefer it as a change to limiting tumor-numbers or anything odd like that. I'm also not a fan of the limiting tumors or hatchery based tumors are cloaked or whatever, not that they don't have their own merits I just think they are inelegant. I really like your idea and the rationale behind it because I feel like the key to making SC2 the best it can be is to encourage, as you said, skirmish heavy play. Hopefully the balance team/council thing is willing to be aggressive with changes like they were with the Queen changes which I think has really shifted the meta a bit more to the correct direction for ZvP. edited | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
On May 21 2022 19:41 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Limited creep tumor charges is a terrible change. In the lategame Zerg already bleeds off minerals the most - having to pay extra for easily killed tumors to establish static defense is not a good change. Much better to limit the ability of creep to spread in some other way. Whether it's slower spread, smaller radius away from hatches, or even something very drastic like just removing spread and forcing queens to put down tumors, all of these are better than attaching a cost / limit. This is not true, Zerg has the most cost efficient late game army in the game. Zergs choose to be cost inefficient because they can just out expand and throw armies at the opponent killing expansions even if trading badly but winning because they have access to more resources. When Zerg decides to go true late game split map nothing can compete with cost effectiveness of Viper late game compositions. | ||
|
LSN
Germany696 Posts
But there is one change which could do the whole trick for the entire game at once: Put Hydralisk into position it was in Broodwar and make the roach the tier 2 unit for Zerg instead. That means: - Hydralisk 75/25 and requires nerf. - Lurker requires nerf. - Roach requires buff and will be a generally more expensive unit (probably 3 supply). - Ravagers will be high tier units to break stuff like siegetanks with bile and need buff After all the queen is not required anymore to be in the position it is currently in and can be changed. Other than that: Nerf attack speed of all units by ~25%. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2576 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
It nerfs a mechanic that has gotten overpowered I like that you put this, because it does tell the story of creep becoming OP. 5 years ago Zergs just werent as good, mechanics weren't as refined and creep wasn't a problem. Nowadays it's different, all that stuff has changed. The quality of skill and games has went up alot but it's slowly turned creep into an issue. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On May 22 2022 01:49 Drahkn wrote: This is not true, Zerg has the most cost efficient late game army in the game. Zergs choose to be cost inefficient because they can just out expand and throw armies at the opponent killing expansions even if trading badly but winning because they have access to more resources. When Zerg decides to go true late game split map nothing can compete with cost effectiveness of Viper late game compositions. Have you heard of this unit called the ghost? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 22 2022 08:01 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Have you heard of this unit called the ghost? Zerg’s supreme late game, even aside of this unit I wasn’t previously aware of is only as cost effective as it is with the combination of mass, repostionable static defences This thread is quite illustrative as to the difficulties of making a product with asymmetric races that has variety, a similar skill ceiling/floor and is fun to play. It’s a million and one suggestions, some utterly insane, some rather sensible. I’d stick you’re into the latter category by the way! All it would take for slight improvements to be incrementally made is to have well, some staff who can sift through various ideas, who have some kind of vision and who can execute it. As far as I can tell those people aren’t in situ I remember being annoyed that WC3 wasn’t going to be a standard RTS, but hey lo and behold it became my favourite game ever. Hideo Kojima dropped an entire prelude level that was the demo everyone played and went ‘fuck you you’re playing as this dude who isn’t Solid Snake’ There’s enough ideas from the community, good and bad for fodder, there’s just nobody in a position to execute them | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 22 2022 11:34 WombaT wrote: Zerg’s supreme late game, even aside of this unit I wasn’t previously aware of is only as cost effective as it is with the combination of mass, repostionable static defences This thread is quite illustrative as to the difficulties of making a product with asymmetric races that has variety, a similar skill ceiling/floor and is fun to play. It’s a million and one suggestions, some utterly insane, some rather sensible. I’d stick you’re into the latter category by the way! All it would take for slight improvements to be incrementally made is to have well, some staff who can sift through various ideas, who have some kind of vision and who can execute it. As far as I can tell those people aren’t in situ I remember being annoyed that WC3 wasn’t going to be a standard RTS, but hey lo and behold it became my favourite game ever. Hideo Kojima dropped an entire prelude level that was the demo everyone played and went ‘fuck you you’re playing as this dude who isn’t Solid Snake’ There’s enough ideas from the community, good and bad for fodder, there’s just nobody in a position to execute them Is the test server still online ? | ||
|
ETisME
12329 Posts
| ||
|
freelifeffs
97 Posts
protoss: nerf airtoss, buff mid game. terran: dunno, someone smarter than me do that overall: shift the focus away from this either allin or turtle till late game playstyle that we see all the time. action packed mid game is what makes sc2 best. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On May 22 2022 05:31 Beelzebub1 wrote: I like that you put this, because it does tell the story of creep becoming OP. 5 years ago Zergs just werent as good, mechanics weren't as refined and creep wasn't a problem. Nowadays it's different, all that stuff has changed. The quality of skill and games has went up alot but it's slowly turned creep into an issue. I doubt it's a case of Zerg players getting mechanically better but due to the 12-worker change in LoTV allowing Zergs to defend and macro up more safely than pre-LoTV. The reason why past Zergs may not be spamming creep so much is that they're too occupied focusing on other aspects of game to stay alive. Queens were always a fundamental part of a Zerg's early game defence. But the slower pre-LoTV economy didn't allow Queens to be massed so quickly and utilised so aggressively in exerting map control or even straight out killing the opponent (queen walk). | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 23 2022 14:26 RKC wrote: I doubt it's a case of Zerg players getting mechanically better but due to the 12-worker change in LoTV allowing Zergs to defend and macro up more safely than pre-LoTV. The reason why past Zergs may not be spamming creep so much is that they're too occupied focusing on other aspects of game to stay alive. Queens were always a fundamental part of a Zerg's early game defence. But the slower pre-LoTV economy didn't allow Queens to be massed so quickly and utilised so aggressively in exerting map control or even straight out killing the opponent (queen walk). Like you i hate the 12 workers (but enjoy less amount of minerals per base), and i mostly agree that Zerg won precious second in LoV (1 second per worker, so 6 seconds plus impulse/momentum at start while build order has been shifted from 2 or 3 workers...). I think it could be the origin of the issue. | ||
|
Myrnn
Germany6 Posts
I would like to see the hydralisk returned to tier one like BW as many here have suggested and a huge blanket nerf to the queen. Creep should also be roughly 33% slower spread than it is now, or apply one of the thousand suggestions mentioned in this thread. I wonder if anyone in the community balance team from blizzard reads these suggestions though. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 25 2022 01:30 Jerubaal wrote: Would making hydras hatch tech be that big a deal? Maybe require a roach Warren before Den. Supposed patch arrived, and supposed something like this happened. I would be really disappointed, i mean why do you have to get roach before hydralisks and why not the opposite, hydralisks before roach ? The philosophy of Zerg units is to get really specific units, good for one things but kind of bad in other segments/roles. Supposed this patch arrived, i would feel appealing if Zerg can come back with three base units. I would be pleased to see hydralisks instead of queens, because they could bring a ton of fresh games. Actually i was thinking of making some units good outside creep (like hydralisks with their big tail), roachs have a consistent place even if their role and caracteristic could be tweaked a little bit. Finally Zerglings and banelings are quite strong so this kind of patch should also study Marines/Medivacs against Banelings AND Marines/Medivacs against Hydralisks. So simpliest way often the best : - Marines little beefy, stimpack nerf a little bit - Banelings beefy, 1 supply cost - Zerglings no apparent changes - Roachs, tunnel claws pass under cliff - Hydralisks 1 supply cost, +1 range, 75m 25g, globally, little less hp and damage, reduce a little bit his collision box, and actually which is complicated but reasonnable a spell poison ability against healing spells (specially medivacs ofc) I know this is pretty basic study, i could be glad to read a professionnal opinion on this side of the game. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10316 Posts
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. | ||
|
archi1491
1 Post
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
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 --- | ||
|
Jameeack
1 Post
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
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. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
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 | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
"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. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
Poll: With an eventual patch must hydralisk supply cost be equal to 1 or 2 ? 2 supply cost (7) 1 supply cost (1) 8 total votes Your vote: With an eventual patch must hydralisk supply cost be equal to 1 or 2 ? | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On May 27 2022 05:38 Charoisaur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
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. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
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. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
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 | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
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 | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 29 2022 22:33 Beelzebub1 wrote: 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. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
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. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
Building other units than the hydralisk is not an option? | ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
and? Should BC's be buffed because corrupters rape them? | ||
|
syndbg
43 Posts
On May 30 2022 13:12 dph114 wrote: 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. | ||
|
serendipitous
Canada195 Posts
| ||
|
syndbg
43 Posts
On May 30 2022 20:42 serendipitous wrote: 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. The thought process from the last few replies in the thread was "how to make sc2 more like BW" and specifically "how to make the queen less of a catch-all defensive clutch for zerg early game". So, that's why people are thinking of a way to make hydra less garbo and somewhat decent vs early game, so that you actually: * make larva more impactful in the early game * specialize the queen only for macro mechanics (inject+creep) * make hydras relevant again, which was part of zerg identity in BW | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On May 30 2022 20:11 syndbg wrote: 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. Yeah if you're using Hydras to defend proxy raxes, you're doing something wrong | ||
|
syndbg
43 Posts
On May 30 2022 20:49 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah if you're using Hydras to defend proxy raxes, you're doing something wrong That's a pretty shallow reply taking things out of context. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 30 2022 20:46 syndbg wrote: The thought process from the last few replies in the thread was "how to make sc2 more like BW" and specifically "how to make the queen less of a catch-all defensive clutch for zerg early game". So, that's why people are thinking of a way to make hydra less garbo and somewhat decent vs early game, so that you actually: * make larva more impactful in the early game * specialize the queen only for macro mechanics (inject+creep) * make hydras relevant again, which was part of zerg identity in BW I’m not sure how relevant identity is, they’re just profoundly different games. At least in terms of the presence of a particular unit, people wanted better Carriers as they too are iconic, only for the prevalence of Carrier-augmented deathballs to disavow many of that notion. Giving Zerg more to think about, and more options correspondingly rather than Queens as a catch all just seems a good fundamental design tweak. As it stands hydra are the only candidate that can possibly be slotted in to give Zerg reliable AA against a variety of air harassment that hits pretty early, and Zerg 100% need that alternative if the Queen is to be modified to be less of a catch-all I don’t think beyond that more hydras equals a more Zergy feel though, while I think there’s some balance issues with it/them creep in SC2 absolutely has a Zerg flavour, banes too. Zerg get to play with highly mobile, numerous and squishy melee/short range comps in ling/bling/muta that feels very swarmy too. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
However, making queens worse AA for the midgame and hydras better there makes some sense, and is a lot more realistic. The damage point idea (for AA specifically, I don't think it could be balanced vs ground) is solid because it is a major buff against low health units like interceptors (and to a degree mutas) that hydras currently | ||
|
DormeurDuVal
6 Posts
- No free units - No stacking AoE - No race-specific damage (like the extra widow mines damage against shield) - No mono units - Spell casters should not be useful once massed, or in direct combat (the ghost...) I also think that Liberators, Cyclones, Colossus, Disruptors, Swarm hosts and Lurkers are not well designed and tend to create stale situations. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 30 2022 21:25 DormeurDuVal wrote: What I'd like to see is a deep change inspired by sane first principles. - No free units - No stacking AoE - No race-specific damage (like the extra widow mines damage against shield) - No mono units - Spell casters should not be useful once massed, or in direct combat (the ghost...) I also think that Liberators, Cyclones, Colossus, Disruptors, Swarm hosts and Lurkers are not well designed and tend to create stale situations. What do you mean by no mono units? | ||
|
DormeurDuVal
6 Posts
The mothership. It should simply be removed, this is a pure gimmick. | ||
|
DormeurDuVal
6 Posts
In my opinion, the max population limit should only be reached on rare occasion, extremely late game. Thus, it should be increased, and the map ressources should maybe be decreased, depending on the results. The dynamic of 200pop vs 200pop with huge banks is not great, often leading to stale situations. Of course many units should be rebalanced accordingly, the cost of roaches comes to mind... | ||
|
DormeurDuVal
6 Posts
This role could maybe be slit into two versions of the queen, the basic defense queen and the advanced attack queen... | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On May 30 2022 21:44 DormeurDuVal wrote: The mothership. It should simply be removed, this is a pure gimmick. Ok I get you now. It’s pretty rarely deployed though and is a borderline gimmick anyway, which is IMO fine. I don’t mind the odd unit that is super situational. What’s wrong with stacking AoE or race-specific damage? Clumping, easily deployable, high DPS compositions (hello bio) need counter measures, and AoE is that countermeasure. You need mines to be potent to some degree for bio-mine to be viable, Protoss happen to have a rather tanky melee unit, Zerg have a numerous and squishy, speedy melee unit. If you outright buff mines and their damage you both melt Zerg, but also Terran units from dragged mines. That upsets the rather delicate, borderline balanced interaction there, so doing that is rather problematic. If you don’t boost their damage mines relatively tickle Zealots charging in. So the best compromise is a bonus damage to shields, which Protoss only possess. It’s not the most elegant solution possible but it’s not really fundamentally different from attack/armour bonuses. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On May 31 2022 01:17 WombaT wrote: Ok I get you now. It’s pretty rarely deployed though and is a borderline gimmick anyway, which is IMO fine. I don’t mind the odd unit that is super situational. What’s wrong with stacking AoE or race-specific damage? Clumping, easily deployable, high DPS compositions (hello bio) need counter measures, and AoE is that countermeasure. You need mines to be potent to some degree for bio-mine to be viable, Protoss happen to have a rather tanky melee unit, Zerg have a numerous and squishy, speedy melee unit. If you outright buff mines and their damage you both melt Zerg, but also Terran units from dragged mines. That upsets the rather delicate, borderline balanced interaction there, so doing that is rather problematic. If you don’t boost their damage mines relatively tickle Zealots charging in. So the best compromise is a bonus damage to shields, which Protoss only possess. It’s not the most elegant solution possible but it’s not really fundamentally different from attack/armour bonuses. Agreed here on all counts. I think the mine +shield damage was one of the better tweaks to a unit that made it workable in an extra matchup. | ||
|
DormeurDuVal
6 Posts
Tanks are an other AoE unit, they don't do special damage to a race. I think that Protoss having tanky units is a trait of the race, that should be preserved for diversity of gameplay engagement, if mines were not that effective against some protoss composition because of their tankiness, I don't think that would be a huge problem, but of course that should be balanced. Stackable AoE is something that in my opinion should really be adressed. Psi storm is a very powerful AoE spell, but it can't be stacked, and this is a very good design choice as that would make it a doom spell if it was, use 4-5 templars and cast as a full 3-4 stacked storm and see your army evaporate in an instant. The same logic should apply to collosus, the overlaping lasers should not do overlaping damage, idem for lurkers and many other AoE. And the free units thing, I think this is a recipe for stale turtle style games. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
On May 30 2022 21:11 WombaT wrote: I’m not sure how relevant identity is, they’re just profoundly different games. At least in terms of the presence of a particular unit, people wanted better Carriers as they too are iconic, only for the prevalence of Carrier-augmented deathballs to disavow many of that notion. Giving Zerg more to think about, and more options correspondingly rather than Queens as a catch all just seems a good fundamental design tweak. As it stands hydra are the only candidate that can possibly be slotted in to give Zerg reliable AA against a variety of air harassment that hits pretty early, and Zerg 100% need that alternative if the Queen is to be modified to be less of a catch-all I don’t think beyond that more hydras equals a more Zergy feel though, while I think there’s some balance issues with it/them creep in SC2 absolutely has a Zerg flavour, banes too. Zerg get to play with highly mobile, numerous and squishy melee/short range comps in ling/bling/muta that feels very swarmy too. The queen AA change is the exact reason why the Hydra keeps getting mentioned over and over again as it seems like the only candidate to address the Zerg AA issue. Moreover, currently you can get the "swarmy feel" only by going for ling/melee based compositions. What I'd like to see, and also some people arguing for changing the hydra I suppose, is to have the same vibe when going other compositions, namely "ranged"=roach+hydra and I believe with changes to both roach an hydra it is possible. I'd like Roach and Hydra to coexist in T1.5 and have Zergs to do some decisions in the early game which unit they want to commit. I imagine something like: Roach - supply changed form 2 to 1 - reduced the attack range from 4 to 3 - unit characteristics: slow, sturdy, armored, tanky, defensive, low range You can have much more roaches in the maxed army, however they are not gonna scale well in bigger fights as many of them gonna be blocked from attacking due to lower range. Hopefully this would mean more scattered fights when zerg maxes out. Also easier to build in the early game as the cost is lower because you do not need that many overlords which means that building only a few defensive roaches is not that big of a commitment. Hydra - moved to Hatch tech (obviously still needs Den) - supply changed form 2 to 1 - cost changed to 75/25 - build time: 24 -> 19 - tune/balance health and DPS later on - unit characteristics: fast, nimble, squishy, AA, easily microable, long range Indented to provide early game AA to help fight against harass units. Lesser cost and 1 supply should allow to build fearsome swarmy army with 1 supply roaches as a backbone. Also might become a go-to AA in the bigger armies but hard to tell. Queen - AA & ground attack range reduced to 4 | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
So my idea for the Roach was to go back to the original design of the Roach from the beta. Armour increased from 1->2 and range decreased from 4->3. As I said earlier I would also like to see -1 range Hydras in exchange for a movement speed buff. And so with these range changes, the Zerg ranged unit army would consist of 3 range, bulkier Roaches tanking the front, with faster, 4 range Hydras in the next line and then lastly sieging from the back we have the 6 range Ravagers. I think this makes more sense, so the Ravagers are well protected, but are also the slower unit. Instead of as it is now, where all the ranged Zerg units incl. the Queen have the 4-6 range and so they all awkwardly clump up. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On May 30 2022 04:07 Charoisaur wrote: Building other units than the hydralisk is not an option? * make hydras relevant again, which was part of zerg identity in BW (syndbg quote) I now approve the concept of getting three balanced basic units in the Zerg army play-style. I also consider Stalkers as odd in the meta. but generally i m convinced 99.9% by a reduction of speed damage interaction (which is an average complicated tweak - indeed this is mostly mathematical), to resume, i promote hydras to be a core unit, coming sooner. It s hard in my mind to consider air domination as a part of the strategy. I enjoy mutas, vikings and phoenix. I also enjoy Tempest and kinda like BC. But i don t really like to talk about Corrupters. For example, would you require two larvas for creating a viper, i mean it s not completely out of sense ? | ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
This would destroy balance and meta of sc2 as we know it. If you really wanted to make hydra t1 unit, imo reduce its range to something like 4, and make its anti-air range bigger. Make it dedicated aa and nerf queen antiair or heal? This would make hydra similar situation as reaper a dedicated early game unit. It wouldnt effect balance later in the game.. | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
That would end all unconstructive balance whining. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On June 03 2022 04:38 UnLarva wrote: Ladder should be forced to Random, That would end all unconstructive balance whining. And replace it all with the much more constructive "Let us choose our race again" whining. ------------- Separate note: In the current state of affairs, we can expect more changes. The community at large (possibly) has some influence here. Given this, I think it'd be somewhat nice to focus on realistic changes. Changing the supply or place in the tech tree of any core unit, like the hydra, is not a realistic change. I don't think there's any point discussing it. Not only will it not happen (not practically relevant), but I really don't think it's possible to construct a good theory about what the game would actually look like after such a change (outside of the immediate early game, like hydra allins vs protoss becoming a thing). | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On June 03 2022 06:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: And replace it all with the much more constructive "Let us choose our race again" whining. ------------- Separate note: In the current state of affairs, we can expect more changes. The community at large (possibly) has some influence here. Given this, I think it'd be somewhat nice to focus on realistic changes. Changing the supply or place in the tech tree of any core unit, like the hydra, is not a realistic change. I don't think there's any point discussing it. Not only will it not happen (not practically relevant), but I really don't think it's possible to construct a good theory about what the game would actually look like after such a change (outside of the immediate early game, like hydra allins vs protoss becoming a thing). Any problem has his own issue. With a good team in place (pro, stronk-casuals and casters), with a first release of slower damage interaction, i don t think replacing Hydras in T1 is impossible. You could also give a chance into a 9-starter workers in an eventual incomming era. (ps : the first release is about creating a copy of sc2 with slower damage interaction and eventually 9 workers starting, then patchs could be delivery on it) On June 03 2022 04:11 dph114 wrote: I dont understand why everyone here wants to buff hydra, .. I said Hydras are a bit weak, but it s considering the bio playstyle of Terran. I didn t want to speak about buff, even if i m going too far when i said "bio rapes hydras", i promote just a new composition of basic zerg units. and so Hydras aren t weak against Protoss First Release : > Slower interaction Damage > 5 workers starting > Workers carry now 10 minerals (instead of 5). The time for gathering ressource is increased up to be equal like "if the worker would have done 2 back and forth". HHM (Hot Harvesting Minerals) : after been gathered, minerals are hot and can t be gather until the next trip. > In Consequence, workers gain 70% hit points. Their damage is reduced by 33%. Their mineral cost increased from 50 to 100, double construction time, > New ground type for forbidden installation buildings > Larva no longer provides Drones > Hatchery New ability is added > Create Drone. This spells creates Drones (the time to make drone is a little bit shorter than SCV or probes) > Spawning time for tumors increased from 11 to 13 > Warpgate duration protoss units inverted in term of logic I will do the "slower interaction damage" sheet. Then the author of HHM could be a big help. Then i m searching modders to go further in modifications (...) WIP : decrease 30% damage per second | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 03 2022 04:11 dph114 wrote: I dont understand why everyone here wants to buff hydra, which would break all the mu's simply because aoe is much weaker in sc2, for it would pretty much make every mu mass hydra, this would also mean some of the other races units might need to buffed mostly siege tank and gateway units for protoss imo. This would destroy balance and meta of sc2 as we know it. If you really wanted to make hydra t1 unit, imo reduce its range to something like 4, and make its anti-air range bigger. Make it dedicated aa and nerf queen antiair or heal? This would make hydra similar situation as reaper a dedicated early game unit. It wouldnt effect balance later in the game.. In a certain sense, the problem with the game is that it's TOO balanced. Blizzard patched out most of the powerful tech and timings from years past. Traditional effective harassment has been severely weakened. In this environment, it's should be no surprise that the most 'basic' race that does not rely on these things has thrived. Basically, the balance philosophy for the past 12 years has been the inControl Artosis meme. The logic, in my opinion, of strengthening the hydra is that it defeats the 'outs' Zerg has been exploiting for the last 10 years or so .Yeah, we know, keeping vision of your natural was too much of a logical leap for any Zerg not named Serral, Rogue or Dark, so we had to nerf two protoss units. Now they can't say they don't have tools to defeat anything more interesting than a stalker. Who knows, maybe in another 12 years, Terran will figure out they can use buildings to block melee units. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
I m looking at all relationships between ranged units attack and spells. For example, ghost EMP is exactly equal to upgraded lurker attack range. Viper abduct exactly equal to Vikings attack range, and so. If you know how this 'pro relationship' are based on, can you add it below ? Thanks, SpellsI think i got it : Force Field Feedback Psionic storm Steady Targetting EMP Interference Matrix Anti-armor missile Neural parasite (+2) Fungal growth If i tweak range of all units, i.e short and medium distance gain +1 and long distance gain +2 (except Lurker and Missile turret which only gain +1); i think i must tweak the list spell above by adding +1 range (except for Neural parasite). I think if i m going for a "slower-damage-model", i have to tweak a little bit range of spells and attacks in order to replace Lurkers and Hydras (and maybe some others...) ps : long life to infested terrans ! All comments are welcome | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
Good that 15+ Ghost are accepted. Hope there comes a nerf for ghost to stop the diversity. something like range -2 for snip or movement speed nerf. emp removed. or that ghost can not be loaded in medi. eventeull that the auto attack is removed. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2576 Posts
As a Protoss user I am for this one. I'd love to never lose a PvT again. | ||
|
Woosixion
117 Posts
| ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
On June 06 2022 04:46 jack_less wrote: remember when people complained about mass infestor or viper when parasitic bomb were stackable. Good that 15+ Ghost are accepted. Hope there comes a nerf for ghost to stop the diversity. something like range -2 for snip or movement speed nerf. emp removed. or that ghost can not be loaded in medi. eventeull that the auto attack is removed. A player who doesn't play Zerg won a tournament. Time to nerf them, only Zerg wins thru skill because it has the most skilled players, other races win because they're imbalanced. | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
On June 06 2022 06:06 Morbidius wrote: A player who doesn't play Zerg won a tournament. Time to nerf them, only Zerg wins thru skill because it has the most skilled players, other races win because they're imbalanced. no idea what you mean. but ghost vs everything that has zerg in late. doesn't look good. also interesting double moral: once mass caster are bad then again ok. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On June 06 2022 04:46 jack_less wrote: remember when people complained about mass infestor or viper when parasitic bomb were stackable. Good that 15+ Ghost are accepted. Hope there comes a nerf for ghost to stop the diversity. something like range -2 for snip or movement speed nerf. emp removed. or that ghost can not be loaded in medi. eventeull that the auto attack is removed. your the sake of your own sanity I hope this is a troll | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On June 06 2022 06:36 jack_less wrote: no idea what you mean. but ghost vs everything that has zerg in late. doesn't look good. also interesting double moral: once mass caster are bad then again ok. Yes vipers can yoink any high value units, prevent clumps from dealing any damage etc etc. Ghosts can be very good, there’s honestly about 2 Terrans in the world who ever make them look like an issue. How in the name of everloving fuck is a Terran player expected to go toe to toe with a Zerg in lategame with a ghost that gets any of those nerfs? Jesus think for half a second, Zerg are doing ‘reasonably well’ as it is | ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
On June 06 2022 06:36 jack_less wrote: no idea what you mean. but ghost vs everything that has zerg in late. doesn't look good. also interesting double moral: once mass caster are bad then again ok. If you nerf ghost, terran cant win single late game, and goes to mid game allin every game, because of how much more economy zerg have (terran do some 8-1-1 push of 3base every single game) . Yes ghost do beat every zerg late game army. I would agree to ghost nerf if zerg gets major queen nerf and creep nerf, meaning terran isnt the one thats on timer to do something or zerg gets out of control. But that would never happen. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
It s the problem with units expensive in gas, they are designed to be much better. I guess storage of gas isn t an issue in starcraft 2.. Actually, gas could be store in base, let s say "X" gas per base, i don t know . But the better idea is to create a forbidden ground where no base can be built. Then workers must harvest gas in travelling a medium distance, and you have to cover this area or do with less gas Then i would make the prices of spell caster gas-dependant (a bit more than the others / difference with advanced units) Basic units : cannon fooder Advanced Units : Tech units with a medium cost in gas and a supply > 2 Spell Casters : High cost in gas / rapid fire | ||
|
xelnaga_empire
627 Posts
On June 06 2022 06:06 Morbidius wrote: A player who doesn't play Zerg won a tournament. Time to nerf them, only Zerg wins thru skill because it has the most skilled players, other races win because they're imbalanced. The irony is, Reynor was 5-4 vs Clem overall, in EU Dreamhack (3-0 in the first series, then 2-3 in the finals but Reynor got a free win going into the finals). So Reynor still had a winning record over Clem. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On June 03 2022 06:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Changing the supply or place in the tech tree of any core unit, like the hydra, is not a realistic change. I don't think there's any point discussing it. Not only will it not happen (not practically relevant), but I really don't think it's possible to construct a good theory about what the game would actually look like after such a change (outside of the immediate early game, like hydra allins vs protoss becoming a thing). And here I thought this thread was about discussing changes that each individual would like to see, be it realistic or not. I would like to have Dark Archons with mind control. Let them cost 2000 gas if that is needed to make the not viable in high level games. I want creep to spread slower. I want hydras to be less hard to obtain (since they are fun to use). Other people wanted creep nerfed too and some people also wanted hydras to be easier to obtain. Since several people wanted similar stuff a discussion about it naturally came to be. If we are not allowed to discuss unreasonable things, how are we supposed to find the limit for reasonableness? Any thread about changes to the game contains unreasonable things. That is how regular conversations about change are. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On June 07 2022 06:10 Drfilip wrote: And here I thought this thread was about discussing changes that each individual would like to see, be it realistic or not. I would like to have Dark Archons with mind control. Let them cost 2000 gas if that is needed to make the not viable in high level games. I want creep to spread slower. I want hydras to be less hard to obtain (since they are fun to use). Other people wanted creep nerfed too and some people also wanted hydras to be easier to obtain. Since several people wanted similar stuff a discussion about it naturally came to be. If we are not allowed to discuss unreasonable things, how are we supposed to find the limit for reasonableness? Any thread about changes to the game contains unreasonable things. That is how regular conversations about change are. To a degree, yeah. But I mean some people are proposing redesigning the game to a greater degree that even LotV did. And aside from that transition we have a decade of generally incremental changes and tweaks from the balance team. I’m not averse entirely to such discussion, but if it’s not couched in some kind of practicality it ends up being a bunch of individuals pontificating on their own personal vision of Starcraft. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
-How many are built -timing of the first unit -how many are lost -correlation with opponent's units And try to map those onto wins or losses. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On June 13 2022 02:10 Jerubaal wrote: I know it would be a big ask even if this project was done from the beginning of the game, but I think it would be amazing to know advanced stats about different units. Like, for a certain unit: -How many are built -timing of the first unit -how many are lost -correlation with opponent's units And try to map those onto wins or losses. As a big stats nerd I love that kind of stuff, it seems a shame a lot of games are doing less rather than more in this regard these days. Way back in OG WC3 you had percentages of solo/duo/tri heroes and your win percentages with them on different maps, matchups etc. was pretty neat Having returned to the console world after a good decade out I’d forgotten how much I enjoyed gamerscore/trophies, I’m not a big, big hunter of such things but enjoy grinding for ones I find interesting. Seems a misstep that SC2 doesn’t have much in the multiplayer arena in this domain, the campaign is alright there. Minor change but would be cool to try and nail some feats in ladder. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
Creep probably could be nerfed, but Clem showed us that with enough APM and multitasking it is possible to beat top tier Zergs like Reynor. I think maps play a bit more into ZvT balance then some people realize, when maps are good for Terran they look really strong in ZvT and vice versa for Zerg favored maps. Hopefully the next maps are a bit more scrutinized by the TLMC judges to be more about balance and less about which map looks more aesthetically pleasing. I think Hero is getting ready to win the GSL though, get ready for a Protoss champion. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
| ||
|
EdwinStriker
Canada2 Posts
But everyone agrees that a game can never reach a 'perfect' state, as it should get new content, like maps and units, before it can ever reach stagnancy. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
All you need is the mod/extension which simulate fight between units, then you have to create every relationships between units/group. I pick an example : simulate medivacs, marauders against stalkers. Then laught. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary373 Posts
either remove the cleaning bots/critters near main base/nat area from ladder maps, or change them not to block buildings and unit pathing. let me build my cyber core and if a bot happens to be there, it would move away, similar to how a probe would try to find a way out [ and stuck at the edge of the platform -.- ] | ||
|
realbodyketo
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On June 15 2022 18:34 bela.mervado wrote: one QoL change plz: either remove the cleaning bots/critters near main base/nat area from ladder maps, or change them not to block buildings and unit pathing. let me build my cyber core and if a bot happens to be there, it would move away, similar to how a probe would try to find a way out [ and stuck at the edge of the platform -.- ] I've watched this game since Fruitdealer and didn't know that critters blocked buildings, that is so stupid lol should absolutely be removed. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On June 16 2022 01:45 Beelzebub1 wrote: I've watched this game since Fruitdealer and didn't know that critters blocked buildings, that is so stupid lol should absolutely be removed. I don't remember them ever being a nuisance until 2021 onwards. games can be won / lost because of them. they often roam around the main ramp / natural ramp and cause significant delays when you're trying to wall off in an emergency | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
| ||
|
Klaus117
3 Posts
Perhaps increase the lock on distance from 7 to 8 or 9. Perhaps increase the maximum lock on distance from 15 to 17. The goal is to make cyclones a bit more viable past the very early game. | ||
|
freelifeffs
97 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
- A change in creep (there has been so many good proposals) to make Zerg map control a bit less dominant against P and T and force Zergs to use overlords for vision. - Slight changes to mech, maybe reduce the cost of the upgrades or something. I'd like the Cyclone to be a bit more effective at providing mobile anti-air to mech armies but who knows, probably a pipe dream at this point, some upgrade buffs alone would probably help mech and get some diversity into Terran. | ||
|
AxiomB
69 Posts
2) nerf creep vision 3) After Twilight Council is constructed allow Manlots to be 'trained' from 'closed' gateways (no warp ins, unit is trained like a gateway unit before warp gate is researched). See WombaT's 'Manlots' post page 1. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On September 27 2022 19:41 freelifeffs wrote: cyclones are viable at all stages of the game what are you on about. battle mech switches are frequent and powerful in the right situation. I have missed recent use of battle mech. Could you please point me to some of those games? They are often entertaining. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
Stalkers needs cybernetics core to be produced and blink to have a chance against queens it s like having a third T1 unit in addition of zergling and roach PvZ is always the same at start, it becomes really boring | ||
|
angry_maia
301 Posts
On September 29 2022 02:03 Vision_ wrote: maybe try to put a heavy armor tag to the queen, to help stalkers against them. Stalkers needs cybernetics core to be produced and blink to have a chance against queens it s like having a third T1 unit in addition of zergling and roach PvZ is always the same at start, it becomes really boring I'm not sure, but if queens are armored then wouldn't void rays absolutely shred them? Would zerg just be completely dead to 2 stargate void, even with the void nerf? | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On September 29 2022 02:03 Vision_ wrote: maybe try to put a heavy armor tag to the queen, to help stalkers against them. Stalkers needs cybernetics core to be produced and blink to have a chance against queens it s like having a third T1 unit in addition of zergling and roach PvZ is always the same at start, it becomes really boring I really don't think the Queen is in issue in ZvP anymore, but in TvZ they kind of feel like they both defend against Medivac harassments too well while simultaneously giving great map control with creep, which I think needs to be targeted with a nerf. The same way the Queen nerfs really rejuvenated ZvP is what I think a nerf to creep could accomplish for ZvT. Armor tag is out of the question though since Void Rays as pointed out by the guy above me, maybe something more mild like removing their innate +1 armor. Not only would it help Stalkers, but it would help Medivac drops as well because the Queens would be more innately vulnerable to rapid attacks smaller attacks without crippling it vs. Voids. Redesigns are out of the question, and I think balance is good enough to where smaller scale targeted nerfs are the way to go. | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
On September 29 2022 08:20 Beelzebub1 wrote: I really don't think the Queen is in issue in ZvP anymore, but in TvZ they kind of feel like they both defend against Medivac harassments too well while simultaneously giving great map control with creep, which I think needs to be targeted with a nerf. The same way the Queen nerfs really rejuvenated ZvP is what I think a nerf to creep could accomplish for ZvT. Armor tag is out of the question though since Void Rays as pointed out by the guy above me, maybe something more mild like removing their innate +1 armor. Not only would it help Stalkers, but it would help Medivac drops as well because the Queens would be more innately vulnerable to rapid attacks smaller attacks without crippling it vs. Voids. Redesigns are out of the question, and I think balance is good enough to where smaller scale targeted nerfs are the way to go. queen needs to be increase in supply count that can solved the issue. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On September 29 2022 08:45 BonitiilloO wrote: queen needs to be increase in supply count that can solved the issue. Yeah it seems legit, you must tweak hive upgrade increasing supply cap from 200 to 210 if so. I didn t know voyd ray would have been so imbalanced in this case, but i m actually thinking of creep issue with very caution because it s the sinews of war. If the tag armor of queen is tested In this case, if it concerns only proxys voyd ray the starting energy of battery shields can be decreased (from 50 to 'X') when they are built too far from the nexus. | ||
|
OpiYum
1 Post
game doesnt need that much hardware to play, so i cant see much of a disadvantage to players without 5k modern builds unless ur playing on a laptop from 2010? Plus it can be done in replays so why not in game - wouldnt take much to implement. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On September 29 2022 21:18 Vision_ wrote: So is the reason why PvZ is locked (in term of builds order) comes from versatile/Polyvalent Queens ? And by its ease to be created, his ability to fight most of the core units of protoss (stargate+warp gate) ? The reason that it's "locked" into the Oracle opening is because it's a safe, economical way to play the MU, eventually all match ups devolve into a standard progression, not sure why PvZ is in the spotlight here. ZvT has played almost the exact same way for 10 + years. I think alot of it is as the years go on, pro players become stronger and stronger at defending cheeses and scouting/dealing with all in play, making safe macro play the go to. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On September 29 2022 08:45 BonitiilloO wrote: queen needs to be increase in supply count that can solved the issue. Could work, isn't going to do anything to target their most glaring issues at this point which is their ability to ward off medivac aggression too efficiently while being able to spread creep. A supply change only affects late game situations where tbh I don't see Queens being a huge issue. Yea sure the Zerg will have 8 less Queens, but if a Zerg is massing Queens in the late game what's really going on there anyways? Protoss and Terran have a million and one ways of blowing up Queens late game, it's the early mid game where that supply increase is going to do nothing where they are too strong. Plus having less Queen availability is just going to further push Ultralisks into irrelevance. If Zerg late game were to be looked at as to whats too strong I'd hands down give it to the Viper and not the Queen. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
Since the start I didn't agree on nerfing Queens. However, many small tweaks you do to the Queen, it doesn't change the fact that Zergs will use Queens to defend things that are undefendable by Lings, Roaches and Banelings. Then a nerf to the Queen is simply a nerf to Zerg itself. My approach would be the opposite, give back some power to the Queen, but make Queens more costly to mass. This can be done by increasing the Supply, but also by nerfing Creep. (Tumors cannot spread/Tumor cost increased to 50.) With such a strong nerf, I would allow Queen to spawn with 50 energy and have the old Transfuse. | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
On September 29 2022 23:24 ejozl wrote: Void Rays aren't a menace in PvZ, so forcing Zergs to only fight behind Spores, if Toss was to open Voids, isn't the most problematic thing. What's bigger is that Stalkers would be even stronger and the Marauder Hellbat push, which is already super strong, would get even stronger. Since the start I didn't agree on nerfing Queens. However, many small tweaks you do to the Queen, it doesn't change the fact that Zergs will use Queens to defend things that are undefendable by Lings, Roaches and Banelings. Then a nerf to the Queen is simply a nerf to Zerg itself. My approach would be the opposite, give back some power to the Queen, but make Queens more costly to mass. This can be done by increasing the Supply, but also by nerfing Creep. (Tumors cannot spread/Tumor cost increased to 50.) With such a strong nerf, I would allow Queen to spawn with 50 energy and have the old Transfuse. Here is my aproach Queen new cost Cost: Min/200 Gas/25 Sec/40 Supply/3 This avoid zerg to mass queens, this allows queens to be delayed a bit since it cost gas it takes a little longer to build this is in line to any other unit in the game that cost gas/usefulness ratio. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10316 Posts
Queen is only unit that uses spells and is mineral only. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On September 30 2022 02:42 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Now you mention it it's very interesting Queen doesn't cost gas, even Mothership Core did right? Queen is only unit that uses spells and is mineral only. Units that cost only minerals: - Workers (probes, drones, SCV) - Basic combat units (zealots, zerglings, marines) - Additional units (warp prism, overlord (does it really count?), queen, hellion/hellbat) The warp field and cargo properties of a warp prism could count as spells, as could stim on marines, the charge of zealots and creep drop from overlords. Queens are the only gasless unit with energy. Thor, corruptor and BC used to have energy but feedback shut them down in an uninteresting way. Thor lost its ability and got two anti air modes instead while corruptor and BC got a cooldown instead of energy. Corruptor also got a different ability. It used to be a percentage debuff on damage resistance of a single target. Having energy is not a good thing. Cooldowns with charges are better than energy because both HT and ghosts can remove energy. | ||
|
bayagster
Philippines54 Posts
- Or bring the glitchy movements and unit collisions like in broodwar so that you will always be aware of where you are putting your units; and to be more attentive to your units' pathing | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On September 30 2022 02:21 BonitiilloO wrote: Here is my aproach Queen new cost Cost: Min/200 Gas/25 Sec/40 Supply/3 This avoid zerg to mass queens, this allows queens to be delayed a bit since it cost gas it takes a little longer to build this is in line to any other unit in the game that cost gas/usefulness ratio. The price of queens is actually the reason of all this noise, but even if i think it could be the good direction this doesn t solve completely problems without a second tweak concerning tumors ability or units that need to be involved against creep spreading (i.e base units protoss, stalkers, adepts, zealots,..). Maybe Protoss could be ready soon for killing tumors if observator hallucination of sentry could benefit from his ability to see invisibility (even if it s an hallucination) I m sure that Blizzard do a good job with creep in TvZ but i m thinking PvZ is going more often fast to the end game.. Isn t it ? Does it mean that Protoss need more tools ? idk PS : then we all agree on the fact Queens are cheap (gas) Couldn t we imagine that Blizzard first think to adepts for make back and forth around the creep border (like hellions) so their first role was made in order to push creep back ? (instead of harassement). If it s the case, this is the direction. Then in studying adepts, we can say Adepts are really light-counter oriented and their damage could be balanced to be stronger against heavy armored units. Adepts tweak : Glaive cannon from 10+12 against light armor to 14 + 8 New ability : mini-scan ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CTp48Ii.jpg) | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
Toss complains that they always "have" to play SG(?). But if queen is weakened, won't toss go more to SG to take exploit it? Another point is that it is said: Zerg should build units to defend (btw Queen is a unit). If you compare income and worker count in PvZ, you often see that it is even. If queens cost more gas/minerals, thus less minerals available for other things, doesn't that make the "standard" zerg even more passive? for creep, do you want it to spread more slowly or be removed more easily? it is zerg def tool. | ||
|
sirokop
5 Posts
I see two small nerfes that are unlikely to break any match-up. - Increase the cooldown for creep growth from 11 to 15 seconds. - Increase the queen's supply cost from 2 to 3. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
Oracles, banshees, battlecryisers, void rays... they all need to be hunted down. Spores are not enough. The Zerg needs something to handle early air units. Maybe the answer is to divide up the jobs of the Queen. They are creep spreaders, healers, larvae injectors, mobile AA, bulky ground units, and ranged early game unit. The macro mechanics (tumor and inject) is one part. Mobile AA is another. Bulky ground unit with healing is a debatable third. A shuffling of abilities and roles could be made. Maybe shift the bulkyness and ranged ground away from queens and have the Zerg make roaches and spine crawlers. Spines aren't used much in the early game. A spine crawler cost 1 larva, 150 minerals and 0 supply while a queen cost 0 larvae, 150 minerals and 2 supply. Pretty similar. Removing or heavily reduce the damage of the queen's anti ground attack is one way to go. Another thing could be to have the queen morph after being made, chosing a path to go. More health and transfuse ability, getting anti air, getting macro abilities could be three choices. Call one a warden, the second a spitter and the third a queen, all morphing from a cerebrate defender. All names are just place holders. Zergs needs the queen for anti air. If the anti air is changed, then every match up will just be rush for air in a vZ match. | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19208 Posts
On October 01 2022 05:50 Drfilip wrote: Queens are the only mobile anti air the Zerg has in the early parts of the game. Sure, spore crawlers can crawl to new positions. The downside being that they lose the detection for banshees, and every flying combat unit have time to fly away. Spores are at best a deterrent as mobile anti air. Oracles, banshees, battlecryisers, void rays... they all need to be hunted down. Spores are not enough. The Zerg needs something to handle early air units. Maybe the answer is to divide up the jobs of the Queen. They are creep spreaders, healers, larvae injectors, mobile AA, bulky ground units, and ranged early game unit. The macro mechanics (tumor and inject) is one part. Mobile AA is another. Bulky ground unit with healing is a debatable third. A shuffling of abilities and roles could be made. Maybe shift the bulkyness and ranged ground away from queens and have the Zerg make roaches and spine crawlers. Spines aren't used much in the early game. A spine crawler cost 1 larva, 150 minerals and 0 supply while a queen cost 0 larvae, 150 minerals and 2 supply. Pretty similar. Removing or heavily reduce the damage of the queen's anti ground attack is one way to go. Another thing could be to have the queen morph after being made, chosing a path to go. More health and transfuse ability, getting anti air, getting macro abilities could be three choices. Call one a warden, the second a spitter and the third a queen, all morphing from a cerebrate defender. All names are just place holders. Zergs needs the queen for anti air. If the anti air is changed, then every match up will just be rush for air in a vZ match. To solve early ground anti-air, I’d like hydras as a tier 1 unit with their upgrades requiring lair. This would allow some diverse strategies without being OP and allow queens to be nerfed. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On October 01 2022 11:23 BisuDagger wrote: To solve early ground anti-air, I’d like hydras as a tier 1 unit with their upgrades requiring lair. This would allow some diverse strategies without being OP and allow queens to be nerfed. I think it's safe to say that this balance team doesn't have the stomach for ambitious redesigns, and that is why targeted nerfs to the Queen is the most talked about balance changes. I would love for the Cyclone to fill a more Goliath esque role in the sense of a cheap, amassable anti-air fighter unit for mech comps, but at this point in the game, almost useless to even speculate. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 01 2022 11:23 BisuDagger wrote: To solve early ground anti-air, I’d like hydras as a tier 1 unit with their upgrades requiring lair. This would allow some diverse strategies without being OP and allow queens to be nerfed. The level 2 Tech tree is too poor for removing Hydras without any others modifications. Then into which building are hydralisks created ? In the roach warren or in the spawnning pool ? It doesn t seem possible to add a new building just for a single unit also because the defence against flying unit is needed regardless of builds order. I don t think Hydras T1 is a problem because i m sure the simple solution is the best. I suggest then to improve Lair Buildings/units. The first thing that comes into my mind is to get back Infested Terrans, they could be thrown to be able to strike siege tanks, or to cover an area without any risks for infestators. If the problem of air Protoss is now solved, why did they remove Infested Terrans for ever ? Wouldn t have been better to tweak the spell ? I know Microbial Shroud is used sometimes so the spell has to remain, but Infested Terrans is the most likable spell in term of zerg design. If Queens need microbial shroud, why not allow Queens to cast it as soon as Zerg has Lair Tech. And get back a tweaked IT ? And without speaking of IT what would you suggest in the case of Hydralisks being T1 unit ? To resume, with at least two more additionnal smart modifications in the tech lair, we could get Hydras in Tier 1. (SH unit is still a problem as this unit is only created by mistake in pro scene) . SH has to be fixed because they haven t a better synergy with other units while broodlords do and pro players prefer broodlords playstyle. There s a good reason for pros player to go Broodlords/broodlings and that s only because SH have been implemented after broodlords. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7098 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 01 2022 19:00 Luolis wrote: Delete disruptor. Stupidest unit that has ever existed in RTS history. I even heard pros complained about disruptors as the one scariest unit. I m frustrated by this meta which one will never progress again until community (Team Liquid, Wardi, TakeTV, OG ...) ask to Blizzard a server mode patch which one is made to decide every two months by weighted votes (pros, casual, viewers...) a new tweak session. Themes would be decide by a group of retired players and commentators then options are suggested to community which decides by a democratic way the next patch. Even if the ratio of applying a patch would be hard to reach, it could give new impetus to the game. | ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 01 2022 20:55 dph114 wrote: would like to see tempest and carriers design change, to make them more microable and less a-movable, that means, less hp and armor and range and more speed and damage. For example i think Vikings and Tempest should have similar range and have around even trading, carrier should have less range than tempest and be more of anti ground unit. I partially agree on the balance between vikings and tempest but it s true that tempests have a really low dps; that s said they are still built by pros so i wouldn t bet on a perfect balance against vikings. In term of design, the idea of having bigger difference between tempest and carriers (in the case of tempest buff) makes sense. I m only a viewer (stopped since three years) and i can understand your toughts, unfortunely a tempest damage can t be increased so much without disturbing this balance between air toss units (i m not an expert). But I think your idea of a specialized carrier is revelant of the recent Air Toss problem just because i know interceptors are too versatile (by now it seems not to be fixed, at least at your level) Indeed, Interceptors do not more damage regardless of the armor (or like you suggest against ground units only, i.e that s revelant of the lack of strategy in air) On October 01 2022 19:00 Luolis wrote: Delete disruptor. Stupidest unit that has ever existed in RTS history. Nova simple fix ![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/1JbdmJq/damage-nova2.jpg) Then it s funny that you speak about the stupidest unit in history of RTS. In term of gameplay, there s no 'stun' spell in starcraft 2, and it s really a pity. With a drastic tweak, nova could stun his ennemies for few seconds and his damage decrease from 145 to something like 100 or 90 (ghost cap or hydras cap). The actual cap of roach is wired/strange. PS : for one shot Stalkers (PvP), damage can be decrease from 145+55 to 100+60 (with the stun ability) ---- with no stun ability, damage = 110 + 50 for also one shot Marines (50% area) | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On October 01 2022 20:55 dph114 wrote: would like to see tempest and carriers design change, to make them more microable and less a-movable, that means, less hp and armor and range and more speed and damage. For example i think Vikings and Tempest should have similar range and have around even trading, carrier should have less range than tempest and be more of anti ground unit. Carrier I understand but Tempests are nowhere near a-move units. Probably the air unit that depends the most on micro. @Vision_: isn't fungal a stun spell? | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 01 2022 23:40 Charoisaur wrote: Carrier I understand but Tempests are nowhere near a-move units. Probably the air unit that depends the most on micro. @Vision_: isn't fungal a stun spell? ? No, because units are able to shoot | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
On October 01 2022 23:40 Charoisaur wrote: Carrier I understand but Tempests are nowhere near a-move units. Probably the air unit that depends the most on micro. @Vision_: isn't fungal a stun spell? it is called root, or currently it is only a slow. Units can move and fight, mobility spells are blocked. | ||
|
xPrimuSx
92 Posts
If queens need additional nerfs, reduce their attack (focus on them as damage sponges) and bring back the infested Terran as a t1.5 unit built (no more timed life) just like the queen (no larva, no mass production, one queue per hatch). Proposed stats same as original unit pre-removal, 150 mineral, 75 hp, 2 supply, get 2 per "egg" like zerglings, speed modifier just like the queen. Queens cannot be produced simultaneously with ITs, you pick support tank caster or slow moving ranged unit | ||
|
angry_maia
301 Posts
I propose we just get rid of the disruptor, and bring back the khadaryan amulet upgrade for HT. As far as I can tell, in pvz, templar can more or less serve as decent multipurpose splash (not as ridiculous as disruptor, but still good), and in pvt the amulet upgrade will make ghosts a softer counter to the HT. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/44NmypQ/sc2.jpg) Then if you have a good setup with shortcut to scan, this kind of tweak isn t necessary for diamond/master players, but i m really happy to see this kind of simple idea makes is own path (for an eventual less punishing game) - idk what players do actually, but i set the scan shortcut to one of the latest (5th or 6th) button mouse. | ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/zsbBGXS/null-void.jpg) Indeed, the spell is also able of revealing units in the targeted area and that's why I wonder if Blizzard would have liked a specific system for protoss to remove creep. Then, If you allow the sentry guardian shield spell to also reveal invisible units during his activation it could be possible in PvZ to create a BO (like 2 gates > twilight blink > 1 gate > robot, that's my question). The idea of this tweak is to offer a different solution to the opening stargate which is overused and kills the match up. To support this small modification, the stalker can also benefit from a very small damage increase against heavy units (from +5 to +6) in order to deal against roachs in mid game. I could maybe ask a test of this tweak by two pros players, What do diamond and GM players in the community think about this idea? (eventually sentry could be created with 75 energy) | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
Fwiw I don't think the Queen was as OP as it was a few years back. Just like creep spread, it wasn't OP 5 years ago, but it's OP now. Top level Zergs have just gotten so good at using Queens defensively and for map control purposes, time to continue the slow tune down of this unit. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 12 2022 22:38 Beelzebub1 wrote: I'm hoping that the balance council will at the very least come out with a statement regarding things they are looking at, I mean look at how positively the Queen nerfs impacted ZvP, I'm hoping that a similar QoL adjustment will be given to improve ZvT a bit. Fwiw I don't think the Queen was as OP as it was a few years back. Just like creep spread, it wasn't OP 5 years ago, but it's OP now. Top level Zergs have just gotten so good at using Queens defensively and for map control purposes, time to continue the slow tune down of this unit. Good, your words are fair, creep has never been so important and from a viewer point of view it looks like an insane feature when you see waterfalls map covered in less than 6 or 7 min. I wouldn t like to play as a terran on this map For example, with this supposed tweak (guardian shield reveal invisible units) and admitting Protoss can make this kind of build order without so much risk, if zerg player do mass queens, the sentry can reduce by 2 the damage done by each queens (Queens damage 2 x 4, guardian shield reduce 2 damage points) | ||
|
KNUCKLEHEAD
United States18 Posts
A question I often ponder is what if everything moved a little slower...like all units equally slowing down by a unit or something (except workers?) Obviously, this is not realistic at all at this point but I wonder... | ||
|
KNUCKLEHEAD
United States18 Posts
On October 12 2022 22:38 Beelzebub1 wrote: Fwiw I don't think the Queen was as OP as it was a few years back. Just like creep spread, it wasn't OP 5 years ago, but it's OP now. Top level Zergs have just gotten so good at using Queens defensively and for map control purposes, time to continue the slow tune down of this unit. Using top level Zergs as balance examples is not the strongest of evidence IMO The issue could also be rephrased saying that Queens are arguably the only safe defensive/map control unit for Z. They're also the only real viable anti-air for a long time--as spores kill drones effectively, hydras need tech and upgrades, and spire requires tech and time. Creep tumors could cost more energy though, if that's the direction youre thinking. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 13 2022 02:12 KNUCKLEHEAD wrote: Using top level Zergs as balance examples is not the strongest of evidence IMO The issue could also be rephrased saying that Queens are arguably the only safe defensive/map control unit for Z. They're also the only real viable anti-air for a long time--as spores kill drones effectively, hydras need tech and upgrades, and spire requires tech and time. Creep tumors could cost more energy though, if that's the direction youre thinking. If you increase the mana cost of tumors you also have to increase a little bit the amount of starting mana. But i m not sure of the effectiveness of this kind of tweak... Especially when queen can spam 8 tumors in a second... In other hand you can make the injection spell cost 40 mana and the tumors cost something like 55 but adding the ability for queens to gain mana 1.6 times faster : 1.6 x 25 = 40 (with healing spell cost something like 80 mana), in order to avoid the over abused of spawnning a ton of tumors. The queen starts now with 75 mana. The time difference in comparaison with the current meta to get the 2nd injection is delay by 4 seconds in this case... The objective of being so accurate is not to apply a nerf (only because something overpowered) but like an adjustement regarding the evolution of the speed zerg play-style these last years (see beelzebub post) | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On October 13 2022 02:12 KNUCKLEHEAD wrote: Using top level Zergs as balance examples is not the strongest of evidence IMO The issue could also be rephrased saying that Queens are arguably the only safe defensive/map control unit for Z. They're also the only real viable anti-air for a long time--as spores kill drones effectively, hydras need tech and upgrades, and spire requires tech and time. Creep tumors could cost more energy though, if that's the direction youre thinking. It isn't just the top Zergs. In Heart of the Swarm someone like Scarlett was notable for her creep spread. Now that massing queens every game is the standard, every mid-tier Zerg can spread creep like a savant. It's absurd how little Zergs have to vary their gameplan in 2022, especially in ZvT. Defend everything with mass queen, then build ling-bane and fling it at your opponent until they keel over. Half the time they don't even need to transition because a successful early game defense means that they're in a position to turn any momentary bank into a flood of banelings into a potential win. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
I want more protracted back and forth fights between ling bane and bio. right now it feels like terran throws a few jabs at zerg, if they get no damage in they recognize the impossibility of having a good push in latter portions of the game so they camp. this used to encourage zerg to get aggressive which was fine because we still had interaction, but zerg have recently trended towards also just camping, so instead we get the worst of sc2 metas a turtle lategame meta. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On October 13 2022 10:32 washikie wrote: It worries me that we are seeing more and more infestor broodlord vs ghost thor hellbat lib late games in tvz, unlike the ghost vs waves of zerg units meta we had going on awhile back this new meta basically enforces a stalemate between the two players leading to ultra long games of attrition with very minimal interactions. I would like to see either some changes to make zerg more vulnerable in the midgame to reduce these situations or adjustments to terran and zerg late game units to reduce infester brood lord scenarios. We don't really see those games anymore. Zergs have discovered that they can just hydra-bane Terrans into oblivion if they try to transition into ghost mech. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
unfortunetly they kill marauders in a single shoot but you can easily imagine a stun effect added to this spell with a few less damage done by the nova. (the damage could be equal to 105 + 55 to be used in PvP against stalkers) massive units aren t stunned. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On October 13 2022 09:10 Athenau wrote: It isn't just the top Zergs. In Heart of the Swarm someone like Scarlett was notable for her creep spread. Now that massing queens every game is the standard, every mid-tier Zerg can spread creep like a savant. It's absurd how little Zergs have to vary their gameplan in 2022, especially in ZvT. Defend everything with mass queen, then build ling-bane and fling it at your opponent until they keel over. Half the time they don't even need to transition because a successful early game defense means that they're in a position to turn any momentary bank into a flood of banelings into a potential win. This is pretty accurate, I'd just say that it's more absurd how cost efficient Queens are vs. early harassment in general, and how greedy it lets Zergs play. Hellions early game is kind of weak and rarely gets drones, Banshee is eh, even medivac harass seems to get deflected pretty handily by Queens. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 14 2022 12:11 Beelzebub1 wrote: This is pretty accurate, I'd just say that it's more absurd how cost efficient Queens are vs. early harassment in general, and how greedy it lets Zergs play. Hellions early game is kind of weak and rarely gets drones, Banshee is eh, even medivac harass seems to get deflected pretty handily by Queens. If it s the main problem, Queens should cost gas in order to slow the progression of building an army without too much slowing build orders progress. If it s the case the answer must balance the gas spendings between terran and zerg. Start to mid game : > Queen now cost 150 minerals and 25 gas. > Banelings price can be increase to 30 gas. > Tumors building time increase from 11 to 13 seconds End game > NeoSteel armor reduce bunker build time by 25% PS : eventually, a small amount of gas can be offer at start to Zerg for pay the first queen. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
With 12 workers per base, Blizzard secretly increased the supply of command center, hatchery or nexus by 4 ( ;D ), to allow workers of not been supply blocked. But it was without realizing that a shifting of workers in builds orders will particulary affect terran and protoss developpement which are a kind of pivot point in term of buid order because they are forced to create a pylon or a supply depot to create an unit production building. they have undirectly decrease the efficience developpement of the main base by 66% and it s easy to check : In LotV, while you need 8 workers after the first supply depot to fill your mineral and gas ressources (from 14 to 22), you would have needed 12 workers in HotS to fill your first base (from 10 to 22). As the result terran or protoss are more or less forced to put their time and their mineral in building a second base (which is a shame). All this time is lost to the favor of creep expansion in particulary. So the first step to defend is a return to 9 or 10-workers system economy. And I challenge anyone here to say and explain that there s no relation between creep expansion and new economy in lotv. | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
On October 14 2022 12:11 Beelzebub1 wrote: This is pretty accurate, I'd just say that it's more absurd how cost efficient Queens are vs. early harassment in general, and how greedy it lets Zergs play. Hellions early game is kind of weak and rarely gets drones, Banshee is eh, even medivac harass seems to get deflected pretty handily by Queens. being saying this for ages now, its so extreme that zerg never ever does Spine Crawlers any more  meanwhile in Broodwar Zerg are force to waste their larva on drones or army.... Queen has solved this increasing the larva count + defending anything you can throw at them. | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
On October 15 2022 01:55 BonitiilloO wrote: meanwhile in Broodwar Zerg are force to waste their larva on drones or army.... Queen has solved this increasing the larva count + defending anything you can throw at them. queens are generally only good against air. vs stuff like hellion/ adapt aka ground they just force "attack me and not you worker" + being tanky is helpful, but it takes forever for a queen to kill something. and the heal ability is mostly only effiecent for other queen, possibly roach. spore are good against air, but because some air units have range 5+ it needs the queen, which can force air units into spore range. Spine... are good against armor... which harass unit has armor? Spine are only interesting for zvz against Roach... | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada68 Posts
+ Buff Sentry sight range by 1 (to bring it in line with detection range of observers and cannons). - Observers now constantly make an audible chime (like the one they used to have while deployed). This helps the toss by making detection more consistently available, but also helps opponents by making it easier to know if their army/ drop has been spotted instead of having to coin flip and pray they didn't pass an observer. Honestly, I'd even just take a "Observers that are moving or are deployed make a chime" and allow good non-f2ing toss players to intentionally keep them not moving in the less-ranged mode for maximum benefit. -Nerf creep tumor sight range by 2. Right now they can see off creep, which is stupid. We can ever-so-slightly nerf lategame creep without nerfing early game creep by reducing sight range, since zergs have the APM early game to use a queen to keep the creep able to spread max distance | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On October 16 2022 12:28 OmniSkeptic wrote: + While guardian shield is active, sentries are now detectors. + Buff Sentry sight range by 1 (to bring it in line with detection range of observers and cannons). - Observers now constantly make an audible chime (like the one they used to have while deployed). This helps the toss by making detection more consistently available, but also helps opponents by making it easier to know if their army/ drop has been spotted instead of having to coin flip and pray they didn't pass an observer. Honestly, I'd even just take a "Observers that are moving or are deployed make a chime" and allow good non-f2ing toss players to intentionally keep them not moving in the less-ranged mode for maximum benefit. -Nerf creep tumor sight range by 2. Right now they can see off creep, which is stupid. We can ever-so-slightly nerf lategame creep without nerfing early game creep by reducing sight range, since zergs have the APM early game to use a queen to keep the creep able to spread max distance Honestly love the sentry change, I've been an advocate for Sentry buffs for awhile, it used to be an essential core GW unit that was made much weaker when the Ravager was introduced to the game. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
| ||
|
TequilaMockingbird
Germany64 Posts
Yes I am frustrated, maybe it is just me and I am too bad at the game but I strongly hate this unit comp, have hated it in Beta and will still hate when they make Sc3 in 25 years. Thanks for reading my ramblings, sorry for bad formatting I am angry. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On October 23 2022 18:11 TequilaMockingbird wrote: I know that this seems to be only a problem in the lower leagues (say master 3 and below ?) but I still think carriers are too strong in PvZ. I know they have been tweaked, Zergs got microbial shroud and so on but somehow sitting on top of batteries and cannons and going straight to carriers (maybe with a hand full of Voids or some light adapt pressure before) is somehow still a thing. Requires no more than 70 apm and Zerg needs to bend over backwards and rip out an arm to maybe end up on even footing. Just no fun when you scout what the Protoss is doing and know you are in for 40 min of dumb corruptor+viper vs skytoss dance (I will not even call it "a macro game") where you maaaaaaaybe manage to land your dream fungal + parasitic combo, otherwise you are screwed. And not it is not equally hard for toss to micro, you can basically do it with only your mouse while using the other hand to pick your nose. Yes I am frustrated, maybe it is just me and I am too bad at the game but I strongly hate this unit comp, have hated it in Beta and will still hate when they make Sc3 in 25 years. Thanks for reading my ramblings, sorry for bad formatting I am angry. Pretty strong agree. Skytoss vs Zerg is really oppressive if you don't have absolutely toptier control - most of the times I've stopped laddering for a while have been skytoss PvZ games. The turtle is hard to break, and the army nearly controls itself. It's stupid. Lategame TvP is also quite rough, but at least ghosts and libs can sometimes get the `lol deleted' effect if the protoss misplays. Carriers are too tanky for that to really happen. And even then... recall is a thing. In case you do happen to actually pull off the engage. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On October 23 2022 18:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Pretty strong agree. Skytoss vs Zerg is really oppressive if you don't have absolutely toptier control - most of the times I've stopped laddering for a while have been skytoss PvZ games. The turtle is hard to break, and the army nearly controls itself. It's stupid. Lategame TvP is also quite rough, but at least ghosts and libs can sometimes get the `lol deleted' effect if the protoss misplays. Carriers are too tanky for that to really happen. And even then... recall is a thing. In case you do happen to actually pull off the engage. I agree, but the issue is that you can't nerf Skytoss because SkyZerg is sooo soo ridiculously strong at the top level. Anything below the pro level yes I agree Skytoss is low APM and very difficult to counter, but at the pro level Zergs like Dark/Reynor/Serral just make Skytoss look silly. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6805 Posts
On October 24 2022 00:15 Beelzebub1 wrote: I agree, but the issue is that you can't nerf Skytoss because SkyZerg is sooo soo ridiculously strong at the top level. Anything below the pro level yes I agree Skytoss is low APM and very difficult to counter, but at the pro level Zergs like Dark/Reynor/Serral just make Skytoss look silly. Somehow Carrier control should be made more APM heavy. Like control Interceptors or make it a "spell" that needs to targeted or sth so Toss players can not just F2 - A and go for a smoke and come back to a victory screen 10mins later | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On October 24 2022 23:23 Harris1st wrote: Somehow Carrier control should be made more APM heavy. Like control Interceptors or make it a "spell" that needs to targeted or sth so Toss players can not just F2 - A and go for a smoke and come back to a victory screen 10mins later Honestly man, I want all the units to be viable and all that but I think the best multiplayer games are the ones where capital ships don't become the focus. The Brood Lord, BC, Carrier, Tempest, they all just suck to watch and play against. Free units is gimmicky, interceptor ez mode carrier is gimmicky, and BC blink is gimmicky. That's why I think a targeted ZvT creep nerf would really serve the game well at the pro level, the mid game needs to be boosted. ZvT has become the new ZvP but the old ZvP where P just camps all game. | ||
|
Rain_fan
2 Posts
Changes to revert: Forge research time increase - How was forge imbalanced in the first place? Observer move speed reduced - This change makes no sense as I recently watched Zoun vs Cure and Cure scanned Zoun's observer twice failed to kill it. there will always be a situation where a flying unit goes just out of range and survives whether its overlord or medivac. Adept build time increased 3 seconds in gateway - What balance problem did this solve? vs Z most pros don't even bother shading the adept in nowadays since 1 queen and 2 lings should shut down the shade without losing a drone. vs Terran it seems to have created a balance problem where Terran can proxy the first rax and have a reaper out uncontested and be guaranteed at least 1 or more probes even if Protoss goes for earliest possible adept/stalker. Cure did this to Zoun multiple times and it didn't look very balanced. I'm sure there are more changes from other races but since I happen to play protoss those stand out to me as changes that either don't make sense or actually create balance issues where there were none. | ||
|
karnaahai
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On October 26 2022 20:34 karnaahai wrote: 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. like a Mothership Core? | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6805 Posts
Was not a defensive unit | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
On October 25 2022 14:20 Rain_fan wrote: I think overall game is pretty balanced but maybe revert some questionable balance changes that seem to create more problems they solve. Changes to revert: Forge research time increase - How was forge imbalanced in the first place? Observer move speed reduced - This change makes no sense as I recently watched Zoun vs Cure and Cure scanned Zoun's observer twice failed to kill it. there will always be a situation where a flying unit goes just out of range and survives whether its overlord or medivac. Adept build time increased 3 seconds in gateway - What balance problem did this solve? vs Z most pros don't even bother shading the adept in nowadays since 1 queen and 2 lings should shut down the shade without losing a drone. vs Terran it seems to have created a balance problem where Terran can proxy the first rax and have a reaper out uncontested and be guaranteed at least 1 or more probes even if Protoss goes for earliest possible adept/stalker. Cure did this to Zoun multiple times and it didn't look very balanced. I'm sure there are more changes from other races but since I happen to play protoss those stand out to me as changes that either don't make sense or actually create balance issues where there were none. I miss Shield Battery rushes I also think the Queen nerfs except range nerf, were bad. I find the Creep Tumour not being able to cancel was a weird change. Because if you're telling me they're not connected, then surely, when killing a tumour, it shouldn't also kill the one that it's creating. For Terran I would want them to be able to place a Barracks, without the need for a Depot, though this one is arguably huge. | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada68 Posts
On October 17 2022 20:38 ejozl wrote: Creep Tumour vision should only be reduced by 1. Else they can't spread by themselves and you'd need to have units in place to get the full range. ...did you just not read the explanation? Nerfing by two so you can't spread the full range is exactly the point. It nerfs lategame creep without nerfing early game creep because in the earlygame you always have units like queens, lings, and overlords near the initial tumors which can give you vision. However, it slows down the lategame because you're just spreading creep in random areas that don't have units nearby. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 28 2022 05:45 OmniSkeptic wrote: ...did you just not read the explanation? Nerfing by two so you can't spread the full range is exactly the point. It nerfs lategame creep without nerfing early game creep because in the earlygame you always have units like queens, lings, and overlords near the initial tumors which can give you vision. However, it slows down the lategame because you're just spreading creep in random areas that don't have units nearby. In theory it could works out but I m not sure pro players take time to spread their tumors at maximum range in late game..... I proposed 3 years ago (reduction from 10 to 7 for example). But if a tweak can happen i m in. The idea of reducing vision by 2 (or 3?) is good because player ability in spreading creep would be more efficient depending how good they are. It will nerf Serral, Reynor or Dark insane creep ability and allow mid tiers players like Lambo to be close from the top despite a slower APM. ![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/2ZfSsLk/sc2-vision.jpg) | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
On October 28 2022 05:45 OmniSkeptic wrote: ...did you just not read the explanation? Nerfing by two so you can't spread the full range is exactly the point. It nerfs lategame creep without nerfing early game creep because in the earlygame you always have units like queens, lings, and overlords near the initial tumors which can give you vision. However, it slows down the lategame because you're just spreading creep in random areas that don't have units nearby. Okay. But that I just disagree with. It's just unecessary hassle that has the minimum of change. Not to mention that it's obscure, so newbies would probably not even know they're getting 'cheated' by 1 range. In that case I'd rather go overboard and nerf it's vision to 4, or 1 and have buffs elsewhere to compensate. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 28 2022 17:54 ejozl wrote: Okay. But that I just disagree with. It's just unecessary hassle that has the minimum of change. Not to mention that it's obscure, so newbies would probably not even know they're getting 'cheated' by 1 range. In that case I'd rather go overboard and nerf it's vision to 4, or 1 and have buffs elsewhere to compensate. I m really curious on how you could compensate without imbalancing match up against Protoss or Terran. I mean, tweak by 3 the vision of creep (as you can see in the picture above) is huge nerf just because some units could attack tumors without been spotted immediately. Set 1 or 4 to the radius vision of tumors will result in a lack of design, of course decreasing from 10 to 9 is not game changing. Actually the creep feature is what makes an insane difference between pro players and other players, and nerf this feature will affect globally the game and i don t think it s necessary to compensate elsewhere (considering a drastic case from 10 to 4). Imagine at top level, just a little bit reduction from 10 to 7 will delay the reaction of zerg opponent by one seconds on EACH attacks approximatively I think 8 is the maximum nerf from a design persepective, Zerg can continue to spawn tumors without so much constraint and attackers can benefit from a little bit more fog of war | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom830 Posts
On October 24 2022 23:23 Harris1st wrote: Somehow Carrier control should be made more APM heavy. Like control Interceptors or make it a "spell" that needs to targeted or sth so Toss players can not just F2 - A and go for a smoke and come back to a victory screen 10mins later Interceptors can already be controlled separately from the Carrier by abusing their "leash range". There is a massive difference in efficacy between target-fired Interceptors that swarm into a fight by abusing their "leash range" and improperly targeted Interceptors that trickle into a fight from a-moved Carriers. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
On October 28 2022 21:26 Vision_ wrote: I m really curious on how you could compensate without imbalancing match up against Protoss or Terran. I mean, tweak by 3 the vision of creep (as you can see in the picture above) is huge nerf just because some units could attack tumors without been spotted immediately. Set 1 or 4 to the radius vision of tumors will result in a lack of design, of course decreasing from 10 to 9 is not game changing. Actually the creep feature is what makes an insane difference between pro players and other players, and nerf this feature will affect globally the game and i don t think it s necessary to compensate elsewhere (considering a drastic case from 10 to 4). Imagine at top level, just a little bit reduction from 10 to 7 will delay the reaction of zerg opponent by one seconds on EACH attacks approximatively I think 8 is the maximum nerf from a design persepective, Zerg can continue to spawn tumors without so much constraint and attackers can benefit from a little bit more fog of war Oh I'm not denying that it's a huge nerf. But it's a better nerf. | ||
|
jack_less
77 Posts
On October 24 2022 00:15 Beelzebub1 wrote: I agree, but the issue is that you can't nerf Skytoss because SkyZerg is sooo soo ridiculously strong at the top level. Anything below the pro level yes I agree Skytoss is low APM and very difficult to counter, but at the pro level Zergs like Dark/Reynor/Serral just make Skytoss look silly. do you think this would have that much impact on pro lvl? They play on efficient, so they would still use Focus fire. example: if you only change the prio of viking/ corruptor vs interceptors/carrier. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 30 2022 01:55 jack_less wrote: do you think this would have that much impact on pro lvl? They play on efficient, so they would still use Focus fire. example: if you only change the prio of viking/ corruptor vs interceptors/carrier. Do you agree on the fact that Protoss are playing skytoss because of their lack of consistent army ground units against air ? Stalkers, Archon or HT aren t good enought against Broodlords/Corrupter/Infestators ? What if Protoss would get an hoverboard with a Cyclone design unit in his army ? (Even if it wont happen). It aims to replace the tempest unit | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On October 30 2022 01:55 jack_less wrote: do you think this would have that much impact on pro lvl? They play on efficient, so they would still use Focus fire. example: if you only change the prio of viking/ corruptor vs interceptors/carrier. In high numbers you can't efficiently focus-fire anymore because of overkill so it would definitely affect pro play | ||
|
Timothy Love
2 Posts
| ||
| ||
