|
I had this thought that if the Baneling does 80 dmg to buildings, then this unit should really be an anti armoured unit and not an anti light unit. It makes little sense that it corrodes skin really well, when at the same time it absolutely destroys buildings.
So I was thinking, what if the Baneling always did 20+15 vs. armoured (80 vs. structures.)
I think overall it's a net buff to the Baneling, since armoured units are a lot more prevalent, though obviously its iconic role as the Marine/Hydra killer could mean that Zerg never would be viable.
I think had the game launched with this Baneling, they would've stayed with the 2 armoured Roach and also kept the 3 range, so that this unit would be the solution for Marines, Lings and Zealots.
I'm really intrigued by this and would love to hear your thoughts on it, which patches/units would've never made it and what would've needed to happen instead? I think I will also open the debate for changing armour types around, for instance, the Archon in BW was armoured and had it been this in SC2, then this Baneling would be the best answer for this unit, and Mech would fair off a lot better against Protoss and yadda yadda. Feel free to discuss attack/armour types and the role this Baneling would have and what roles other units would take in its stead.
|
Northern Ireland26508 Posts
I think it being strong against light is preferable than versus armoured. You can actually split marines and lings as counter-play and other light units such as Zealots are among the more expendable.
I think reconsidering armour types is probably a sensible idea but I’m not quite sure how I’d do it. Marauders are absolutely brutal against stalkers for one interaction, but equally if Immortals aren’t good versus stalkers PvP would likely become a big stalker fest.
I guess in general there’s a little too many hard-counter kind of interactions for my tastes but the game has been rather built that way so it’s hard to really tweak that piecemeal
|
Blizzard have created armoured units in giving them a HP bonus (they do it on purpose to evaluate the scale damagebetween light damage to armoured damage)
Unfortunetly there are not enought lights units (i repeat it many times since a long ago) and it s because light units are kind of two times faster than in broodwar (for cross the map for example). The main idea behind light units has been a little bit wasted because they are supposed to be playable in end game as counter attack units when you are suffering from gas ressource for example (taking account the investment in defensive structures of the opponent). But this game which looks like more to a back and forth combat than conquer positions and go on (which would be nicer).
I think the issue of this idea comes from the fact that zerg units aren t versatile, and it s what you are aiming to do with this change.
Then, a next patch for SC2 could be interesting if it looks closer to this unfinished work on tag armor.
My last idea :Morph to sister Queen for 25 minerals
+ Show Spoiler +
Queen : Armored,
Spells : Transfuse, Inject Larva mana cost = 25, Inject tumors mana cost = 50
Sister Queen : Light, HP decrease from 175 to 140, get an additionnal +1 bonus against light (against phoenix)
Spells : Transfuse, Inject Larva spawn only two larvas, Inject tumor mana cost decreased from 50 to 25
The idea of course is to suggest a strategy between extend creep or spawn larva,
A really careful tweak,
NB :
+ Show Spoiler +Then the problem of having good light units in end game like hellions or 'add or change an unit to get one more protoss light unit' is also necessary to me, in the case if the game would be more for friendly user and hardcore gamer (figths slower, 9 workers and more ground control oriented)
I would also buff the cooldown attack of spine crawler to make them a bit powerfull against bioball, to help zerg (in increasing their construction time as a nerf)
|
Here the list of units with no armor tags :
Archon, Ghost, Ravager, Baneling, Queen,
I know last patch aren t helpfull for zergs but there are 3 units which have no tag armor, to me, one of these units have to be changed.
|
On April 29 2024 01:22 Vision0 wrote:
Here the list of units with no armor tags :
Archon, Ghost, Ravager, Baneling, Queen,
I know last patch aren t helpfull for zergs but there are 3 units which have no tag armor, to me, one of these units have to be changed.
Yeah, Ghost to light.
|
On April 29 2024 01:22 Vision0 wrote:
Here the list of units with no armor tags :
Archon, Ghost, Ravager, Baneling, Queen,
I know last patch aren t helpfull for zergs but there are 3 units which have no tag armor, to me, one of these units have to be changed.
Sentry is no longer Light.
|
On April 29 2024 13:39 MrIronGolem27 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2024 01:22 Vision0 wrote:
Here the list of units with no armor tags :
Archon, Ghost, Ravager, Baneling, Queen,
I know last patch aren t helpfull for zergs but there are 3 units which have no tag armor, to me, one of these units have to be changed. Sentry is no longer Light.
Ok, i have seen lot more sentry in PvP recently but i didn t remember the change of tag armor.
It seems fair to attribute a no tag armor on spellcaster as ghosts (it can be discussed) but at very least, the unit should cost gas and that s not the case of queens.
As queens are also a functionnal units i can hear that they haven t a gas cost but gas ressource is used when you get a technologic option like an upgrade but it also a parameter to avoid the creation of too many units.
That s why, at start of the game, some tiny maps can look unplayable even for really good players because Zerg is allowed to spread creep without control of ressources cost (argument of skill gap to defend the fact that spreading creep is balanced). If you wanna a more friendly SC2 (fights slower, ground control little bit more oriented), then Queens have to be paid with gas to ask for Zerg players a decision on how fast they will spread their creep.
To solve the problem i talked about Queens but i realize today that the change is a bit idiot.
Here the new idea :
Queen :
Cooldown Duration of tumor spell is increased from 11 to 20
Morph to Sister Queens cost now 25 gas :
Light armor tag added
+1 bonus against light (against phoenix)
Cooldown duration of tumor spell is decreased from 20 to 11
|
On April 29 2024 01:22 Vision0 wrote:
Here the list of units with no armor tags :
Archon, Ghost, Ravager, Baneling, Queen,
I know last patch aren t helpfull for zergs but there are 3 units which have no tag armor, to me, one of these units have to be changed.
Archon -> Armoured. Ghost -> Light. Ravager -> Armoured. Baneling -> Armoured, cannot be Light, because they would 1 shot themselves, unless they were +vs. Armoured, then they would be Light. Queen -> Light.
These would of course be massive nerfs. You wouldn't need to nerf the Queen, because now that the Queen has an armour tag, you can actually counter the unit.
The Sentry would of course be Light again, I actually think that most caster units should be Light. This is because the counter to spell casters in the traditional sense would be units such as Marines, Hellions, Adepts, Lings, Roaches running in an sniping these key units. More of these caster units should also have 0 armour value. Armour values and attack speeds make little sense in sc2, but that is another discussion.
On April 28 2024 21:11 WombaT wrote:
I think it being strong against light is preferable than versus armoured. You can actually split marines and lings as counter-play and other light units such as Zealots are among the more expendable.
I think reconsidering armour types is probably a sensible idea but I’m not quite sure how I’d do it. Marauders are absolutely brutal against stalkers for one interaction, but equally if Immortals aren’t good versus stalkers PvP would likely become a big stalker fest.
I guess in general there’s a little too many hard-counter kind of interactions for my tastes but the game has been rather built that way so it’s hard to really tweak that piecemeal
Yeah, I'm not advocating for vs. armoured Banelings, it's more of a what if scenario and it is quite hard to think about, since the +vs. Light is so ingrained in us.
PvP is alrdy quite a Stalker fest, Immortals don't really do their job well enough, if you have just a few Zealots with your comp. Stalkers getting +2 pr. upg is also snow bally and funnily enough makes the Stalker one of the best late game units, which is quite counterintuitive. When you think about it, in fully upgraded battles Stalkers do better against Carriers and Disruptors than in un-upgraded battles.
I actually don't think hard counters are bad at all in SC2, the strongest cases are the Void Ray (38% dmg on non-armoured when using Prismatic Allignment) and the Immortal (2/5th dmg vs. non-armoured). Whereas in BW you have cases of units dealing 25% vs. some types, and in WC3 you have 35% dmg dealt.
|
Northern Ireland26508 Posts
On April 30 2024 17:53 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2024 01:22 Vision0 wrote:
Here the list of units with no armor tags :
Archon, Ghost, Ravager, Baneling, Queen,
I know last patch aren t helpfull for zergs but there are 3 units which have no tag armor, to me, one of these units have to be changed. Archon -> Armoured. Ghost -> Light. Ravager -> Armoured. Baneling -> Armoured, cannot be Light, because they would 1 shot themselves, unless they were +vs. Armoured, then they would be Light. Queen -> Light. These would of course be massive nerfs. You wouldn't need to nerf the Queen, because now that the Queen has an armour tag, you can actually counter the unit. The Sentry would of course be Light again, I actually think that most caster units should be Light. This is because the counter to spell casters in the traditional sense would be units such as Marines, Hellions, Adepts, Lings, Roaches running in an sniping these key units. More of these caster units should also have 0 armour value. Armour values and attack speeds make little sense in sc2, but that is another discussion. Show nested quote +On April 28 2024 21:11 WombaT wrote:
I think it being strong against light is preferable than versus armoured. You can actually split marines and lings as counter-play and other light units such as Zealots are among the more expendable.
I think reconsidering armour types is probably a sensible idea but I’m not quite sure how I’d do it. Marauders are absolutely brutal against stalkers for one interaction, but equally if Immortals aren’t good versus stalkers PvP would likely become a big stalker fest.
I guess in general there’s a little too many hard-counter kind of interactions for my tastes but the game has been rather built that way so it’s hard to really tweak that piecemeal Yeah, I'm not advocating for vs. armoured Banelings, it's more of a what if scenario and it is quite hard to think about, since the +vs. Light is so ingrained in us. PvP is alrdy quite a Stalker fest, Immortals don't really do their job well enough, if you have just a few Zealots with your comp. Stalkers getting +2 pr. upg is also snow bally and funnily enough makes the Stalker one of the best late game units, which is quite counterintuitive. When you think about it, in fully upgraded battles Stalkers do better against Carriers and Disruptors than in un-upgraded battles. I actually don't think hard counters are bad at all in SC2, the strongest cases are the Void Ray (38% dmg on non-armoured when using Prismatic Allignment) and the Immortal (2/5th dmg vs. non-armoured). Whereas in BW you have cases of units dealing 25% vs. some types, and in WC3 you have 35% dmg dealt.
Stalkers scale pretty badly even with the +2 per upgrade because their attack speed is so slow.
They’re good in PvP solely because Toss doesn’t have a ton of high DPS melting units that they can mass, and blink is excellent for dodging Disruptor novas. Whereas in vZ and especially vT it scales rather badly.
If we change Archon to armoured it just melts to marauders, Queens to light and how does Zerg deal with big hellion/hellbat pushes?
You’d effectively have to just start from scratch and redo armour/damage types I reckon, when you start tweaking a few here and there you end up with problems.
WC3 and BW did have damage types yeah, but in both games it feels there’s less hard-countering, there’s some stat advantages but not ones that are quite so rock/paper/scissors.
|
Yes, Stalkers scale badly vs. non-armoured.
Adepts and Banes would crush Light tag Queens as well, but that is exactly the point. That Zerg can answer everything with the same unit is why you see so many of them. It used to be that Queens only defended as well, so at least there was one downside to the unit, but with the Queen walks, the Nydus and the increasingly powerful overlord drops, it has now become an attacking unit as well.
Ravagers also don't have a tag so when you use transfuse on this unit, it's more powerful as well. Since not having a tag is effectively taking reduced damage, meaning every HP is worth more. So you attack with Queens and Ravagers, an army that "cannot be countered."
Personally, I like Queen walks, it reminds me of WC3 Ancients used for attacking, but this definitely seems like a faulty of design.
I think all 3 games have hard counters and that it is a good thing as well. The Starcraft series can overcome hard counters by sheer numbers, because the economy management part of the game is so strong and WC3 overcomes hard counters with powerful heroes that do not care about these armour types.
|
Northern Ireland26508 Posts
I think the issue with hard counters is exactly how they scale with numbers and it’s not always elegant. Numbers and DPS thrown down start to really impact the interaction.
Immortals shred Marauders, as they do Roaches and Stalkers, but outside of very early skirmishes this interaction isn’t all that impactful at all. You usually have enough bio to just melt them anyway and Protoss’ counter is AoE
Whereas conversely Marauders shred Stalkers to such an extent you can’t pick a straight up fight. The DPS advantage alone when stim and upgrades and scaling kicks in is sufficient, add to that bonus damage and it’s a stomping.
It’s so extreme from the early game thru midgame you probably could just change Stalker’s armour type and it would matter all that much. But you may need the bonus damage in very early interactions though, so it feels a bit wonky.
It feels Marauders need the bonus damage versus Stalkers and Roaches to deal with certain very early aggression, but the bonus damage becomes way too big an advantage when armies scale up
|
On May 04 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:
I think the issue with hard counters is exactly how they scale with numbers and it’s not always elegant. Numbers and DPS thrown down start to really impact the interaction.
Immortals shred Marauders, as they do Roaches and Stalkers, but outside of very early skirmishes this interaction isn’t all that impactful at all. You usually have enough bio to just melt them anyway and Protoss’ counter is AoE
Whereas conversely Marauders shred Stalkers to such an extent you can’t pick a straight up fight. The DPS advantage alone when stim and upgrades and scaling kicks in is sufficient, add to that bonus damage and it’s a stomping.
It’s so extreme from the early game thru midgame you probably could just change Stalker’s armour type and it would matter all that much. But you may need the bonus damage in very early interactions though, so it feels a bit wonky.
It feels Marauders need the bonus damage versus Stalkers and Roaches to deal with certain very early aggression, but the bonus damage becomes way too big an advantage when armies scale up
Pros nowadays mostly deal with stalker aggression by building tanks, but yeah same issue.
I mainly see marauders built as an answer to high tier armored units aka Ultras, disruptor/colossus, thors and tanks sometimes. Which is weird, because T has answers to everything but ultras here (libs and vikings). Also against banes, but banes have become more rare lately and by the time they become relevant in TvZ they are mostly gotten as an answer to ghosts.
All in all I think they shit on armored a little too much (similarly to immos actually) and are a bit too mediocre vs everything else, but neither unit is problematic enough to address. Same problem with Phoenix f.e. which are horrible at killing anything armored especially considering that they cost almost as much as a lib.
|
On May 04 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:
Whereas conversely Marauders shred Stalkers to such an extent you can’t pick a straight up fight. The DPS advantage alone when stim and upgrades and scaling kicks in is sufficient, add to that bonus damage and it’s a stomping.
This is wrong.
In a hand of a pro gamer, stalkers are able to deal with marauders.
Only medivacs are the issue in the stalkers/marauders interaction.
|
Northern Ireland26508 Posts
On May 04 2024 21:52 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:
Whereas conversely Marauders shred Stalkers to such an extent you can’t pick a straight up fight. The DPS advantage alone when stim and upgrades and scaling kicks in is sufficient, add to that bonus damage and it’s a stomping.
This is wrong. In a hand of a pro gamer, stalkers are able to deal with marauders. Only medivacs are the issue in the stalkers/marauders interaction.
Luckily Medivacs are rarely made by Terran players.
This just isn’t correct, Stalkers can absolutely compete with Marauders in smaller numbers, especially with blink.
However, epending on how pathing and other considerations work, it’s basically an immutable rule of RTS that squishy/high DPS units ranged outscale tankier/low DPS units. The former’s ability to get their damage laid down and quickly remove units from the field trumps the latter’s higher sustain.
I’ve never played an RTS where this isn’t broadly the case. SC2 is especially bad for it as bio is high DPS, high movement speed with stim and you’re not fighting the game to bring that DPS to bear.
It’s the whole reason SC2 absolutely needs AoE, well-controlled MMM beats basically everything in the game without it being a factor.
|
On May 04 2024 22:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2024 21:52 Vision_ wrote:On May 04 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:
Whereas conversely Marauders shred Stalkers to such an extent you can’t pick a straight up fight. The DPS advantage alone when stim and upgrades and scaling kicks in is sufficient, add to that bonus damage and it’s a stomping.
This is wrong. In a hand of a pro gamer, stalkers are able to deal with marauders. Only medivacs are the issue in the stalkers/marauders interaction. Luckily Medivacs are rarely made by Terran players.
Why do terrans forget to make such a powerfull unit like Medivacs ?
|
Northern Ireland26508 Posts
|
If you nerf medivacs from 4 to 3 hp/sec, stalkers are now able to deal and better, beat marauders with a proper micro.
congratz
|
Northern Ireland26508 Posts
On May 05 2024 02:51 Vision_ wrote:
If you nerf medivacs from 4 to 3 hp/sec, stalkers are now able to deal and better, beat marauders with a proper micro.
congratz
This isn’t how this interaction really works in actuality. Medivacs heal is as much about sustain between fights than swinging an engagement in one’s favour.
Bio’s DPS output just scales far better than what pure gateway can do, and gateway units just melt past a certain threshold. Bio can tank the health hit because if they get on top of a Toss army they’ll cut through it very, very quickly indeed.
Zealots with charge and an armour upgrade advantage do somewhat scale OK, Stalkers absolutely don’t.
If Protoss gateway units could compete with MMM past a certain supply, Protoss players would do it more often. As it is at basically all levels of skills there’s a point where an AoE option is a necessity because well, in a straight up standing fight, I.e not poking in and blinking out pure gateway doesn’t cut the mustard.
I’m unsure why you’re arguing otherwise, the entire history of SC2 this has been the case.
|
I have done the test, marauders against stalkers with Balance tester mod.
You have to check by yourself if you don t believe me. (mainly because stalkers have +30% hp more than marauders)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
